Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T06:01:20.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Prose fiction: Germany and the Netherlands

from GENRES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
C. W. Schoneveld
Edited by
H. B. Nisbet  and
Claude Rawson
H. B. Nisbet
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Claude Rawson
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

For practical reasons, the developments in the critical debate about prose fiction in two separate languages are here placed under a single chapter heading. In fact, the differences and resemblances between German and Dutch criticism are no greater or smaller than those between English and French. In all four there is much common ground, originally based on the classical heritage of the European Renaissance, with Latin as its shared language, but subsequently continued through an ever increasing intertraffic of translations between the vernacular languages. Ultimately, it was very much a European debate, with regional, yet sometimes quite significant, differences. The first section will deal with the German-speaking world, the second with the Dutch Republic.

German theory and criticism

In general it can be said that German theorizing about prose fiction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries showed greater sophistication than that in England. There are also more treatises written independently of particular specimens of the genre. But until the latter part of the eighteenth century the terms of the debate were similar to those elsewhere. German criticism in the second half of the seventeenth century, then, just like its French and English counterparts, ignored lower and popular forms of contemporary prose fiction and concerned itself with the pastoral and the heroic romance, as practised in Italy, Spain, France and England and reaching Germany in translation. Until the 1680s criticism was aimed at legitimizing these works, and integrating them into a hierarchy of existing genres. In the field of terminology there was to be less confusion than in English, since, as in France, the term Roman was accepted from the beginning and hardly ever questioned as the proper overall generic term.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism , pp. 264 - 281
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansorge, Hans Jügen, Art und Funktion der Vorrede im Roman 1750–1900 (Würzburg, 1969).Google Scholar
Berg, W., De Ontwikkeling van de Term ‘Romantisch’ en zijn Varianten in Nederland tot 1840 (Assen, 1973).Google Scholar
Berg, W., ‘Sara Burgerhart en haar derde stem’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, no. 51/52 (Sept. 1981).Google Scholar
Bing, S., Die Nachahmungstheorie bei Gottsched und den Schweizern und ihre Beziehungen zu der Dichtungstheorie der Zeit (Würzburg, 1934).Google Scholar
Birken, Sigmund, Teutsche Redebind– und Dichtkunst (Nürnberg, 1679).Google Scholar
Blanckenburg, Friedrich, Versuch über den Roman. Faksimiledruck der Originalausgabe von 1774, ed. Lämmert, Eberhard (Stuttgart, 1965).Google Scholar
Bodmer, Johann Jacob, Critische Betrachtungen über die Poetischen Gemählde der Dichter (Orell/Leipzig, 1741).Google Scholar
Boheemen-Saaf, C., ‘Fielding and Richardson in Holland: 1740–1800’, Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Letters, 14 (1984).Google Scholar
Boheemen-Saaf, , ‘The reception of English literature in Dutch magazines, 1735–85’, in Dorsten, J. A. (ed.), The Role of Periodicals in the 18th Century (Leiden, 1984).Google Scholar
Breitinger, Johann Jacob, Critische Dichtkunst. Faksimiledruck nach der Ausgabe von 1740, ed. Bender, W., Bd. 1 (Stuttgart, 1966).Google Scholar
Buijnsters, P. J., ‘Kort geding om Sara Burgerhart’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 14 (1982).Google Scholar
Buijnsters, P. J., ‘Sara Burgerhart en de ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse roman in de 18e eeuw’, in Buijnsters, , Nederlandse Literatuur van de 18e Eeuw (Utrecht, 1984).Google Scholar
Buisman-De Savornin Lohman, F. L. W. M., Laurence Sterne en de Nederlandse Schrijvers van C.1780–C.1840 (Wageningen, 1939).Google Scholar
Clarke, C., Fielding und der deutschen Sturm und Drang (Freiburg, 1897).Google Scholar
[Defoe, Daniel], Het Leven en de Wonderbaare Gevallen van Robinson Crusoe (Amsterdam, 1721).Google Scholar
Dielen, A. J. W., De Onderzoeker, no. 154 (7 Oct. 1777).Google Scholar
Ehrenzeller, H., Studien zur Romanvorrede von Grimmelshausen bis Jean Paul (Berne, 1955).Google Scholar
Engel, Johann Jakob, Ueber Handlung, Gespräch und Erzählung. Faksimiledruck der ersten Fassung von 1774, ed. Voss, E. T. (Stuttgart, 1964).Google Scholar
Feith, Rijnvis, Het Ideaal in de Kunst, ed. Buynsters, P. J. (The Hague, 1979).Google Scholar
Feith, Rijnvis, Julia (1783) and Ferdinand en Constantia (1785), reprinted by Spectrum, Het (Utrecht, 1981).Google Scholar
[Fielding, H.], Anonymous review of Historie van den Vondeling Tomas Jones, De Boekzaal der Geleerde Wereld, 73 (Sept. 1751).Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (1795), in Goethes Werke, ed. Trunz, Erich (14 vols., Hamburg, 1948–64), vol. VII.Google Scholar
[Goethe, Johann Wolfgang], Zeitgenössische Rezensionen und Urteile über Goethes ‘Götz’ und ‘Werther’, ed. Blumenthal, H. (Berlin, 1935).Google Scholar
Gottsched, Johann Christoph, Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst, facs. of the 4th edn, 1751 (Darmstatt, 1962).Google Scholar
Haas, R., Die Turmgesellschaft in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahren: zur Geschichte des Geheimbundromans und der Romantheorie im 18. Jahrhundert (Berne, 1975).Google Scholar
Heidegger, Gotthard, Mythoscopia Romantica, oder Discours von den so benanten Romans. Faksimileausgabe nach dem Originaldruck von 1698, ed. Schäfer, W. E. (Bad Homburg/Berlin/Zürich, 1969).Google Scholar
Hermes, Johann Timotheus, Sophiens Reise von Memmel nach Sachsen (1770), ed. Brüggemann, E. (Leipzig, 1941).Google Scholar
Huet, Pierre Daniel (trans. Happel, Eberhard Guerner), Traité de I'Origine des Romans. Faksimiledrucke nach der Erstausgabe von 1670 und der Happelschen Uebersetzung von 1682, ed. Hinterhäser, Hans (Stuttgart, 1966).Google Scholar
Jäger, Georg, Empfindsamkeit und Roman. Wortgeschichte, Theorie und Kritik im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1969).Google Scholar
Kimpel, Dieter, and Wiedemann, Conrad (eds.), Theorie und Technik des Romans im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Band I: Barock und Aufklärung (Tübingen, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimpel, Dieter, and Wiedemann, Conrad (eds.), Theorie und Technik des Romans im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Band II: Spätaufklärung, Klassik und Frúhromantik (Tübingen, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimpel, Dieter, Der Roman der Aufklärung (Stuttgart, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloek, J. J., Over Werther Geschreven …: Nederlandse Reacties op Goethes Werther 1775–1800 (2 vols., Utrecht, 1985), vol. 2: Bronnen, Literatuurlijst en Register.Google Scholar
Kloek, J. J., ‘Lezen als levensbehoefte; roman en romanpubliek in de tweede helft van de 18e eeuw’, Literatuur, 1 (1984).Google Scholar
Kloek, J. J., ‘Meten met twee maten? Johannes Lublink als verdediger van Werther en van Grandison’, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 80 (1987).Google Scholar
Kloek, J. J., Over Werther Geschreven…: Nederlandse Reacties op Goethes Werther 1775–1800 (2 vols., Utrecht, 1985), vol. 1: Het Onderzoek.Google Scholar
Lämmert, Eberhard, et al. (eds.), Romantheorie: Dokumentation ihrer Geschichte in Deutschland 1620–1880 (Köln/Berlin, 1971).Google Scholar
Martens, Wolfgang, Die Botschaft der Tugend: die Aufklärung im Spiegel der deutschen Moralischen Wochenschriften (Stuttgart, 1968), part V, ch. 7, ‘Der Roman’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthecka, Gerd, Die Romantheorie Wielands und seiner Vorlaüfer (Tübingen, 1956).Google Scholar
Mattheij, Th. M. M., et al., ‘De ontvangst van Richardson in Nederland (1750–1800)’, Spektator, 8 (1978/9).Google Scholar
Mattheij, Th. M. M., ‘Richardson in Nederland; een bibliografie’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, no. 40 (Sept. 1978).Google Scholar
Michelsen, Peter, Laurence Sterne und der deutsche Roman im 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1962).Google Scholar
Montandon, Alain, La Réception de Sterne en Allemagne (Clermont–Ferrand, 1985).Google Scholar
Nieuweboer, A., ‘De populariteit van het vertaalde verhalend proza in 18eeeuws Nederland en de rol van de boekhandel bij de praktijk van het vertalen’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 53/4 (1982).Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Petrus, ‘Over gevoeligheid van hart’, Nieuw Algemeen Magazyn, 2 (1794), II.Google Scholar
Pol, L. R., Romanbeschouwing in Voorredes, een Onderzoek naar het Denken over de Roman in Nederland tussen 1600 en 1755 (2 vols., Utrecht, 1987), Vol. II: Teksten.Google Scholar
Pol, L. R., Romanbeschouwing in Voorredes, een Onderzoek naar het Denken over de Roman in Nederland tussen 1600 en 1755 (2 vols., Utrecht, 1987), Vol. I: Onderzoek.Google Scholar
Preisendanz, Wolfgang, ‘Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Nachahmungsprinzip in Deutschland und die besondere Rolle der Romane Wielands (Don Sylvio, Agathon)’, in Jauss, H. R. (ed.), Nachahmung und Illusion: Kolloquium Giessen Juni 1963, Vorlagen und Verhandlungen (Munich, 1964).Google Scholar
[Richardson, Samuel], Anon, , De Anti-Pamela of de Valsche Eenvoudigheit, Ontdekt in de Gevallen van Syrena Tricksy.… (Amsterdam, 1743).Google Scholar
[Richardson, Samuel], Pamela Bespiegeld, of … Pamela, of de Beloonde Deugd … Zedelyk Beschouwd (Amsterdam, 1741).Google Scholar
Russell, J. A., Romance and Realism, Trends in Belgo-Dutch Prose Literature (Amsterdam, 1959).Google Scholar
Sang, J., Friedrich von Blanckenburg und seine Theorie des Romans (Munich, 1967).Google Scholar
Scherpe, Klaus, Gattungspoetik im 18. Jahrhundert. Historische Entwicklung von Gottsched bis Herder (Stuttgart, 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Schiller, Friedrich], Der Briefwechsel zwischen Schiller und Goethe, ed. Graf, H. G. and Leitzmann, A. (Leipzig, 1912).Google Scholar
Schmidt, Erich, Richardson, Rousseau und Goethe. Zur Geschichte des Romans im 18. Jahrhundert (Jena, 1875).Google Scholar
Slattery, W. C. (ed.), The Richardson–Stinstra Correspondence and Stinstra's Prefaces to Clarissa, ed. Slattery, W. C. (London/Amsterdam, 1969).Google Scholar
Slattery, W. C., ‘Samuel Richardson and The Netherlands: early reception of his work’, Papers on English Language and Literature, 1 (1965).Google Scholar
Smeeks, H., Beschryvinge van het Magtig Koningryk Krinke Kesmes (1708), ed. Buijnsters, P. J. (Zutphen, n.d.).Google Scholar
Staverman, W. H., Robinson Crusoe in Nederland, een Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis van den Roman in de XVIIIe Eeuw (Groningen, 1907).Google Scholar
Toorn, M. C., ‘Sentimentaliteit als grootheid in de literaire terminologie’, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 57 (1964).Google Scholar
Vaget, H. Rudolf, ‘Johann Heinrich Merck über den Roman’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 83 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliet, P., Wolff en Deken's Brieven van Abraham Blankaart (Utrecht, 1982).Google Scholar
Voogd, P. J., ‘Henry Fielding's novels in Dutch’, Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Letters, 13 (1983).Google Scholar
Voogd, P. J., ‘Pieter Le Clercq's Tom Jones-vertaling’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 43 (June 1979).Google Scholar
Vosskamp, Wilhelm, Romantheorie in Deutschland von Martin Opitz bis Friedrich von Blankenburg (Stuttgart, 1973).Google Scholar
Wahrenburg, Fritz, Funktionswandel des Romans und ästhetische Norm: Die Entwicklung seiner Theorie in Deutschland bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Ernst (ed.), Texte zur Romantheorie, I (1626–1731) (Munich, 1973).Google Scholar
Weber, Ernst (ed.), Texte zur Romantheorie, II (1732–1780) (Munich, 1981).Google Scholar
Weber, Ernst, Die poetologische Selbstreflexion im deutschen Roman des 18. Jahrhunderts: zu Theorie und Praxis von ‘Roman’, ‘Historie’ und pragmatischem Roman (Stuttgart, Berlin, Mainz, 1974).Google Scholar
Wezel, Johann Carl, Herrmann und Ulrike (1780), ed. Maassen, C. G. (Munich, 1919).Google Scholar
Wieland, Christoph Martin, Die Abenteuer des Don Sylvio von Rosalva (1764), in Wielands Werke, ed. Hempel, G. (Berlin, 1867–79).Google Scholar
Wieland, Christoph Martin, Geschichte des Agathon (1767), ed. Schaefer, K. (Berlin, 1961).Google Scholar
Winter, Hans-Gerhard, Dialog und Dialogroman in der Aufklärung, mit einer Analyse von J. J. Engels Gesprächstheorie (Darmstadt, 1974).Google Scholar
Wölfel, Kurt, ‘Friedrich Schlegels Theorie des Romans’, in Grimm, Reinhold (ed.), Deutsche Romantheorien: Beiträge zu einer historischen Poetik des Romans in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main/Bonn, 1968).Google Scholar
Wolff, Max Ludwig, Geschichte der Romantheorie, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen Verhältnisse (Nürnberg, 1915).Google Scholar
Wolff-Bekker, E., De Gevaaren van de Laster; in eene Briefwisseling tusschen Miss Fanny Springler en haare Vrienden (The Hague, 1791).Google Scholar
Wolff-Bekker, E., and Deken, A., Historie van Mejuffrouw Cornelia Wildschut; of de Gevolgen van de Opvoeding (6 vols., The Hague, 1793–6).Google Scholar
Wolff-Bekker, E., and Deken, A., Historie van Mejuffrouw Sara Burgerhart (1782), ed. Buijnsters, P. J. (2 vols., The Hague, 1980).Google Scholar
Wolff-Bekker, E., and Deken, A., Historie van Willem Leevend (8 vols., The Hague, 1784–5).Google Scholar
Zwaneveld, A. M., ‘De Opmerker/Onderzoeker als geestverwant van Rijklof Michael van Goens’, Documentatieblad Werkgroep 18e Eeuw, 18 (1986).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×