Angl-Am - User contributions [en]

Talk:Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Lecture Course: Tutorials

2009-04-25T07:20:07Z

Hannah Treffert:

Und Daniel, wie ist es gelaufen und was genau hast du gemacht? [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

== Links ==

Hier die Pdfs falls Du sie benötigst. Sie liegen auch als Kopien im Raum:

[http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/1993_metzler_eng_literaturgeschichte.PDF 1993_metzler_eng_literaturgeschichte]

[http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/1999_sanders_the_short_oxford_history_of_eng_lit.PDF 1999_sanders_the_short_oxford_history_of_eng_lit]

[http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/2000_alexander_a_history_of_eng_lit.PDF 2000_alexander_a_history_of_eng_lit]

[http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/2002_peck_coyle_a_brief_hist_of_eng_lit.PDF 2002_peck_coyle_a_brief_hist_of_eng_lit]

[http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/1990_rogers_the_oxford_ill_hist_of_eng_lit.PDF 1990_rogers_the_oxford_ill_hist_of_eng_lit]

==Books==

Soll ich die Bücher am Montag wieder in der Bibo abgeben oder brauchen wir die noch? [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Lecture Course: Tutorials

2009-04-23T10:09:08Z

Hannah Treffert: New page: Und Daniel, wie ist es gelaufen und was genau hast du gemacht? ~~~~

Und Daniel, wie ist es gelaufen und was genau hast du gemacht? [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Lecture Course: Tutorials

2009-04-20T07:38:23Z

Hannah Treffert:

Die Tutorien finden ab 23.4.09 statt!

*Sören Koopmann, Fr 8-10 h,
*Sarina Lal, Fr 16-18 h, A6 0-001
*Daniel Síp, Do 8-10 h,
*[[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]], Mo 8-10 h, A7 0-025

Link für passwortgeschützte Downloads

http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/dateiname.pdf

Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Lecture Course: Tutorials

2009-04-07T14:16:36Z

Hannah Treffert:

Die Tutorien finden ab 23.4.09 statt!

*Sören Koopmann, Fr 8-10 h,
*Sarina Lal, Fr 16-18 h, A6 0-001
*Daniel Síp, Do 8-10 h,
*Hannah Treffert, Mo 8-10 h, A7 0-025

Link für passwortgeschützte Downloads

http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/dateiname.pdf

User:Hannah Treffert

2009-04-07T14:15:01Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutor for the [[2009 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2]]

My tutorial will take place on

Monday, 8-10am, A07 0-025

! Starting on the 27th of April !

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User:Hannah Treffert

2009-04-03T11:49:58Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutor for the [[2009 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2]]

My tutorial will take place on

Monday, 8-10am, A07 0-025 (Starting in the third or fourth week of term!)

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User:Hannah Treffert

2009-04-01T17:30:14Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutor for the [[2009 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 2]]

My tutorial will take place on

Monday, 8-10am, A07 0-025

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

IT support

2009-02-20T12:35:23Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Need */

==Computer, Drucker, Video Projector + Laptop etc. des Seminars==

*Betreuer am Seminar: [[User:John Alistair Kühne|John Alistair Kühne]]

===Ausleihe Geräte===

In der folgenden Tabelle bitte Bedarf anmelden (mit drei Tilden <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> unterzeichnen)

<center>
{| cellpadding=5 width=85%|
!bgcolor="#7DFFFF" valign="top" align="left"|Media/Whose?
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Literature (blue tag) NEC NP20 + Samsung
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Linguistics
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Didactics
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Cultural Studies
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Language Practice (red tag) NEC NP40 + Dell
|-
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Video Projector + Laptop
(one set each group)
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
====Need====

* Tue 10-12, Dec. 16, [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]]
* Tue 14-16 and 16-18h - every week [[User:Christina Meyer|Christina Meyer]]
* Wed 12-14, every week [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]]
* Wed 18-20, every week Cultural Studies
* Thu 08-10, Jan. 29, Room A01 0-004 [[User:Soerenk|Sören Koopmann]]
* Thu 12-14 and 14-16h - every week [[User:Christina Meyer|Christina Meyer]]
* Thu 16-18, Nov 13, [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]] 16:08, 6 November 2008 (CET)
* Fri 12-18, every week [[User:Annika McPherson|Annika McPherson]]
----
* '''Located:''' A6 2-211
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|

====Need====
Thursday 16-18h, 30.10./13.11./27.11./18.12./22.01.
[[User:Rebecca Carroll|Rebecca Carroll]]

Wednesdays 12-14h (starting Dec. 3)
[[User:Holger Limberg|Holger Limberg]]

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Ronald Geluykens|Ronald Geluykens]]
* '''Located:''' [[User:Cornelia Hamann|Cornelia Hamann]]
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
Thursday 16-18h, 30.10./13.11./27.11./18.12./22.01.

====Need====

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Wolfgang Gehring|Wolfgang Gehring]]
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|

====Need====

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Richard Stinshoff|Richard Stinshoff]]

|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
====Need====
* Tuesday 14-16, 2nd Dec. 2008, Kevin Carpenter
* Wednesdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
* Wednesdays 16-18, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
* Thursdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
*Wed Jan 21st, 18-19 [[User:Maike Engelhardt|Maike Engelhardt]] 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
----
* '''Located:''' 
A6 2-211

|-
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Video Projector set 2
(located in A6 2-211; 
black trolley; Acer Laptop; green tag)
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left" colspan="5"|

====Need====
*Monday 12-14, 05/01/2009, Florian Gubisch
*Tuesday 14-16, 2/9/16 December, Kirchhofer / Auguscik
*Tuesdays 16-18, winter 08/09, William Hathaway
*Wednesdays 12-14, winter 08/09, Cultural Studies, Annika McPherson
*Thursdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Kevin Carpenter + OHP
*Thursdays 12-14, winter 08/09, William Hathaway
*Fridays, 12-14, Maike Engelhardt

|}
</center>

== Inks and Toner in stock (last update: 28 May 2008) ==
You will find the mentioned cartridges in my office A6 2-211 - the key is in the top safe. Please let me know if you should need any assistance! Best wishes, John Alistair Kühne
==== '''HP inks (quantity)''' ====
'''Duncan''' 
88 black (1)

88 cyan (1)

88 magenta (1)

88 yellow (1)

'''Schwarzkopf and Meyer''' 
20 black (0) - will be ordered asap

49 tricolor (0) - will be ordered asap

'''Zagratzki''' 
26 black (1)

'''old stock''' 
29 black (2)

15 black (1)

78 tri-colour (1)

==== '''Canon inks (quantity)''' ====
'''Mclaughlin''' 
3e black (1)

6 black (1)

6 magenta (1)

6 yellow (1)

6 cyan (1)

'''Graydon''' 
40 black (0)

41 colour (0)

==== '''Toner HP and Kyocera (quantity)''' ====
'''Graydon, Köhring and Simons''' 
Kyocera TK-17 (2)

'''Geluykens, Ogiermann, Carpenter, Stinshoff, Engelhardt and Schönenberger''' 
Kyocera TK-18 (2)

'''Limberg''' 
HP 10A (0)

'''Gehring and Kirchhofer''' 
HP 12A (2)

'''Hamann''' 
HP 13X (1)

'''Leinweber''' 
HP 15X (0)

'''Seminar Kyocera FS-C5025N''' 
TK-510K (black) (1)

==This Wiki==

*[[Angl-Am:About|Verantwortliche]]
*[[Help talk:Contents|Hilfe durch die betreuenden Administratoren]]

__NOTOC__

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:26:24Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:
::[[2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1]], unter "Session Eight". -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:24:31Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:
::[[2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1]] unter Session Eight. -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:23:21Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:
::[[2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1]] unter Session 8. -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:20:36Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:

::unter Session 8. -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:20:22Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:
::http://wiki.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/index.php::
::unter Session 8. -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:BM7 - Introduction to Literary and Cultural Studies - Research Paper Outline

2009-02-17T14:19:51Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Student Questions==
*Ist es auch möglich eine Frage wie die Rolle des Schwans in P. Kavanaghs Sonnet zu behandeln?
::An sich kann man jede Fragestellung behandeln. Dabei muss klar werden, ob es von Interesse ist dies zu tun. Welche Relevanz hat die Frage für die Forschung? Was ist der Erkenntnisgewinn? Gibt es darüber eine öffentliche Diskussion? Sollte es eine geben? Und wollen Sie eine solche Diskussion ins Leben rufen?
::''Ein'' Symbol in ''einem'' Sonett scheint etwas eng gegriffen. Kommt der Schwan in Kavanaghs Dichtung öfter vor? Welche Funktion hat dieses "Symbol"? Gibt es andere Elemente deren symbolische Interpretation problematisiert wird? Womöglich dient das Nachdenken darüber, sich mit der weiterführenden Frage zu beschäftigen (Vergleich mit anderen Gedichten). -- [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

*Sollen wir denn auch eine Schlussfolgerung formulieren?
::Ohne einer Analyse, wird man keine Schlussfolgerung formulieren können. Wohl aber Hypothesen, die man mit der Fragestellung verbindet. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Muss die Bibliography von dem RPO auch das Format 4cm und 3cm Rand und 1,5 cm Zeilenabstand haben? Dann würde sie bei mir nämlich über zwei Seiten gehen.
::An einer gut recherchierten, relevanten Bibliographieliste soll es nicht liegen. Im Fall eines Zweifels, zögern Sie nicht die jeweiligen Lehrenden zu fragen. --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*Können wir für unser Research Paper auch "Learning to Curse" als Sekundärliteratur benutzen und wenn ja, wie sollen wir das in der Bibliographie angeben, da wir ja außer Titel und Autor keine Veröffentlichungsdaten haben?

::Ja, ihr könnt "Learning to Curse" für euer RPO verwenden. Alle Angaben für die Bibliographie findest du hier:
::http://wiki.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/index.php::/2008-09_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1
::unter Session 8. -- [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:22:30Z

Hannah Treffert:

These are only guidelines, not perfect examples. Please note that the texts are not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).

:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.

:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.

:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.

:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).

:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).

:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'', much depends on the argument of the critic.

:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:17:08Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Introduction */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).

:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.

:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.

:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.

:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).

:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).

:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'', much depends on the argument of the critic.

:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:16:18Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Conclusion */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.

:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.

:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.

:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).

:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).

:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'', much depends on the argument of the critic.

:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:15:01Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Main Part */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.

:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.

:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.

:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).

:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).

:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'', much depends on the argument of the critic.

:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:11:30Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Introduction */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:09:24Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Table of Contents */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde''

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:08:21Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Title */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'' continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?

===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:07:58Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Secondary Literature */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” ''Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987''. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: ''The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture'' Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). ''Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” ''Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation''. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington / Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. ''Lectures on Literature''. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” ''The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature''. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” ''Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years''. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T19:04:23Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Primary Literature */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” ''Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde''. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington, VT., Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T18:57:50Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Introduction */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:

::The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?

====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington, VT., Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T18:54:50Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Primary Literature */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:
:The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?
====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
*Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington, VT., Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T18:54:36Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Secondary Literature */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:
:The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?
====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

*Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

*Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

*Maixner, Paul (Ed.). Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

*Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington, VT., Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

*Nabakov, Vladimir. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

*Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

*Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

BM1 - Introduction to Literature - Assignment 4: Research Paper Outline:Example

2009-02-02T18:53:21Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Conclusion */

This is only a guideline, not a perfect example. Please note that the text is not part of our curriculum.

==Example One==
===Title===

The Role of Power in W. Percy’s Sonnet Sequence ''Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia''

===Table of Contents===

1 Explanation of the term Petrarchism based on a comparison between the Petrarchan model and the English sonnet

2 The ambiguity of power in W. Percy’s sonnet sequence

2.1. The power of speech

2.1.1. The oppressor and the oppressed

2.1.2. Coelia’s passiveness

2.2. Male subjectivity

2.2.1. The speaker’s helplessness against Coelia’s scornfulness

2.2.2. Coelia’s role as a mere object of love

3 Female sonnet writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and their image of the female lover

===Written Outline===

First of all it must be said that there is a myriad of secondary literature concerning Elizabethan sonnets or the widely known English poets and their main work, such as Sir Philip Sidney's ''Astrophil and Stella'', Spenser's ''Amoretti'' or Samuel Daniel's ''Delia''. Yet little has been written about William Percy's sonnet sequence ''Coelia''. Thus my paper about the role of power and its interpretation by the male speaker in these particular sonnets rather relies on the primary source and only implicitly on some chosen pieces of secondary work.

As an introduction to the topic I would start with an explanation of the term Petrarchism and the changes it has gone through from the Italian, Petrarchan model to the English or Shakespearean sonnet. The discourse between these is described in Pfister's essay published in Seeber's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. This would give me the chance to introduce the structure of the sonnet and to give a definition of the sonnet sequence as discussed in Spiller's ''The Sonnet Sequence''.

By speaking of the ambiguity of power I refer to the two power models expressed in Percy's sonnets. On the one hand the speaker's role of a victim of love and on the other hand his power to use this love and the object of love for his own purposes. This ambivalence is not shown explicitly but can be read between the lines.

As poetry is based on the creation of and play with words, the main aspect is the power of speech. The speaker describes his falling in love with Coelia, his courtship with all its ups and downs and the final game of conqueror and conquered from his point of view. He is the author of the image created in this sequence.

The speaker chooses a wide range of such images to describe his position as the oppressed and the role Coelia plays in his story as the oppressor. Among these contrasting pairs are the images of judge and accused, divine creature – simple man, hunter – prey (sonnet I), executive power – prisoner, ruler – bondman (sonnet VI). Such oppositions are emphasized by the use of oxymora ("the sweetest sour") and antitheses ("Oh happy hour, and yet unhappy hour", sonnet II). Coelia is the personification of such contrasts: she is sweet but callous, shows "first Love, and then Disdainfulnes" (sonnet VI). Here I should refer to Manfred Pfister, who deals with this inconsistency in his essay mentioned above. In her studies about Sidney's female characters ''Fair Ladies'', Katherine J. Roberts also discusses this moodiness.

Speaking of the power of speech one should bear in mind that this impression given by the speaker changes as soon as we look closer into Coelia's role. It strikes the reader that she is almost speechless. Contrary to other poets of the sixteenth century, Percy includes two short dialogues between the loved and the lover (sonnets IV and XVII) but Coelia's part is more like a mirror of the speaker's imagination than a real, individual voice. Ina Schabert speaks of the poet as ventriloquist (1996:140) when dealing with this phenomenon. Coelia's passiveness is found even stronger as she is thought as the addressee but in fact the poems are not really directed at the loved person bur rather at a third, or in this case fourth person, the reader. The third person would be the god Amor, whose speech (sonnet II) shows more individuality and strength than Coelia's.
In the second main point I would deal with male subjectivity and the way the speaker creates his own misery to gain the power of compassion as a desperate romantic.

The speaker is absolutely helpless against Coelia's scornfulness (sonnets I, XVIII vs. III, XVI). He offers her everything, she rejects it all. She has the power to leave him in his pain, to abuse his love. And yet, no matter how scornful she may be, he does not want to give up.

But in spite of these presumable power relations as shown on the surface, the real conditions reveal Coelia's role as a mere object of love. This is where I would have to agree with Ina Schabert's conceptions from a gender perspective. Coelia is a construct, an ideal created by the speaker, which serves his purposes as a tool serves a craftsman. The woman is the means to an aim.

Taking everything into consideration I would conclude with a description of female sonneteers around the turn of the century and show different power models on the example of Lady Mary Wroth concepts in her ''Pamphilia to Amphilanthus'' with reference to Ina Schabert's ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''.

===Bibliography===

*Berry, Philippa. "Mirrors of Masculinity. Renaissance Speculations Through the Feminine and Their Genealogy." ''Of Chastity and Power. Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen''. New York: Routledge, 1989. 9-37.
*John, Lisle Cecil. ''The Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences''. Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 133. New York: Russell, 1964.
*Low, Anthony. ''The Reinvention of Love. Poetry, Politics and Culture from Sidney to Milton''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
*Pfister, Manfred. "Die Frühe Neuzeit: Von Morus bis Milton." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte''. Ed. H.U. Seeber. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991. 92-103.
*Roberts, Katherine J. "Social and Literary Images of Women." ''Fair Ladies: Sir Philip Sidney's Female Characters''. Renaissance and Baroque Studies and Texts 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. 1-28.
*Schabert, Ina. "Das Begehren der Geschlechter und die Liebesdichtung." ''Englische Literaturgeschichte aus der Sicht der Geschlechterforschung''. Stuttgart: Kröner , 1996. 123-144.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Development of The Sonnet. An Introduction''. New York: Routledge, 1992.
*Spiller, Michael R.G. ''The Sonnet Sequence. A Study of Its Strategies''. Studies in Literary Themes and Genres. New York: Twayne, 1997.

==Example Two==
===Title===
Why does Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde continue to cause an ongoing literary debate about homosexuality?
===Table of Contents===

:1. Introduction

:2. The debate about Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality

::2.1 'Misogyny and Homosexuality' (William Veeder)
::2.2 The Labouchère Amendment (Wayne Koestenbaum)
::2.3 The double life and homosexuality (Elaine Showalter)
::2.4 Homosexuality versus masturbation (Grace Moore)

:3. Stevenson's ambiguous use of language in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde

:4. Conclusion

:5. Bibliography

===Written Outline===
====Introduction====
:Already shortly after its publication in 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde caused literary critics to note the fact that the story focuses almost entirely on single men. Andrew Lang comments that “His [Stevenson's] heroes (surely this is original) are all successful middle-aged professional men. No woman appears in the tale” (Maixner, 1981, p. 200-201) and Julia Wedgewood states that “No woman's name occurs in the book, no romance is even suggested in it” (Maixner, 1981, p. 223).
:Another subject of interest to critics was the nature of Jekyll / Hyde’s “undignified pleasures”. As early as 1887, these pleasures were linked to sexuality by an unknown dramatic critic (cp. Maixner, 1981, p. 230) . Stevenson responded to this assumption in a letter to John Paul Bocock:
:The harm was in Jekyll, because he was a hypocrite – not because he was fond of women; he says so himself; but people are so filled full of folly an inverted lust, that they can think of nothing but sexuality. The hypocrite let out the beast Hyde – who is no more sensual than another, but who is the essence of cruelty and malice, and selfishness and cowardice: and these are the diabolic in man – not his poor wish to have a woman, that they make such a cry about (Maixner, 1981, p. 231).
:It wasn't until the 1950's, however, that Vladimir Nabakov made a connection between the absence of women and the subject of sexuality and linked the story of Jekyll and Hyde to homosexuality: “The all-male pattern [...] may suggest by a twist of thought that Jekyll's secret adventures were homosexual practices so common in London behind the Victorian veil” (Nabokov, 1980, p. 194). A possible relation between Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality has since been a topic of literary debate.
:Why is it that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement? And which are the arguments used by critics to support their theories?
====Main Part====
:To answer these questions I would first give a short overview of the development of the debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality on hand of three chosen texts. Here I would look at each of these texts which support the theory that Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with homosexuality and summarize the main arguments employed. Then I would focus on a text and its arguments which oppose this debate.
:I would first look at William Veeder's text “Misogyny and Homosexuality” (1988). Here Veeder argues in the context of patriarchy, claiming the characters in Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde to be misogynistic. Due to this they turn to other men as objects of mirroring. In their relations to other men “late-Victorian professional men feel emotions that they can neither express nor comprehend. An aura of homosexuality serves to signal both the homoerotic nature of many male bonds and the lethal consequences of them” (Veeder, 1988, p. 144). These emotions, so Veeder are hidden behind a facade of professionalism.
:I would then look at the article “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment” (1988) by Wayne Koestenbaum. As the title suggests, the text focuses on the influence the Labouchère Amendment had on Stevenson's writing of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Passed in 1885, this amendment made all male-homosexual acts punishable by law.
:Elaine Showalter's article “Dr. Jekyll's Closet” (2000) takes a closer look at the meaning double life had for homosexuals in the Victorian era and the representation of this duality in the story of Jekyll and Hyde. To Showalter, the story can be “read as a fable of fin de siecle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self” (Showalter, 2000, p. 69).
:In her article “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll” (2004), Grace Moore argues that Stevenson was not attempting to depict homosexuality but rather that Jekyll's “undignified pleasure” is that of masturbation. Her argument against homosexuality is that Jekyll is portrait as a lonely figure which, as part of the gay subculture, he would not have been: “Jekyll's illicit homosexuality conflicts with the deep rooted sense of alienation pervading the narrative” (Moore, 2004, p. 153).
:Considering both sides of the argument would enable me to show that in the analysis of Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, much depends on the argument of the critic.
:After analyzing the four texts I would take into consideration what is stated specifically about Stevenson's use of language (e.g. symbols of homosexual literature such as “mirror” and “blackmail”) and choice of words (such as “queer”, “gay” and “faggot”) to imply homosexuality in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To relate the arguments to the general depiction of homosexuality in literature, I would also take a look at Marita Keilson-Lauritz's article “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik” (1991) on textual strategies in homoerotic literature.

====Conclusion====
:After having looked at the different positions used by critics to argue that Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does or does not deal with homosexuality, I would attempt to answer the question why it is, that literary critics continue to have a debate concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and homosexuality despite Stevenson's dismissive statement.
:Here I would argue that Stevenson's refusal to define Jekyll / Hyde’s pleasures and misdeeds, his often ambiguous use of language and words as well as the marginal role he assigned women in the story, gives a lot of room for interpretation. As long as it is argued well, this enables critics to present different approaches of interpretation of enigmatic aspects of the story and disregard Stevenson's statement concerning Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and sexuality.

===Bibliography===
====Primary Literature====
Stevenson, Robert, Louis. “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. 7-62.

====Secondary Literature====

Keilson-Lauritz, Marita. “Maske und Signal – Textstrategien der Homoerotik.” Homosexualitäten – literarisch: literaturwissenschaftlische Beiträge zum Internationalen Kongress “Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?” Amsterdam 1987. Eds. Maria Kalveram and Wolfgang Popp. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 1991. 63-75.

Koestenbaum, Wayne. “The Shadow on the Bed: Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and the Labouchère Amendment. Critical Matrix: The Princeton Journal of Women, Gender and Culture Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Spring1988): 31-55.

Maixner, Paul (Ed.). Robert Louis Stevenson. The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

Moore, Grace. “Something to Hyde: The “Strange Preference” of Henry Jekyll.” Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Eds. Andrew Maunder and Grace Moore. Burlington, VT., Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. 147-161.

Nabakov, Vladimir. Lectures on Literature. Ed. Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

Showalter, Elaine. “Dr. Jekyll's Closet.” The Haunted Mind. The Supernatural in Victorian Literature. Eds. Robert Haas and Elton E. Smith. London: Scarecrow Press, 1999. 67-88.

Veeder, William. “Children of the Night: Stevenson and Patriarchy.” Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after one hundred years. Eds. William Veeder and Gordon Hirsch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 107-160.

[[Category:Assignment|2007-06-25]]

IT support

2009-01-25T14:59:41Z

Hannah Treffert: /* Need */

==Computer, Drucker, Video Projector + Laptop etc. des Seminars==

*Betreuer am Seminar: [[User:John Alistair Kühne|John Alistair Kühne]]

===Ausleihe Geräte===

In der folgenden Tabelle bitte Bedarf anmelden (mit drei Tilden <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> unterzeichnen)

<center>
{| cellpadding=5 width=85%|
!bgcolor="#7DFFFF" valign="top" align="left"|Media/Whose?
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Literature (blue tag) NEC NP20 + Samsung
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Linguistics
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Didactics
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Cultural Studies
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Language Practice (red tag) NEC NP40 + Dell
|-
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Video Projector + Laptop
(one set each group)
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
====Need====
* Tue 8-10, Jan. 27, 2009 [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]]
* Tue 10-12, Dec. 16, [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]]
* Tue 14-16 and 16-18h - every week [[User:Christina Meyer|Christina Meyer]]
* Wed 12-14, every week [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]]
* Wed 18-20, every week Cultural Studies
* Thu 08-10, Nov. 20, Room A01 0-004 [[User:Soerenk|Sören Koopmann]]
* Thu 12-14 and 14-16h - every week [[User:Christina Meyer|Christina Meyer]]
* Thu 16-18, Nov 13, [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]] 16:08, 6 November 2008 (CET)
* Fri 12-18, every week [[User:Annika McPherson|Annika McPherson]]
----
* '''Located:''' A6 2-211
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|

====Need====
Thursday 16-18h, 30.10./13.11./27.11./18.12./22.01.
[[User:Rebecca Carroll|Rebecca Carroll]]

Wednesdays 12-14h (starting Dec. 3)
[[User:Holger Limberg|Holger Limberg]]

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Ronald Geluykens|Ronald Geluykens]]
* '''Located:''' [[User:Cornelia Hamann|Cornelia Hamann]]
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
Thursday 16-18h, 30.10./13.11./27.11./18.12./22.01.

====Need====

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Wolfgang Gehring|Wolfgang Gehring]]
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|

====Need====

----
* '''Located:''' [[User:Richard Stinshoff|Richard Stinshoff]]

|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left"|
====Need====
* Tuesday 14-16, 2nd Dec. 2008, Kevin Carpenter
* Wednesdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
* Wednesdays 16-18, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
* Thursdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Deidre Graydon
*Wed Jan 21st, 18-19 [[User:Maike Engelhardt|Maike Engelhardt]] 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
----
* '''Located:''' 
A6 2-211

|-
!bgcolor="#c6ffff" valign="top" align="left"|Video Projector set 2
(located in A6 2-211; 
black trolley; Acer Laptop; green tag)
|bgcolor="#efefef" valign="top" align="left" colspan="5"|

====Need====
*Monday 12-14, 05/01/2009, Florian Gubisch
*Tuesday 14-16, 2/9/16 December, Kirchhofer / Auguscik
*Tuesdays 16-18, winter 08/09, William Hathaway
*Wednesdays 12-14, winter 08/09, Cultural Studies, Annika McPherson
*Thursdays 10-12, winter 08/09, Kevin Carpenter + OHP
*Thursdays 12-14, winter 08/09, William Hathaway
*Fridays, 12-14, Maike Engelhardt

|}
</center>

== Inks and Toner in stock (last update: 28 May 2008) ==
You will find the mentioned cartridges in my office A6 2-211 - the key is in the top safe. Please let me know if you should need any assistance! Best wishes, John Alistair Kühne
==== '''HP inks (quantity)''' ====
'''Duncan''' 
88 black (1)

88 cyan (1)

88 magenta (1)

88 yellow (1)

'''Schwarzkopf and Meyer''' 
20 black (0) - will be ordered asap

49 tricolor (0) - will be ordered asap

'''Zagratzki''' 
26 black (1)

'''old stock''' 
29 black (2)

15 black (1)

78 tri-colour (1)

==== '''Canon inks (quantity)''' ====
'''Mclaughlin''' 
3e black (1)

6 black (1)

6 magenta (1)

6 yellow (1)

6 cyan (1)

'''Graydon''' 
40 black (0)

41 colour (0)

==== '''Toner HP and Kyocera (quantity)''' ====
'''Graydon, Köhring and Simons''' 
Kyocera TK-17 (2)

'''Geluykens, Ogiermann, Carpenter, Stinshoff, Engelhardt and Schönenberger''' 
Kyocera TK-18 (2)

'''Limberg''' 
HP 10A (0)

'''Gehring and Kirchhofer''' 
HP 12A (2)

'''Hamann''' 
HP 13X (1)

'''Leinweber''' 
HP 15X (0)

'''Seminar Kyocera FS-C5025N''' 
TK-510K (black) (1)

==This Wiki==

*[[Angl-Am:About|Verantwortliche]]
*[[Help talk:Contents|Hilfe durch die betreuenden Administratoren]]

__NOTOC__

User talk:Anton Kirchhofer

2009-01-12T15:04:29Z

Hannah Treffert: /* "Modulkonferenz" BM1, WS 08/09 Terminvorschläge: */

=="Modulkonferenz" BM1, WS 08/09 Terminvorschläge:==

Bitte tragt Euch hinter den Terminen ein, zu denen Ihr da sein könnt.

*Do 15.1.09, 18-19 h -- [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]], [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]], [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]]
*Mi 21.1.09, 15-16 h -- [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]], [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]],[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]], [[User:Annika McPherson|Annika McPherson]], [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]]
*Do 22.1.09, 18-19 h -- [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]], [[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]], [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]]

==2007-10-29 - I have graded the papers for all my Courses in the Summer Term 2007==

All Papers submitted for courses in the Summer Term 2007 have been graded. You may pick them up or take a look at them in my office hours. (The same is true, of course, for the papers for courses in previous semesters.)

:'''NOTE: If you have not filled in and submitted whatever ''Schein'' or ''Bescheinigung'' you need me to sign, please do so. Otherwise the credits for your performance will not be put on the record.'''

==2007-11-09 - Staatsexamens- und Magisterklausuren Sept 2007==

Your exam papers have been marked and forwarded to the ''NILS''.

''Magisterklausuren'' have been sent on to the Magisterprüfungsamt, but will probably come back to me eventually, where you will be able to take a look into them. ''Magister'' candidates should submit the appropriate ''Schein'' to me to sign.

==Requirements==

Moin Anton! Da ich Dich basteln sehe - [[Aufbaumodul]], [[Mastermodul]], [[Abschlussmodul]], drei Links, die ich dieser Tage mit Dir gerne gefüllt hätte, in denen wir kurz festhalten sollten, was für uns die Requirements sind. Das wird man wohl je nach KP-Wunsch festlegen - manches steht in Stdienordnungen, anderes ist Ermessen des Dozenten... ich fänd's darum glücklich, wenn wir für uns entschieden, was wir als Standard und als Ermessensspielraum haben. Gruß (an der Vorlesung sitzend, doch weitgehend fertig...) --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 09:52, 12 November 2007 (CET)
Bin im Moment ganz anderweitig beschäftigt. Gruß udn bis bald [[User:Anton Kirchhofer|Anton Kirchhofer]] 09:58, 12 November 2007 (CET)

==The Theory of the Novel==
Lieber Anton. Hier ein [[Georg Lukacs, The Theory of the Novel (1920)|link]] zum angefangen Exzerpt. Werde morgen weiter daran arbeiten, den zweiten Teil fertig stellen, eine kürzere Zusammenfassung schreiben und die wichtigsten Zitate fett hervorheben. GLG, --[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 23:47, 24 November 2007 (CET)
:Unsere Tutoren erarbeiten den Wikipedia-Artikel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel Novel] - in dem es auch einige Bemerkungen zur Marktorddnung gibt, nur falls Du Bezüge suchst zu dem, was da Grundlage sein sollte. Der Artikel ist nich 100%ig meins, mich quält so, wie ich ihn in Zeug enden ließ, das da bereits stand, statt ihn weiter zu führen... Sieh ihn Dir doch bei Gelegenheit mal an, es könnte uns nutzen, uneingeschränkt auf ihn als unsere Position verweisen zu können. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 16:54, 26 November 2007 (CET)

==Vorlesungssachen==

*[http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1719-robinson-crusoe/illus.html Die C18 Illustrationen von Robinson Crusoe samt Titelblättern der illustrierten Ausgaben] Du kannst jede der Abbildungen anklicken und kriegst sie dann im Großformat auf jeweilige Bildschirmgröße.
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1858-08-21_Household-Words_v18_Unknown-Public.pdf
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1856_westminster_review_p442-61.pdf
----
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/img/1728_hogarth__rival_printers.png
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/img/1758_shakespeare__king_lear_pref.pdf
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/img/1820_elliston__king_lear_pref.pdf

ich bekam leider nicht heraus, wie ich den Scanner bei John Alistair vom Acrobat reader entkoppeln kann - mit einem Bildverarbeitungsprogramm wäre das Bild besser gekommen. Vielleicht kriegen wir das noch hin (im Internet gibt es das Bild nicht). Auch kann ich dem pdf-reder nicht sagen, wie rum das Bild gehört. Ich speichere ab, und er merkt sich nicht die von mir durchgeführte Drehung... --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 11:53, 11 December 2007 (CET)

Bilder historischer KL Aufführungen sind schlecht zu bekommen, indes geben sicher die Gemälde einen Eindruck davon, was man auf Bühnen wohl versuchte.
----

http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/images/objects/cropped2/700/sch200305141429-004.jpg

1999, the RSC engaged in its first international collaboration, working with the Japanese theatre director Yukio Ninagawa

----

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Cordelia%27s_Portion.jpg

Cordelia's Portion by Ford Madox Brown (1821-93)

----

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/mmorris/239/lear21.jpg

Edwin Forest as King Lear

----

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Abbey_-_Cordelia%27s_Farewell.jpg/800px-Abbey_-_Cordelia%27s_Farewell.jpg

King Lear: Cordelia's Farewell by Edwin Austin Abbey (1852-1911)

----

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Lear_and_Cordelia.jpg

Cordelia's Portion by Ford Madox Brown (1821-93)

----

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/James_Barry_002.jpg/800px-James_Barry_002.jpg

King Lear mourns Cordelia's death, James Barry, 1786-1788

----
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1608_shakespeare__king_lear.pdf
*http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1623_shakespeare__folio_king_lear.pdf

User:Hannah Treffert

2008-11-26T08:23:29Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutorin im [[2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1]]

My tutorial will take place on

Tuesday, 8-10am, A04-4-411.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User:Hannah Treffert

2008-11-07T18:40:41Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutorin im 2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

My tutorial will take place on

Tuesday, 8-10am, A04-4-411.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User:Hannah Treffert

2008-10-25T21:23:33Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutorin im 2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

My tutorial will take place on

Tuesday, 8-10am, A04-4-411

starting on October 28th, 2008.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User:Hannah Treffert

2008-10-25T21:22:58Z

Hannah Treffert:

User talk:Olaf Simons

2008-10-17T20:50:52Z

Hannah Treffert:

[[User talk:Olaf Simons/Archive]] 
[[Olaf Simons:Medienbestand]]

==Prizes/Awards==
*[[User:Anna Auguscik|Anna Auguscik]] 18:45, 14 July 2008 (CEST): English, James F. 2005. The Economy of Prestige. Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.

== blockieren ==

Vergaß, erst zu blockieren und dann die Seite zu löschen (siehe WeightLossTips, recent changes), und kann den Benutzer User:WeightLoss nicht blockieren (ich sehe die Option nicht, auf die ich klicken kann, welche normalerweise hinter jedem Edit steht. Der ganze User ist auch nicht mehr über recent changes aufgelistet). Auch kann ich seine Seite nicht löschen, obwohl ich das eigentlich können müsste - immerhin könnte ich auch Deine Benutzerseite löschen (theoretisch). Und das verstehe ich nicht ; ). Gruß an die kalte See, [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 10:12, 12 October 2008 (CEST)
:Wird wohl kein Problem sein - ansonsten radikal unterbinden, Leute, die keine Namen unserer Studenten oder Dozentan haben und sich auch sonst nicht mit einer Identität ausweisen, sollten bei allem Nichtfachlichem gelöscht werden. Von der inspirierenden [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Siggen ostholsteinischen Wikipedia Konferenz], --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 12:05, 12 October 2008 (CEST)
::Darum geht es ja: Ich habe zwar die Seite gelöscht, aber nicht den User - da ich nicht sehe, wie ich das machen kann, da ich seine Benutzerseite nur beschränkt sehe. Die Option "blockieren" fehlt (die hinter seinem Namen stehen müsste), und die User Seite [[User:WeightLoss]] kann ich weder löschen, noch die Versionsgeschichte sehen noch kann ich sie auf protect setzen - all das, was normalerweise zu sehen wäre. Das ist meine eigentlich Frage, warum ich das nicht sehen kann, wo ich doch sogar Deine Seite löschen könnte? Muss auf ihr erst was stehen um sie löschen zu können? Wie kann ich den User/seinen Pseudo-Account noch blockieren? Gruß, [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 13:17, 12 October 2008 (CEST)
:::Siehst, jetzt habe ich den User erst geblockt und dann die Seite gelöscht (wobei das einfach seine Userseite war) - heute morgen hatte ich erst die Seite gelöscht und wollte dann blocken, aber nach dem Löschen der Seite verschwand der User aus der recent changes Liste, sodass ich die Option "(blockieren)" (hinter dem Namen) nicht mehr sah. Und statt blockieren wollte ich dann seine Userseite löschen, aber die lässt sich nicht löschen,- vielleicht, weil da nichts steht? [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 20:59, 12 October 2008 (CEST) (ich frage aus Verständnisgründen, will ja auch dazulernen und verstehen, wie ein Wiki funktioniert)
::::Durch Probieren Problem gelöst, selbstständiges Lernen also : ) Gruß, [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 21:14, 12 October 2008 (CEST)
:::::''(blocked "User:BoredWikipedians" with an expiry time of infinite: Spam (aber lustiger Name...))''
:::::Räusper. Nicht alles, [http://3.blogs.23.nu/kellerkind/2008/10/passende-auszeit-um-sich-hier-umzusehen/ was man nicht versteht], ist Spam. Und gepostet habe ich, meines Wissens, gar nichts. Kann ich a) meinen Account und b)meine Benutzerseite wiederhaben? Ich habe ja früher mal eine Weile bei der [http://entropie.digital.udk-berlin.de/wiki/Hauptseite der UDK Berlin] gewohnt, die waren da aber weniger grob und tollerant gegenüber anderen Netzlebensformen... Pfh! --[[User:Beleidigt|Beleidigt]] 13:37, 13 October 2008 (CEST) P.S. Viel Spaß weiterhin mit den Adminfunktionen :-)
::::::Dies ist das Anglistik und Amerikanistik Wiki der Uni Oldenburg - aber (das siehst Du ganz richtig) eine offene Plattform. Du kannst mitmachen, solange es die Community interessiert. Ist also die Frage, ob Du ein Projekt hast, das anglistisch oder amerikanistisch interessant ist. Und wer entscheidet das? Ganz am Ende (um das Verfahren zu vereinfachen) ich (und ich warne Dich: es ist gar nicht einfach, was zu machen, was ich interessant finde - möglich aber schon, und für Dich bestimmt eine Bereicherung, Du mußt halt nachdenken). --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 13:53, 13 October 2008 (CEST)
:::::::Zum Verständnis: Vielleicht wäre ein Klarname angebracht, damit es nicht zur Verwechslung kommt. Dies ist weder ein Chatroom, noch die große, weite Wikipedia, in der es möglich ist, Pseudonyme zu benutzen. Was ich nicht zuordnen kann, lösche ich... [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 14:16, 13 October 2008 (CEST)
::::::::In der Tat, Leute mit Pseudonymen können einfach gelöscht werden. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:42, 13 October 2008 (CEST)
::::::::::''In der Tat, Leute mit Pseudonymen können einfach gelöscht werden.''
::::::::::Krass: [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Bront%C3%AB 1] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Am%C3%A9ry 2] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Pseudonymen 3] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettina_von_Arnim 4] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Blixen 5] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll 6] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Celan 7] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Celan 8] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens 9] - [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Magnus_Enzensberger 10] Ich (!) werd' dann mal nachdenken... [[User:Beleidigt|Beleidigt]] 19:16, 13 October 2008 (CEST) P.S. Verena: Danke für die Wiederherstellung & viel Spaß noch im Netzuniversum :-) Bis dann...
:::::::::::Guckstu: ''Dies ist weder ein Chatroom, noch die große, weite Wikipedia, in der es möglich ist, Pseudonyme zu benutzen'' [...] ''Dies ist das Anglistik und Amerikanistik Wiki der Uni Oldenburg''. Einfach Sache, also. [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 19:37, 13 October 2008 (CEST)
Noch eine technische Frage: Wenn ich über Spezialseiten auf [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&limit=500&offset=0&ip= Liste blockierter IP-Adressen] klicke, steht da mein Name mit Nummern, die ich blockte, und Uhrzeiten. Da ich bei niemandem anderen von den Admins auf dieser Liste solche Sachen sehe, wundere ich mich darüber. Vor allem, da ich zur besagten Uhrzeit gar nicht im Wiki war... Gruß, [[User:Verena Engelhardt|Verena Engelhardt]] 22:43, 16 October 2008 (CEST)
:Das liegt daran, dass jemand, den Du bereits gesperrt hast, sich erneut anmeldet und versucht zu editieren. Soweit er dabei dieselbe IP-Adresse verwendet erfolgt automatisch eine erneute Sperre, hierfür musst Du nicht online sein. Grüße, [[User:Beleidigt|Beleidigt]] 23:09, 16 October 2008 (CEST)

Hallo Olaf,
danke für den Hinweis! Habs gleich geändert :-)
Gruß [[User:Hannah Treffert|Hannah Treffert]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (CEST)

User talk:Hannah Treffert

2008-10-17T20:47:25Z

Hannah Treffert:

==Tach Hannah==

Tach Hannah, Dein Text oben gehört auf die Frontseite, so daß auf dieser Raum für Debatten ist. Schreibt man Dir hier was hin erhältst Du vom System große Nachricht. Willkommen im Wiki, --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 20:38, 17 October 2008 (CEST)

User:Hannah Treffert

2008-10-17T20:46:47Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutorin im 2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

My tutorial will take place on

Tuesday, 8-10am, A04-4-411

starting on October 28th 2008.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

User talk:Hannah Treffert

2008-10-17T14:40:20Z

Hannah Treffert:

Tutorin im 2008-09 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

My tutorial will take place on

Tuesday, 8-10am, A04-4-411

starting on October 28th 2008.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail:

hannah.treffert@uni-oldenburg.de

Pierre Daniel Huet, Traitté de l’origine des romans (1670)

2007-10-31T10:30:57Z

Hannah Treffert: /* vi */

==Editions==
*Pierre Daniel Huet, ''Treatise of Romances'', 1670, first English translation (1672). [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1672_huet__treatise_of_romances.pdf Oldenburg Anglistikserver]
*Pierre Daniel Huet, ''History of Romances'', 1670, translated by Stephen Lewis (1715) [http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO?vrsn=1.0&dd=0&locID=bis&b1=KE&srchtp=b&d1=0143100500&SU=All&c=2&ste=10&d4=0.33&stp=DateAscend&dc=tiPG&n=10&docNum=CW110602030&b0=huet&tiPG=1 ECCO] [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1715_huet__history_of_romances.pdf Oldenburg Anglistikserver]
unter diesem [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Pierre_Daniel_Huet%2C_Traitt%C3%A9_de_l%E2%80%99origine_des_romans_%281670%29&action=history link] könnt Ihr einsehen, wie der nachfolgende Text zusammengebaut wurde.

Laßt bei Absätzen einfach eine Leerzeile - und pafft auf die langen s auf - da gibts einen Unterfchied zwifchen s und f... :) --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 10:28, 31 October 2007 (CET)

==Links==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitt%C3%A9_de_l%27origine_des_romans Pierre Daniel Huet, Traitté de l’origine des romans (1670).] - English Wikipedia with a lengthy excerpt.
* [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitt%C3%A9_de_l%E2%80%99origine_des_romans Pierre Daniel Huet, Traitté de l’origine des romans (1670)] - German Wikipedia with an article on Huet's book.

__NOTOC__

==Text of the English edition published in 1715==

==Short Title==

[ornament] THE| HISTORY| OF| ROMANCES [ornament]

==Title page==

THE| HISTORY| OF| ROMANCES.| AN| Enquiry into their ''Original'';| ''Instructions for Composing them'';| AN| Account of the most Eminent| AUTHORS;| With Characters, and Curious Observations| upon the Best Performance of that Kind.| [rule]| Written in ''Latin'' by HUETIUS;| Made ''English'' by| Mr. ''STEPHEN LEWIS.''| [rule] ——juvat integros accedere fontes,| Atque haurire. ''Lucr.''| [rule]| Rrinted for J HOOKE, at the ''Flower-de-luce'',| and T. CALDECOTT, at the ''Sun''; both against St.| ''Dunstan''’s Church in ''Fleetstreet''. 1715.

==i==

THE

PREFACE.

''THERE is not any Speculation, which affords a more agreeable Pleasure to the Mind, than that of beholding from what Obscure and Mean Beginnings, the most Polite and Entertaining Arts have''

==ii==

''risen to be the Admiration and Delight of Mankind. To pursue them up to the most abstruse Fountains, and then to view by what Steps they arise to Perfection; does not only excite an Amazement at their Increase; but an Impatient Desire of Inventing some New Subject, to be improv'd and advanc'd by Posterity.''

''The first Occasion of introducing'' ROMANCE ''into the World, was, without Dispute to mollify the Rigour of Precepts, by the Allurements of Example. Where the Mind can't be subdued into Virtue, by Reason and Philosophy; nothing can''

==iii==
''influence it more, than to present to it the Success and Felicity, which Crowns the Pursuit of what's Great and Honourable. As the'' Poet ''very elegantly alludes to'' Homer;

:Qui quid sit pulchum, quid turpe, quid utile, quid non
:Planius & melius, Chrysippo & Crantore dicit.

''And since in all Ages there were very few real Instances, fit to be proposed for Exact Patters of Imitation; the Ingenious'' Fabulist ''was forced to supply them out of his own Invention.''

==iv==
''Hence it appears, that the Original of'' Romance ''is very Ancient; since this Way of Promoting Virtue has been received in the Earliest Ages; as is evident from the first Records of Mankind. And as it stands very remote from Modern Ages; so, That is found out, must be an High Satisfaction to the Curious in Antiquity.''

''Upon this Account, They are very much indebted to the Labour and Penetration of'' Huetius; ''who has, with great Judgement, traced the Subject he undertook to Illustrate, till he found it in''

==v==
''its Infancy, involved in the Umbrage of'' Fable, ''and perplexed in the Folds of'' Mystery ''and'' Riddle.

''This Task was enjoin'd Him (He informs us)

==vi==
by his Aquaintance and Friend, Monsieur Segrais; a Gentleman very intimately versed in all Polite Learning; and admirably well qualified, to Discern and Judge, upon the Subject of ROMANCES; since He had discover'd himself to be a Compleat Master in the Art, by several inimitable Productions of that Nature, which he published in the Language of his Country: A Country, Famous for all Sorts of Delight-

==vii==

And, in my Opinion, the Man who acquits himselof well of the Province he undertakes, (tho' of small Importance) deserves as much, as He who has been more Fortunate in the Choice of a Subjekt for his Application

Without doubt, Huetius was sensible of this; otherwise he would have bestowed his Time to a better Account, since He had before approv'd himself very well to the World, by his Ingenious Performances in Divinity, and other Learning. And I dare assert, that none of his Labours have contributed more to his Reputation than his

==viii==

''Especially since ''Romance'' has of late convey'd it self very far into the Esteem of this Nation, and is become the Principal Diversion of the Retirement of People of all Conditions.''

==ix==

==xi==
has; This, I presume, is not the first Case, where a Good Design has aton'd for some slight Imperfections in the Prosecution of it.

==[xii]==

==1==
==2==
==3==
==4==
==5==
==6==
==7==
==8==
==9==
==10==
==11==
same may be apply'd to Romances, with this Restraint, that a total Fiction of the Argument is more allowable in Romances, where the Actors are of indifferent Quality, (such are the Comic) than in Heroic Performances, where Princes and Conquerors are the Characters, and where the Adventures are Memorable and Illustrious; because it can't be probable that great Transactions and Events lie hid to the World, and neglected by Historians; and Probability, which is not always observ'd in History, is essential to a Romance.

I exclude that sort of History which is False throughout the whole Narration, but was invented

==12==
==13==
==14==
==15==
==16==
==17==
==18==
==19==
==20==
==21==
==22==
==23==
==24==
==25==
==26==
==27==
==28==
==29==
==30==
==31==
==32==
==33==
==34==
have since explained, illustrated, and digested them in their particular Works; and beside this have composed several Poems, Prologues and Apologues.

The ''Cyprians'' and ''Cilicians'' have invented certain Fables which bore the Name of the People of those Nations; and the particular Disposition of the ''Cilicians'' to Lying gave rise to one of the Ancientest Proverbs in ''Greece''.

In short, Fables have been in such Vogue all over these Countries, that (according to the Testimony of ''Lucian'',) there were particular Orders of Men among the ''Assyrians'' and ''Arabians'', whose sole (whole?) Province was to explain Fables; and who observed such a

==35==
Regularity in their Life, that they extended it much farther than other People.

But it is not enough to have discovered ''The Original of Romances''; we must see by what Streams they have spread and convey'd themselves into ''Greece'', and ''Italy'', and whether they have passed from thence to us; or we have received them from any other Nation. The ''Ionians'', a People of ''Asia Minor'', being raised to great Power, and having acquired vast Riches, immersed themselves into Luxury and Voluptuousness, and indulged themselves in all the Extravagancies of Plenty.

==36==
''Cyrus'' subdued them by making ''Cr&oelig;sus'' his Captive, with whom he received all ''Asia Minor'' into his Subjection. The ''Persians'' upon this Success admitted their Manners with their Laws, and mixed their Debauches with those their own Inclinations supplied them with, and so grew to be the most Voluptuous Nation in the World. They began to refine upon the Pleasures of the Table, by making the Addition of Flowers and Perfumes. They first invented the Ornaments for their houses. The finest Wools, and the richest Tapestries in the World were their Productions. They invented the lascivious Dance, call'd the ''Ionic''; and became so remarkable for Effemi-

==37==
nacy, that

==38==
But there were the first who corrupted them, and filled them with Lascivious and Amorous Narrations. Their Works are devoured by Time: We hear of no more than ''Aristides'' of them, who was the most Famous of the Romancers, and wrote several Books of Verse, called the ''Milesian'' Fables. I find that one ''Dionyius'', a ''Milesian'', who lived under the Reign of ''Darius'' the First, composed some Fabulous Histories; but since I can't certain whether this was any more than a compiling of Ancient Fables, and can't see sufficient Reason to believe, that they could properly be called ''Milesian'' Fables; I can't number

==39==
him among the Writers of Romance.
The ''Ionians'', descended from ''Attica'' and ''Peloponnesus'', out of the Deference they had for their Original, maintain'd a great Correspondence with the ''Greeks''. The Children of these Nations were sent from the one to the other for Education, that they might be the better acquainted with the Manners and Habit of Life of each other. By this Commerce ''Greece'', which had of it self Inclination enough to Fables, learned the Art of Romances from the ''Ionians'', and improved it with great Success. But to avoid Confusion, I shall endeavour to give an Account of those Writers amongst the ''Greeks'',

==40==
==41==
==42==
==43==

==44==
Roscius, took Occasion before the Senate of ''Selencia'' to insult and defame the tender and effeminate Disposition of the ''Romans'', who in the time of War could not disengage themselves of so soft entertainments.

Lucins of Patras, Lucian of Samosata, and Jamblichus, lived very near the same Time, under the Emperors ''Antoninus'', and ''Marcus Aurelius''. The first of them must not be reckoned among Romancers, for he no more than collected some Metamorphoses of the Magical Transformation of Men into Beasts, and Beasts into Men; dealing very simply and fairly, since he believed all that he wrote. ''Lucian''

==45==
with much more Policy and Judgment, relates some part of his Works only to expose and ridicule them, in the Book which he called ''Lucius's Ass''; to intimate that the Fiction was originally his. 'Tis in Effect an Abridgment of the two first Books of ''Lucius's Metamorphosis'' ; and this Fragment lets us see, That ''Photius'' had great Reason to arraign and decry his obscene and smutty Expressions. This ingenious and celebrated Ass, whose History these Authors wrote, was extremely like another of the same Worth and Merit, which ''Photius'' speaks of from ''Damascius'' in this Manner: "This Ass, says he, was the "Best of a Grammarian na-

==45==
med

==46==
==47==
==48==
''Jambulus'', to compose his own, on purpose to detect and condemn the Vanity and Impertinence of theirs.

About this Time ''Jamblichus'' publish'd his ''Babylonics'', (for that was the Name of it) in which the vastly outdid all who preceded him. For if we may judge of it by the Fragment which ''Photius'' has left us of it, his Design comprehends but one Action, adorned with all necessary Improvements; and attended with Episodes, arising from the principal Subject. He has observed Verisimility most exactly; his Adventures are mixed with Variety without Confusion:

We can find Fault with nothing but want of Art in the Contrivance

==49==
==50==
==51==
==52==
==53==
==54==
==55==
==56==
he had a good Opportunity to judge of, because he had the Originals before him. He takes it for a True Story, not understanding the Art of Romances. For my part, tho' I can't pronounce of it in Certainty, because I have not seen the Original in Greek; yet the Reading the Translation, inclines me to think, that he had several sufficient Grounds, to assign the Author of it to be Athenagoras the Apologist. For the Apologist was a Christian; and this speaks of Divinity, after a manner very inconsistent with any, but one of that Profession: As when he makes the priests of Ammom declare, "That there is but One" God; and that every Nation defi-

==57==
==58==
Merchants. That the Gods in the Fable, denoted the different Operations of this Sovereign, and only One Divinity, who is without Beginning, and without End: Whom he calls Obscure, and Dark, because he is Invisible, and Incomprehensible. Farther; the Discourses of the Priests and Merchants, upon the Divine Effence, very much resemble those of Athenagoras, in his Legation. The Apologist was a Priest of Athens; this was an Athenian Philosopher: Both seem Men of Sense, and Learning, and great Penetration into Antiquity.

==59==
But on the other side, we have many Reasons to suspect, not only that this is not ''Athenagoras'' the Christian, but that the Book it self is a mere Forgery. ''Photius'', giving an Exact Acount of the Composers of Romances before his Time, takes no Notice of him at all. Nobody ever saw a Copy of this work in any Library; and that which the Translator made use of, never appear'd since. Besides, he represents the Habitation, Life and Conduct of the Priests and Religious of ''Ammon'', so very like the Convents and Government of our Monks and Friars, that it ill accords with what History informs us, of

==60==
==61==
counterfeited; that I cant't be persuaded that it is any Production of ''Fumee's'', whose Learning was but indifferent; or that the most Able and Ingenious Person in those Days, could devise any Thing like it. If ''Photius'' hash not mentioned him; how many other Great and Famous Authors have escaped his Cognisance, or his Diligence! If in our Days only one Copy was found, which perhaps is since lost; how many other Exellent Works have undergone the same Destiny! If this fails of giving you Satisfaction, and you'll oblige me to extend my Conjectures, and attempt to find out the Precise Time of its Production; I have nothing left to

==62==
==63==
==64==
==65==
to one Principal Action, follow the Rules of an Heroick Poem ; as ''Athenagoras'' and ''Heliodorus'' have done, tho' not so accurately : But our Old ''French'' have multiplied them without Order, Connexion, or Art. These the ''Italians'' have imitated, borrowing of them their Romances, with their Imperfections. Here we ''Giraldi'' in a worse Error than the former : He endeavours to commend this Vice, and turn it into a Virtue : Whereas, if it be true what himself asserts, that a Romance should resemble a Perfect Body , and consist of many different Parts and Proportions all under one Head ; it follows , that the Principal Action of a Romance should be

==66==
equal Beauty and Eminence, it was as impossible to digest them into one regular body, as it would be to erect a compleat structure with no materials but sand. The applause which the faulty romances of his nation have received, does yet justify him the less: We are not to judge of a performance by the number, but sufficiency of the approbators. Every one assumes to himself the license to judge of, and censure poesie and romance: The sumptuous palaces and common streets are made tribunals, where the merit sof the greatest works receive a supreme decision. There every one shoots his bolt, and boldly prefumes to fet an estimate of

==67==

==68==
==69==
==70==
==71==
==72==
==73==
==74==
==75==
==76==
==77==
==78==
==79==
==80==
==81==
==82==
==83==
==84==
==85==
==86==
==87==
==88==
==89==
==90==
==91==
==92==
==93==

Form of a Satyr, of the same Kind which Varro invented, intermixing Prose with Verse, the Serious with the Jocose, and stile with Menippean; because Menippus had before treated of Serious Matters in a Pleasant Style. This Satyr of Petronius fails not to be a True Romance: It contains nothing but diverting and ingenious Fictions; tho' they are sometimes too licentious and immodest. He hides under a Disguise a fine and poinant Railery, against the Vices of Noro's Court. That remains of it, are only some incoherent Fragments, or rather Collections of some industrious Person; so that one can't exactly discern the

==94==
==95==
what very Few understand) is yet much easier to be understood,than practised well. Some say,the Poet ''Lucan'' (who also lived in the Reign of ''Nero'') composed ''Saltic'' Fables; wherein(some think) wererecounted the Intrigous of ''Satyrs'' and ''Nymphs''. This agree well with a Romance, and the Wit of that Age, which was very much inclined to the Amusements of that Art. But since there is nothing left us of it but the title, and that does not clearly express the Nature of the Work; it shall say nothing of it.

The ''Metamorphosis'' of ''Apnleins'', so well known by the Name of the Golden Ass, was com-

==96==
==97==
Elegant Episodes; and among others, with that of Psyche, which no one is ignorant of. He has taken no Care to retrench the Smuttiness of the Originals which he followed. His Style is that of a Sophist, full of Affectation and violent Figures; hard, barbarous, and very becoming an African.
Some are of Opinion, that ''Clodius Albinus'', a Pretender to the Empire, who was defeated by ''Severus'', did not disdain this Employment. ''Juslius Capitolinus'' reports in his Life, that there were several ''Milesian'' Fables under his Name in very great Reputation, tho' but indifferently composed: And that ''Severus'' reproached the Senate, that they had

==98==
==99==
is attended by them) espouses Philology (which is the Love od Good Letters) he gives her whatever is Excellent in them, for a Nuptial Present: So that it is a continued Allegory, which properly does not deserve the Name of Romance, but rather that of a Fable. For, as I have already observed, a Fable represents Things which never have, or ever can happen; and a Romance takes notice of Things which may, but never have happen'd. The Artifice of this Allegory is not very subtle; he Style is Barbarism it self; so bold and extravagant in its Figures, that they are unpardonable in the most Desperate Poet. Tis disguised with so great an

==100==
==101==

==102==
==103==
==104==
==105==
==106==
==107==
==108==
==109==
==110==
maintain the Antiquity of these Writers, tho' I have great Authority to do it, because the common and received Opinion would support me. 'Tis certain that the ''Arabians'' were extremely addicted, as I have made appear, to the ''Gay Science'', I mean, Poesy, Fable, and Fiction. This Science was preserv'd in its Primitive Rudeness by them, till it was cultivated and improved by the ''Greeks''. They brought it along with their Arms into ''Africa'', when they subdued it; tho' it had before flourished in that Country: For ''Aristotle'', and after him ''Priscian'', make mention of the ''Libyc'' Fables; and the Romances of ''Apuleius'' and ''Martianns Capella'', both

==111==
==112==
==113==
==114==
==115==
to be the first Romance of Chivalry which was printed in ''Spain'', and the Model, and Best of all the other.
''Palmerin'' of ''England'', which some believe was composed by a King of ''Portugal'', met with an Easy Sentence, to be put in a Box like that of ''Darius'', wherein ''Alexander'' kept the Works of ''Homer''. Don ''Belianis'', the Mirror of Chilvalry, ''Tirante'' the ''White'', and ''Kyrie'' ''Eleison'' of ''Montauban''; (for in those Good Old Times it was believed, that ''Kyrie Eleison'', and ''Paralipomenon'', were the Names of some Saints) where the Subtleties of Madam ''Pleasure-of-my-Life'', and the Love and Intrigues of the Widow ''Reposada'', are highly

==116==
==117==
==118==
==119==
==120==
==121==
==122==

with Herbs and Roots; so when the Knowledge of Truth, which is the Proper and Natural Aliment of the Mind, begins to fail, we have Recourse to Falshood, which is the Imitation of Truth. As in Plenty we refuse Bread, and our ordinary Viands, for Ragousts; so our Minds, when acquainted with the Truth, forsake the Study and Speculation of it, to be entertained with its Image, which is Fiction. This Imitation, according to Aristotle, is often more agreeable than the Original itself; so that two oppositely different Paths, which are Ignorance and Learning, Rudeness and Politness, do often conduct uss to the same End; which is, an

==123==
==124==
==125==
have recourse to what's past, and to come, in Truth and in Fiction, in Imaginary Spaces and Impossibilities, For Objects to exert it sels upon. The Objects of sense fill the Desires of the Soul of Brutes, who have no farther Concern; so that we can't discover in them these restless Emotions, which continually actuate the Mind of Man, and carry it into the Pursuit of a recent Information, to proportion (if possible) the Object to the Faculty; and enjoy a Pleasure, resembling that which we perceive in the Applealing a Violent Hunger, and Extinguishing a Corroding Thirst. This is that which ''Plato'' intends, in the Marriage of Dorus

==126==
==127==
==128==
==129==
==130==
==131==
==132==
==133==
==134==
==135==
==136==
==137==
==138==
==139==
==140==
==141==
==142==
==143==
==144==
==145==
Monsieur D'Vrfee was the first who retrieved them from Barbarity, and reduced them to Rules, in his Incomparable Afirea, The most Ingenious and Polite Work which has appeared in this Kind, and which Eclipsed the Glory which Greece, Italy and Spain, had acquired.
However, he has not discouraged those who come after him, to undertake what he has performed. He has not so far engrossed the Public Admiration, but that some are still left for the many Excellent Romances which displayed themselves in France since His.

==146==

==147==
itself against Scrupulous Censures, not only by the Commendations which the Patriarch Photius gives it, but by the great Examples of those who have applied themselves to it, might justify itself by Her's: That that which has been improved by Philosophers, as Apuleis, and Athenagoras; by a Roman Prator, as Sisenna; by a Consul, as Petronius; by a Pretender to the Empire, as Clodius Albinus; by a Priest, as Theodorus Prodromus; by Bishops, as Heliodorus, and Achilles Tatius; by a Pope, as Pius Secundus, who wrote the Loves of Euryalus and Lucretia; by a Saint, as John Damascenus; might have the Ho-

==148==
nour

==149==

[[Category:17th century|1670]]
[[Category:1670s|1670]]
[[Category:By author|Huet, Pierre Daniel]]