Conversion and Reform in the British Novel in the 1790s (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Conversion and Reform in the British Novel in the 1790s Nancy E. Johnson (bio) A.A. Markley. Conversion and Reform in the British Novel in the 1790s. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. xx+278pp. US$89.95. ISBN 978-0-230-61229-7. A.A. Markley's book is a testament to how far scholarship on late eighteenth-century political fiction has come. Markley provides a welcome overview of a pivotal period in the development of the novel and a coherent analysis of a wide variety of texts that advocate reform and strive to alter public opinion. The strength of this well-researched, lucidly written book lies in its range and cohesiveness. Markley's broad perspective rightfully blurs the borders of what has been traditionally called "English Jacobin" fiction and firmly integrates these reformist texts in the history of the novel in the long eighteenth century. The sheer number of novels included in this study impresses. While Markley's focus is on the 1790s, he includes texts published before and after this pivotal decade. Some of the novels are well known to readers of the 1790s: William Godwin's Caleb Williams, Thomas Holcroft's Hugh Trevor, and Mary Wollstonecraft's Wrongs of Woman. Others are far less familiar: Anna Maria Mackenzie's Slavery; or, The Times, George Walker's Theodore Cyphon; or, The Benevolent Jew, Thomas Northmore's Memoirs of Planetes, and the anonymous Excursion of Osman. Markley unifies his analysis of these diverse novels by organizing his readings around the authors' goals of reform and by establishing conceptual attributes common to each of the novels: "a commitment to the rights of the individual"; "a devotion to the idea that reason could and must triumph over convention"; and "a conviction that reform could best be achieved by working to alter 'the private and internal operations of the mind' of the individual" (3). Markley argues that the novelists' method of "conversion" was to operate on the mind of the individual reader. The epigraph to the book—a quotation from Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1796 edition)—is a concise statement of just such a view. By 1796, after the French Reign of Terror, Godwin is quick to observe that a "revolution of opinions is the only means of attaining to this benefit"—that is, the benefit of social and political reform (xix). Markley's argument and Godwin's observation are pertinent reminders of how measured were British reform efforts, particularly in the latter part of the revolutionary decade in light of developments in France. This restrained and sober perspective also explains why reformers turned to the novel as a mechanism of reform. Markley's assertion that authors saw potential in the novel for "fostering a revolution of opinions one reader at a time" (5) is supported by ample textual evidence. One of the advantages of Markley's focus on the novel's reformation of public opinion is that it allows him to address many subjects of [End Page 733] reform—the status of women, slavery, race, aristocratic privilege—and to account for the subtle differences in approaches to reform. The first two chapters of the book draw on many of the now-canonical texts of the 1790s, such as Helen Maria Williams's Julia and Robert Bage's Hermsprong, to outline the multiple facets of the reformist hero: the figure of sensibility, the noble savage, and the young philosopher. The varying types of heroes found in these texts not only illustrate Markley's point that authors struggled to find the right balance of reason and sensibility in their reformist characters, but they also support Markley's contention that novels of the 1790s are complex and richly varied. The second chapter addresses the status of women, focusing on the motif of incarceration, which is indeed pervasive, and the use of the Gothic, which was also widespread in reformist fiction. In both chapters, Markley firmly embeds the reformist texts in the development of the novel through the eighteenth century, elucidating connections to Samuel Richardson, Henry Fielding, Tobias Smollett, and Laurence Sterne. The last three chapters take the reader into less familiar terrain, looking at representations of African characters to examine...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».