Heywood, Henslowe and Hercules: Tracking 1 and 2 Hercules in Heywood’s Silver and Brazen Ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some scholars have suggested that Heywood's The Silver Age and The Brazen Age (published in 1613) are the same plays as 1 and 2 Hercules , listed in Henslowe's Diary as having been performed by the Admiral's company in 1595-96. The article argues that Heywood did write 1 and 2 Hercules , and that the Silver and Brazen Ages are based on them, but that a number of scenes portraying some of Hercules' labours have been replaced by other scenes from Greek mythology. Heywood describes in An Apology for Actors seeing what was probably 1 and 2 Hercules ; it is clear that the play he describes ends in the same way as does The Brazen Age but that many of the exploits of Hercules he describes are not in the Ages plays. There is evidence in the texts that Hercules scenes have been cut and others substituted. Heywood was active as a writer in 1594 and his early poem Oenone and Paris is echoed in The Brazen Age . A number of features of the Hercules scenes, including their debt to Tamburlaine, their adaption to the unique talents of Edward Alleyn, their use of a presenter and shows between the acts, their Ovidian subject matter, and their attempt to exploit the popularity of Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis , suggest a date in the mid 1590s. Finally, their apparent reliance on Warner’s Albion’s England for the few elements they contain that are derived from the version of Hercules’ life as portrayed in Caxton's The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troy suggests a date before Heywood read that work (reissued 1596), which strongly influenced Heywood’s later treatments of Greek mythology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".