Bibliographic record
Abstract
YES, 34, 2004 YES, 34, 2004 fraughtwith pitfalls.In response, Burwickoffersus the possibilityof a more inclusive , comprehensivedefinition of 'imitation'within a Romantic context, one which includes the mind's own workings: 'The rise of individualism, a major factor in the political turmoil of the age, was also manifest in the literaryexploration of the individual consciousness and the individual experience. The paradox, of course, was that the very self-assessmentcrucial to the social changes then taking place would be appraisedby criticsof subsequentgenerations as self-indulgentescapism' (p.Io). By widening the scope of Romantic mimesis from 'what' the mind beholds, to 'how' it beholds, Burwick opens up a groundbreaking,comparative discussion of how the post-KantianGermanphilosopherswere influentialin the constructionof a BritishRomantic aesthetic. The first three chapters examine the ideas of I'art pour I'art(goingback to the cross-culturalfirstuse of the phrase in 1804),idemetalter(difference as an essential markerof the artist'stransformingactivity),and palingenesis of mind as art respectively.Burwick'sdirectengagementwith the firsttexts in which Schleiermacher, Schelling, Hegel, Coleridge, and De Quincey articulated their thoughtsis particularlyrefreshing,and it drawsattentionto the dangersof reductive readingin laterinterpretations.The finalthree chaptersofferfurtherexplorationsof the persistentpresence of mimesis as a major issue in Romantic texts. Chapter 4 focuseson ekphrasis,on how the mimetic processitselfcan be the object of mimesis, illustratedby an exceptionallypenetratingreading of De Quincey's 'Dream Fugue' in TheEnglish Mail Coach. Chapter 5 casts new light on Coleridge and Wordsworth by an emphasis on how 'optical reflection [...] is a model for visual perception as well as an analogue of mental reflection'(p. 148).The final chapter explores 'three novels of the romantic period which develop their irony through a structuralbifurcation that exposes the mimetic pretense of the storytelling'(exemplifiedin Charles BrockdenBrown'sArthur Mervyn, E. T. A. Hoffmann'sKater Murr,andJames Hogg's Confessions ofa JustifiedSinner). However troubled, tormented, or neurotic the Romantics' engagement with the whole idea of mimesis might have been at times, they did make a convincing aestheticout of the mimeticpredicament.Burwickputs it splendidly:'Ifoccasionally in a perverse pique or an ironic gesture they attempted to shatter one mirror or the other, it was only with the result that every splinter remained to catch new reflections'(p. i5). A warmly recommended study. VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OFWELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND HEIDITHOMSON Romanticismand the Materiality of Nature. By ONNO OERLEMANS. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press. 2002. vii + 253 pp. $45; f28. ISBN: 0-8020-4863-3. Given the title and the topic of this book, the assertion that 'romanticism is an important origin for environmentalist thought' should probably come as no surprise. That does not make it accurate. Possibly, indeed probably, for some readers Romantic literatureis the origin of their 'stronginterest'in descriptionsof the externalworld and even perhapstheir 'environmentalistthought', but let us not make the mistake of thinking such interest sprang into being in the Romantic period. More than enough has been writtenabout medieval landscapesand Renaissance forests to correct such misapprehension.What ecocriticism does, and here Onno Oerlemans's book is on sounder ground, is to offer a newer, more rigorous fraughtwith pitfalls.In response, Burwickoffersus the possibilityof a more inclusive , comprehensivedefinition of 'imitation'within a Romantic context, one which includes the mind's own workings: 'The rise of individualism, a major factor in the political turmoil of the age, was also manifest in the literaryexploration of the individual consciousness and the individual experience. The paradox, of course, was that the very self-assessmentcrucial to the social changes then taking place would be appraisedby criticsof subsequentgenerations as self-indulgentescapism' (p.Io). By widening the scope of Romantic mimesis from 'what' the mind beholds, to 'how' it beholds, Burwick opens up a groundbreaking,comparative discussion of how the post-KantianGermanphilosopherswere influentialin the constructionof a BritishRomantic aesthetic. The first three chapters examine the ideas of I'art pour I'art(goingback to the cross-culturalfirstuse of the phrase in 1804),idemetalter(difference as an essential markerof the artist'stransformingactivity),and palingenesis of mind as art respectively.Burwick'sdirectengagementwith the firsttexts in which Schleiermacher, Schelling, Hegel, Coleridge, and De Quincey articulated their thoughtsis particularlyrefreshing,and it drawsattentionto the dangersof reductive readingin laterinterpretations.The finalthree chaptersofferfurtherexplorationsof the persistentpresence of mimesis as a major issue in Romantic texts. Chapter...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".