MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596295696 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2008.0033

From Pygmalion to Persephone: Love, Art, Myth in Thomas Hardy’s The Well-Beloved

2008· article· en· W1596295696 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSculptureArtPaintingMythologyUncannyArt historyFrescoApolloThe artsRoman artLiteratureVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

219 From Pygmalion to Persephone: Love,Art, Myth inThomas Hardy’s The Well-Beloved Patr icia Pu lh a m • In 1887, Thomas Hardy visited Rome as part of a tour of Italy and, in a letter to Edmund Gosse dated 31 March 1887, wrote, “I am so overpowered by the presence of decay in Ancient Rome that I feel it like a nightmare in my sleep” (Letters I: 163). His comment expresses an unease famously shared by George Eliot’s Dorothea, who, exposed for the first time to the city’s “ruins and basilicas, palaces and colossi,” to the “long vistas of white forms whose marble eyes seemed to hold the monotonous light of an alien world,” feels the “weight of unintelligible Rome” pressing upon her senses (Eliot 225). Dorothea’s discomfort is caused, in part, by the uncanny presence of Rome’s sculptural bodies, and it is interesting to note that when in Rome, Hardy, whose love of the visual arts expressed itself primarily in a“passionate interest in the art of painting” (Bullen 15), begins to focus on statuary. In his discussion of the Hardys’ Italian tour, J. B. Bullen observes that“classical sculpture seems to have featured more prominently in this part of their journey” (26).We learn that Hardy visited theVatican “to see the collection of marbles”; went to the Capitoline Museum;“bought five photographs of sculptural subjects, including the Belvedere Apollo, a Faustina, and a Juno”; and “may also have bought … two busts—one of Caesar, the other ofVenus de Milo—which stood for many years in his study at Max Gate” (Bullen 26). Hardy’s own artistic responses to Rome and its sculptural bodies are recorded in poetic form in“Rome:TheVatican: Sala delle Muse,” written in 1887 and later published in Poems of the Past and Present (1902): I SAT in the Muses’ Hall at the mid of the day, And it seemed to grow still, and the people to pass away, And the chiselled shapes to combine in a haze of the sun, Till beside a Carrara column there gleamed forth One. She looked not this nor that of those beings divine, But each and the whole—an essence of all the Nine; With tentative foot she neared to my halting-place, A pensive smile on her sweet, small, marvellous face. victorian review • Volume 34 Number 2 220 “Regarded so long, we render thee sad?” said she. “Not you,” sighed I,“but my own inconstancy! I worship each and each; in the morning one, And then, alas! another at sink of sun. “To-day my soul clasps Form; but where is my troth Of yesternight withTune: can one cleave to both?” —“Be not perturbed,” said she.“Though apart in fame, As I and my sisters are one, those, too, are the same.” —“But my love goes further—to Story, and Dance, and Hymn, The lover of all in a sun-sweep is fool to whim— Is swayed like a river-weed as the ripples run! —“Nay, wooer, thou sway’st not.These are but phases of one; “And that one is I; and I am projected from thee, One that out of thy brain and heart thou causest to be— Extern to thee nothing. Grieve not, nor thyself becall, Woo where thou wilt; and rejoice thou canst love at all!” (Hardy, Selected Poetry 207) The poem introduces a number of themes that are later developed in The Pursuit of the Well-Beloved (1892) and The Well-Beloved (1897): love, art, and mythology.1 As Norman Page remarks, the argument posited in the poem functions as “an aesthetic counterpart” to The Well-Beloved “in which the hero’s quest for an erotic or romantic ideal finds temporary fulfilment in a series of separate embodiments” (44). Indeed, Hardy’s protagonist, Jocelyn Pierston,2 like the speaker in his poem, visits Rome and spends an afternoon “among the busts in the long gallery of theVatican” (TheWell-Beloved 284), and the speaker’s claim: “I worship each and each; in the morning one, / And then, alas! another at sink of sun” encapsulates Pierston’s relationship with women in the novel. Discussing the complex nature of...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it