Dynamics of Neo-Latin and the Vernacular

Project description

Research Proposal Dynamics of Neo-Latin and the Vernacular

The Role of Self-Representation, Self-Presentation and Imaging in the Field of Cultural Transmission, Exemplified by the German Reception of Dutch Poets in a ‘Bilingual’ Context

Description of the Proposed Research

Definition of Problem and Objectives, Theoretical Framework and Innovative Elements

In seventeenth-century Europe, the Dutch Republic played an important role as a literary staple market. This view is widely shared as far as the supranational Republic of Letters is concerned with its use of Latin as the lingua franca. In the past decade, however, it has become evident that this also applies to the Dutch segment of the literary market. Earlier research has discussed the international influence of ‘Dutch’ literature – that is, for the purposes of this proposal, literature from the Northern Netherlands written in either Dutch or Latin (Ellinger 1933; Sellin 1968; Bornemann 1976). Still, this research has scarcely paid attention to the processes surrounding and influencing the reception of this Dutch literature outside the Netherlands. Moreover, it failed to connect the reception of literary production in Latin with the reception of literature in the vernacular, due to the questionable belief that the two circuits are unconnected. It was generally assumed that Latin was intended only for the intellectual elite, whereas work in the vernacular was thought to be aimed solely at the ‘common man’. In scholarship concerned with ‘national’ literatures, the idea emerged that Latin as a language had been marginalised since the sixteenth century, while at the same time ‘original’ literature in the vernacular definitely gained the upper hand. The Dutch perspective alone informs us that this view needs to be modified. It should be borne in mind that rhetoricians and humanists maintained close contacts, as is exemplified in the cooperation between the rector of the Haarlem Latin School, Cornelius Schonaeus, and the local rhetoricians’ chambers (see Bloemendal 2003). Recently, Ramakers (1998) and Van Dixhoorn (2004), among others, proved that the rhetoricians while using the vernacular considered themselves equal to the humanists with regard to education. Just like their countrymen publishing in Latin they turned to the classics, and at a much earlier period than had been assumed. It also becomes clear that the dividing line between ‘learned’ references meant for an intellectual upper class and vernacular production for the common herd has been drawn too sharp when one considers, for example, the extensive commentary added by Petrus Scriverius to Heinsius’s Hymns for Christ and Bacchus in Dutch (Rank, Warners & Zwaan 1965). This seems to indicate that literature supposed to have been directed towards the ‘common man’ was, in fact, intended for the upper classes. On the other hand, it may be stated that Latin literature was less elitist than is usually assumed. For instance, performances of Latin plays were attended and appreciated by a general audience without any knowledge of Latin. Current research by Bloemendal in the field of early modern drama shows that the relationship between the vernacular and Latin is a complicated one. Moreover, it demonstrates that the Netherlands was an export country par excellence for the dramatic genre (cf. Bloemendal 2006 and 2008). No research has been carried out as yet with regard to elegiac and lyric poetry.

When works of literature are exported, another, entirely new dimension is added to the dynamics of Latin and the vernacular, especially when authors and their oeuvres are exploited for cultural-political reasons. This happened, with more emphasis than in other Western European countries with regard to the confrontation with ‘Dutch’ literary production, with the reception of literature from the Netherlands in the German countries, where – on the basis of the still strongly felt kinship – Dutch literature adopted a specific role in the development of the German Kulturnation or cultural nation, something which in fact remained a desideratum until approximately 1750. In this process, the original self-positioning of the authors was subordinated to German poetic, cultural-political and social goals. In the German court-oriented context, the self-conscious Dutch bourgeois authors were viewed in a new light. As a result of this development, a specific and unique form of interaction between (German) vernacular and Latinity came to life. The authors’ self-representation and self-presentation efforts thus acquired their own distinct roles in the interaction process inherent to the development of their image. To illustrate this phenomenon, the German reception of four authors from the Netherlands is compared: that of Jacob Cats, Hugo Grotius, Daniel Heinsius and Joost van den Vondel. Each of them was received in the German countries in his own specific way, within the vernacular as well as the Latin contexts. The dynamics of this process may be termed highly complex: for instance, in some cases poetry in Dutch by ‘bilingual’ authors from the Netherlands was rendered into Latin via a German translation. The general outline, however, is clear: Daniel Heinsius experienced a short but very intense reception, particularly his Nederduytsche poemata (1616). Hugo Grotius’s reception – apart from that of his legal works, which merit separate study – was long-lasting but less intense, whereas Jacob Cats initially was mainly appreciated for his moral didaxis. Later, Cats served as a bridge between the German höfische Kultur, or court culture, of the seventeenth century, and the bürgerliche Kultur, or bourgeois culture, of the eighteenth century. Vondel, who did not write in Latin himself, serves as a contrast. In the German countries, he acquired a marked political function in an international context that is not primarily Neo-Latin. In particular, Vondel was received as a playwright with a clearly German political-social impact in the sense of Sozialdisziplinierung, or social disciplining. Thus, these four authors offer a perfect illustration not only of the varied German reception of literature written in the Netherlands but also of the tensions between Latin and the vernacular.

The proposed project’s central research questions focus on the extent to which self-fashioning, self-presentation and imaging contributed to the various forms of reception of the authors and their work; how this was used and incorporated into the new – in this case German (national) – context; and finally how other factors – such as network building, the prestige of a literary field or the language used – play a part in this process.¹ The theoretical research framework is constituted by the concept of cultural dynamics in which attention is paid to ‘self-fashioning’ (self-representation, i.e. the way in which artists, particularly authors, consciously construe their own identities and personae), self-presentation (the way in which persons present themselves before and to others) and imaging, by means of network and discourse analysis and the study of canon formation. In line with Stephan Greenblatt’s suggestions, the research project starts from the assumption that in all cases the receiving side determines what exactly is selected, adapted and construed (Gallagher and Greenblatt 2002 and Greenblatt 1980). The receiving side, in turn, is by no means a monolithic entity: it is multi-faceted, multi-layered and liable to change.

For this type of research, not only ego documents are important – approached with all due care as is required of historical and literary critique – but also liminary poems in specific publications. In these texts, the author presents himself to his readership with his wished-for or idealised image – or others present the image they have formed of him. So far, insufficient attention has been paid to the latter category of texts. This gap and the intended combination of literary, social-historical, reception-historical and philological-editorial methods make this research all the more challenging and promising. It will reveal how fruitful this combination of research strategies can be, both for the field of reception studies as well as for research into poetry written in Latin and the vernacular.

Short Description of the Sub-Projects

Project 1 – The Dynamics of Latin and Vernacular Poetry in the Netherlands (VU), PhD

The project will explore the relationship between the Latin poems of Grotius and Heinsius on the one hand and their Dutch poetry on the other, on the basis of elements of genre, themes, structure, literary examples, versification and stylistics. This approach will offer insight into the characteristics, dissimilarities and similarities which may shed light on the poems’ possible functions, the role of the intended readership, and on the question to the implicit or explicit poetics, for instance in prefaces and contemporary reactions. Along similar lines, attention will be focused on the Dutch poetry of Grotius and Heinsius, and also on the poetry by Cats and Vondel. By way of comparison, a programmatic collection of contemporaneous poetry in the vernacular, such as De Zeeusche Nachtegaal (1623), is included in the study. Contrasting poets and works in Latin and Dutch will clarify the various different ways in which the authors are positioned. Thus, a new view of the dynamics between Latin and Dutch can be developed. Subsequently, a model can be construed with which the German reception can be measured and, likewise, materials for project 2 will be provided.

Project 2 – Self-Representation and Self-Presentation by Four Major Poets from the Netherlands (UvA and HI), PhD

This project will study the self-fashioning and self-presentation of Cats, Grotius, Heinsius and Vondel within and outside their networks. It will also highlight the dynamics between these two areas on the basis of (contemporary editions of) the authors’ poetical oeuvres in Latin and Dutch and on the basis of ego documents. Attention will be focused on the paratexts to their literary works, such as prefaces, dedications and liminary poetry, as well as on their letters and other documents. The poems themselves will be put in a social-historical context. This will shed light on the self-image of the authors, the strategies they employed in their dedications, their choices of dedicatees and other addressees, and finally on the arrangement of poems within a collection. Thus, the authors’ intended self-images and their networks will acquire substance. Obviously, the topicality of humanistic praise and modesty should be taken into account, by way of rhetorical analysis and content analysis. The model of self-representation thus distilled will serve, among other things, as a basis for possible explanations of (aspects of) the authors’ reception in the German countries.

Project 3 – Reception of Four Poets from the Netherlands in the German Countries (RU), PhD

The German reception of the poetry of Cats, Grotius, Heinsius and Vondel has hardly been studied when it comes to determining their influence on the self-image of German-speaking poets in the build-up to the then prevailing ideal of the German Kulturnation, or cultural nation, and in particular when it comes to considering the background of German dynamics of Latin and the vernacular. Martin Opitz in his Aristarchus argued in Latin in favour of an equal role for the vernacular. Opitz also adapted Heinsius, whom he believed to be an emancipator of the (German) vernacular with his Nederduytsche poemata (1616). Thus, he caused an avalanche in the German reception of Heinsius, including Paul Fleming, Ernst Chr. Homburg, Johann Rist, Christoph Köhler, Julius W. Zincgref and Zacharias Lund. Paradoxically, however, his German version of Heinsius’s Hymne for Christ (1624) became the basis for a Latin translation produced in Germany by Martin Nessel (1635). With Grotius’s Bewijs van den waren godsdienst and with Cats’s Self-stryt a similar development took place. This project will not focus on the reception itself, but rather on the underlying motives with respect to the choice of language and the functionalisation of the image of the Dutch poet (from self-representation and self-presentation to imaging) against the background of the new (German) social and cultural-political aspirations. With regard to the contrasting figure of Vondel, the question is why his work, compared to Heinsius, Grotius and Cats, was not latinised in the German context, but instead was put to much stronger political use. Project 3 will also examine to what extent the Dutch (political) Vondel underwent adapted imaging in the German countries with their absolutist rule.

Project 4 – The Role of Language, Self-Representation and Self-Presentation in the Reception of ‘Dutch’ Literature in the Early Seventeenth Century (HI), Post-Doc

The intended post-doctoral researcher will play a role in the daily supervision of the sub­projects, but his main task will be to join the three PhD projects in his research and to extrapolate their results. To ensure successful extrapolation and to enable the formulation of general statements concerning the dynamics between Latin and vernacular literature in the Netherlands, the post-doctoral researcher – in addition to the four Dutch authors selected for research in the sub-projects – will also study a representative selection of Latin poets, letters and other ego documents written by contemporary poets such as Barlaeus, Baudius and Dousa. Furthermore, the poetic oeuvre and correspondence of Constantijn Huygens will be consulted, who as a multilingual poet and uomo universale had a European scope but, remarkably enough, did not get a reception in the vernacular outside the Netherlands. In his case, too, observations will reflect the role of language between the poles of Dutch and Latin as well as the aspects of self-representation and self-presentation with regard to bilinguality. Finally, the post-doc will study to what extent the German situation is representative of the – more limited – way in which bilingual Dutch poets were treated elsewhere in early modern Western Europe. Investigations will result in a synthesising monograph (in English).

Selection of Relevant References

BLOEMENDAL, Jan, Spiegel van het dagelijks leven? Latijnse school en toneel in de noordelijke Nederlanden in de zestiende en de zeventiende eeuw. Hilversum 2003. Zeven Provinciën Reeks 22.

BLOEMENDAL, Jan, Hoe moet ik het me voorstellen? Lijnen in de latinistiek. Amsterdam 2006.

BLOEMENDAL, Jan, ‘Similarities, Dissimilarities and Possible Relations between Early Modern Latin Drama and Drama in theVernacular.’ In: Andrew W. Taylor and Philip J. Ford (eds), Acta of the Cambridge Conference on Neo-Latin Drama. Cambridge (in print).

BORNEMANN, Ulrich, Anlehnung und Abgrenzung. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der niederländischen Literatur in der deutschen Dichtungsreform des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Assen en Amsterdam 1976.

DAM, H.-J. van, ‘Daniel Heinsius, poète-philologue.’ In: Perrine Galand-Hallyn e.a. (ed.), La philologie humaniste et sa réceptions dans la théorie et la fiction. Genève 2005, p. 621-635.

DE SMET, Ingrid, Thuanus. The Making of Jacques-Auguste De Thou (1553-1617). Genève 2006.

DIXHOORN, Arjan van, Lustige geesten. Rederijkers en hun kamers in het publieke leven van de noordelijke Nederlanden in de vijftiende, zestiende en zeventiende eeuw. Zp. 2004. Diss. Amsterdam.

ELLINGER, Georg, Geschichte der neulateinischen Lyrik in den Niederlanden vom Ausgang des fünfzehnten bis zum Beginn des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Berlin und Leipzig 1933.

GALLAGHER, Catherine en Stephen GREENBLATT, Practicing New Historicism. Chicago 2000.

GEMERT, Guillaume C.A.M. van, ‘Heinsius’ Nacht-clachte in Deutschland. Zum Wechselspiel von Vorlage und Nachdichtung als Interpretationsansatz.’ In: Hans-Peter Ecker (ed.), Methodisch reflektiertes Interpretieren. Festschrift für Harmut Laufhütte zum 60. Geburtstag. Passau 1997, p. 101-115.

GEMERT, Guillaume C.A.M. van, Niederländische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Literatur im 17. Jahrhundert. Zwei Aufsätze. Trento 1993.

GEMERT, Guillaume C.A.M. van, ‘Zum Verhätlniss von neulateinischer und muttersprachlicher Dichtung bei Daniel Heinsius.’ In: Eckard Lefèvre, Eckart Schäfer (ed.), Daniel Heinsius. Klassischer Philologe und Poet. Tübingen 2007, NeoLatina 13, pp. 297-313.

GREENBLATT, Stephen, Renaissance Self-fashioning. From More to Shakespeare. Chicago 1980.

JARDINE, Lisa, Erasmus, Man of Letters. The Construction of Charisma in Print. Princeton 1993.

LEFÈVRE, Eckard en Eckard SCHÄFER (ed), Daniel Heinsius. Klassischer Philologe und Poet. Tübingen 2008.

NAUTA, Lodi (ed.), Language and Cultural Change. Aspects of the Study and use of Language in the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Leuven etc. 2006. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 24.

NELLEN, Henk J.M., Hugo de Groot. Een leven in strijd om de vrede 1583-1645, Amsterdam 2007.

RAMAKERS, B.A.M., ‘De mythe van de grote vertraging.’ In: Queeste 5 (1998), 58-63.

RANK, L.Ph., J.D.P. WARNERS en F.L. ZWAAN, Bacchus en Christus. Twee Lofzangen van Daniel Heinsius. Zwolle 1965.

SELLIN, Paul R., Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England. Leiden en London 1968.

VAN HOUDT, Toon et al. (eds.), Self-Presentation and Social Identification. The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times. Leuven 2002.

Zeeusche Nachtegaal. Editie P.J. Meertens en P.J. Verkruijsse. Middelburg 1982.

General Summary for Non-Specialists

In de Vroegmoderne Tijd werd de literatuur overal in Europa gekenmerkt door de tweetaligheid van Latijn en volkstaal. De (noordelijke) Nederlanden waren in de 17^de eeuw een bolwerk van Neolatijnse literatuur, maar veel Neolatijnse dichters schreven er ook in het Nederlands. Bij de opname van deze ‘Nederlandse’, Latijns- en Nederlandstalige, literatuur in het buitenland, speelt het spanningsveld van Latijn en volkstaal een specifieke rol, met name in de Duitse Landen, waar de invloed ervan groot was en nauwe verwantschap met de Nederlanden werd gevoeld. De literatuur uit de Nederlanden werd er ingezet bij de culturele eenwording van de Duitse landen en de werken van Jacob Cats vormden er de brug tussen de hofcultuur van de zeventiende en de burgerlijke cultuur van de achttiende eeuw. Van beslissende betekenis was in dit proces echter ook de manier waarop de auteurs zichzelf als dichter positioneerden en welke beeldvorming er rond hun persoon en hun werk ontstond, in het oorsprongsland en in de nieuwe context. Bij Cats bijvoorbeeld speelde zijn (zelf)beeld als burgerlijk-moralistische popularisator enerzijds en geleerd schrijver van internationale faam anderzijds waarschijnlijk een rol, maar in hoeverre en in welke relatie tot zijn meertaligheid (zo bevatten zijn Sinne- en minnebeelden Nederlandse, Latijnse en Franse eigen teksten, alsook Engelse, Italiaanse en Spaanse citaten), dient nog nader te worden onderzocht. Aan de hand van de Duitse receptie van de Nederlandse literatuur in haar ‘tweetalige’ verschijningsvorm probeert het onderzoek een model te ontwikkelen waarmee kan worden geanalyseerd hoe de wisselwerking van al deze aspecten functioneerde in het proces van transmissie van cultuur.