MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Fin-de-Si?cle Scottish Revival: Romance, Decadence and Celtic Identity, by Michael Shaw

2022· article· en· W4365807986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cairns Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecadenceCeltic languagesIdentity (music)Fin de siecleRomanceScotsPoetryHistoryEscapismLiteratureArt historyArtPhilosophyAncient historyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Fin-de-Siècle Scottish Revival: Romance, Decadence and Celtic Identity by Michael Shaw Cairns Craig (bio) The Fin-de-Siècle Scottish Revival: Romance, Decadence and Celtic Identity, by Michael Shaw; pp. xi + 300. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020, $110.00, $29.95 paper. Scottish literary history has long been perplexed about how to deal with the late nineteenth century. Its major figures, such as J. M. Barrie, made their careers in London, often with works that seemed to condescend to their Scottish origins; or, like Robert Louis Stevenson, they recalled Scottish scenes nostalgically from half a world away. Scots may have been at the forefront of the nineteenth century's new disciplines, such as psychology (Alexander Bain) and anthropology (J. G. Frazer), but in the arts, so the argument goes, Scotland, one of the most industrialized and urbanized countries in the world, "twisted its head back to front—its poetry always looking to [Robert] Burns and a dead language, in prose to [Walter] Scott and a past society" (T. C. Smout, A History of the Scottish People 1560–1830 [Collins, 1970], 469). In The Fin-de-Siècle Scottish Revival: Romance, Decadence and Celtic Identity, a study of late-nineteenth-century Scottish art, Michael Shaw aims to challenge such judgments by showing how responsive Scottish artists were to recent international developments. Thus "romance" in the work of Stevenson or Arthur Conan Doyle is not escapism but rather part of the European revolt against realism. Equally, awareness of Decadence and degeneration are not mere imitations of Parisian fashions but symptoms of the decay of an industrial civilization that needed to be challenged by a spiritual art of the kind pioneered by Maurice Maeterlinck and the "Young Belgium" movement (6). According to Shaw, the arts in Scotland in the 1890s owe more to the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt—the mythic origin of the first inhabitants of Scotland—or to styles deriving from Japan, with which many Scots were trading, than to Burns or Scott. And when the influences were Scottish, they came primarily from older sources in Celtic myth and legend, whether the heroes of Ossianic poetry or legendary figures, like St. Bride, associated with the early Celtic Church. Scottish artists could also lay claim to Arthurian legend, on the basis that the tales of King Arthur had been produced in Scotland when Welsh was the language of its southern counties. All of this amounted to an effective re-Celticizing of Scotland in defiance of those Victorians, like Thomas Carlyle and Robert Knox, who had presented Scottish culture as fatally split between the racial characteristics of Celts and of Anglo-Saxons. This renewed Celticism allowed Scottish writers, such as "Fiona Macleod" (William Sharp), and Scottish artists and designers, such as John Duncan, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, and Phoebe Anna Traquair, to develop their art as contributions to a distinctively national project aimed at resisting what they viewed as the failed culture of British utilitarian industrialism. The central figure in Shaw's account, however, is neither a novelist nor an artist, but rather the biologist, sociologist, town planner, and publisher Patrick Geddes. Geddes's Evergreen journal of 1895–6 not only published work by many of the leading writers and artists of this renewed Celticism, but gave it a name, the "Scots Renascence," and an ideology (qtd. in Shaw 17). The notion of something dormant springing back to life was no metaphor to Geddes. He had come to maturity in the early years of the theory of evolution, and the various forms of the transmission of life had been the focus of his first book, coauthored with John Arthur Thomson, The Evolution of Sex (1889). Geddes and Thomson believed that Charles Darwin was mistaken in his account of evolution, because he had emphasized struggle and competition over care and cooperation. As biological structures became more complex, they argued, survival depended on sustained care, and [End Page 159] as social structures became more complex, they could maintain themselves only through cooperative mutuality. Geddes saw in the communal forms of traditional Celtic culture not a residue of the past but a model for the future, and in its adaptation to its...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian StudiesSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207