MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053110476 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2004.0009

Defining Masculinity in A Simple Story

2004· article· en· W2053110476 on OpenAlex
Caroline Breashears

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHEROAdventureCharacter (mathematics)Art historyReprintSimple (philosophy)MasculinityClassicsLiteratureHistoryArtPhilosophyPsychoanalysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining Masculinity in A Simple Story Caroline Breashears When A SimpleStory appeared in 1791, reviewers had no trouble identifying its moral—that women should be given "APROPER EDUCATION"—or its key interest, the priestwho inherits an earldom.' The CriticalReview names Lord Elmwood as the "one hero," while die Analytical Review notes that the reader is never "at a loss to say which is the hero of the tale."2 That hero clearly intrigued them: "Her character, the Roman Catholic lord, is perfecdy new; and she has conducted him, dirough a series of surprising and well-contrasted adventures, with a uniformity of character and truth of description that have rarelybeen surpassed," the Gentleman'sMagazineenthuses.3 The Monthly Review likewise focused on Elmwood in its summary: "To give a picture ofLord Elmwood, in all these trying circumstances, as 1 Elizabeth Inchbald, A SimpleSlory (1791; reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 338. References are to this edition. During its long gestation, this article benefited from the thoughtful comments of several colleagues. I would particularly like to thankJohn O'Brien, Terry Belanger, Cynthia Wall, Patricia Meyer Spacks, and Sarah Gates for their advice and support. 2 Anon., review ofA SimpleSlory, Critical Review2nd ser., 1 (1791), 207; Mary Wollstonecraft, review of A Simple Story, Analytical Review (May 1791), in Tlte Works, ed. Janet Todd and Marilyn Buder, vol. 7 (NewYork: NewYork University Press, 1989), 370. 3 Anon., review ofA SimpleSlory, Gentleman's Magazine &3 (1791), 255. EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION, Volume 16, Number 3, April 2004 452 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION well in his conduct to his wife, who had dishonoured him, as to die daughter, who was his issue by that wife, is the main design of Mrs. Inchbald's Simple Story."4 These views ofLord Elmwood's character and centrality are rarely echoed today. Most modern readers have found him of secondary interest to Miss Milner and Matilda, whose transgressions and power struggles with Lord Elmwood have been intricately debated.5 Lord Elmwood fares poorly in these discussions, where he is often arraigned as the embodiment of patriarchal injustice.6 A notable exception is Brian McCrea's thoughtful reading ofDorriforth as "the victim of the requirements ofpatrilinear succession," a reading that returns the focus to the hero.7 For most recent readers, however, Lord Elmwood lacks the consistency and compelling interest—even sexiness—that contemporaries found. Certainly few have exclaimed, with Maria Edgeworth, "I am glad I have never metwidi a Dorriforth, for I must inevitably have fallen desperately in love with him."8 Yet to understand die response ofElizabedi Inchbald's first readers mightbe to understand somediing about diis novel and its culture. What made Lord Elmwood not only acceptable but intriguing? What cultural and aesthetic norms or issues might he have evoked in die 1790s? One answer is suggested by recent studies ofmasculinity, a concept in transition in Georgian England. As GJ. Barker-Benfield, Tim Fulford, and others have shown, many eighteenth-century writers were attempting to negotiate a masculine ideal that steered between 4 Anon., review of? SimpleSlory, Monthly Review ìnd ser., 4 (January-April 1791), 436. 5 This debate is evident in the works of, for example, Terry Castle, Masqueradeand Civilization: Tlte Camivalesque in Eighteenth-Century English Culture and Fiction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986), Patricia MeyerSpacks, Desireand Truth: Functions ofPlot in EigliteenthCenturyEnglish Novels (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1990), and EleanorTy, Unsex'd Revolutionaries:Five Women Novelists oftlte 1790s (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1993). 6 See, for example, George E. Haggerty, "Female Abjection in Inchbald's A SimpleStory," SEL 36 (1996), 655-71; Ben P. Robertson, "The Male Self Redefined: Education and the Feminized Man in the Marquis de Sade'sJustine and Elizabeth Inchbald's A Simple Story," University of Tulsa Graduate Review [online journal], 3 (2001). Available from www.utulsa.edu/tugr/Sadelnchbald.htm; INTERNET (accessed 29January 2004). 7 Brian McCrea, Impotent Fathers: PatriarchyandDemographic Crisis in tlteEigliteentli-CenturyNovel (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1998), p. 171. McCrea's argument illuminates Elmwood's difficulties in relation to personal notions ofhonour and "demographic crisis." McCrea's focus on patriarchy, however, precludes him from situating Elmwood within the culture ofsensibility and the larger debate about masculinity that I consider. 8 Maria Edgeworth, letter...

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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