MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973332899 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2019.0000

“More Aerial, More Graceful, More Perfect”: Madame Vestris’s Oberon, Victorian Culture, and the Feminized Fairies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 1840–1914

2019· article· en· W2973332899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marija Reiff

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamArtRomanceArt historyLiteraturePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“More Aerial, More Graceful, More Perfect”: Madame Vestris’s Oberon, Victorian Culture, and the Feminized Fairies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 1840–1914 Marija Reiff (bio) In most modern productions of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare’s king and queen of the fairies have a volatile, passionate relationship that is rooted in the sexual chemistry of two powerful figures colliding. This explosive dynamic is particularly alluded to in visual portrayals of Oberon, in which the king of the fairies is often teeming with masculine virility. Consider, for example, recent portrayals of the fairy king: from a bare-chested Rupert Everett in the 1999 movie version to a bare-chested John Light in the 2013 Globe production to a bare-chested David Harewood in Julie Taymor’s 2013 filmed staged version, Oberon is a warrior who is formidable, sexy, and abounding with machismo. Yet it was not always this way. From 1840 until 1914, with only a couple of minor exceptions, women always played Oberon (Williams 93). This trend was originated by Lucia Elizabeth Vestris in a highly influential production in 1840 at Covent Garden wherein she cast herself as the King of Shadows. Vestris, better known to her contemporaries as Madame Vestris, was an actress-turned-producer-and-manager who ran theatre companies at the Olympic and Covent Garden, and she was a bona fide celebrity of the Romantic and early-Victorian stage. Vestris’s portrayal proved influential, and for almost seventy-five years, no American or English production featured a man in the role (Norwood xvii). Vestris’s production is notable not only for instating the convention of all-female fairies but also for regenerating interest in Dream as a viable piece of live theatre. This change in precedent is particularly noteworthy as Dream is now one of the staples of repertory companies and Shakespearean festivals (Griffiths, Introduction 1). However, after the Restoration, in 1660, Shakespeare’s version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream fell out of popular favour, and it was performed only in fragments (Griffiths, “Neglected” 386). The reasons for its disappearance from the post-Restoration stage and its reinstatement in 1840 as a live theatrical piece filled with female fairies are directly related. In both instances, concerns about the viability of mortal humans playing non-mortal fairies ran rampant. Throughout the centuries, [End Page 251] fairies had become extensively romanticized, and it was impossible to stage Shakespeare’s full script with its faulty, flawed, and feuding fairies. However, with the proliferation of fairy extravaganzas in the 1830s and 1840s, especially as they contained abundant references to Shakespeare,1 producers found it imperative to return to Shakespeare’s original script. By making the fairies women, Vestris capitalized on the associations among women, children, and supernaturality, thus allowing her to portray idealized nineteenth-century fairies. Yet as these fairy portrayals became increasingly feminized, they also became progressively more childlike, pure, and naive. Though modern scholars are keen to see feminist undertones in Vestris’s production—for example, Elizabeth Schafer writes that “the production presented a very suggestive image of female power” and that it brought “traditional notions of femininity and masculinity . . . provocatively to the fore” (198, 199), and Gary Jay Williams adds that it “addressed the patriarchal Victorian culture in complex, fascinating ways” (93)—this enthusiasm is tempered by its contemporary reception. Throughout the Victorian and early Edwardian age, the fairies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream were the objects through which the era’s anxieties about innocence, idealism, passivity, and femininity were debated, and Vestris’s self-fashioned and gender-bending performance was indicative of the nineteenth-century impulse both to idealize and infantilize women. However, this valorization and patronization of Vestris’s Oberon was moderated by the history of the breeches role—an acting role wherein an actress wearing tight-fitting breeches played a man’s part—including Vestris’s personal history in breeches roles, to hint at the power and sexuality of Shakespeare’s fairy king. Vestris’s feminized Oberon thus showcased the contradictions and complexities of Victorian society regarding the display of the female body, and Vestris’s performance worked on two different and contradictory levels through capitulating to feminine idealization...

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207