Angl-Am - User contributions [en]

Template:News

2009-11-27T09:03:28Z

Kelly Jamison: /* Noteboard */

==Noteboard==
*'''The English Language Help Center (ELHC)''' will start offering its services on Monday, '''November 30'''. If you need assistance in areas such as Writing, Presentations, Communication, etc., you are welcome to place your name on the sign-up sheet outside of Lauren Freede´s office door '''(A6 2-221)'''.

*'''Lauren Freede''': Die '''Sprechstunde''' am 26. November muss leider ausfallen. '''Ersatzweise''' findet sie '''am 27. November von 10:30 bis 13:00 h''' statt.

*Die Sprechstunde und Veranstaltungen von '''Kevin Carpenter''' müssen in der Woche vom 23.11.-27.11.09 wegen Krankheit leider ausfallen. Dringende Anfragen beantwortet Herr Carpenter gerne per E-Mail.

*'''Sekretariat Anglistik''': Die Sprechstunde von Frau Fennen fällt am 26. und am 30. November aus. Frau Severin ist bis einschließlich 4. Dezember nicht im Dienst. Bitte wenden Sie sich in dringenden Fällen an Frau Lücke (Raum 2-216; Tel.-Nr. 798-2301; E-Mail: dilukshi.luecke@uni-oldenburg.de).

*'''Leitfaden zur Abfassung wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten''' in Anglistik is now available for download: [http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/downloads/leitfaden_wiss_arb_wise_09-10.pdf Leitfaden]

*'''Hilfreiche Tipps für Erstsemester''':
:* [[Help:Contents|Erste Schritte im Anglistik Wiki]]
:* [[Einschreibmodalitäten und Fachvorstellung BA 2009]]
:* [http://www.anglistik.uni-oldenburg.de/download/Anlage4_Anglistik_BPO_2009.pdf Neue fachspez. Anlage B.A. 2009]

*'''BM1 und BM2'''
:*'''Neuer Termin für BM2 Übung''' Der Freitagskurs von 16-18 Uhr wurde gestrichen. Stattdessen bieten wir allen Interessierten folgenden neuen Termin an: DONNERSTAG, 14.00-16.00 Uhr, Campus Wechloy, W02 1-128. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an die Lehrenden des Moduls.
:*'''Neue Struktur des BM1 und BM2''': mehr Info [http://wiki.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/index.php/Stud.IP#Aktuelles_und_Info hier]
:*'''BM1 course plan''': see [[2009-10 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature|here]]

*Informationen zum '''Fachpraktikum und Forschungspraktikum''': siehe [[User:Anke Leinweber|Anke Leinweber]], Fachdidaktik und Praktikumsbeauftragte

*Aktuelle Informationen zum Thema [http://www.anglistik.uni-oldenburg.de/download/Auslandsaufenthalt_UK.pdf Auslandsaufenthalt] und [http://www.anglistik.uni-oldenburg.de/download/English_Language_Help_Centre.pdf English Language Help Centre] entnehmen Sie bitte den auf der Homepage unter NEWS hinterlegten Dokumenten! Siehe auch [[Kriterien für Auslandsaufenthalte]].

*'''Informationen zu den Sprechstundenzeiten im Wintersemester 2009-10''': unter [[Sprechstundenzeiten]]

*[http://www.creative-writing-society.de.vu The Creative Writing Society Oldenburg] invites you!

*'''Abschlussprüfungen American Studies und British Studies (BA, M.Ed., M.A., alte Lehramt- und Magister-Studiengänge)''' <br />Zur Betreuung von Abschlussarbeiten sowie zur Abnahme mündlicher Prüfungen stehen im Wintersemester 09/10 Dr. Christina Meyer (für Amerikanistik) und Dr. Richard Stinshoff (für British Studies) zur Verfügung. Bitte tragen Sie sich in deren Abschlusskolloquien ein und setzen Sie sich mit Ihnen in Verbindung.

*'''Evaluation''': forms and results can be found [[Evaluation|here]]

*'''Erasmusplatz in Tours''': Der Vortrag von Prof. Tuller hat Ihnen gefallen? Sie wollen in diese Art von Arbeit einsteigen? Sie können etwas Französisch? Dann sind Sie richtig für den plötzlich doch wieder freigewordenen Erasmusplatz für das Sommersemester 2010 an der Universität Tours. Interessenten bitte sofort bei [mailto:cornelia.hamann@uni-oldenburg.de Cornelia Hamann] melden - oder bei Christa Weers vom ISO.

*'''Time to say goodbye''' to the students in the Department of English and American Studies
::Dear students,
::As many of you know, I have now retired after 33 years of being a Lektor in our department. In fact, today is the first day of my retirement – and see: I’m still thinking of you! To keep it short, I would just like to say goodbye, and to thank the many students whom I have met and taught over the years. I can honestly say that I really enjoyed the teaching aspect of being a Lektor, and am grateful for the stimulation I received from being constantly around young people. Indeed, the only thing concerns me just a little is that now that I have retired, my contact group has doubled – or even trebled – in age! So it only remains for me to say thank you to you all, to say “goodbye” and to wish you all the very best in your future careers, whichever paths you mayhave chosen to go down.
::Delia Duncan, 1st October, 2009

2008-09 AM Richard Head, The English Rogue (1665)

2009-01-27T13:28:37Z

Kelly Jamison: /* Kelly Jameson, Why is London frequently visited and mentioned? */

Richard Head’s (and Francis Kirkman’s) ''The English Rogue'' (1665-71) is an intriguing and multifaceted book. The first copies of the first volume were printed secretly, sold at alehouses and appreciated as grossly indecent. The license followed with the second edition in 1665. The book was successful, yet no work the author wanted to continue. The text had been interpreted, so Head felt, as autobiographical, his reputation had already suffered enough – which did not prevent his publisher, Francis Kirkman, from adding continuations till 1671. It has been said that Head was involved in the further production – he denied it.

The book had played with traditions, it was translated into a foreign language, German, and it inspired numerous imitations - yet it did not become “The first English Novel”; Defoe’s ''Robinson Crusoe'' (1719) reached that fame in 1957. The discussion of predecessors has hardly rediscovered Head. We will ask why that is the case and try to explore the peculiar (more or less) fictional biography in attempts to contextualise it.

==Kelly Jamison, Why is London frequently visited and mentioned?==
[http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/downloads/Latroon-in-London.pdf Latroon in London, pdf file]

==Sebastian Brinkmann: The English Rogue & Sexuality==

The topc of sexuality, erotica and pornography in general as well as their application in the text. Please also download my .pdf from Stud.IP

[http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/downloads/The_English_Rogue_and_Sexuality-1.pdf The_English Rogue and Sexuality, pdf]

:Good secondary reading Robert Darnton on the pornography and the enlightenment - well and there is more... Create a list and I order titles for our library.
----
*Robert Darnton, ''The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France'' (New York: Norton, 1995).
*Lynn Hunt, ''The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500-1800'' (New York: Zone, 1996).

==Jana Lühring: Readership and Style==
The theme that I am going to present you is the analysis of the readership. My thesis is that the origin readership of the ''English Rogue'' was from the upper class and thus more or less educated. To support this thesis, I will refer to a few text passages by which we get hints at the readership. First, I start with the frontmatter and the advices it gives us. Then I will quote some other text passages, in which direct or indirect hints are presented concerning the readership. Finally, I will read with you into the chapter LIII and afterwards discuss which difficulties occur and how we would classify the readership, after looking at this chapter.

:(copied and pasted from e-mail --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)).

==Julian Trempel: The English Rogue : Francis Kirkman and Richard Head==
I am going to present to you my research on who really wrote 'The English Rogue' Part II-IV, and why, and what the relationship of Francis Kirkman and Richard Head was like, proving with primary and secundary textes.

==General Information==

===Topics===
* The history of editions
* The French Rogue
* The Spanish Rogue
* Nationalism
* Novel and Play
* The Trivialisations
* The question of authorship
* The poor as the object of laughter?
* Crime
* Clothing
* Pornography?
* Men and Women
* The social bond
* The German translation
* An (Auto-)biography?
* Stylistic improbabilities
* An overview of research
* Childhood
* Truth, fiction and romance
* The illustrations
* Scatology
* Religion
* (Poetical) Justice
* What the novel wants to teach us
* Love
* Colours, smells and touches
* Age
* Pity
* Moments of reflection
* Money
* Punishments
* Whoring
* Poems and Prose
* Included Letters
* Cuckolding
* Reputation
* Masters and Servants
* Professions
* Gaming
* The witty Extravagant

===Links===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Head en.wikipedia.org - information on Richard Head]

===Texts===
*[Richard Head] ''The English rogue described in the life of Meriton Latroon, a witty extravagant''. London: Francis Kirkman, 1666. [http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=15585368&FILE=../session/1210091335_12425&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=config.cfg&DISPLAY=default EEBO] [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/intro-to-literature/d/1666_Head_The_English_Rogue.pdf Anglistik Server Oldenburg]
*[A shortened chapbook version:] ''The life and death of the English rogue, or, His last legacy to the world.'' London, 1679. [http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=12253472&FILE=../session/1210087652_12132&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR EEBO]

[[Category:Aufbaumodul]]
[[Category:Winter 2008-2009|2009-1]]

Talk:2008-09 AM Richard Head, The English Rogue (1665)

2008-10-16T20:19:29Z

Kelly Jamison:

Could a possible topic for a presentation be pregnancy and morals in "The ER"? Could it be about the feelings of the ER about pregnancy/frutility or the lack thereof and the abundance amount of sexual activites he has despite fear of fatherhood? Perhaps these feelings connect to his childhood? Would this be a relevant presentation topic or is it too vague? Or are you, Olaf, leaning in other directions and mindsets when it comes to the presentations and theories we need to discuss?

Talk:2007-08 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1

2007-12-22T17:14:08Z

Kelly Jamison: Bibliographical Form

== Style Sheet==

Wie werden mehrere Autoren eines Werkes aufgelistet?
Der erste Autor Nachname, Vorname, alle weiteren mit Vorname, Nachname - man trennt die Namen mittels Komma.
Vergleicht dazu nochmals das Style Sheet.
[[User:Florian Gubisch|Florian Gubisch]] 12:42, 18 December 2007 (CET)

== National License ==

I have just received my user name and password from Berlin but I am having difficulties accessing the information. When I click on the link for next week's materials and enter my information it says nevertheless that my access is denied due to server problems or my name is invalid. However, when I go to my account from the link www.nationallizenzen.de/einzelnutzer-anmeldung I can access the EBBO/ECCO site. BUT I cannot access the literature that is assigned. I type in the title of the literature but it says that it cannot be found.
I tried using the password and username which were given during the lecture but those are denied as well when I use the direct link on Wiki.
What can I do?
Thanks,

Kelly Jamison

:May be that is because the links I provided do already have the Oldenburg university access details in them - which might not match with your own log-in details. If you get into the EEBO or ECCO user-interface you should be able to find the titles with the regular search options.

:PS. As to accounts within our wiki - do please use real name accounts, i.e. [[User:Kelly Jamison|Kelly Jamison]] rather than [[User:KellyJ83|KellyJ83]] [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=6903&oldid=6608&rcid=6075]

:best --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:11, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

==Können wir auch einen bekannten Text exzerpieren, anstatt zwei Bücher zu lesen?==

Ein Buch müsst ihr lesen, eins aus der [[Exzerpt eines primär- und eines Sekundärtexts (unbenotet)|Liste]] (und selbst da erlaubt Anton Kirchhofer Teillektüren). Das andere ist ein kurzer Aufsatz und sollte drin sein.

==Werden in den Tutorien Beispielaufgaben für den "written test" besprochen?==

Wir bereiten euch auf den "written test" vor, die genaue Form steht momentan noch nicht fest. Man kann jedoch den letzten Test einsehen unter: [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/downloads/test-bm1-2007.doc Test]

==Gibt es noch ergänzende Literatur zur Vorlesung?==

Zur Frage Geschichte des Literaturbegriffs gibt es [[http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/085-set.html ein Kapitel meiner Diss]], dem ich in VL3 strikt folgte, um die Sache nachvollziehbar zu machen. Die Überschrift müßt ihr nicht weiter bedenken, das Kapitel stand unter einer REihe grundsätzlicher Erwägungen zum Umgang mit vergangenen Konzepten - hier das Link für das [http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/anglistik/lit-wiss/simons/marteaus-europa/bausteine-set.html ganze Kapitel]:

==Können wir die Exzerpte handschriftlich verfassen? und auf Deutsch?==

Die Exzerpte sollen Euch nahelegen, grundsätzlich während des Lesens mitzuprotokollieren, was Ihr da gerade aufnehmt. UNsere eigenen, die wir auf [[Excerpt]] als Muster gaben, sind in ganz unterschiedlichen Formaten verfaßt. Mitunter liest man auf dem Sofa zusammengekauert, da hat man keinen Laptop um dauern notizen zu machen, aber vielleicht ein Klemmbrett, und notiert was passiert - kostet zwa etwas Zeit, die spielt sich aber wieder ein, wenn man zu dem Buch etwas sagen soll und nun Notizen hat.

Macht das also, wie es für Euch praktisch ist. Wir werden Euch Feedback geben, ob wir denken, daß Euch das später noch mal helfen könnte.

==Wo finden wir die Texte der Liste "Literary Criticism"?==

Diese Aufsätze findet ihr in der Bibliothek (--> Tipp: Sucht nach den Hrsg. Felicity Nussbaum bzw. Eric Hobsbawm).--[[User:Christina Stindl|Christina Stindl]] 20:06, 17 November 2007

:Wir werden versuchen an diese Textze zu kommen - die Bücher sind prompt verliehen - unser Fehler, wir werden versuchen, pdfs zu erstellen.

==Different Version of the Rise of the Novel==

“Three different versions of the rise of the novel”

Version 1: The "rise of the novel" has been completed in 1700. This opinion is based on the fact that courtly "romances" were replaced by works of authors like Cervantes and Madame de La Fayette. Whilst "romances" inspired emulation (Nachahmung) of great heroes or laughter about ridiculous heroes (such as Don Quixote) "novels" offer an instructive moral in a surprising point. The topics of novels are mostly intrigues and scandalous personal affairs. Novels (i.e. short stories or what we today call novellas) were a European production. Boccacio wrote the most famous collection in the mid 14th century. Cervantes ''Novelas Exemplares'' (1613) took the next step. They established the term "novela", novel as generic term of the short genre that defeated the heroic romance. Adultery was a fashionable theme, the heroes of novels were mostly upper middle class, lower aristocracy (not Knights and their Princesses).

Version 2: The "first novel" was not the “novella” but ''Robinson Crusoe'' (1719). This statement is based on the findings of Ian Watt, who was able to view ''Robinson Crusoe'' as the first modern novel - the one that lead to titles like ''Middlemarch''. DeFoe's book was - in 1719 - rather a romance, a true history which smelled of fiction than a novel, yet it lead to a reform of novels. Novels became long stories of entirely new adventures. Richardson's ''Pamela'' was a breakthrough with the story of a young servant who had to reform her master, an aristocratic libertine. Richardson's novel influenced other novelists and numerous dramatists. Lessing's Bürgerliches Trauerspiel is the successful attempt to create a dramatic equivalent. The new novel (now a long realistic yet fictional story) and the new drama shaped the new concept of literature created in the second half of the 18th century. Ian Watt recognized Daniel DeFoe as the first one, who introduced the typical (middle class bourgeois) hero. The individual as a member of the nation became a topic.

Version 3: Within the last thirty years, it has been realized that there existed novels before “Robinson Crusoe”. Scholars began to speak of "proto novels". This discovery gained momentum as it led to the discovery of female authors - like Aphra Behn, who wrote "novels" in the 1680s - in the 1970s and 1980s.

The three versions have different advantages:
*Version 1: Served (in the 17th century) as a justification of the European scandalous short story.
*Version 2: Turned “Robinson Crusoe” into the first modern novel (English literature became the leading force in European histories of literature).
*Version 3: Turned female authors into “mothers of the modern novel” - an attack against male research brought forth by scholars like Ian Watt and J. J. Richetti (read his ''Popular Fictions'' 1968...)
It has to be taken into account that:
*these versions did not develop by chance
*all three versions are true (depending on the definitions of the terms)
*different versions pursue different goals
*you (can) define what you consider to be a novel or a romance (you can also critically write about the definitions others gave)
*there is no stability in the field of definitions

----

The text above is my revision of a version I found here before. You can take a look at my changes: [http://www.wiki.uni-oldenburg.de/fk3/angl-am/index.php?title=Talk:2007-08_BM1_Introduction_to_the_Critical_and_Scholarly_Discussion_of_Literature%2C_Part_1&curid=2047&diff=8528&oldid=8527&rcid=7706 compare] --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 18:28, 27 November 2007 (CET)

:oh my god.. I am sorry!! Considering to what you corrected, I guess it has not been the best idea to edit the "versions of the rise of the novel". I thought I got what you explained in the lecture but obviously I should look at it again. [[User:Gesa.draeger|Gesa.draeger]] 12:21, 29 November 2007 (CET)

::You should not be sorry at all! How can I see how much you understand of I lecture I give. Once you summarize it I see where I created problems, and then I can solve it. It would be the very best thing to do collectively: produce a common Vorlesungs-Skript, we read and correct it. You learn and we learn where we failed. This exchange is very much appreciated and I think it is useful to all the others. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 15:31, 29 November 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the first Lecture on Periodisation==

With this text I try to summarize the ideas of the first lecture.

At first there were some generally known historical dates and facts presented in the lecture:

The English periods and their ideas (Middle Ages, Renaissance…) and some indications for the history of periodisation, which is mostly created in hindsight. These indications refer to the time before 1500 (a sense of unbroken continuity with Roman empire and society), from 1500 to 1650 (introduction of a three phased model: ancient-medieval-modern), from 1650 to 1750 (battle of the ancients and the moderns: proponents of the "modern age" claim to have gotten further than the ancients ever dremed they could get) and from 1750 to today (the Middle Ages are turned from a period of "gothic" barbarism and rotten monkish knowledge into a past Germany and the northern countreys can be proud of; modernity becomes a phase of intensified period-formation).

Looking for general tendencies in recent periodisations of the Anglo-Saxon canon the following three options can be noted:

* The early modern period is stretched back into the period other nations will note as their respective middle ages in order to include Chaucer, i.e. the period around 1350 as an early European renaissance (Boccacio and Dante become protagonists of the parallel Italian movement),
* to create long periods (like the “Early Modern Period”); and
* to create subdivisions under political headings (e.g. the “Tudors”).

After getting to know these “basics” we are invited to think about the sense and the effects of periodisations.

At first we wonder if structuring the past into periods really creates an accurate picture of the past, because there are some difficulties concerning periodisation.

To begin with there are different histories of literature which offer different periodisations so there is a continuous debate of how to properly understand and define different periods. Secondly a period’s definition predetermines which materials of a period are explored in which way. To make things even more difficult: periods can refer to periods of time and to styles and ideas at the same time. Once we speak of styles and ideas as the true essence of a period we can exclude materials which would fit into the time frame as being not typical of the period (or even as still belonging to the last or as already belonging to the next period). What happens for example to materials produced between 1680-1800 if they do not fit into a history of the enlightenment?

A special problem of any discourse about periods is its potential to provide ad hoc answers: An artifact has certain qualities? They can be immediately explained as qualities of the period. Does a chapter on the Elizabethan Age, however, actually “explain” Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”?

So all in all you can say that periodisation may narrow one’s view; it is possible that really interesting things which are not typical of a period will be forgotten and that you are hindered in exploring a new sense of things because you just search for typical features of the period; and all that although the structuring of the past in periods is not even stable and clear but varies all the time.
The consequence of all this is that you have to look further and that you may not be totally influenced of ideas of periodisation. Instead of this you should develop your own opinion and ideas and even crate your own periods. You should challenge the received notions and always think about what these notions are supposed to reach, why they are created in a certain way - so do not stop thinking about this and do not simply accept the given ideas.

I would be very pleased if my attempt to summarize the text would be commented. :-)

:I read through it and tried to clarify things here and there. All in all your summary proved, however, that you got the main messages. --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

==Summary of the third lecture: The Rise of Literature, Part I==

'''Look back:'''

*History is no certain place but it is reconstructed
See:
#picture of the nine greatest heroes: Middle ages created the past in their own image
#16th century academic world created a past in which they put people into the newest fashion #19th century then tried to revive the middle ages

Conclusion: Re-invention of History is an arbitrary act, just as the setting of periods. The arbitrariness of periods can be best perceived in our own culture. We have created a debate in which we constantly label ourselves and others as proponents of ongoing, upcoming or past movements and periods. This has begun in the 1750s with the Enlightenment, the age of sensibility and romanticism as labels produced among contemporaries in order to play such roles as mainstream, the avantgarde, the defenders of traditional views etc. under all these ever changing labels.

*The construction and discussion of modern periods began around 1500
*The game of placing oneself or others under the label of a period, generation, or movement did not start until the second half of the 18th century

''Simple notion:'' Time changes, that`s why we speak of periods. The greater the historical distance, the greater is the chance that we arrive at an objective understanding of a period.

''Complex notion:'' The definition of periods is always an arbitrary act. Its purpose is to position others and ourselves in historical developments.''

'''New topic:'''

“What is literature?”

''Simple notion:'' Literature is the body of all written materials; we are naturally most interested in those texts which show a timeless power to fascinate mankind.

Literature is Everything written:
*Problem: we don't deal with everything written (ex. Phone books)

Literature is a smaller field of beautiful fictional texts
*Problem: what is beautiful? There are different views about what is beautiful

Literature is the body of all texts a culture primarily discusses, the body of all controversial texts, especially: of all texts with a deeper meaning (all those texts "which will always fascinate mankind" (and thereby create the "canon")
*Main problem of these definitions of literature: their circularaity: Once you discuss a text (as worthy to be discussed) it is a text discussed and hence literature according to the said definition.

Should not we look for a non-controversial definition?

The Answer ight be "no"
*The non- controversial definition is not of any interest!! It is exactly the controversy that characterizes literature as such.
*Different people with different intentions define literature completely differently: :*19th century Nationalists: most important works a nation honors as its text base :*Formalists: Texts which work on literary patterns :*Marxists: Texts which lead to the rise of the working class :*Proponents of the school of "New Criticism" (1920s): masterpieces of language composition :*Structuralists: the complex work
:*Postculturalists: works which resound in the universe of literary texts

''Complex notion:'' Literature is a body of materials we place into the centre of the literary debate- the discussion of “poetical” and “fictional” materials as “literature” is an invention of the last two centuries!

Literature therefore can only be defined in an evasive way as: *the nature of the literary text that is never fully understood *being too sublime in its beauty to be defined by words and concepts *being too complex in its construction to be easily understood *being to essential in its themes to be reclaimed and exhausted by any interest group

development of Literature as a science that cannot be clearly defined

'''2: Second Thoughts:'''
*we have to take into account that the materials we discuss as literature have not always been discussed as literature and have not always interested mankind!
*central terms:“literature”, “poesy”, Belletristik (german), fiction (English) can`t be used in the same context
:*yet are no synonyms / how do this different words of “literature” relate to each other? *materials we call literature could not be called literature before the 1750s *sciences were “literature”
*“poesy” comprised a number of now “literary” genres – novel was not among them and opera and ballet were ascribed to the “poetical” genres
*“belles letters” comprised a huge field of fashionable books ( Belletristik)

'''2.2: The production of the poetical genres:''' Aristotle’s ''Art of poetry''
*Aristotle was the first one who wrote about what we today conceive as "literary" genres. He himself spoke of poetical genres and did not include prose fiction (the novel) in his spectrum. The situation got more complex with the modern period. The opera became the most important poetical genre in the 17th century. Our presnt notion of "literary genres" is to a good extend based on an 18th century attempt to return to the Aristotlian pattern (and to exclude the opera). Unlike Aristotle the novel got, however, accepted as the modern epic. The whole concept of art Aristotle produced got lost. Fictionality became a far more important criterion of the poetical, now "literary" genres.

'''2.3: Fiction: Works with a deeper meaning:'''
*interpretations of literature began during the history of Romances (Pierre Daniel Huet)

'''2.4: Belles Lettres: the elegant market
*around 1760 there emerged a clash between the terms literature and belles letters *belles letters was seen as the elegant field of literature and dealing with the French market

'''2.5: Literature was the field of the sciences right into the 19th century:'''

The meaning of the terms “literature” and “art” changed tremendously over the past 300 years
*"literature" used to be the word for "learning", the sciences, scientific publications, "art" the word for human inventions and practical knowledge, man-made instruments

How can this change be explained?

Those who published literary journals and histories of literature found a wider audience for their works once they shifted the focus from the sciences and latest technical to works we today perceive as works of art and literature

The debate of Literature (initially the debate of the sciences) adopted ongoing debates of texts, their beauty, they controversial aspects, their deeper meaning and thus created a field of materials we today recognise as "literature" in the proper sense of the word. The new field needed a history the 19th century had to produce: it came to be produced as a variety of national histories serving the national school systems and the national audiences with a subject matter of intense debate

Consequences: When coming across materials published before the 1750s you have to be aware that *other discussions such as discussions abou religion were of far greater importance *“literature” as what we picture it today wasn`t the same before 1750 *materials published before 1750 might have had a far more controversial status

:again, I tried to clarify things here and there. Read the articles
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literatur
:*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literaturgeschichte

for more detailed information --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 17:53, 16 December 2007 (CET)

== Bibliographical Form ==

I find the idea of having to put citations in bibliographical form for a test unimportant. When one writes a bachelor/master/doctor thesis, one can easily look this form up and incorporate this style in the bibliography/footnotes. What also I find rather inconvenient is that at this University, the style sheet changes depending on the major you study and also on the topic. For example Literature's style sheet is completely different to that of Fachdidaktik, Music is different than English...etc. Perhaps I would find this task more valuable if the styles were universal.
In other words, I would much rather be tested on lecture materials than on bibliographical forms. I understand that this is being done to help prepare us for writing papers, which I and others really appreciate, but we have enough exposure to the bibliographical forms in our other classes (i.e. Portfolios for other basis modules and in the second half of this course)

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

2007-10-30T16:11:48Z

Kelly Jamison: /* 45 */

==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]
__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==

==vii==

==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==

==[xii]==

==1==
==2==
==3==
==4==
==5==
==6==
==7==
==8==
==9==
==10==
==11==
==12==
==13==
==14==
==15==
==16==
==17==
==18==
==19==
==20==
==21==
==22==
==23==
==24==
==25==
==26==
==27==
==28==
==29==
==30==
==31==
==32==
==33==
==34==
==35==
==36==
==37==
==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 wether 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==
==40==
==41==
==42==
==43==
==44==

'''Romances.'''

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 named"

==46==
==47==
==48==
==49==
==50==
==51==
==52==
==53==
==54==
==55==
==56==
==57==
==58==
==59==
==60==
==61==
==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 meritsof 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==
==94==
==95==
==96==
==97==
==98==
==99==
is attended by them) espouses Philology (which is the Love od Good Letters)he gives her whatever is Escellent in them, for a Nuptial PResent: So that it is a continued Allegory, which propery 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 Romace 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==
==111==
==112==
==113==
==114==
==115==
==116==
==117==
==118==
==119==
==120==
==121==
==122==
==123==
==124==
==125==
==126==
==127==
==128==
==129==
==130==
==131==
==132==
==133==
==134==
==135==
==136==
==137==
==138==
==139==
==140==
==141==
==142==
==143==
==144==
==145==
==146==
==147==
==148==
==149==

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

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

2007-10-30T16:10:32Z

Kelly Jamison: /* 45 */

==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]
__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==

==vii==

==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==

==[xii]==

==1==
==2==
==3==
==4==
==5==
==6==
==7==
==8==
==9==
==10==
==11==
==12==
==13==
==14==
==15==
==16==
==17==
==18==
==19==
==20==
==21==
==22==
==23==
==24==
==25==
==26==
==27==
==28==
==29==
==30==
==31==
==32==
==33==
==34==
==35==
==36==
==37==
==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 wether 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==
==40==
==41==
==42==
==43==
==44==
==45==

'''Romances.'''

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 named"

==46==
==47==
==48==
==49==
==50==
==51==
==52==
==53==
==54==
==55==
==56==
==57==
==58==
==59==
==60==
==61==
==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 meritsof the greatest works receive a supreme decision. There every one shoots his bolt, and boldly prefumes to fet an estimate of

==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==
==94==
==95==
==96==
==97==
==98==
==99==
is attended by them) espouses Philology (which is the Love od Good Letters)he gives her whatever is Escellent in them, for a Nuptial PResent: So that it is a continued Allegory, which propery 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 Romace 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==
==111==
==112==
==113==
==114==
==115==
==116==
==117==
==118==
==119==
==120==
==121==
==122==
==123==
==124==
==125==
==126==
==127==
==128==
==129==
==130==
==131==
==132==
==133==
==134==
==135==
==136==
==137==
==138==
==139==
==140==
==141==
==142==
==143==
==144==
==145==
==146==
==147==
==148==
==149==

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