Search

Contains fulltext : 230294.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Previous studies of radical thinkers have brought us few examples of female radicals from the Low Countries, even if the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic was a hub for radical thought which offered a relatively female-friendly climate. In this article, we explore how new perspectives and modes of analysis, better adjusted to the restrictions and opportunities women experienced, make women’s radical thought visible. By doing so, we aim to present a more balanced perspective on what might count as female radical thought in the early modern Low Countries (1500–1800). Starting from the notion of “agency,” we analyze the life, work and relations of three Dutch authors, as well as representations of female radicalism in two literary works, in order to rebalance the notion of radicalism in a woman’s world. Anna Bijns, Meynarda Verboom and Margaretha van Dijk were not radically disruptive in the sense of operating completely outside of male-dominated domains. Instead, they gained agency by negotiating their position in patriarchal knowledge systems and by bending conventions within male-dominated networks so that their voices could be heard. To understand these voices, it is necessary to disconnect “being radical” from “the amount of disruption caused” by female agency. 04 februari 2021 21 p.

Early modern literary careers are generally perceived as progressive: inadequate young authors gradually develop their literary skills and knowledge while growing old. In this article, we analyse how young authorship and career development of early modern Dutch women writers was represented in front matter in their literary print-publications. We demonstrate that front matter’s praise of young women’s authorship was connected to both male and female flavoured qualities. These qualities turn out to be connected to the ways in which female careers were represented. When young female authorship was mainly legitimated by referring to intellectual capacities considered typically masculine, the women’s career is perceived as progressive. However: when this legitimation is rather based on qualities considered as typically feminine, such as virtuousness and handiwork skills, the women’s authorship at an early age is sometimes represented as already fully-grown and complete.

This essay examines how economic circumstances and imperatives influenced strategies of self‐representation employed by women writing in the Dutch Republic. At the core of the analysis is the poetry of Maria Margaretha van Akerlaecken (1605–after 1662) and Katharina Lescailje (1649–1711). Economic advancement for literary authors in the Dutch Republic was defined by the marginality of literary patronage in court culture and few possibilities to profit through the market. Van Akerlaecken, however, succeeded in finding patrons abroad, and Lescailje, who ran a publishing house, could print her own works and thus profited directly from their sales. The respective modes of self‐representation of these women in their published works moved in opposite directions because of these differing modes of earning, but each can be traced back to the same issue: they were women and writers striving for economic advancement and this combination turned out to be a problematic one, asking for strategic reputation management.

In this article, we show the importance of both social and economic imperatives for authors and printers active in the genre of wedding poetry, and the interaction between these imperatives. The lack of systematic evidence and the fragmented nature of previous research has led to the dominance of tentative interpretations in studies of wedding poetry. Necessary, therefore, is a broader and more inclusive approach of the genre as a whole. We have thus combined a literature review with a quantitative analysis, exploring metadata of over 3,500 publications of wedding poetry (year of publication, names of brides, grooms, printers and authors) in the Dutch Republic between 1600-1760.

This essay examines how economic circumstances and imperatives influenced strategies of self‐representation employed by women writing in the Dutch Republic. At the core of the analysis is the poetry of Maria Margaretha van Akerlaecken (1605–after 1662) and Katharina Lescailje (1649–1711). Economic advancement for literary authors in the Dutch Republic was defined by the marginality of literary patronage in court culture and few possibilities to profit through the market. Van Akerlaecken, however, succeeded in finding patrons abroad, and Lescailje, who ran a publishing house, could print her own works and thus profited directly from their sales. The respective modes of self‐representation of these women in their published works moved in opposite directions because of these differing modes of earning, but each can be traced back to the same issue: they were women and writers striving for economic advancement and this combination turned out to be a problematic one, asking for strategic reputation management.

A grand narrative of Dutch literary authors’ opportunities to economically profit from their writing is yet to be written. The general assumption, however, is that these opportunities developed teleologically from a dominant system of patronage during medieval and early modern times, in which financial gains were marginal and in which author’s independence of their supporters was constrained, to a system in which the commercial book market was dominant and where authors could be more self-supporting and thus more independent of supporters. This article argues that there is no such teleology. On the contrary: on the basis of an exploration of both practice and discourse of literary authors’ profits from the Middle Ages to the present, we conclude that in every period, it was possible for authors to profit from their writing through either patronage, market or governmental support, and often through a combination of these sources. Moreover, in every period varying types of independence of literary authors was valued highly. Our analysis of the discourse on profits shows that the continuous tendency to disguise financial advancement could be related to the importance of authorial independence throughout the ages.

This article argues that it is both important and viable to develop a diachronic perspective on the profits of literary authors in the Low Countries. Up to now, conceptual and theoretical boundaries between different subdisciplines within Dutch literary studies have resulted in a compartmentalized, fragmentary narrative of the economic, social and symbolic profits of literary authors throughout the centuries. On the basis of a survey of the theoretical frameworks dominant in the subdisciplines of medieval, early modern and modern Dutch literature, we highlight the opportunities and difficulties for a diachronic perspective on financial advancement, focusing both on practice and discourse. In addition, we propose a schematic model that tries to overcome the difficulties and enables us to profit from the opportunities. This proposal allows for a sharper focus on both the practice of and discourse on literary authors’ economic gain from a diachronic perspective.

This article presents the first diachronic overview of the economic, social and symbolic profits of ‘city poets’ (‘stadsdichters’) in the Low Countries. From the early fifteenth century onwards, there have been many (more or less) official relationships between city councils and poets. The prominence and the form of these relationships, however, diverged greatly in different periods: whereas official appointments were the standard in the fifteenth, sixteenth and the twenty-first centuries, the period in between saw a much more diverse landscape of informal appointments and relationships. After presenting a historical overview of the role of city poets throughout the centuries, this article focuses on two well-documented periods in which formal agreements were made between town governments and poets: the late Middle Ages and the start of the 21st century. We analyze political and financial agreements explicitly in relationship to the complexities surrounding the production of city poetry. City poetry, paid by public money, is bound to be controversial: in general because its status is subject to changes and political discussions, but also because this form of commissioned poetry is sometimes seen as a form of propaganda. Official city poetry seems to flourish most in societies with a stable political-religious climate (as in the Southern Low Countries in the fifteenth and sixteenth century) and/or with a keen interest in city marketing (as in Flanders and the Netherlands in the twenty-first century).

A grand narrative of Dutch literary authors’ opportunities to economically profit from their writing is yet to be written. The general assumption, however, is that these opportunities developed teleologically from a dominant system of patronage during medieval and early modern times, in which financial gains were marginal and in which author’s independence of their supporters was constrained, to a system in which the commercial book market was dominant and where authors could be more self-supporting and thus more independent of supporters. This article argues that there is no such teleology. On the contrary: on the basis of an exploration of both practice and discourse of literary authors’ profits from the Middle Ages to the present, we conclude that in every period, it was possible for authors to profit from their writing through either patronage, market or governmental support, and often through a combination of these sources. Moreover, in every period varying types of independence of literary authors was valued highly. Our analysis of the discourse on profits shows that the continuous tendency to disguise financial advancement could be related to the importance of authorial independence throughout the ages.

This article presents the first diachronic overview of the economic, social and symbolic profits of ‘city poets’ (‘stadsdichters’) in the Low Countries. From the early fifteenth century onwards, there have been many (more or less) official relationships between city councils and poets. The prominence and the form of these relationships, however, diverged greatly in different periods: whereas official appointments were the standard in the fifteenth, sixteenth and the twenty-first centuries, the period in between saw a much more diverse landscape of informal appointments and relationships. After presenting a historical overview of the role of city poets throughout the centuries, this article focuses on two well-documented periods in which formal agreements were made between town governments and poets: the late Middle Ages and the start of the 21st century. We analyze political and financial agreements explicitly in relationship to the complexities surrounding the production of city poetry. City poetry, paid by public money, is bound to be controversial: in general because its status is subject to changes and political discussions, but also because this form of commissioned poetry is sometimes seen as a form of propaganda. Official city poetry seems to flourish most in societies with a stable political-religious climate (as in the Southern Low Countries in the fifteenth and sixteenth century) and/or with a keen interest in city marketing (as in Flanders and the Netherlands in the twenty-first century).

Throughout the centuries, many literary authors were engaged in writing theatre plays. Although there are many studies about the theatre business in general from Medieval Times to the present, the perspective of the playwright’s profits is seldom taken into consideration. This article presents both a survey of author’s options to gain an income in the world of theatre and an analysis of the discourse about this advancement. More specifically, on the basis of a comparison of cases from the seventeenth century on the one hand and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries on the other, this article argues that, despite the fact that for playwrights, as much as for other literary authors, it was a taboo to be open about economic profits, developments in the organization of institutional theatre created temporary openings for (public debate about) financial rewards.

Patronage was a common practice for many early modern authors, but it was a public activity involving engagement with politics, politicians and the rich and famous, and we know of relatively few women writers who profited from the benefits of patronage. The system of patronage altered, however, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and one particular case study brings to light some of the possibilities and difficulties of this system for women writers. Elisabeth Hoofman (1664–1736) was a Dutch poet whose authorship was representative of that of many writing women around 1700: born in a rich family, she wrote poetry in order to establish and consolidate contacts in a wealthy circle of friends and family, refusing to publish any of her poems. Her authorship status seems to have changed, though, after she and her husband lost their fortune and turned to rich patrons to secure their living. The circle of people addressed in her poetry broadened to powerful men from outside of her intimate network and she started to print-publish. In this chapter, Hoofman’s opportunities to contribute to the family income as a woman writer along with her ability and necessity to manage her reputation are analysed with and through her poetry.

This chapter gives students insight in the important societal role of staging in the early modern period. Theatre was not only a provider of entertainment but also an effective vehicle to reflect the preoccupations of the time and to ventilate ideological messages. It was the window to the world. In presenting three related topics, this chapter illustrates the embeddedness of staging in the early modern world: the power of staging; the practice of staging; and the metaphorical use of staging, such as in the famous “All the world’s a stage”.Both in the introduction and in the three parts of the essay, the discussed phenomena are treated as European, since the authors show how theatre cultures and practices in several European countries influenced each other. In retrospect, the chapter also makes clear how today’s power division in Europe influences the canonization of certain theatre authors in a way that does not correspond with their importance in their own time – and the other way around.

Samenvatting – Amsterdamse dichters uit de zeventiende eeuw toonden zich in lofdichten en tableaux vivants betrokken bij hun stad, de stedelijke overheid en het beleid van die overheid. Ze werden daarbij gestimuleerd door de stadsregenten, die als patronen optraden. Sommige dichters konden zo stadsdichter worden, zonder dat deze functie geïnstitutionaliseerd was. Een van de Amsterdamse 'stadsdichters' was Jan Vos (1610-1667). Dit artikel laat zien hoe hij zijn positie als stadsdichter ondersteunde door zijn gedichten, waarin hij niet alleen de stad, maar ook zichzelf promootte, en bovendien onderstreepte dat hij ook iets terugverwachtte van de stadsregenten.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext 7 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext