'A local habitation and a name': Britten Adapts Shakespeare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benjamin Britten was acutely sensitive to the significance of place in his operas - a feature that lies at the heart of his adaptation of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream . This essay argues that the revision choices preserved in the libretto, coupled with Britten's musical setting, reveal a determination to blur the boundaries between forest and Athens to an even greater degree than Shakespeare does. Unlike Shakespeare, Britten situates the bulk of the opera's action in the woods, foregrounding the play's dreamlike qualities while also drawing attention to the composer's fascination with the threshold between dreams and reality. In examining the impact that the 'local conditions' of the woods have on Britten's interpretation of A Midsummer Night's Dream , this essay focuses in particular on the transformation of Shakespeare's 'rude mechanicals' into Britten's 'rustics.' Bottom and his fellow actors, who together bridge the gap between the human and the supernatural, exemplify the extent to which the textual changes and the rich soundscapes of Britten's opera reframe the characters and realms of Shakespeare's famous comedy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".