Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: A Henry Fielding Companion Robert Folkenflik (bio) Martin C. Battestin. A Henry Fielding Companion. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. xxviii+333pp. US$99.95;£56.99. ISBN 0-313-29707-X. If scholars of eighteenth-century British literature were polled to determine the best person to undertake A Henry Fielding Companion, Martin Battestin would be the overwhelmingly obvious choice. Battestin has written the most important biography of Fielding; he edited the standard editions of Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones, and Amelia, as well as the volume of letters by Henry and Sarah Fielding; he established the authorship of a series of essays by Fielding hitherto unknown; his dissertation and the first of his numerous books were on Fielding. Had he wished, instead of sending the reader of the individual entries to a range of scholars, he could have referred to a relevant passage in his own work at almost every point. He has even written the key essay on the adaptations of Fielding's fiction in films. This volume is an excellent addition to a series that already includes Pat Rogers's The Samuel Johnson Encyclopedia. The difference in the two titles conveys differences in organization. Battestin's decision to group the entries under headings has its advantages and drawbacks: there is not one range of entries, encyclopedia-style, but a number under different headings—Residences, Family and Household, Others in the Life, Works by Fielding, Works Probably by Fielding, Letters, Manuscripts, Themes and Topics, Characters in the Plays and Fictions—all preceded by a Chronology and followed by Works Cited and Bibliography. Some may question whether the letters of Fielding, who did not like to write letters and [End Page 136] whose correspondence is very unrepresentative (as opposed, say, to those of Pope, Johnson, or Lady Mary Wortley Montagu), require this sort of individual docketing. On the other hand, with only seventy by Fielding surviving, it is possible (as opposed to those multi-volume correspondences of his contemporaries just mentioned) and useful. The category "Others in the Life" is not just biographical and includes those who influenced Fielding, those upon whom he commented. Aristotle, Bacon, and Cicero, to take examples from the early entries, are certainly part of Fielding's intellectual history, but their appearance in this section indicates how expansive a rubric it is. One could tweak a few of the entries: under "Hamilton, Mary" he might have noted that The Female Husband is to a large extent fictional. Under "Charke, Charlotte" he should have mentioned that she performed in Fielding's Modern Husband along with her father, Colley Cibber, and her brother Theophilus in 1732 (their participation also goes unmentioned in the account of the play in the Works section), and he might have mentioned that as a cross-dresser she has been advanced as a possible model for the Female Husband since Fielding did not know Mary Hamilton. Among the works cited on Charke, Fidelis Morgan's odd biography of Charke should be mentioned. (Robert Rehder's edition of Charke's autobiography appeared the same year as Battestin's book.) Under "Cooke, Thomas" Square might be mentioned (Tom Jones). Cooke was a "rule of right" man, and Battestin notes that "Chubb, Thomas" (q.v.) does not fit very well as Square's model. Perhaps a more serious question is whether the religious emphasis, which has been such an important part of Battestin's interpretation of Fielding from the outset, receives disproportionate attention. Although entries for Charity, Chastity, and Clergy appear successively, there is none for Law, though he does have a section in Works on Legal and Social Documents. Also, at times the discussion seems more to border on theology than history of religion, as when he quotes approvingly R.N. Stromberg complaining that Latitudinarian Arminianism was "the classic example of a Christianity stressing God too little and Man too much." Fellow religionists may think so, but the literary historian should no more be taking sides on such issues than on the oppositions of Big Endians and Little Endians. The entry on Deism avoids such invidiousness. On the topic of "Latitudinarians," whose rightful importance Battestin emphasized in his first book, he gives a succinct account and...
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) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,197 | 0,178 |
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 ».