Ben Jonson and Theatre: Performance, Practice, and Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richard Cave, author of an exceptionally lively introduction to Ben Jonson published a decade ago, now returns with several colleagues to offer the first book-length consideration of Jonson's current theatrical potential.Performance histories have been published before, but no book prior to this one has attempted to explore the possibilities of Jonson's living presence on the stage today.We can only hope that the work of Cave and his co-authors will lead to more frequent and varied stagings of Jonson's plays and to fuller appreciation of his works as pieces of theatre.The present volume, inspired by a conference at Reading University in January 1996, offers an eclectic mixture of short papers, longer articles, brief inductions and interludes, and substantive interviews, so that some of the energy of the original event is conveyed by the text itself.The volume opens with a traditional academic essay by Andrew Gurr, who explores the relevance of the Blackfriars setting of The Alchemist and offers the somewhat startling suggestion that the character of Lovewit may have been based on a colleague of Jonson's named William Shakespeare.Gurr's argument is, of course, necessarily speculative, but it is buttressed by strong evidence elsewhere of Jonson's interest in Shakespeare as both an artist and a man.Meanwhile, Richard Cave opens the heart of the book with a series of chapters on such matters as "script and performance," "visualizing Jonson's text," "designing for Jonson's plays," "directing Jonson," and "acting in Jonson's plays."The last-named section consists of a conversation with John Nettles and Simon Russell-Beale.During the course of these sections Cave comments on the practical usefulness of Jonson's stage directions; on the theatrical significance of the complex typographical layout of the original printings; and on the subtle theatrical clues embedded in the text of The Alchemist.Cave also discusses Jonson's use of the physical aspects of his contemporary stage; the ways such stagings affect our responses to particular plays; the ways Jonson uses the sheer size of the stage; how he dealt with dramatic transformations; and the relevance of dramatic staging to thematic "meaning."Here as in Cave's earlier book, one senses a scholar with a real appreciation of Jonson as a living (or potentially living) force.Cave also discusses the history of recent productions of Jonson, arguing that the most successful stagings have been those with a clear focus, uncluttered designs, and the maximum amount of contact between actors and audience.Matthew Warchus's productions are particularly praised, and one can easily imagine how reading this book would benefit future directors, actors, and designers, especially since the publishers have generously included a large number of helpful photographs.Brian Woolland's contributions have, if anything, a more immediately theatrical feel to them even than Cave's, especially in their chatty tone, improvisational
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".