Romanticism and the Materiality of Nature by Onno Oerlemans (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
YES, 34, 2004 YES, 34, 2004 fraughtwith pitfalls.In response, Burwickoffersus the possibilityof a more inclusive , comprehensivedefinition of 'imitation'within a Romantic context, one which includes the mind's own workings: 'The rise of individualism, a major factor in the political turmoil of the age, was also manifest in the literaryexploration of the individual consciousness and the individual experience. The paradox, of course, was that the very self-assessmentcrucial to the social changes then taking place would be appraisedby criticsof subsequentgenerations as self-indulgentescapism' (p.Io). By widening the scope of Romantic mimesis from 'what' the mind beholds, to 'how' it beholds, Burwick opens up a groundbreaking,comparative discussion of how the post-KantianGermanphilosopherswere influentialin the constructionof a BritishRomantic aesthetic. The first three chapters examine the ideas of I'art pour I'art(goingback to the cross-culturalfirstuse of the phrase in 1804),idemetalter(difference as an essential markerof the artist'stransformingactivity),and palingenesis of mind as art respectively.Burwick'sdirectengagementwith the firsttexts in which Schleiermacher, Schelling, Hegel, Coleridge, and De Quincey articulated their thoughtsis particularlyrefreshing,and it drawsattentionto the dangersof reductive readingin laterinterpretations.The finalthree chaptersofferfurtherexplorationsof the persistentpresence of mimesis as a major issue in Romantic texts. Chapter 4 focuseson ekphrasis,on how the mimetic processitselfcan be the object of mimesis, illustratedby an exceptionallypenetratingreading of De Quincey's 'Dream Fugue' in TheEnglish Mail Coach. Chapter 5 casts new light on Coleridge and Wordsworth by an emphasis on how 'optical reflection [...] is a model for visual perception as well as an analogue of mental reflection'(p. 148).The final chapter explores 'three novels of the romantic period which develop their irony through a structuralbifurcation that exposes the mimetic pretense of the storytelling'(exemplifiedin Charles BrockdenBrown'sArthur Mervyn, E. T. A. Hoffmann'sKater Murr,andJames Hogg's Confessions ofa JustifiedSinner). However troubled, tormented, or neurotic the Romantics' engagement with the whole idea of mimesis might have been at times, they did make a convincing aestheticout of the mimeticpredicament.Burwickputs it splendidly:'Ifoccasionally in a perverse pique or an ironic gesture they attempted to shatter one mirror or the other, it was only with the result that every splinter remained to catch new reflections'(p. i5). A warmly recommended study. VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OFWELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND HEIDITHOMSON Romanticismand the Materiality of Nature. By ONNO OERLEMANS. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press. 2002. vii + 253 pp. $45; f28. ISBN: 0-8020-4863-3. Given the title and the topic of this book, the assertion that 'romanticism is an important origin for environmentalist thought' should probably come as no surprise. That does not make it accurate. Possibly, indeed probably, for some readers Romantic literatureis the origin of their 'stronginterest'in descriptionsof the externalworld and even perhapstheir 'environmentalistthought', but let us not make the mistake of thinking such interest sprang into being in the Romantic period. More than enough has been writtenabout medieval landscapesand Renaissance forests to correct such misapprehension.What ecocriticism does, and here Onno Oerlemans's book is on sounder ground, is to offer a newer, more rigorous fraughtwith pitfalls.In response, Burwickoffersus the possibilityof a more inclusive , comprehensivedefinition of 'imitation'within a Romantic context, one which includes the mind's own workings: 'The rise of individualism, a major factor in the political turmoil of the age, was also manifest in the literaryexploration of the individual consciousness and the individual experience. The paradox, of course, was that the very self-assessmentcrucial to the social changes then taking place would be appraisedby criticsof subsequentgenerations as self-indulgentescapism' (p.Io). By widening the scope of Romantic mimesis from 'what' the mind beholds, to 'how' it beholds, Burwick opens up a groundbreaking,comparative discussion of how the post-KantianGermanphilosopherswere influentialin the constructionof a BritishRomantic aesthetic. The first three chapters examine the ideas of I'art pour I'art(goingback to the cross-culturalfirstuse of the phrase in 1804),idemetalter(difference as an essential markerof the artist'stransformingactivity),and palingenesis of mind as art respectively.Burwick'sdirectengagementwith the firsttexts in which Schleiermacher, Schelling, Hegel, Coleridge, and De Quincey articulated their thoughtsis particularlyrefreshing,and it drawsattentionto the dangersof reductive readingin laterinterpretations.The finalthree chaptersofferfurtherexplorationsof the persistentpresence of mimesis as a major issue in Romantic texts. Chapter...
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
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 ».