MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2034128114 · doi:10.1353/utq.2005.0174

The Yard of Wit: Male Creativity and Sexuality, 1650-1750 (review)

2004· article· en· W2034128114 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hugh Ormsby-Lennon

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCreativityHuman sexualityYardPoetryPeriod (music)LiteratureHistoryGender studiesSociologyArtAestheticsPsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Yard of Wit: Male Creativity and Sexuality, 1650–1750 Hugh Ormsby-Lennon (bio) Raymond Stephanson. The Yard of Wit: Male Creativity and Sexuality, 1650–1750 University of Pennsylvania Press. xv, 292. US $55.00 Raymond Stephanson's choice of main title - The Yard of Wit - for his study of 'Male Creativity and Sexuality 1650-1750' inspires confidence. 'Yard' was an old-fashioned word for the penis still current during the eighteenth century, and 'wit' connoted more than it does today, namely 'mother wit' or native intelligence, its intellectual exercise, and the witty use of language used therein. In short, that succinct title encapsulates the creative analogies that Stephanson canvasses for male writers of the period: head/groin, quill/penis, and ink/sperm. By no means does the author ignore female writers or normal childbirth, but he is determined to see how books penned by men could be seen as offspring birthed by same-sex reproduction or autogenesis. Stephanson does, however, wish to withdraw from modern [End Page 420] feminist controversies back into the cut and thrust of psycho-physiological debates during the eighteenth century. The ahistorical phallus of Freudian or Lacanian theory, he duly demonstrates, does not prove very useful when we are dealing with the empirical specifics of a slenderly endowed Alexander Pope ('Alexander the Little') as so viciously lampooned at the time. Stephanson devotes a well-sustained chapter to the paradox of the period's greatest poetic talent being hung on a pego so diminutive. Stephanson's range of reading and allusion is impressive. The author takes us back to mythological birthing tropes (Zeus/Athena, and thence to Apollo and the Nine Muses), to the Priapeia (Latin poems that force 'a simple choice between the chaste mythology of poetic reproduction and the rude power of the visible phallus'), to Horace, Ovid, Petronius, Martial, Montaigne, and to French and English legal proceedings that involved a husband's purported impotence. Stephanson also foregrounds important eighteenth-century disputes about embryology and dexterously handles iconographic readings of plates ranging from William Harvey's Exercitationes De Generatione Animalium (1651) and Regnier de Graaf's Tractatus De Virorum Organis Generationi Inservientibus (1668) to Edmund Curll's 1737 shop-sign 'At Pope's Head' and to The Poeticall Tom-Titt perch'd upon the Mount of Love. Being the Representation of a Merry Description in Mr. Cibber's Letter to Mr. Pope (1742) as compared with a voyeuristic scene from the pornographic Histoire de Dom B (1741). The cover to The Yard of Wit displays the frontispiece to the latter book with the closeted author's quill in his right hand as a satyr directs him what to write. That the author displays an engorged penis in his left hand - and that the satyr's member stands spontaneously to attention - is chastely obscured (but not in the reproduction reprinted within The Yard of Wit) by a rectangle emblazoning the title and its author. Stephanson might almost rest his case on the uncensored cut. As Kenneth Tynan once remarked, writing is 95 per cent perspiration and 5 per cent masturbation. Stephanson is at his least interesting when he takes us through 'figurative linkages' in the marketplace or the 'dynamic [sic] of homoerotic inclusion.' Academic-speak threatens to take over and, on occasion, his fluent prose veers towards the repetitive. A severe reviewer might see The Yard of Wit as no more than a one-trick donkey laden down with gee-whiz specimens. But Stephanson has a sharp eye for shape-shifting in the head/groin analogy. Masturbating, figuratively, with a chaste Muse might be hugely creative; but onanism in words might be symptomatic of social dysfunction. A homosocial reading group like that which Pope enjoyed with such older friends as Wycherley, Caryll, and Cromwell could provide essential literary foreplay prior to releasing a poem to the reading public. Certainly Stephanson will send us back to bland treatises on poetics - one had not, heretofore, thought of scrutinizing Edward Young's Conjectures on Original Composition (1759) for smutty subtexts - with a reinvigorated grasp [End Page 421] for icons of male creativity. There are, furthermore, many insights into, say, anal birthing and boghouse walls near Grub...

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,890
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,200
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetLiterature: history, themes, analysisTravaux en français237 207