MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963546990 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2001.0037

Frances Sheridan Reads John Home: Placing Sidney Bidulph in the Republic of Letters

2001· article· en· W1963546990 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

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Public sphereCitizenshipPower (physics)PublicityHistorySociologyLawLiteratureClassicsPoliticsPhilosophyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frances Sheridan Reads John Home: Placing Sidney Bidulph in the Republic of Letters Betty A. Schellenberg In his article on "Gender and the Public/Private Distinction in the Eighteenth Century," Lawrence E. Klein questions the "domestic thesis" put forwardby many feministhistories ofthe eighteenth century, athesis which employs the two binary oppositions of male/female and public/private to account for "the persistent exclusion of women from public roles, power, and citizenship." Klein notes that this model fails to take into account evidence that "even when theory was against them, women of the eighteenth century had [conscious] public dimensions to their lives." He goes on to suggest that such public dimensions are made conceptually possible by the multiple sets of distinctions from which individual identities are constructed, and that "a more precise account ofgender in relation to publicity and privacy can be achievedby closer examination ofboth space and language."1 Klein's critique seems to me particularly appropriate for studies of women novelists participating in the literary marketplace of the mideighteenth century, which have tended to begin with the assumption that, as 1 Lawrence E. Klein, "Gender and the Public/Private Distinction in the Eighteenth Century: Some Questions about Evidence and Analytic Procedure," Eighteenth-Century Studies 29 (1995), 97, 102. EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION, Volume 13, Number 4, July 2001 562 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION Kathryn Shevelow has put it, these writers were permitted to enter the public sphere of letters only to reinforce the figure of "the domestic woman, constructed in a relation of difference to men, a difference of kind rather than degree."2 In the example I will focus on here, the brief publishing career of Frances Sheridan has appeared an easy fit within a "private" and "feminized" tradition of the domestic and sentimental. After all, Sheridan is now known primarily for her novel The Memoirs of Miss Sidney Bidulph (1761), dedicated to Samuel Richardson as "the author of Clarissa and sir charles grandison," in tribute to "exemplary Goodness and distinguished Genius ... found united in One Person." Furthermore, Richardson actively encouraged Sheridan as a writer, and appears to have played some role in bringing this novel into print.3 Thus Janet Todd writes of Sheridan as one of the mid-century's "modest muses," fashioning her literary ambitions according to the constraints of a gendered ideology of public and private spheres, creating "not simply writing butfeminine writing." Margaret Anne Doody describes Sheridan as "a not unworthy follower of Richardson," whose probing of Richardson's fictions produces what "are feminine insights, or at least in the eighteenth century could have been expressed only by a female writer ... only by a sensibility with a deep knowledge of the meaning of powerlessness, and of lack of control over fate." Even Jean Coates Cleary's excellent introduction to Sidney Bidulph places the book in the tradition of the "conduct novel—inspired by Richardson, dedicated to him ... published as he was dying," and bearing "the Richardsonian legacy into the second half ofthe eighteenth century."4 If, however, following Klein, one pays closer attention to space— by which I mean the professional communities within which Sheridan moved—and language—the gestures of professional, political, and moral alignment or dissociation that she makes in her novel and in her correspondence—a picture emerges of a woman whose self-identification as a writer included not only domestic and moral, but also public and political ambitions. By particularizing a number of Sheridan's professional 2 Kathryn Shevelow, Women and Print Culture: The Construction of Femininity in the Early Periodical (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 5. 3 For a recent account ofRichardson's encouragement of Sheridan's early fiction-writing efforts, see Jean Coates Cleary's introduction to Memoirs ofMiss Sidney Bidulph (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. ix-xi. References are to this edition. 4 Janet Todd, The Sign ofAngelika: Women, Writing, and Fiction 1660-1800 (New York: Columbia, 1989), p. 125; Margaret Anne Doody, "Frances Sheridan: Morality and Annihilated Time," Fetter'd or Free: British Women Novelists, 1670-1815, ed. Mary Anne Schofield and Cecilia Macheski (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1986), pp. 327, 343, 356; Cleary, pp. xvi-xvii. FRANCES SHERIDAN'S SIDNEY BIDULPH 563 associations, as well as...

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.188 · 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