MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129631443 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2020.0061

The Tenniel Illustrations to the “Alice” Books by Michael Hancher

2020· article· en· W3129631443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanna Karlgaard

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlice (programming language)AdventurePublishingArt historyScholarshipHistoryClassicsArtLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Tenniel Illustrations to the “Alice” Books by Michael Hancher Joanna Karlgaard (bio) Michael Hancher, The Tenniel Illustrations to the “Alice” Books, 2nd ed. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2019), pp. ix + 260, $54.95 hardcover. Michael Hancher’s The Tenniel Illustrations to the “Alice” Books provides a detailed examination of John Tenniel’s engaging illustrations to Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass (1871). The author’s close study of these iconic and much beloved visualizations of the Alice story, published and reprinted in many editions, reconstructs important elements of their creation and examines the publishing practices that enabled them to be so broadly circulated. The first edition of Hancher’s book, published in 1985, was reviewed by Morton N. Cohen in this journal (VPR 21.1 [1988]: 35–37). In this second edition the original chapters have been updated and expanded, incorporating new scholarship on Tenniel and Carroll along with archival source material that was not previously included. This material most notably comprises the original wood blocks of the Tenniel illustrations engraved by the Dalziel brothers, rediscovered in a London bank vault in 1985 just as the first edition was being published; electrotypes from the archives of Macmillan Publishing; and significant caches of wood-engraved proofs, many annotated by Tenniel. Hancher addresses the significance of the Alice books along with the intertwined reputations of their author and illustrator: “For a mix of reasons, Lewis Carroll, like Alice herself, has become a creature of popular legend. And yet Tenniel’s own contribution to the books is probably as well-known as Carroll’s—perhaps more widely known, for there must be thousands of persons (children and adults alike) who are familiar with reproductions of some of the illustrations, despite never having actually read the text. In a ghostly way, Tenniel retains something of his original precedence over Carroll” (2). With this precedence in mind, Hancher traces the evolution of Tenniel’s illustrations for the Alice books. Hancher offers a critical assessment of Tenniel as an illustrator and examines his prolific output as chief cartoonist for Punch as well as other illustrative work. Hancher finds that “his drawings, including his illustrations for the Alice [End Page 639] books, tended to conserve and renew the imagery of the recent and notso-recent past” (9). Early chapters explore Tenniel’s visual language, the replication of imagery from his own designs for Punch (for example, John Bull becomes Tweedledum and Tweedledee), and the influence of Carroll’s original illustrations to Alice’s Adventures under Ground in his 1864 hand-lettered and illuminated gift manuscript to Alice Liddell. Hancher concludes that “it is very likely that Tenniel did see the Carroll illustrations, and furthermore, that they helped shape his drawings for the book” (39). Exploration of Tenniel’s appropriation of imagery from contemporary artists, such as John Leech, John Everett Millais, George Du Maurier, and Augustus Leopold Egg, as well as old masters, including Quinten Massys, Albrecht Dürer, and Salvator Rosa, further documents his ability to layer and combine source material. Hancher’s observations are astute, bringing together a range of visual borrowings. His inquiry would benefit from comparing Tenniel’s appropriations with the works of other illustrators of the 1860s who similarly made clever use of assimilated source material. Further contextualizing this practice would help to deepen understanding of the richness and complexities of Victorian discourses on copying and imitation in the visual arts. Readers of Victorian Periodicals Review will find of special interest six new chapters in this edition that provide a larger framework for understanding the development and materiality of the Alice illustrations. Focusing on technical processes and archival evidence, these chapters address the transformation of Tenniel’s drawings to printed images through the wood-engraving process; the production of electrotype copies of the wood blocks; the commercial printing of the illustrations and related problems; coloring of the illustrations, including Tenniel’s selection of colors for the Alice illustrations in 1890 as well as Fritz Kredel’s in 1946; practices of re-engraving, such as the creation of entirely new wood blocks by Bruno Rollitz in 1932; and an assessment...

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1430.079

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207