MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W323987688 · doi:10.1353/srm.2012.0006

Spheres of Action: Speech and Performance in Romantic Culture by Alexander Dick, Angela Esterhammer

2012· article· en· W323987688 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.

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

VenueStudies in Romanticism · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceIdeologyRomanceAestheticsSociologyAction (physics)RomanticismPower (physics)Agency (philosophy)Subject (documents)RealmFantasyLiteratureLawArtPoliticsSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

612 BOOK REVIEWS Alexander Dick and Angela Esterhammer, eds. Spheres ofAction: Speech and Performance in Romantic Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Pp. 306. $65. This lively and varied collection of essays sets itself the task of “liberating the tongue of Romanticism,” a project that seeks to drive another stake through the heart of the so-called “Romantic ideology” that privileges mind over matter, thought over action, and the private over the public realm. In fact, as the volume’s subtitle indicates, the interests of the con­ tributors range much more widely than the recovery of the spoken voice, opening onto a broader field of performance that encompasses theatrical, parliamentary, legal, and sporting contexts. Studying performance in any of these arenas at the remove of two hundred years clearly poses formidable methodological problems, which some ofthe contributors make a main fo­ cus oftheir essays. All are interested in the potential offered by the category of the performative to reassert the importance ofsubjectivity and moral re­ sponsibility, and to rebalance the material and the abstract, in Romantic studies: individual bodies perform consequential acts in real situations, after all, but they do so within limits and constraints, whether those take the form ofphysical spaces, institutional codes, or ideological pressures. In their various efforts to grasp or probe the limits of human action, Dick and Esterhammer argue in their introduction, the Romantics anticipated the distinctly postmodern preoccupation with “the tension between the sover­ eign subject’s fantasy of agency and the power diffused within social dis­ course.” To some extent, therefore, the editors share the desire implicit in several recent studies to emphasize not so much the historical difference of Romantic culture, as its uncanny similarity to the way we live, think, and communicate now. The essays in Spheres ofAction are divided into two sections, on “Public Speaking” and “Body Language,” an unstable binary, as the editors admit, and one that gives only a loose idea of the actual content of the individual pieces. The volume begins strongly with Judith Thompson’s essay on “John Thelwall and the Science and Practice of Elocution.” I am not sure that I wholly agree with Thompson’s view ofthe “bias against speech” that she attributes to both Romantic writers and their modern critics: Words­ worth, after all, characterized the poet as a “man speaking to men,” and Shelley defined poetry as harmonious sounds echoing an eternal music, and critics have not been backward in dissecting this poetics of orality/aurality. Nevertheless, Thompson sheds fascinating light on the interplay between Thelwall’s thirty years’ work as an elocutionist and speech therapist and his literary and political activities. In the absence of transcripts ofhis elocution­ ary lectures, she focuses on his 1794 lecture on spies and informers (aspects SiR, 51 (Winter 2012) BOOK REVIEWS 613 of the delivery ofwhich are signified in transcription by different fonts and so forth), which she interprets not as flashy demagoguery but as a sophisti­ cated performance aimed at persuading his audience to see themselves as more than a passive rabble. Just as Thelwall’s physiological understanding of speech and speech defects emphasized the importance of sympathetic cooperation between different parts of the body, so his oratorical technique encouraged listeners to “recognize different parts or movements of their own characters (indignation and steadiness, invective and reason) and to balance them,” thus becoming fitter democratic subjects than their rulingclass oppressors. Whereas Thompson concentrates on delivery, Sarah M. Zimmerman, in “Coleridge the Lecturer, A Disappearing Act,” is more interested in the physical spaces in which Coleridge made his name as a public lecturer. In­ spired by Humphry Davy’s success in shaking offhis early associations with provincial radicalism and establishing himself in London as a professor of chemistry and celebrity speaker, Coleridge too sought to put his radical years in Bristol behind him and reinvent himselfwith his lectures on litera­ ture at the Royal Institution, where the arts were valued alongside science and technology because they helped to attract well-to-do patrons. Cole­ ridge found the beautiful semicircular lecture theater the ideal setting for his new role, his only concern being the possible association of lectures with popular entertainment, an anxiety compounded by...

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.222 · 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