MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592745607 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2015.0022

Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell

2015· article· en· W2592745607 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Finnigan

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanticismArt historyPortraitArtLiteratureModernism (music)History of literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell Robert Finnigan (bio) Oscar Wilde’s Chatterton: Literary History, Romanticism, and the Art of Forgery by Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell; pp. 560. New Haven: Yale UP, 2015. $50 cloth. In their new study of Oscar Wilde’s fascination with Thomas Chatterton, Joseph Bristow and Rebecca N. Mitchell challenge the accusations of plagiarism that have, until now, plagued Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook. Bristow and Mitchell contend that “the ‘Chatterton’ notebook inspired many of the remarkable shifts that took place during the mid and late 1880s in Wilde’s [End Page 206] evolving emergence as a major fin-de-siècle author” (21). They add that “In the decades following Wilde’s untimely death, Chatterton continued to inspire other artists, particularly young poets, who regularly honoured the ‘marvellous Boy’ in verse, as generations before them had” (29). As in Oscar Wilde and Ancient Greece (2012), in which Iain Ross examines “fragmentary notes and jottings from [Wilde’s] Trinity and Oxford years” (6), much of the insight in and pleasure of this book comes from its thorough research, with examples taken from art, literature, and the periodical press providing a number of interesting comparisons and connections. As Bristow and Mitchell draw on Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook and archival materials, along with “The Portrait of Mr. W.H.,” “Pen, Pencil and Poison,” and “The Decay of Lying,” this study establishes “a fuller picture of Wilde’s detailed engagement with Chatterton than has previously been possible” (30). Bristow and Mitchell make good use of anecdotal and biographical materials relating to both Chatterton and Wilde, and convincingly argue that in Chatterton’s Rowley poems, Wilde found a “consummate art that strove to invent, not imitate, reality” (303). In early chapters, the authors discuss the cultural and historical myths that surrounded Chatterton. Beginning with an overview of his life, the Rowley controversy, and his “tragic self-murder” (2), Bristow and Mitchell dissect David Masson’s Chatterton: A Story of the Year (1770) and Daniel Wilson’s Chatterton: A Biographical Study (1869) before considering Henry Wallis’s painting The Death of Chatterton (1856). The authors then turn their attention to the charges of plagiarism aimed at Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook and his identification of Chatterton as the “father of the Romantic Movement in literature” (19). In these chapters, Bristow and Mitchell show how attitudes toward Chatterton were changing by the mid-1880s, the period in which Wilde began to compile his notebook and delivered his now-lost lecture on Chatterton at the Birkbeck Library and Scientific Institution. Wilde’s devotion to and paradoxical position on art is well known, and Bristow and Mitchell illustrate that Wilde explored the idea that “fine art might arise from criminal instincts” (27) before arguing that “untruths and weaving deceptive fiction” (27) constitute the highest form of creativity. The chapters that focus on Wilde’s criticism, shorter fiction, and concept of forgery are perhaps the strongest and most enjoyable as they show how Chatterton’s influence remains visible in Wilde’s later works. Wilde chose Thomas Griffiths Wainwright, a murderer and an accomplished art critic, as the subject of “Pen, Pencil and Poison,” and the authors argue that the connection between this piece and his “Chatterton” notebook is that “the subjects of both works were forgers, executing different varieties of such deceit for similar ends” (217). Bristow and Mitchell also argue that elements of Wilde’s “Chatterton” notebook are visible in “The Decay of Lying,” as both connect “the artistry of the lie” with the notion “of lying for the sake of art” (233). This, the authors demonstrate, informs Wilde’s position on great art [End Page 207] as emerging from “representational deceptions” (234). Bristow and Mitchell explore the notion of forgery further in their chapter devoted to “The Portrait of Mr. W.H.,” Wilde’s tale of the suicide and suspected suicide of two men connected to a faked portrait of the youth addressed in William Shakespeare’s sonnets. In this, the most complex and focused chapter of the book, they concentrate on literary forgers and critics such...

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207