MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2075089472 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2012.0021

The Politics of Custom in Eighteenth-Century British Fiction (review)

2012· article· en· W2075089472 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julie Murray

Notice bibliographique

RevueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsNarrativeLiteratureHistoryAestheticsArtLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Politics of Custom in Eighteenth-Century British Fiction Julie Murray (bio) Scarlet Bowen. The Politics of Custom in Eighteenth-Century British Fiction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. xiv+224pp. US$80. ISBN 978-0-230-10354-2. In a rich and rewarding study of the dynamic relationship between the novel and what she refers to as “customary culture” in the eighteenth century, Scarlet Bowen argues that writers in eighteenth-century Britain mitigated the potentially threatening novelty of the novel by “appealing to custom,” a term she defines as “a constellation of traditional social ideals structured by the delicate balance of reciprocal obligations between patrician paternalism and plebeian deference, the insistence on moral and not market economies, and a tradition of plebeian rebellion in defense of such customs” (1–2). What distinguishes Bowen’s book from other recent accounts of the novel is its focus on the crucial contributions to the fledgling genre made by the plebeian orders’ staunch defence of tradition in the name of custom. Although she does not wish to “deny the genre’s imbrications in modern developments,” her intention is to “restore a sense of the novel’s cultural, social, and temporal hybridity as eighteenth-century writers call upon values and cultural forms of the past to mitigate the future” (2). Bowen’s study takes its place alongside those that have also offered an alternative history of the novel form by resisting the premise of the genre’s wholesale absorption into other narratives of rise—of the middle class, of feeling, or of the possessive individual. Bowen’s study thus reminds us, in a new key, that eighteenth-century novelists were not nearly so wedded to novelty and innovation at all costs, and had, rather, a much more complex connection to tradition. In contrast to the still pervasive association of the novel with expansion in multiple senses—capitalist, imperialist, historical, psychological—Bowen calls attention to its equally powerful claim to movements backward rather than forward, to tradition rather than progress. With chapters on Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders and Roxana, Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, Tobias Smollett’s Humphry Clinker and William Godwin’s Caleb Williams, Bowen’s study hews closely to well-known novels by well-known novelists. The one exception is a brief but illuminating chapter on fictionalized memoirs of female soldiers, which examines Christian Davies’s 1740 Life and Adventures (1740) and The Female Solider; or, The Surprising Life and Adventures of Hannah Snell (1750). Arguing that plebeian identity, female masculinity, and British nationalism intersect in complex ways at mid-century, Bowen suggests that the “plebeian female soldier,” a “figure at once masculine and feminine” invokes and “refashions notions of Britishness during a period of history when its identity was most in dispute” (82). The chapter on Pamela is the strongest because it departs from accounts of Pamela’s virtue that understand it entirely in terms of a [End Page 726] sexual economy. Making wonderful use of Pamela’s conscious invocation of a robust tradition of ballad literature and arguing that “Richardson’s heroine shares a richly detailed ancestry with the heroines of popular balladry” (60), Bowen usefully marshals E.P. Thompson’s assertion that “plebeian culture is rebellious, but rebellious in defense of custom” (Customs in Common, 9; cited in Politics of Custom, 63) in order to argue that “virtue in Pamela connotes a very particularized idea of merit derived from customary social relations” (63). Pamela’s “resistance” to Mr B. is less a matter of her moral or sexual purity than it is a question of the “reestablishment of proper paternalistic treatment of the lower orders” (63). The sheer fact of Pamela’s rebellion “in defense of custom” tends to be obscured in feminist critics’ accounts of how Pamela’s steadfast resistance to her master is a sign of her bodily self-possession and thus her modernity. Bowen’s view is a salutary corrective to the historical record, without sacrificing what is modern about Pamela. Throughout the book, Bowen is admittedly more interested in the workings of plebeian culture than anything else. Her understandable desire to correct a scholarly overemphasis on polite and commercial modernity, and by extension on the...

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,561
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,923

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,217
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · 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.

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
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEighteenth-Century FictionMême sujetHistorical Economic and Social StudiesTravaux en français237 207