MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1991269784 · doi:10.1353/leg.2007.0012

American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822–1869, and: Women, Money, and the Law: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Gender, and the Courts (review)

2007· article· en· W1991269784 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas G. Lilly

Notice bibliographique

RevueLegacy A Journal of American Women Writers · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)LawScholarshipLaw and literatureHistoryPower (physics)Property lawLiterary criticismSociologyLiteratureProperty rightsPolitical scienceArtArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822-1869, and: Women, Money, and the Law: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Gender, and the Courts Thomas Lilly American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822-1869. By Melissa J. Homestead. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 284 pp. $70.00. Women, Money, and the Law: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Gender, and the Courts. By Joyce W. Warren. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005. 320 pp. $44.95. It is indeed sobering that so little scholarship addresses nineteenth-century American women writers' relationship to law. Two recent scholarly works seek to remedy this oversight: Melissa Homestead's American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822–1869 and Joyce Warren's Women, Money, and the Law: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Gender, and the Courts. Given the uncharted critical terrain of law's relationship to nineteenth-century American women writers, both authors recognize that theorizing correspondences between law and literary history must go hand-in-hand with recovering the specific circumstances of women's encounters with law. Taken together, these works demonstrate the power of law over attitudes toward and literary representations of femininity in nineteenth-century America. Yet despite covering coinciding historical terrain—Homestead examines intersections of coverture and copyright law between 1820 and 1870, whereas Warren surveys law's relationship to women's economic participation throughout the nineteenth century—they differ broadly in their critical expectations of correspondences between literary text and historical context. This difference highlights the potential breakthroughs and obstacles future criticism may encounter when examining this field. In American Women Authors and Literary Property, Melissa Homestead (building upon Meredith McGill's American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting) frames female authorship as one facet of the greater economic structure of the mid-century literary marketplace, legal dimensions of which privileged readers' claims to the usefulness of print materials over authors' proprietary claims to their works. Homestead's examinations of the experiences of Mary Virginia Terhune, Catharine Sedgwick, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fanny Fern, and Augusta Jane Evans trace the effects of a "productive fiction in women's engagements with the market" (18). Ultimately, she explains, "copyright law and . . . laws affecting the status of women" became sources of creativity and prosperity for women authors (18). Though she emphasizes how women authors imagined "the struggle and dispossession . . . not secure possession" of their works in print, the experiences of her female authors come to represent the kinds of struggles authors throughout the period faced, as law affected how authors conceived of their relationship to literary works (as products of imagination [End Page 138] and as commodities), publishers (as distributors of their works), and readers (as the ultimate arbiters of their works' value) (61). Homestead elegantly handles women writers' negotiation of the laws of the culture of reprinting and arrives at compelling insights regarding the authors she examines and the period she reconstructs. In "'Suited to the Market': Catharine Sedgwick, Female Authorship, and the Literary Property Debates, 1822–1842," Homestead demonstrates that Sedgwick should be understood as a "model" author, as facets of Sedgwick's "disinterested authorial persona"— her anonymity, her reticence toward the literary marketplace, her stress on the value of reading, and her shift to didactic fiction—were a strategic response to the republican drives of the literary marketplace (69). In "'When I Can Read My Title Clear': Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Stowe v. Thomas Copyright Infringement Case (1853)," Homestead persuasively argues that Stowe's suit for control over a German-language serial reprint of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) dramatized one of the central debates over copyright, between authors' desire to prosper from their writing and readers' desire for access to reading materials. All the while, Homestead painstakingly reconstructs the lively, sometimes desperate, historical circumstances in which authors encountered the limits of the law. Joyce Warren does not seem to share Homestead's sense that law productively informed nineteenth-century women writers' experiences. Rather, in Women, Money, and the Law, Warren represents nineteenth-century law as hostile to women, part of a dominant discourse in American society coercing female economic dependence. Warren explains that she wishes to articulate a counternarrative in her study by recovering its public (published) and nonpublic (litigious) female voices. Chapters...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLegacy A Journal of American Women WritersMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207