Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The Cambridge Companion to Frances Burney Beth Kowaleski Wallace (bio) Peter Sabor, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Frances Burney. Cambridge University Press. xvi, 198. US $85.00, 29.99 For very good reasons explained in this excellent collection, until late in the last century, the full story of Frances Burney’s career remained obscure. By the end of the nineteenth century, her reputation had been all but destroyed, and many of her collected works were inaccessible or out of print. Indeed, as George Justice provocatively asserts, ‘Burney’s career as an author might be labeled as a failure.’ But lately things have certainly changed – witness the 2005 dedication of a commemorative window in Westminster Cathedral in Burney’s honour. The Cambridge Companion to Frances Burney contributes to this recent reappraisal by conveying a wealth of information on all aspects of Burney’s career and by raising key issues that will preoccupy Burney scholars for decades to come. The ten essays, plus an introduction, are uniformly well-written, informative, and mostly lively. They cover Burney’s family, novels, plays, journals, and letters, as well as her politics, stance on gender, society, and the literary marketplace. The essays sometimes overlap, but the result is to reinforce, not repeat, vital themes. One such theme is the necessity of considering Burney within the context of her family history. Kate Chisholm leads off the collection with a comprehensive overview of the Burney family, one that should prompt scholars to attend to the more than ten thousand items of correspondence produced by the family. George Justice reinforces Chisholm’s assertion that Burney cannot be known without her family, in his essay on Burney’s conflicted attitude toward the literary marketplace. Betty Rizzo similarly highlights Burney’s familial networks in order to contextualize her attitudes toward society. In Rizzo’s account the Burney family station left the [End Page 255] writer ‘suspended in the same ambiguity of station’ for all of her life. In Margaret Doody’s essay on Burney and politics, once again we find the emphasis on the Burneys: the fact of Catholicism in the family background facilitated Frances’s ‘attention to the place and experience of “outsiders,” to what it means to be “alien” or alienated.’ Though it is a truism that, during the eighteenth century, all women writers struggled with gender prejudice, Burney seems to have struggled even more, divided as she was between the desire to maintain a ladylike decorum and to pursue a shrewd course of business. Vivien Jones reinforces this point in her essay by arguing that Burney’s ‘particular achievement was to attract respect as a female intellectual on the basis of works of fiction.’ Yet other essays show how very difficult that project was. Lorna Clark recounts, in fascinating detailing, the viciousness of Burney’s male reviewers, and she points out the obstacles that persisted before a full recovery was achieved. The essays in the Companion collectively insist on seeing Burney’s oeuvre in its entirety. Wiltshire finds merit in the collective journals and letters, arguing that Burney embodies ‘the condition of modernity in which history is enacted through the experience of the private subject.’ A case is even made for Burney’s unreadable tragedies. Tara Ghoshal Wallace concedes their lack of poetic virtue, but assures us that ‘they certainly reward the kind of scrupulous readings they have begun to accrue.’ Individual chapters address Burney’s better-known novels and discuss her works by genre. Jane Spencer makes a good argument for reading Evelina and Cecilia against Samuel Johnson, while Sarah Salih, who has previously blazed the way by reading Burney’s racial tropes, highlights performance in Cecilia and The Wanderer. She astutely asks, ‘How stable are class, gender, nationality, even race – when they can be donned and discarded as easily as a bonnet or a collection of patches?’ George Justice turns our attention to the power of the marketplace, revealing a Burney who may or may not have had control, but who tried to put business matters first. This collection is an excellent starting point for anyone embarked on study of Burney’s life, works, and place in the canon. The essays are accessible, full...
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 | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,090 | 0,076 |
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 ».