Monstrous Births and Imaginations: Authorship and Folklore in Shakespeare’s <i>A Midsummer Night’s Dream</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amateur actors in A Midsummer Night’s Dream are compared several times with the fairies who inhabit a forest outside of Athens. This article will investigate the significance of the analogy by exploring commonalities between discursive elements in folklore, physiology, and philosophy that regard imaginative faculties as a powerful force. When contextualizing Shakespeare’s representation of acting and writing within early modern assumptions about the nature of the imagination and its relation to popular stories of monstrous births, fairies, and witches, we can see that A Midsummer Night’s Dream portrays theatre as a medium containing subversive political and erotic energies that potentially can alter the socio-political landscape.
 Dans A Midsummer Night’s Dream, les acteurs amateurs sont plusieurs fois comparés aux fées habitant la forêt voisine d’Athènes. Cet article examine la signification de cette analogie en explorant les points communs que partagent les discours tenus sur le folklore, sur la physiologie et sur la philosophie : tous considèrent les facultés imaginatives comme de puissantes forces. Lorsque l’on situe les représentations proposées par Shakespeare de l’acteur et de l’écrivain dans le contexte des idées de son époque sur la nature de l’imagination et sur sa relation avec les histoires populaires de naissances monstrueuses, de fées et de sorcières, on constate que A Midsummer Night’s Dream représente le théâtre comme un art porteur d’énergies politiques et érotiques subversives, lesquelles peuvent éventuellement modifier le paysage sociopolitique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".