MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086431135 · doi:10.1353/ecf.2000.0059

Impotent Fathers: Patriarchy and Demographic Crisis in the Eighteenth-Century Novel (review)

2000· article· en· W2086431135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Staves

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyPower (physics)EstateHistorySociologyCriticismLiteratureLawGender studiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

108 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION 13:1 To construct a picture of "Georgian libertinism" almost entirely out of Fielding's works and twentieth-century criticism of them seems to me profoundly misguided methodology. Robert D. Hume Pennsylvania State University Brian McCrea. Impotent Fathers: Patriarchy and Demographic Crisis in the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Newark: University of Delaware Press; London: Associated University Presses, 1998. 242pp. US$39.50. ISBN 0-87413-656-3. Brian McCrea's readings of a set of now-canonical eighteenth-century novels constitute part of a useful collégial dialogue with recent feminist critics. After opening with consideration of Don Quixote and Paradise Lost, McCrea looks at Moll Flanders, Roxana, The Female Quixote, Tom Jones, Roderick Random, Clarissa, Evelina, and A Simple Story, frequently disagreeing, politely, with Patricia Meyer Spacks, Margaret Anne Doody, Terry Castle, and Eleanor Ty, among others. He is concerned that feminist readings have unduly totalized "patriarchy" and he seeks to present a more historicized understanding of the vagaries of patriarchy in the eighteenth century, particularly as they affected the novel. He is struck by the fact that many of the characters who seem to represent patriarchal power in novels have troubles and worries of their own that make them weak and incapable of exerting power or unwilling to do so. Having read recent social history about the "demographic crisis" in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries , he is also struck by the many novelistic plots featuring families in which there is no son to inherit father's estate. In contrast to feminist critics who have stressed patriarchal power as oppressive to daughters (and wives), McCrea finds the impetus of the eighteenth-century novel in "the absence rather than the presence of patriarchal authority" (p. 18). Patriarchs lacking biological sons are tempted to experiment with fictive filiations, as in Burney's Cecilia, where Cecilia Beverley 's uncle famously writes a will making her his heiress, but requiring any future husband who wishes to enjoy her inheritance to take the Beverley name. McCrea has a thorough familiarity with the canonical novels and offers more detailed close reading than many recent critics; his attention to male characters he thinks feminist critics have tended to overlook is valuable, especially his attention to Lord M. in Clarissa, Sir John Belmont in Evelina, and Dorriforth in A Simple Story. For instance, he points out that despite Evelina's obeisance to Sir John in the recognition scene, Sir John is not able to derivejoy from the discovery of his child or even to endure her presence, being "wounded rather than healed by events" (p. 150) and anxious to secure the marriage and acceptance of his "fictive daughter," Polly Green. Evelina McCrea reads as recognizing both biological and fictive kinship, as Evelina honours both her foster-father, Mr Villars, and her biological REVIEWS 109 father, Sir John, and recognizes her fictive sister, Polly. A Simple Story, in contrast, McCrea sees as dedicated to revealing "the cost ofthose 'pious fictions' ofkinship practiced by the eighteenth-century elite" (p. 17 1), as Dorriforth becomes a victim when he has to give up his priestly vocation and his name in order to become Lord Elmwood. Similarly, in The Female Quixote, McCrea looks closely at Glanville to argue that in his "peculiar status ... Lennox complicates any attempt to place a patriarch at the novel's center" (p. 155). He rightly emphasizes Glanville's willingness to enter (partially) into Arabella's "sign system" and Glanville's reservations about older patriarchal duelling codes, generally finding the marriage of Arabella and Glanville more euphoric than recent feminist critics have. Although generally interested in the instability of signs, McCrea here I think misses the richness and subtlety of Lennox's comedy, which poignantly shows us moment after moment when Glanville's language of realistic "common sense" misses truths for which Arabella's romance language has words. For example, when Arabella speaks to the "prostitute" at Vauxhall, a young girl who is being sadistically terrorizedby a naval officer and scoffed at by the crowd, only Arabella can see her fear, her "Woe," and that she is, indeed, an "Unfortunate." That in her marriage to Glanville Arabella will be able to "'use...

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207