MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2592745607 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2015.0022

Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell

2015· article· en· W2592745607 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Finnigan

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIrish and British Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRomanticismArt historyPortraitArtLiteratureModernism (music)History of literature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell Robert Finnigan (bio) Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell; pp. 560. New Haven: Yale UP, 2015. $50 cloth. In their new study of Oscar Wilde’s fascination with Thomas Chatterton, Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell challenge the accusations of plagiarism that have, until now, plagued Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook. Bristow and Mitchell contend that “the ‘Chatterton’ notebook inspired many of the remarkable shifts that took place during the mid and late 1880s in Wilde’s [End Page 206] evolving emergence as a major fin-de-siècle author” (21). They add that “In the decades following Wilde’s untimely death, Chatterton continued to inspire other artists, particularly young poets, who regularly honoured the ‘marvellous Boy’ in verse, as generations before them had” (29). As in Oscar Wilde and Ancient Greece (2012), in which Iain Ross examines “fragmentary notes and jottings from [Wilde’s] Trinity and Oxford years” (6), much of the insight in and pleasure of this book comes from its thorough research, with examples taken from art, literature, and the periodical press providing a number of interesting comparisons and connections. As Bristow and Mitchell draw on Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook and archival materials, along with “The Portrait of Mr. W.H.,” “Pen, Pencil and Poison,” and “The Decay of Lying,” this study establishes “a fuller picture of Wilde’s detailed engagement with Chatterton than has previously been possible” (30). Bristow and Mitchell make good use of anecdotal and biographical materials relating to both Chatterton and Wilde, and convincingly argue that in Chatterton’s Rowley poems, Wilde found a “consummate art that strove to invent, not imitate, reality” (303). In early chapters, the authors discuss the cultural and historical myths that surrounded Chatterton. Beginning with an overview of his life, the Rowley controversy, and his “tragic self-murder” (2), Bristow and Mitchell dissect David Masson’s Chatterton: A Story of the Year (1770) and Daniel Wilson’s Chatterton: A Biographical Study (1869) before considering Henry Wallis’s painting The Death of Chatterton (1856). The authors then turn their attention to the charges of plagiarism aimed at Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook and his identification of Chatterton as the “father of the Romantic Movement in literature” (19). In these chapters, Bristow and Mitchell show how attitudes toward Chatterton were changing by the mid-1880s, the period in which Wilde began to compile his notebook and delivered his now-lost lecture on Chatterton at the Birkbeck Library and Scientific Institution. Wilde’s devotion to and paradoxical position on art is well known, and Bristow and Mitchell illustrate that Wilde explored the idea that “fine art might arise from criminal instincts” (27) before arguing that “untruths and weaving deceptive fiction” (27) constitute the highest form of creativity. The chapters that focus on Wilde’s criticism, shorter fiction, and concept of forgery are perhaps the strongest and most enjoyable as they show how Chatterton’s influence remains visible in Wilde’s later works. Wilde chose Thomas Griffiths Wainwright, a murderer and an accomplished art critic, as the subject of “Pen, Pencil and Poison,” and the authors argue that the connection between this piece and his “Chatterton” notebook is that “the subjects of both works were forgers, executing different varieties of such deceit for similar ends” (217). Bristow and Mitchell also argue that elements of Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook are visible in “The Decay of Lying,” as both connect “the artistry of the lie” with the notion “of lying for the sake of art” (233). This, the authors demonstrate, informs Wilde’s position on great art [End Page 207] as emerging from “representational deceptions” (234). Bristow and Mitchell explore the notion of forgery further in their chapter devoted to “The Portrait of Mr. W.H.,” Wilde’s tale of the suicide and suspected suicide of two men connected to a faked portrait of the youth addressed in William Shakespeare’s sonnets. In this, the most complex and focused chapter of the book, they concentrate on literary forgers and critics such...

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: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,119
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,381

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
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)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · 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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetIrish and British StudiesTravaux en français237 207