Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The Monk Michael Eberle-Sinatra (bio) Matthew Gregory Lewis. The Monk. Edited by D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf Broadview. 2004. 480. $12.95 Matthew Lewis’s 1796 novel The Monk stands out as a key Gothic text with its combination of Gothic tropes, political subtext, and sexually explicit material. The novel received so much attention when it was first published that, as is well known, it led the author to be nicknamed ‘Monk’ Lewis for the rest of his life. The resulting controversy was not all together positive, to say the least; Coleridge summed it up nicely when he declared in his review, ‘The Monk is a romance which if a parent saw in the hands of a son or daughter, he might reasonably turn pale.’ Coleridge’s concern stemmed in part from the fact that there was an amazing fancy for the Gothic at the time. Its frenzy spared no social class of the English society: everybody was reading Gothic novels; readers were recruited among the leading figures of the world as well as among the humble, as Jane Austen would show to great effect in her Gothic parody Northanger Abbey. Like previous scholarly editions of The Monk, D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf’s edition is based on the first edition of Lewis’s novel since, as the editors note, ‘the critical consensus, which we endorse, is that the later lifetime editions represent successive retreats from, rather than refinements on, the author’s original vision.’ (The editors include in one of their appendices their collations of all five editions for readers interested in seeing how Lewis responded to the controversy.) The introduction is succinct, yet informative, and is built around the four sections of the appendix (‘Literary Sources,’ ‘Historical Contexts,’ ‘Critical Reception,’ and ‘Cultural Responses’). The biographical sketch is concise and to the point, and nicely complemented by a brief chronology of Lewis’s life. Students could probably benefit from an expanded chronology that sets up the novel within its historical period and amid other key literary publications of the time. The edition as a whole benefits from the many insights of D.L. Macdonald’s excellent biography of Lewis (University of Toronto Press, 2000), as well as from the skills of the editors, skills that had already been demonstrated in their Broadview editions of Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindications (1997) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1999). The present edition attests once again to their editorial rigour, as attested by their choice of text and their collation work presented in the variants appendix, as well in the many footnotes, which will answer most queries [End Page 260] raised by undergraduate and graduate students. This is clearly the best edition of The Monk available. Michael Eberle-Sinatra Michael Eberle-Sinatra, Département d’études anglaises, Université de Montréal Copyright © 2009 University of Toronto Press Incorporated
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».