MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2436267325 · doi:10.1353/mrw.2016.0011

Magical Transformations on the Early Modern English Stage ed. by Lisa Hopkins, Helen Ostovich

2016· article· en· W2436267325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah Lea

Bibliographic record

VenueMagic, ritual, and witchcraft · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMAGIC (telescope)DramaFAUSTWitchLiteratureEntertainmentPoliticsArtArt historyHistoryVisual artsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagic, ritual, and witchcraftSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207