Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711): another Sappho - Revision history

SvDijk at 12:33, 29 November 2007

2007-11-29T12:33:39Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 29 November 2007
Line 88:		Line 88:
	* Hofdijk, W.J. ''Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde''. 4th ed. Amsterdam, 1867.<br>		* Hofdijk, W.J. ''Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde''. 4th ed. Amsterdam, 1867.<br>
	* Kampen, N.G. van. ''Beknopte geschiedenis der letteren en wetenschappen in de Nederlanden, van de vroegste tijden af, tot op het begin der 19e eeuw''. Vol. 1. The Hague, 1821.<br>		* Kampen, N.G. van. ''Beknopte geschiedenis der letteren en wetenschappen in de Nederlanden, van de vroegste tijden af, tot op het begin der 19e eeuw''. Vol. 1. The Hague, 1821.<br>
-	Marckius, Johannes. ''Naemrol der Nederduitsche tooneelspellen''. Leyden: C. van Hoogeveen Junior, 1774.<br>	+	* Marckius, Johannes. ''Naemrol der Nederduitsche tooneelspellen''. Leyden: C. van Hoogeveen Junior, 1774.<br>
	* Peereboom, Marianne. ‘'Men siet hier Sappho herleeven!': de geboorte van een cliché.’ ''Voortgang. Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek'' 15 (1995): 39-69.<br>		* Peereboom, Marianne. ‘'Men siet hier Sappho herleeven!': de geboorte van een cliché.’ ''Voortgang. Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek'' 15 (1995): 39-69.<br>
	* Schenkeveld-van der Dussen, M.A., L. van Gemert, K. Porteman and P. Couttenier (eds.). ''Met en zonder lauwerkrans: schrijvende vrouwen uit de vroegmoderne tijd 1550-1850: van Anna Bijns tot Elise van Calcar''. Amsterdam, 1997.<br>		* Schenkeveld-van der Dussen, M.A., L. van Gemert, K. Porteman and P. Couttenier (eds.). ''Met en zonder lauwerkrans: schrijvende vrouwen uit de vroegmoderne tijd 1550-1850: van Anna Bijns tot Elise van Calcar''. Amsterdam, 1997.<br>

SvDijk at 12:32, 29 November 2007

2007-11-29T12:32:17Z

(Difference between revisions)

SvDijk at 23:16, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T23:16:34Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 28 November 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:
	'''Introduction'''<br>		'''Introduction'''<br>
	With the increasing interest in early modern women writers in the last twenty years, the so-called ‘Sappho-myth’ has become well known among literary scholars. The Greek poetess Sappho became a symbol for female intellectuality in the seventeenth century, and most of the writing women in the Low countries, as well as their colleagues in other European countries, have been called ‘like Sappho’, ‘the new Sappho’, ‘even better than Sappho’ etc. That was not different for Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711), an Amsterdam poetess who was commonly called the ‘Nederduitsche Sappho’. She received this compliment already from her contemporaries, but it is also the ‘quality’ most referred to by literary historians in later eras. <br><br>		With the increasing interest in early modern women writers in the last twenty years, the so-called ‘Sappho-myth’ has become well known among literary scholars. The Greek poetess Sappho became a symbol for female intellectuality in the seventeenth century, and most of the writing women in the Low countries, as well as their colleagues in other European countries, have been called ‘like Sappho’, ‘the new Sappho’, ‘even better than Sappho’ etc. That was not different for Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711), an Amsterdam poetess who was commonly called the ‘Nederduitsche Sappho’. She received this compliment already from her contemporaries, but it is also the ‘quality’ most referred to by literary historians in later eras. <br><br>
-	With all the writing women from the seventeenth century being ‘Sapphos’, the significance of this compliment has diminished, or at least it can scarcely be used in researching the status of a specific poetess. There were many women writing in the seventeenth century Republic – it has been regarded as a ‘trend’ of developed women by Peereboom – but many of them have written not much more than some occasional poems. However, in the critics these women seem to be as much a Sappho as others. Therefore, to grasp something of the authorial status of a seventeenth century woman writer, we need to disregard the Sappho compliments and use other approaches. <br>	+	With all the writing women from the seventeenth century being ‘Sapphos’, the significance of this compliment has diminished, or at least it can scarcely be used in researching the status of a specific poetess. There were many women writing in the seventeenth century Republic – it has been regarded as a ‘trend’ of developed women by Peereboom – but many of them have written not much more than some occasional poems. However, in the critics these women seem to be as much a Sappho as others. Therefore, to grasp something of the authorial status of a seventeenth century woman writer, we need to disregard the Sappho compliments and use other approaches. <br> <br>
	In this paper, I would like to show how, for the case of Katharina Lescailje, contrasting the reception of the poetess with the analysis of self-representation can be useful. I will give a short survey of the construction of Katharina Lescailje as an author – by others (in literary history and in contemporary reactions) as well as by herself. I hope this survey will make clear how different readers constructed a different authorial status of the poetess, and how the interplay of the construction of contemporaries and that of Lescailje herself is historically most interesting. <br><br>		In this paper, I would like to show how, for the case of Katharina Lescailje, contrasting the reception of the poetess with the analysis of self-representation can be useful. I will give a short survey of the construction of Katharina Lescailje as an author – by others (in literary history and in contemporary reactions) as well as by herself. I hope this survey will make clear how different readers constructed a different authorial status of the poetess, and how the interplay of the construction of contemporaries and that of Lescailje herself is historically most interesting. <br><br>

SvDijk at 23:13, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T23:13:30Z

(Difference between revisions)

SvDijk at 22:53, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T22:53:44Z

(Difference between revisions)

SvDijk at 21:31, 21 November 2007

2007-11-21T21:31:21Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 21 November 2007
Line 5:		Line 5:
	<br><br><br>		<br><br><br>
	''Abstract''<br>		''Abstract''<br>
-	[http://www.databasewomenwriters.nl/author.asp?authorID=569 Katharina Lescailje] (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She translated plays and wrote a large amount of (occasional) poetry. Many male and female writers belonged to her network, as well as important people related to the city’s theatre. They were all extremely positive about Lescailje and her work. <br>	+	[http://www.databasewomenwriters.nl/author.asp?authorID=569 Katharina Lescailje] (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She translated plays and wrote a large number of (occasional) poetry. Many male and female writers belonged to her network, as well as important people related to the city’s theatre. They were all extremely positive about Lescailje and her work. <br>
-	As she has been mainly neglected in literary history up until the last decennia of the twentieth century, the reception of Katharina Lescailje is in large parts representative of the general reception of seventeenth-century Dutch women writers in later era’s. However, an important difference with other women writers is in her position in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: the broad (artistic) network she lived and worked in, and her seemingly popularity within it. <br>	+	As she has been mainly neglected in literary history up until the last decennia of the twentieth century, the reception of Katharina Lescailje is in large parts representative of the general reception of seventeenth-century Dutch women writers in later era’s. However, an important difference with other women writers is in her position in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: the broad (artistic) network she lived and worked in, and her apparent popularity within it. <br>
	In my paper I will present an overview of the reception of Lescailje by literary historians and by her contemporaries. My main focus will be on the representation of Lescailje in her political poetry. The case of Katharina Lescailje shows how in different discourses, different “authors” were created out of one and the same woman writer. <br><br>		In my paper I will present an overview of the reception of Lescailje by literary historians and by her contemporaries. My main focus will be on the representation of Lescailje in her political poetry. The case of Katharina Lescailje shows how in different discourses, different “authors” were created out of one and the same woman writer. <br><br>

SvDijk at 16:35, 20 November 2007

2007-11-20T16:35:17Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 20 November 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	<br><br><br>		<br><br><br>
-	Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She translated plays and wrote a large amount of (occasional) poetry. Many male and female writers belonged to her network, as well as important people related to the city’s theatre. They were all extremely positive about Lescailje and her work. <br>	+	''Abstract''<br>
		+	[http://www.databasewomenwriters.nl/author.asp?authorID=569 Katharina Lescailje] (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She translated plays and wrote a large amount of (occasional) poetry. Many male and female writers belonged to her network, as well as important people related to the city’s theatre. They were all extremely positive about Lescailje and her work. <br>
	As she has been mainly neglected in literary history up until the last decennia of the twentieth century, the reception of Katharina Lescailje is in large parts representative of the general reception of seventeenth-century Dutch women writers in later era’s. However, an important difference with other women writers is in her position in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: the broad (artistic) network she lived and worked in, and her seemingly popularity within it. <br>		As she has been mainly neglected in literary history up until the last decennia of the twentieth century, the reception of Katharina Lescailje is in large parts representative of the general reception of seventeenth-century Dutch women writers in later era’s. However, an important difference with other women writers is in her position in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: the broad (artistic) network she lived and worked in, and her seemingly popularity within it. <br>
	In my paper I will present an overview of the reception of Lescailje by literary historians and by her contemporaries. My main focus will be on the representation of Lescailje in her political poetry. The case of Katharina Lescailje shows how in different discourses, different “authors” were created out of one and the same woman writer. <br><br>		In my paper I will present an overview of the reception of Lescailje by literary historians and by her contemporaries. My main focus will be on the representation of Lescailje in her political poetry. The case of Katharina Lescailje shows how in different discourses, different “authors” were created out of one and the same woman writer. <br><br>


-	Nina Geerdink works as a PhD-student at the Free University Amsterdam since March 2007. In August 2006 she graduated from the Research Master Dutch Language and Literature at Utrecht University, specialized in early-modern literature. Her current research is about authorial representation in the occasional poetry of Jan Vos (1610-1667) and Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711). Both Amsterdam poets obtained a central position in the literary field, in spite of their not being classically educated, as they were respectively a catholic artisan and a woman. The role of their poetry in obtaining a central position in Amsterdam is the main focus of the research project. <br><br>	+	Nina Geerdink, November 2007<br><br>
		+
		+
		+	Nina Geerdink is a PhD-student at the Free University Amsterdam since March 2007. In August 2006 she graduated from the Research Master Dutch Language and Literature at Utrecht University, specialized in early-modern literature. Her current research is about authorial representation in the occasional poetry of Jan Vos (1610-1667) and Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711). Both Amsterdam poets obtained a central position in the literary field, in spite of their not being classically educated, as they were respectively a catholic artisan and a woman. The role of their poetry in obtaining a central position in Amsterdam is the main focus of the research project. <br><br>
		+
		+
		+
		+	The writing side > “What is a female author?” > Lescailje

SvDijk: New page:
NOEDITSECTION == Katharina Lescailje: another Sappho ==

Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She tran...

2007-11-20T16:32:22Z

New page: __NOEDITSECTION__ == Katharina Lescailje: another Sappho == Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She tran...

New page

__NOEDITSECTION__
== Katharina Lescailje: another Sappho ==

 
Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She translated plays and wrote a large amount of (occasional) poetry. Many male and female writers belonged to her network, as well as important people related to the city’s theatre. They were all extremely positive about Lescailje and her work. 
As she has been mainly neglected in literary history up until the last decennia of the twentieth century, the reception of Katharina Lescailje is in large parts representative of the general reception of seventeenth-century Dutch women writers in later era’s. However, an important difference with other women writers is in her position in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: the broad (artistic) network she lived and worked in, and her seemingly popularity within it. 
In my paper I will present an overview of the reception of Lescailje by literary historians and by her contemporaries. My main focus will be on the representation of Lescailje in her political poetry. The case of Katharina Lescailje shows how in different discourses, different “authors” were created out of one and the same woman writer. 

Nina Geerdink works as a PhD-student at the Free University Amsterdam since March 2007. In August 2006 she graduated from the Research Master Dutch Language and Literature at Utrecht University, specialized in early-modern literature. Her current research is about authorial representation in the occasional poetry of Jan Vos (1610-1667) and Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711). Both Amsterdam poets obtained a central position in the literary field, in spite of their not being classically educated, as they were respectively a catholic artisan and a woman. The role of their poetry in obtaining a central position in Amsterdam is the main focus of the research project.

Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711): another Sappho - Revision history

SvDijk at 12:33, 29 November 2007

SvDijk at 12:32, 29 November 2007

SvDijk at 23:16, 28 November 2007

SvDijk at 23:13, 28 November 2007

SvDijk at 22:53, 28 November 2007

SvDijk at 21:31, 21 November 2007

SvDijk at 16:35, 20 November 2007

SvDijk: New page: __NOEDITSECTION__ == Katharina Lescailje: another Sappho == Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She tran...

SvDijk: New page:
NOEDITSECTION == Katharina Lescailje: another Sappho ==

Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711) was, in her days, one of the most famous women writers in Amsterdam. She tran...