MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401441429 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjae085

An Allusion to <i>Titus Andronicus</i> in Middleton’s <i>The Ghost of Lucrece</i>

2024· article· he· W4401441429 sur OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Panek

Notice bibliographique

RevueNotes and Queries · 2024
Typearticle
Languehe
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAllusionArtLiteraturePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Thomas Middleton’s early poem The Ghost of Lucrece (1600), long ignored by critics as part of his juvenilia, has received increased attention since the 2007 publication of the Oxford Collected Works. The poem is typically considered in relation to Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece (1594), a text to which Ghost responds.1 What has not been noticed to date, however, is that The Rape of Lucrece appears not to have been the only Shakespearean text that the young Middleton had in mind when he tried his hand at a version of the Lucrece story: the prologue to Ghost contains what is likely an allusion to Titus Andronicus (c. 1594), and that play’s bloody cannibal revenge may be echoed in the grotesque blood-as-breastmilk that Middleton’s Lucrece vengefully orders Tarquin to drink. While The Ghost of Lucrece is based on the genre of ‘complaint’—’a tragic monologue by a departed spirit’—Middleton creates a specifically theatrical setting for Lucrece’s ghost to lament her rape: ‘Thrice hath the trumpet of my pen’s round stage/Sounded a surge to her bloody age’ (35–6, original italics).2 In a poem that brings together a copiously bleeding Roman rape victim, the myth of Philomela, and vengeance through coerced blood-drinking, asking readers to imagine watching a play prepares them for the Titus allusion to come. Two stanzas later, the actors are summoned, and the speaker of the prologue punningly instructs them on the ‘part’ that awaits them: With ‘Play the cooks’—in the same line as and directed to ‘our stage’s actors’—the poem arguably alludes to the moment when Titus Andronicus avenges Lavinia’s rape by butchering the bound and gagged Chiron and Demetrius: after the rapists have bled out into a ‘basin’ held by Lavinia herself, Titus says, ‘So, now bring them in, for I’ll play the cook,/And see them ready against their mother comes’ (V.ii.183, 204–05).3 In baking them into pies to be fed to an unwitting Tamora, he takes a deliberately Ovidian revenge: In The Ghost of Lucrece, the metaphorical ‘actors’ who will ‘play the cooks’ are associated with the rapist, not the avenger, and the heart they will butcher into dainty morsels is that of the victim; however, the poem later provides Lucrece herself with a form of revenge, found nowhere in the original story, that takes us back to Titus Andronicus, the myth of Philomela with its cannibal vengeance, and Lavinia’s basin of blood. Both Middleton’s Lucrece, and Shakespeare’s Lavinia identify themselves with the raped and mutilated Philomel: prior to Titus’s declared intent to surpass Ovidian precedent, Lavinia uses a copy of The Metamorphoses to disclose what was done to her (IV.i.41–54); in Middleton’s poem, the Ghost evokes the same parallel in her final statement: ‘Now Tereus meets with ravished Philomel,/Lucrece with Tarquin in the hall of hell’ (596–7).4 Between the bookends of the prologue’s ‘play the cook’ and the monologue’s concluding allusion to Philomela, Middleton’s Lucrece avenges herself on Tarquin by recreating Lavinia’s basin of blood with her own blood, which she serves up for Tarquin’s consumption in a series of increasingly disturbing images. First, she transforms herself into a ‘bowl’ filled with blood from her wound, which she invites Tarquin to consume: After further invitations to ‘Quaff thine own fill’ (129) and ‘Pledge thy desire, carousing off my shame’ (131), the poem takes an even darker turn, with what Celia Daileader aptly describes as Lucrece’s ‘deeply aggressive’ force-feeding of an infantilized Tarquin, in ‘a quasi-cannibalistic “festival” of abjection’:5 In my recent study of disgust and shame in early modern rape narratives, I argue that while Shakespeare’s Lucrece feels that Tarquin has physically polluted her in a way that can only be cleansed by her death, Lavinia’s self-identification with Philomela also indicates her chosen revenge: by transforming her rapists to human meat, she inflicts the same condition of ‘disgustingness’ on their bodies that their mutilations had previously conferred on hers.6 Middleton’s Lucrece, like Lavinia, avenges the pollution-disgust conventionally directed towards the defiled rape victim by using disgust as a weapon against the man who violated her: a bleeding Lucrece is traditional, but a Lucrece who obliges Tarquin to drink great bowls of her blood and to suck yet more blood, ‘until [his] veins run over’, from an enormous, blood-filled teat ‘which scarce [his] mouth can cover’ is taking her own state of befoulment and forcing it, quite literally, down her rapist’s throat. In an echo of Lavinia’s revenge in Titus Andronicus, Middleton’s Tarquin begins as a cannibalistic gourmand who ‘Carve[s] out the daintiest morsel’ of human flesh for his own delectation, only to be justly served by having his victim turn around and ‘carve… . with her knife [his] festival’, vengefully feeding him sickening, unmanageable quantities of human blood.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut 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: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,066

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,028
Communication savante0,0110,014
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,016
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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
GenreAutre

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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueNotes and QueriesMême sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207