Magical Transformations on the Early Modern English Stage ed. by Lisa Hopkins, Helen Ostovich
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Magical Transformations on the Early Modern English Stage ed. by Lisa Hopkins, Helen Ostovich Deborah Lea Lisa Hopkins and Helen Ostovich, eds. Magical Transformations on the Early Modern English Stage. Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama. Farnham UK and Burlington Vt: Ashgate, 2014. xi + 278 pp. From an early age, we are introduced to witches and magic upon the stage—from the first time we boo the wicked witch in Cinderella, or applaud the pumpkin’s transformation. Working on magic in the early modern era we become conversant with magic beyond the fairy tale: Macbeth’s three hags, Faust and his pact, and Prospero’s magical meddling. At first glance, the inclusion of magic upon the stage may seem merely a means to provide entertainment and excitement, or touch of the sinister and a shiver up the spine. Magic upon the stage, however, is part of a wider discourse, enabling commentary upon religion, politics, and cultural stereotypes (to name but a few). Ostovich and Hopkins’s collection deftly illustrates the latter point, providing an illuminating analysis of theatrical representations of magic, from such renowned portrayals as Doctor Faustus, to the less familiar, like The Late Lancashire Witches. This collection is especially concerned with the issue of transformation, as the introduction states, “plays themselves can be and often are, [End Page 141] agents of transformation in that they challenge perceptions and assumptions more often than they reinforce them” (15). With this as its missive the collection successfully establishes how such plays, as part of a wider discourse, tackled a host of issues. Moreover, the various portrayals discussed also indicate that perspectives about witchcraft and magic themselves were subject to transformation. In order to achieve its aim the collection is divided into four sections with each segment tackling a diverse array of texts and subjects. The first, “Demons and Pacts,” focuses upon the encounter at the heart of the early modern understanding witchcraft, the demonic pact. Barbara Traister’s article applies Keith Thomas’s renowned thesis to the stage. With Dr Faustus, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and The Witch of Edmonton as her exemplars, Traister convincingly argues that the period 1590 to 1620 witnessed a decline in the seriousness and status of demonic magic upon the stage, paralleling that discernible in the wider culture. Faust is also the facilitator for Bronwyn Johnston’s essay, which adopts the interesting stance of perceiving the pact as “an issue of contract law as much as it is theological concern” (33). For Laura Levine, words themselves are the subject of consideration. Levine examines the debate discernible in Faust regarding the extent to which words can be said to have a “performative power”; can language really effect magic and instigate action? Levine argues that the play raises questions relevant to wider contemporary deliberations regarding magic. Intertwining in their choice of text and theme, these three articles skilfully demonstrate that performance of the pact upon stage was part of a far wider discourse. “Rites to Believe” addresses the matter of magic’s ability to symbolize issues beyond itself; often, though not exclusively, acting as a signifier for religious issues. In this section it is the “Scottish play” that becomes the focus of attention, featuring in both Alisa Manninen’s and Verena Theile’s contributions. The former arguing that the portrayal of the witches and their rituals serve to create a pervasive, malign influence. Moreover, that the witches’ maleficent rituals both contrast with and undermine social rituals. Theile’s reading, which opens with a captivating premise comparing Macbeth with the de Palma classic The Untouchables, compellingly interprets the witches as a “representational presence” for evil, rather than a provocation of it. For Theile, the witches’ presence makes Macbeth (in whom the human capacity for evil is made manifest) more tolerable for the audience. Jil Del-singe takes a different text as her focus, A Winters’ Tale. Delsinge’s incisive reading of Hermione’s apparently miraculous restoration exhibits one of the themes of this work, magic’s representative malleability. Magic, which in this instance is suggestive of a valediction of the Catholic perspective, could be [End Page 142] capable of acting as a vehicle for a...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».