MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379532260 · doi:10.1353/tj.2010.a401779

Ukrainian Drama and Theater in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (review)

2010· article· en· W4379532260 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Cultural Studies of Poland
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianDramaHistoryPoliticsOrthodoxyAncient historyClassicsLiteratureArtPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Ukrainian Drama and Theater in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Seth Baumrin Ukrainian Drama and Theater in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. By Paulina Lewin. The Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical Research Monograph Series, no. 3. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2008; pp. xxxiv + 218. $49.95 cloth, $29.95 paper. Today, Ukraine exists as an autonomous state, but its history is one of invasion and occupation by its neighbors and internal discord among its multiple ethnic subnationalities. Any atlas will show Ukraine's enormity, and old atlases will demonstrate the small nations Ukraine absorbed prior to Russian usurpation during the rise of Muscovy. Ukraine is distinguished from Russia to the north by its variety of regional peoples, including Armenians, Crimean Tatars, Cossacks, Jews, Greeks, Moldavians, Roma, and Ruthenes—some autochthonous, others émigré. And, as traced in Paulina Lewin's excellent historical analysis of Ukrainian theatre in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the growth of Ukrainian Orthodoxy from 1087 is marked by the need of Ukraine's indigenous groups to assert not only their local identities, but also their investment in the larger nation, because Ukrainians often succumbed to Russian dominance, Turkish invasion, and Polish territorial ambitions. Ukraine's cultural and political complexity is mirrored in its national drama. Lewin's excellent work on the liturgical and secular theatre of Ukraine's baroque period is an advanced primer in Slavonic theology with a theatrical derivation. And that is the best way to approach the topic, for Ukrainian theatre was inextricably linked to various subdenominations within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church schools during the centuries she covers. Western historians argue that Ukrainian drama remained medieval well after the Renaissance in Europe. Lewin, however, uses textual analysis and reconstruction of performances based on archival research, to demonstrate its sophistication. Ukrainian liturgical dramas differ sharply from both Western liturgical drama and Reformation morality plays. For example, one of the oldest extant dramas, The Kingdom of Human Nature Destroyed by Temptation, through Whose Efforts Death Dominated Us Who Had Known No Sin, Re-established and Crowned Us Anew Thanks to the Grace of Christ, the King of Glory (1698), a play whose language was designed to intrigue audiences through "ecstasy evoked by sound and rhythm, enhanced by the playwright's erudition," is about Lucifer's fall from heaven (78). Most notable in these plays is the convention of depicting biblical characters only as allegorical figures. Thus Lucifer is "Lucifer's Malice," and Eve is "Human Nature." The most compelling allegorical character is "Pre-Eternal Wisdom," which stands for God (74), and suggests an "everlasting present" (80)—a Ukrainian theological wisdom distinctly different from Western Christianity's neo-Platonism. Lewin argues that, although it is true that Ukrainian liturgical drama borrowed allegorical characters from Polish Jesuit schools during the mid-seventeenth century, religiously they were virtual opposites, because Ukrainian Orthodoxy applied its own iconic/allegorical structure derived primarily from the Khjiv Mohyla Academy, whose faith was grounded in Greek-Byzantine theology and old Rus heritage. Lewin shows how multiple iconic formulae protected Ukraine's religious and cultural heritage without attracting undue hostility. Inherently a geopolitical hotspot, Ukraine carved out its own identity through the theatricalization of worship and belief based on local mysticism and aesthetics. For example, it was believed by Ukrainian Orthodox theologians that human language was insufficient for the transmission of divine values, so nearly the whole of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theology was transmitted via church school dramas, because the [End Page 481] allegorical iconography demonstrated an Orthodox code of faith and morality. Lewin captures this allegorical complexity through vivid descriptions of how the dramas might have been performed; in fact, this is the most impressive and risky aspect of her scholarship. But her archival research and sensitive reading of the theatricality embedded in the scriptures upon which the plays are based are ultimately convincing. Thus Lewin unfolds the layered meanings of this dramaturgy of allegory to render a lesson of great value not only to Ukrainian studies scholars, but also theatre semioticians. In her analysis of the move from liturgical to secular drama in the eighteenth century, Lewin sets up scholarly signposts leading to explanations of the...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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