Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Richardson In Holland And His Influence On Wolff And Deken'S 'Sara Burgerhart.'
(USC Thesis Other)
Richardson In Holland And His Influence On Wolff And Deken'S 'Sara Burgerhart.'
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RICHARDSON IN HOLLAND AND HIS INFLUENCE ON WOLFF AND DEKEN'S SARA BURGERHART by Herman van Betten A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Comparative Literature) August 1971 I I 72-11,964 VAN BETTEN, Herman, 1931- RICHARDSON IN HOLLAND AND HIS INFLUENCE ON WOLFF AND DEKEN'S SARA BURGERHART. University of Southern California, Ph.D. , 1971 Language and Literature, modern University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1972 HERMAN VAN BETTEN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED U N IV E R S ITY O F S O U T H E R N C A LIF O R N IA T H E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LOS A N G E LE S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Herman van Betten under the direction of h 2 - 3 . Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The G rad u ate School, in partial fulfillm ent of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y - 7 ^ o ... (J Dean Chairma, PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. At the completion of this study I want to express my sincere gratitude to Professor David H. Malone whose writ- ! ings initially introduced me to the demanding but fascin ating field of Comparative Literature and who later served as the chairman of my dissertation committee. My thanks | go also to Professors Arend Koole and W. Ross Winterowd, I who read several drafts of this study and whose valuable | ! comments helped to make it better. j ! | I Of great assistance was a travel grant from the Grad- ! ! uate School of the University of Southern California which i ! j enabled me to study at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The | Hague, Netherlands. I also owe much to Dr. Donald Baepler, I Vice President of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for j J his invaluable help at a crucial stage. I want to thank our four young, vivacious children, Paul, Melanie, John and Tommy, whose occasional, perhaps unintentional, co-operation over the years was greatly i I appreciated. Finally, I want to thank my wife Patricia, without j whose patient co-operation this study would not have been possible. I want to thank her for her seemingly infinite patience and perseverance in typing and re-typing the many drafts and final copy, and for her many efforts which aided in the completion of this project. It is, therefore, with pleasure and gratitude that I dedicate this study to her. . * TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ! INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER Is SAMUEL RICHARDSON'S FORTUNE IN FRANCE AND GERMANY 4 Translations and Popular Reception in France 5 Critical Reception in France 11 Translations and Popular Reception in Germany- 20 Critical Reception and Imitations in Germany 24 Conclusion 36 CHAPTER II: PAMELA IN HOLLAND 40 The Dutch Literary Scene Prior to Pamela 40 Translations of Pamela 44 Imitations and Critical Reception 50 CHAPTER Ills CLARISSA IN HOLLAND 58 Translation and Publication of Clarissa 58 Stinstra's Prefaces 67 Critical Reaction 7^ Imitations 81 CHAPTER IV s GRANDISON 86 The Translation 86 Critical Reception and Imitations 93 CHAPTER Vs ELISABETH WOLFFs HER LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY 100 Her Biography 100 Wolff's Literary and Philosophical Concepts 107 i iii iv PAGE CHAPTER VIs I j I CHAPTER VIIt ' CHAPTER VIII8 BIBLIOGRAPHY i AGATHA DEKEN: HER LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY 114 Her Biography 114 Joint Literary Activity 119 SARA BURGERHART 125 Reception and Translations 126 Synopsis of Sara Burgerhart 130 Sara Burgerhart and Richardson 134 Didactic Goal 142 Letter Technique 151 Characterization 167 The Realism of Wolff and Deken 184 Use of Sentiment 196 CONCLUSION 203 212 INTRODUCTION | The last few years have witnessed a resurgence of I interest in the novels of Samuel Richardson. In 1895» Joseph Texte could say: Today the works of Richardson are entirely forgotten. Of these once famous novels the public no longer knows ! anything beyond the titles. Even the critics scarcely pay attention to the man who was once considered the greatest of all English writers in point of pathos . . . . * | As recently as 1956, Alan D. McKillop wrote that: ! . . . the generation of Jane Austen and Lady Louisa Stuart, Coleridge and Hazlitt and Lamb, read him with | greater intelligence and discrimination than it has ! been his fortune to meet with since, unless indeed the i balance is redressed at the present time.2 i Today one might say that the balance is indeed in the j process of being redressed: witness numerous books and articles published since the statement of McKillop in 1J.W. Matthews, trans. Jean Jacques Rousseau and the i Cosmopolitan Spirit in Literature (London and New York. 1899)- p< 165>' i j t p i *The Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence, | Kansas and London, 1962), p. 97. I I 1 2 ! i 11956.-^ We are thus in a period of reappraisal of Richard- ison's works, and we might possibly call this present inter- iest the first true appraisal of this important novelist. i IThe many recent articles on the novels of Richardson deal I I to a great extent with his technique, his style, and his ! i ;originality, whereas much of the eighteenth century I criticism either praised or condemned Richardson for his j ! I imoral stance. I I ; I Since Richardson's moral stance and his novels were not solely an English but rather a European phenomenon, the ; ! i 'reappraisal of his works should also extend beyond the ! iboundaries of England. A recent publication of the trans- ! j ilation of the correspondence between Richardson and ! ; Johannes Stinstra, the Dutch translator of Clarissa,**- |indicates that the renewed interest in Richardson includes | |interest in his fame and reputation in the Netherlands. I With this in mind, this study will review Richardson's jreception and impact upon Germany and France and then ; focus on the Netherlands, demonstrating that Richardson's ; literary fortune on the continent included widespread i ! 3 ^See e.g.: Rosemary Cowler, ed., Twentieth Century I Interpretations of Pamela (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969). jAlmost all of the twenty essays on Pamela were written since 1956. ^William C. Slattery, The Richardson-Stinstra ^ Correspondence and Stinstra's Prefaces to Clarissa (Carbon- [dale, London and Amsterdam, 1969). Jpopularity and a solid reputation in that country. His influence will then be seen in what may be considered jthe finest of all Richardsonian novels: Sara Burgerhart !by the Dutch novelists Elisabeth Bekker Wolff and Agatha Deken. I I ! i i j CHAPTER I i I SAMUEL RICHARDSON'S FORTUNE IN FRANCE AND GERMANY I \ One of the most striking aspects of Samuel Richard son's fame is its international extent. He was a truly | European author who not only placed his stamp on the devel- i : opment of the English novel tout also had a profound in- i ; fluence on the course of prose fiction on the continent. j Richardson gave a new dimension to prose. Ian Watt sees Richardson's innovation in prose fiction as indicative of | a change in English literature and refers to his opus as a j watershed between the objectivity of the classical world S , | and the subjectivity of modern literature.x Mme de Stael i extends this chronological concept into a geographic one when in De la Litterature considered dans ses Rapports avec i « ; les Institutions sociales^ she makes a distinction ^Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel (Berkeley and New j York, 1964), p. TfT. j 2Germaine De Stael-Holstein (Paris, 1800), passim. 4 between the literature of the South as classical and objec tive and the literature of the North as exotic and subjec- I jtive. Joseph Texte, in his work Jean Jacques Rousseau et j j o le Cosmopolitisme europeenne,-3 maintains that France yielded to the literature of the North, thus assimilating ; the modern, subjective approach, and that Richardson was i | instrumental in effecting that change. i | The statements by these authors add up to the conclu- I j sion that Richardson spearheaded a profound change in |literature and that this change was not limited to England. Much has been written about Richardson's influence on France and Germany, whereas his impact on the Netherlands has generally been overlooked. It is my purpose to fill I this gap. Yet, in order to get the complete picture of | Richardson's overwhelming impact on the continent and the !literary cross-currents between the countries, it is useful | i first to briefly review Richardson's literary fortune in France and Germany. Translations and Popular Reception in France j Prior to Richardson, the novel as a literary genre in !France was considered inferior and not viewed as a branch j of literature capable of conveying ideas. With the excep tion of La Princesse de Cleves and Gil Bias, there is ^Trans. J.W. Matthews. London and New York, 1970. 5 j practically no French novel before the second half of the i eighteenth century which in greatness might be compared | to France's productions in the field of tragedy, comedy, or i ; lyric poetry. i j After the appearance of Richardson's novels in France,! ; there was a sudden proliferation of the novel as an art i j | ! form. Scholars have traced the influence of Richardson on j i practically every one of these novels in France, from j Rousseau's La nouvelle Heloise to Laclos* Les Liaisons ! dangereuses. Indeed, Mario Praz views the latter work as j i i ! I i ". . . the novel which in a sense may be called the j j. i Clarissa of France."^ The first Richardson novel to be translated into French was Pamela or Virtue Rewarded, published in Paris j I and London in 17^1 and published again in Amsterdam in 17^3 i I under the titles Pamela ou la Vertu recompensee. There is i general critical agreement that this translation was : spotty, although there is general disagreement as to who ' made it. Usually one finds the translation ascribed to ! Prevost. Regardless of the merit of the translation, it iwas definitely a popular success, even though some critics ! may have disliked it. According to Mr. Mornet, who made i | a survey of books in private libraries in the period from I I ; The Romantic Agony. trans. Angus Davidson (Cleveland and New York, 1965), p. 99. 7 1750-1780, Pamela was the most popular foreign novel in France.-* Whatever it may have been that prompted France to j cast itself with delight into the vortex of Richardson, it I J £ |led to many imitations, parodies, and dramatic adaptations. Those dramatic adaptations, in particular, became quite jpopular. Pamela, who in Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's phrase, | was "... the joy of the chambermaids of all nations," be- |came the perfect character for the moralizing, bourgeois ;comedie larmoyante. Shortly after the publication of the jFrench translation of Pamela. Louis de Boissy's dramatic ! adaptation Pamela en France ou la Vertu mieux eprouvee was I I | performed at the "Italiens." (March, 174-3). In December i I ! , ! of the same year Nivelle de La Chaussee had his Pamela i performed at the "Frangais." In the same month Claude j I Godard d'Auscour produced his play La deroute de Pamela at the "Comedie Frangaise." A few years later even Vol taire found it profitable to build upon the character of j | Pamela in his Nanine ou le pre.iuge vaincu. There are not ; only a number of resemblances between Nanine and Pamela but Voltaire's heroine even turns to Richardson's novel for ^See D. Mornet, "Les Enseignments des Bibliotheques privees, (1750-1780)," Revue d'histoire litteraire de la France. XVII (1910), 449-96. ^For an account of imitations and parodies sees H. Harrisse, l'Abbe Prevost (Paris, I896), 338 ff. j inspiration during the course of the play, which remained I ipopular and was performed two hundred and ninety-one times lover the years.? No less popular was Goldoni's play j Pamela nubile (1759) which remained a piece de resistance I of the French theatre for many years and was even made into i |an opera. The popularity of Pamela on the stage continued unabated throughout the remainder of the century. As late as 1793 Frangois de Neufchateau produced his version of :Pamela to a full house in Paris. He had adapted Pamela to i | the revolutionary moods Pamela, the servant, in the true spirit of egalite'' thinks herself the equal to Mr. B.® Richardson's second novel, Clarissa, was translated by ;Prevost and published in 1751 under the titles Lettres ! I langloises: ou. histoire de Miss Clarissa Harlowe. The work I found instant popularity, second only to Pamela, according to the tables of Mornet. Alan D. McKillop describes some of the extreme reactions to the works Mme de Tesse, who prostrated herself with tears and groans on Richardson's tombstone in the centre aisle of St. Bride's, and the Frenchman who puzzled the inhabitants of Hampstead by inquiring for Clarissa's j lodgings in the Flask Walk, may stand as representative of many in their generation? and Mme de Stael, seeking Richardson's grave among the churchyards of the city and at last weeping over the wrong tomb, was the heir ^Philippe Van Tieghem, Les Influences etrangeres sur la Litterature frangaise (1550-1880) (Paris, 196I), p. 100. O For a full discussion of dramatic adaptation of Pam- ela, sees,Henry Seidel,Canby., "Pamela.Abroqd," Modern Language Notes. XVIII (November, 1903)# 206-£l3-;----- 9 of this tradition. The evidence at hand indicates that Richardson was appropriated by the sentamentalists in j France as in no other country, and that French enthusi asts often took his emotionalism without his compromise.9 |The reason for this strong emotional reaction may have been that Prevost left out many of the moralizing passages. |Prevost's objections were that the original contained an ex- i |cess of moral instruction and too many detailed descrip- | tions. Richardson, however, saw these as an integral part of his work as he had stated in the postscript to Clarissa: 1 I ! And it will, moreover, be remembered that the author, at | his first setting out, apprized the reader, that the j j story (interesting as it is generally allowed to be) was j I to be principally looked upon as a vehicle of moral j ! instruction. To all which we may add, that there was I | frequently a necessity to be very circumstantial and I minute, in order to preserve and maintain that air of j probability, which is necessary to be maintained in a | story designed to represent real life.- * ■ - * - |It is, therefore, not surprising that Richardson was un- I happy with the Prevost translation which, despite its popularity, often omitted the very moral force that he had sought to give the work. Richardson expressed his dis- ipleasure in no uncertain terms: ! This gentleman has thought fit to omit some of the most j afflicting parts. ... He treats the story as a true ! ^Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist (Chapel Hill, 1936), p7 276. l°See: F.H. Wilcox, "Prevost's Translations of Richard son's Novels," University of California Publications in Modern PhilologvT XII (1927). N. 3. 351-52. i:LSa VIII, p. Edward Mangin (London, 1811). mu el Richardson, The History of Clarissa Harlowe, ^32, in The Works of Samuel Richardson. Xll. ed. 10 one, and says, in one place that the English editor has often sacrificed his story to moral instructions, warn- ! ings, etc. — the very motive with me of the story | heing written at all.12 | In 1786, whether through the influence of Richardson's i |displeasure or the model of the more faithful German and |Dutch translations, or the mere economic fact that a new itranslation was profitable, a close translation of jClarissa by M. Letourneur appeared in Geneva and Paris |entitled: Clarissa Harlowe. traduction Nouvelle et seule I complete. This expensive edition, published with illustra tions by the well known engraver Daniel Chodowiecki, indi cates that the work was still well read, thirty-four years j | 1 ;after its initial appearance in France. From the first j itranslation of Pamela through those of Clarissa Richardson's jpopularity steadily grew. | A French translation by Prevost of his Grandison i jappeared in 1754 and was widely read, though its popularity never reached the height of his greater works. It was published in Amsterdam with the title: Nouvelles Lettres j janglaises ou Histoire du Chevalier Grandison. In the intro duction to the work, Prevost again justifies his adaptation of the novel: I have suppressed or reduced to common practice of Europe whatever in English customs might give offence ! 12 * Anna Laetitia Barbauld, ed., The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson. VI (London, 1804), 244. to other nations. It has seemed to me that these rem nants of rude manners of ancient Britain, to which nothing but familiarity can still keep the British blind, would bring discredit upon a book in which good breeding ought to go hand in hand with nobility and : virtue. - * - 3 Again, it is worth noting with this work, as well as with the other works of Richardson, that popular taste de manded a close translation. Thus a more literal translation I of the work followed shortly afterwards, in 1755-56. This ! [translation was made by Gaspard Joel Monod, a protestant j [minister from Geneva. The title: Histoire de Sir Charles [ Grandison. It was a German project backed by Reich, a i jGerman correspondent of Richardson. This translation was authorized by Richardson himself who, however, was dis pleased because the translator, who was not too familiar i |with the English language, had apparently misinterpreted a j jnumber of passages. Grandison never reached the popularity j jof its predecessors in France, as it did in Holland and ! Germany. i i i Critical Reception in France | The stir created by Richardson's novels was not only I ^restricted to popular readers, but also led to critical i jcommotion in France, which began immediately after the pub- j iication of Pamela ou la Vertu recompensee in 1741. ■ ^ J o s e p h Texte, Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Cosmopol itan Spirit in Literature, trans. J.W. Matthews (New York, 1970), p. 163. 11 - This critical debate reached such an intensity that it was referred to as the Querelle de Pamela, reminiscent in ! scope and ardor of the Querelle du Cid. There was hardly j |a French journal that did not carry frequent articles tak- jing positions for or against the novel, i | The fault of many of these articles and much of eight eenth century criticism of Richardson's works was that the critics either praised or condemned for the wrong reasons, i The novels were praised, not because Richardson created ;such vivid characters, not because of his innovations in |style and technique, not because of his psychological depth, |but rather on account of the moral contained in the works, ; i jor the sentiment they provoked. They were attacked because | j jsome character was not virtuous, because the novels con- j j |tained unpleasant scenes, or because they were too long. |This critical approach was widespread throughout Europe: even Fielding's satires of Pamela. Shamela and Joseph Andrews. ridicule only the incidental qualities or faults |of Richardson's work and do not touch upon his true artist ry. i | Thus Pamela was widely lauded for its moral tendency, for the simplicity of its heroine, and for restoring the credit of women. Much of the criticism was also ambiguous: the novel was praised for its virtuous lessons and attacked i jfor its length and use of detail. Typical of the reaction |of the educated reader is a private letter from Salley to 13 the Chevalier de Caylus, written in 1742s Voici un roman traduit de 1*anglais qui fait une fortune I considerable chez les femmes k Paris. Je ne connais i point aux femmes de singularity plus marquee que celle I d'applaudir avec des cris excessifs de protection a la j vertu et k la pudeur, quand elles ont occasion de faire | chorus, et pourtant de la decrier tout au plus adroite- ! ment, quand elles sont en particulier. J'en ai fait i l'exp^rience a ce livre. Deux trois femmes ensembles C'^tait un livre plus beau que l'evangile. Chaqu'une ! d'elles me disait a l'oreille qu'il etait assez plat et j 1 plein de defauts, dont les moins insupportables ytaient i l'ennui qu'il causait en mille endroits. Pour moi, je ! vous en laisserai^juger} je l'ai lu, et il ne m'a pas j toujours ennuye. | Not all the early criticism, however, was so exclusive^ I ly based on emotion and morality. One of the few critics j | ! ; in France, or anywhere else, who, at this early stage, ex- j i I hibited some insight into the real achievements of Richard-| i i ; I ! son was the Abbe' Desfontaines, an anglophile who was cred- i | ! I ited with having translated Gulliver and who later trans- j | lated Fielding's Joseph Andrews.^5 Desfontaines not only i j praised Pamela for the usual reasons, but also for the in- i genious use of the letter technique. McKillop summarizes : Desfontaines' reaction as recorded in his Observations sur les Ecrits modernes written in 1742s I : . . . he points out the effect the letters themselves have on the action, and the increased vraisemblance the letter method gives to the story. He also contrasts the natural vividness of letters 'written to the moment* j with the less convincing detail of memoirs written I i 1 & x as quoted by McKillop in Samuel Richardson Printer ; and Novelist, p. 97. 15Texte, p. 209. 14 | long after the event, jDesfontaines thought so highly of the novel that he regard ed it as an ", . , excellent pattern to set before French j authors,"17 in spite of the fact that it was an English ! novel. j j Desfontaines, however, remained an exception and most ! of the frequently appearing critical articles reflected the "virtue and sentiment" approval. An example of this criti cism which, nevertheless, shows the extent of Pamela's |critical acclaim, is a review of Joseph Andrews in the Histoire litteraire de la France of 1744, in which Field ing’s novel was compared unfavorably with Pamela. The writ- jer contrasted Joseph Andrews, a novel "so full of paltry 'meanness," with the "... biography of the discreet and 'modest Pamela, whose famous adventures have been the admir ation of such a multitude of readers. ^Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist, p. 95. | l?Texte, pp. 209-210. The timing of this phrase was junfortunate since just then England had taken sides with Marie-Therese in the war of% the Austrian succession. In a pamphlet entitled! Lettre a l'abbe Desfontaines circulated in Paris in 1742, the Abbe is taken to task forhis panegyr ic on the English which was described as an "insult to the entire French nation." Texte suggests that it was out of resentment that Desfontaines translated Fielding's satire on Pamela. Joseph Andrews, in the same year. i^Texte, p. 210. 15 This critical approach was so persistent that, almost twenty years later, Diderot's famous Eloge de Richardson, written in 1761, still reflects this emphasis on moral example and emotional appeal: Richardson seme dans les coeurs des germes de vertu qui y restent d'abord oisifs et tranquilles: ils y sont secretement, jusqu'a ce qu'il se presente une occasion J qui les remue et les fasse e'clore. Alors ils se j developpentj on se sent porter au bien avec une impe'tuosite/ qu'un ne se connaissait pas. On eprouve, a l'aspect de 1'injustice, une revolte qu'un ne saurait s'expliquer a soi-meme. C'est qu'on a fre'quente Richard- ; son? c'est qu'on^a converse avec 1'homme de bien, dans I des moments ou l'ame desinteVessee etait ouverte a la verite. Je me souviens encore de^la premiere fois que les ouvrages de Richardson tomberent entre mes mains: j'etais a la campagne. Combien cette lecture m'affecta delicieuse- ment! A chaque instant, je voyais mon bonheur s'abreger d'une page. Bientot j'eprouvai la meme sensation qu'eprouveraient des hommes d'une commerce excellent qui auraient vecu ensemble pendant longtemps et qui i seraient survle point de se separer. A la fin, il me | sembla tout a coup que j'etais reste' seul.19 Finally, towards the end of the century, Mme de Stael, iin a letter to d'Hericourt in which she described her reaction to her first reading of Pamela, still echoed the approach discussed above: C'est un roman anglois, traduit^n frangctis par un anglois, mal ecrit, charge de details qui devroient etres fort ennuyeux, pr^sentant souvent des objets infiniment d^sagr^ables. Cependant j'ai lu les quatres tomes avec un attachement qui ne m'a pas.permis de quitter qui je ne fusse au bout que j'ai trouve7 avec regret.20 •^Diderot, "Eloge de Richardson," in Oeuvres. ed. Andre Billy (Paris, 1951)» p. 1091. 2°Quoted by H. Harrisse, l'Abbe7 Prevost (Paris, I896), PP. 337-38. 15_., When the Prevost translation of Clarissa appeared in 1751 it caused even more critical comment than Richardson's first novel. Texte maintained that "... everything goes to prove that it was no less but even more successful than p 1 Pamela. McKillop, however, suggests that, initially, the critical reception was not so favorable, substantiating this assertion with a 1751 article by La Porte, who thought that the novel was too diffuse and that Prevost should have I Q O :pruned the novel even more. ^ Much of the early criticism, jhowever, was similar to the Pamela criticism in its bal anced view, as exemplified in a 1751 review in the Friedrich ! jMelchoir Grimm's Correspondance litteraire; j | J'ai e'prouve* dans la lecture de ce livre une chose qui | n'est pas ordinaire, le plaisir le plus vif et 1'ennui I le plus asommant. 3 j j Criticism of the novel underwent an upward curve, how ever, in the course of the decade. In 1753 "the Correspond- ance litteraire praised Clarissa as ". . . peut-etre jl'ouvrage le plus surprenant qui soit jamais sorti de mains |d'homme."2^ By 1758, Marmontel felt compelled to write in j the Mercure de France; i " n " _ l ' " j I do not think that the age can show a more faithful, i more delicate, more spiritual touch. We do not read, i 2^Texte, p. 213. 22McKillop, p. 272. i 23McKillop, p. 273. 2^McKillop, p. 274. 17 2*5 we see, what he describes. ^ | The zenith of favorable criticism was reached, however, ! when in 1761 Denis Diderot went to great lengths to ex- i press appreciation for the works J 0 Richardson, Richardson, homme unique a mes yeux, tu seras ma lecture dans tous les temps. Force' par des ! besoins pressants, si mon ami torabe dans 1*indigence, | | si la m^diocrite' de ma fortune ne suffit pas pour donner j a mes enfants les soins necessaires a leur Education, I , je vendrai mes livresj mais tu me resteras, tu me j resteras sur le meme rayon avec Moise, Homfere, Euripide j et Sophoclei et je vous lirai tour a tour.2® | As Desfontaines had done before him, Diderot recog- J i i nized some of the valuable contributions of Richardson, as j I j | found in his realism and in his clean break with the j earlier forms of prose fiction, such as the adventure novel! I of the type of Gil Bias and the erotic novel such as i i Grebillon*s Les Egarements du Goeur. i | Cet auteur ne fait point couler le sang le long des t lambrisj il ne vous transporte point dans des contrees ^loigneesj il ne vous expose point a etre devore' par des sauvagesj ilne se renferme point dans des lieux | clandestines de debauchei il ne se perd jamais dans les regions de la feerie. Le monde ou nous vivons est le lieu de la scene, le fond deson drame est vraii ses personnages ont toute la realite possible . . . .2' | Voltaire is one of the few voices attacking the work. I ! In a letter to Mme du Deffand he wrote 1 I Madame etait si enthousiasmee de Clarissa que je l’ai lue, pour me delasser de mes travaux, pendant me fievret j 25Texte, pp. 213-21^. 2^Diderot, "Eloge . . . ," p. 1093. 27Diderot, "Eloge . . . ," p. 1090. 18 cette lecture m'allumait le sang. II est cruel pour un homme aussi vif que je le suis, de lire neuf volumes entiers dans lesquels on ne trouve rien du tout, et qui i servent seulement a faire entrevoir que Mile Clarisse I aime un debauche nomme M. de Lovelace. Je disaiss j Quand tous ces gens- la seraient mes parents et mes amis, I je ne pourrais m'interesser a eux. Je ne vois dans I 1*auteur qu'un homme adroit qui connait la curiosite' du genre humain, et qui promet toujours quelque chose de / volumes en volumes, pour les vendre. Enfin j'ai rencontre [ Clarisse dans un mauvais lieu, au dixieme volume, et cela m*a fort touche,2° This reaction, however, is hardly typical and even admirers ■of Voltaire will agree with Texte's statement that Voltaire, ". . . who is never a reliable witness is particularly un trustworthy when any English book is in question."29 Grandison. in the Prevost translation, was assailed in i the Correspondance litteraire of January, 1756. The attack, however, was directed at the translator rather than the work. ! One must have a fair opinion of oneself, to act as the I sculptor of Mr. Richardson's marble. In him we have j indeed a glorious artist, and if you, his translators, j must venture to touch his masterpieces, remove, if you j can, any trifling specks and any dust which may, here and j there, conceal these admirable statues; relieve them of i the soil which occasionally hides their contours; but j beware of even touching the statue with profane hands, ]esfc you betray your ignorance and want of feeling.3° !lt was generally conceded that Grandison did not reach the artistic heights of Clarissa and much of the criticism seems to take on an apologetic tone. The fact remains, however, r p O Voltaire, Oeuvres completes de Voltaire, ed. Louis Moland (Paris, 1883), XL, 350. | 29Texte, p. 213. I 3°as quoted by Texte, pp. 21^-15. 19 |that Samuel Richardson, first with Pamela, then with ' Clarissa and finally with Grandison. profoundly influenced popular taste and that every critic and every literary journal considered the works of sufficient importance to dedicate frequent and lengthy articles to them. The I widespread popular reception and the high critical acclaim gives credence to the thesis of Joseph Texte and others that we can indeed speak of an influence on French writers :from Rousseau to the Marquis de Sade. I In this light it comes as a surprise to see that F.C. Green, in his work Literary Ideas in 18th Century 31 France and England- ^ reduces Richardson's impact to an ab solute minimum. His work is partly a refutation of Texte's I thesis. As a dedicated Francophile he also attacks many comparatists for what he calls ''belittling” French writers in order to magnify English writers. It is ironic, how ever, that Mr. Green himself is guilty of the same fault in his judgment of Richardson. He downgrades Richardson jwhenever and wherever he can. In discussing the emendations of Richardson's works in the French translations he remarks: . . . the French reader was spared the almost nauseous smell of Richardson's sanctimoniousness and sentimental ity, both of which were deodorized and diluted.32 3lNew York, 1966. 32F.C. Green, p. 368. In the light of the current renaissance of Richardson criticism a statement like the foregoing seems just as un critical as much of the eighteenth century criticism. | i Translation and Popular Reception in Germany I Immediately after its publication in England, Pamela .was translated into German. Lawrence Marsden Price, in an i I I article written in 1926, expressed doubt as to the identity iof the translator, and suggested the possibility of a co- ' *31 I ; operative venture.In his later complete study, Die Aufnahme englischer Literatur in Deutschland, he states without qualification that Johan Mattheson and Jacob jSchuster are the respective translators of the 1742 and ! ' i L 11743 editions.-^ A third translation appeared in 1772, 'translated this time by Friedrich Schmidt. I Even though Price maintains that Pamela was accorded l |a cool reception in Germany, the fact that it ran through three translations shows that the novel found a responsive audience in that country. i | The novel did not generate anything in Germany ap- i i Jproaching the Querelle de Pamela, yet the character of the i (virtuous working girl appeared to have captured the imagin ation of the German people as evidenced in a reference to L.M. Price, "On the Reception of Richardson in Ger- many," Journal of English and Germanic Philology. XXV (1926), 7-8. 3^Price (Bern und Mttnchen, 1961), p. 169, n.l. 20 21 to the popularity of the theme in the preface to the German ! translation of Pamela Maritata by Pietro Chiaris | Itzt schreibt man nichts lieber als Pamelen--als von i Pamelen .... Und das schone Gegchlechtv — Ja^“ j auch dieses— von den Seltenen Vorzugen— von den zartlich- : en Leidenschaften der Pamela hingerissen— weinet mit ! ihr— erfreuet sich mit ihr— bewundert sie.35 i Goethe refers to the name "Pamela” several times in his ! jworks. His use of the name as a symbol in an early poem | entitled "Unschuld," assumes that the name had become a ; j household wordi Schonste Tugend einejj* Seele Reinster Quell der ZartlichkeitS I Mehr als Biron, als Pamele ; Ideal und Seltenkeit!36 ; | Clarissa was first translated into German in 17^8- I '■ ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ 1 ! i 1751, soon after the English publication, with the title I Clarissa, oder die Geschichte eines vornehmen Frauenzimmers. | Two new translations followed in 1790.37 The early trans- | lation, published in Gottingen, was begun by the oriental- I ist Michaelis, who abandoned the project in 17^9. Critics are not sure about the translator of the remaining volumes. Haller was definitely instrumental in getting the trans- 35&s quoted by McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer ! and Novelist, p. 106. i 36j0hann Wolfgang von Goethe, Goethes Werke (Weimar, j 1887), Bd. I, p. 57. 37Translated respectively by Christian August Schmitt and Ludwig Theobul Kosegarten. j lation started but did not translate any part of the work ihimself.38 The Gottingen translation, although quite literal and ! 1 i j not in violation of Richardson's intent, as the Prevost I translation had been, exhibited other defects caused by the | | ' still lingering influence of Gottsched on German style. A j I I perceptive reviewer of the 1790 translation of Clarissa ! pointed out some of those stylistic shortcomings in the Journal von und fur Deutschland in 1792* j Gerade das Matte und das Steife, das der ttbersetzer in j I der Vorrede vermieden zu haben vorgiebt, ist der j , herrschende Ton in dieser Ubersetzung. Alle Eleganz, j alle Feinheiten sind verwischtj Platitfiden, Weitschweif-j igkeit und Wasserichkeit, kurz alle Fehler der Gottsched-! ischen Schule findet man hier in reichlicher Masse, und j dies war kein Wunder, da unsere Prose damals noch zu wenig ausgebildet, und der gute G«schmack i j j i unserer Sprache noch nichtt|so fixirt war, dass der Ubersetzer, der gewiss die Sphonheit des Originals empfand auch im Stande gewesen ware, sie getreu uberzutragen.39 1 ; The poverty of this early translation may have temporarily J stemmed the tide of popularity. Many educated German read- i ers were disenchanted with the translation which may have been the cause of the publication in Germany of two French I translations of Clarissa> a Nachdruck of the Prevost trans- j lation in Dresden in 1751 and another translation by an i unknown translator in Winterthur in 1787.^° Yet, whether s I J 38MrSi Barbauld erroneously attributes the translation to Haller. Correspondence. VI, 298. | ^quoted by Price, "On the Reception . . . ," p. 22. i . | ^°Heinsius, Bucherlexicon. IV, hj. 23 Yet, whether in the German or French translation, Clarissa was widely read. Indicative of the popularity of the char acter of Clarissa are the dramatic adaptations of the novel, such as Clarissa, ein Trauerspiel (Zelle, 1765) and Clary. ein Schauspiel (Frankfort, 1770).^ I The popular success of Famela and Clarissa was appar- ! ! ently such that the translation of Grandison was anxiously j Anticipated. In 1753 a number of gentlemen from Gottingen j I l went to see Richardson in England, and one of them, C.B. jKaiser, wrote later: "When is your Sir Charles Grandison to appear? Everybody here wishes soon to see him."^ ! ! I | Gellert had already begun the translation of Grandison ! [but was not to complete the work himself; it was probably I ! finished by some Leipzig professors, j I I Erasmus Reich, a Leipzig bookseller who was Richardsonfe correspondent in Germany was the moving force in making the ! arrangements for the translation. The complete work was published in Leipzig in 175^-1755 with the title: I Geschichte Herrn Carl Grandison In Briefen entworfen von jiem Verfasser der Pamela und Clarissa. The work received a I warm welcome in Germany. Erasmus Reich, who on a visit to England felt compelled to kiss Richardson's inkwell, wrote the author about the German reaction to Grandison: ^Price, "On the Reception of Richardson. . . ," p, 12. ^quoted by McKillop, p. 25^. The new present you lately made to the Public, the History of Sir Charles Grandison, has been received by my countrymen with as much admiration, and thankfulness, as it was by y o u r s .^3 j Because of popular demand a new translation was published ! in 1789 by an unknown translator. Critical Reception and Imitations in Germany 1 Richardson's works were taken seriously by German critics and poets. Although the exact influence is still | open to debate there is no doubt that Richardson's impact 1 on German literature is impressive, partly due to the fact j i | that any competition from Fielding came much later in Ger- j ! ! I many than in England.^ Erich Schmidt, in his pioneering j i ! work, Richardson. Rousseau, und Goethe, strongly states thej j ; | case for Richardson: I Richardson gehort so gut in die Geschichte des deutschen, wie in die des englischen Romanes. Ja, wahrend er in seinem Vaterlande zwar reichen Ruhm, aber keine tiefer greifende Nachwirkung und fast keinen Genossen auf der von ihm betretenen Bahn findet, macht er in Deutschland geradezu Epoche. Hier eroffnen seine Romane ganz neue Wege, in England bilden sie den Hfthepunkt einer langsam erfolgten Entwicklung, die sie abschliessen. So kommt i es, dass ihre literarischen Folgen in Deutschland und nur ! ihre literarischen Voraussetzungen in England liegen.^5 I It is therefore not surprising that German writers and I critics in the second half of the eighteenth century exten sively debated the merits of Richardson's works. Barthold ^McKillop, p. 255. ^Price, Die Aufname. p. 169. ! ^5(Jena, 1875). p. 7. 2k 25 Heinrich Brockes gave poetic expression to his admiration I for Pamela as the embodiment of virtue, in his Lobgedichte I auf die Pamela (l?^5)s | Das, was man von der wahren Tugend^ in hundert tausend Buchern lehret, j ! Wird, durch Pamela betragen, auf eine j ; solche Weis' erklaret, I Das der nicht nur kein tugendhaftes, kein menschliches Herz im Busen hegt, j i Den diese tugendhafte Schone zur . j | Tugendliebe nicht bewegt.^6 | > The most eloquent and persuasive spokesman for Richard-| son in Germany was the Swiss poet and professor at Gottin- j i gen University, Albrecht von Haller, well known for his fam-| i | ous poem "Die Alpen," which anticipated Rousseau's return j ; • i to nature in its estatic view of the beauty of the Swiss ; i Alps. Shortly after the publication of Clarissa Haller i I wrote an extensive review of the novel which was first pub- | lished in the Bibliotheque raisonnee (Amsterdam, 1?^9).^? ! In this famous review of Clarissa. Haller strongly | defended the bourgeois novel by pointing out that the typi cal French adventure novels present courageous heroes per forming unusual feats to readers who have little or nothing i in common with such fictional characters. Similarly, ^ irdisches Vergnugen in Gott (Hamburg, 1721-^8), jBd. IX, p. 55^. | ^The correctness of his views was evidenced by the j fact that the British Gentleman's Magazine of the same |year saw fit to translate and publish the same review. 26 French love stories, such as Le Grand Cvrus and La Prin- i icesse de Cleves are equally far removed from the daily life |of the average reader in their lofty concept of love. i |Haller then discusses some of Richardson's techniques, show- i |ing that these, as well as Richardson's treatment of his j heroes, are the touchstone for this age. | Richardson thought so highly of this review that he j included a few passages of it in the postscript of Clarissa. Without referring to Haller by name but calling him an ' I"ingenious and candid foreigner," Richardson inserted the i |followings i The method which the author has pursued in the History ! of Clarissa, is the same as in the Life of Pamela: both | are related in familiar letters by the parties themselves, j at the very time in which the events happened: and this ! method has given the author great advantages, which he j could not have drawn from any other species of narration. The minute particulars of events, the sentiments and | conversation of the parties, are, upon this plan, exhib- | ited with all the warmth and spirit that the passion j supposed to be predominant at the very time could pro duce, and with all the distinguishing characteristics which memory can supply in a history of recent transac tions . ! Romances in general, and Marivaux's amongst others, are wholly improbable; because they suppose the History to be written after the series of events is closed by I the catastrophe: a circumstance which implies a strength of memory beyond all example and probability in the per- | sons concerned, enabling them, at the distance of several years, to relate all the particulars of a transient con- j versation: or rather, it implies a yet more improbable ! confidence and familiarity between all these persons and j the author. | There is, however, one difficulty attending the ! epistolary method; for it is necessary that all the characters should have an uncommon taste for this kind of conversation, and that they shoyld suffer no event, pot eyen a remarkable conversat^op to pass, without immediately committing it to writing. But for the 27 preservation of the letters once written, the author has provided with great judgment, so as to render this cir- i cumstance highly probable. I Another zealous advocate of Richardson's novels in |Germany was Christian Furchtegott Gellert, who had been so I |impressed with Pamela that in 1747 he wrote an epistolary inovel entitled Leben der Schwedischen Grafin von G.**. jLike Pamela, Gellert's novel was written in epistolary j form; both novels have as their main characters females who were subjected to attempted seductions and were victor- i Iious in their refusal, in spite of the fact that their i |pursuers were of higher birth. Gellert's novel, however, i j I still has many of the characteristics of the traditional ' ! I j novel of adventure and never reaches the psychological | I depth of Richardson's novels.^9 | Gellert took every opportunity in his critical writings |to praise Richardson and even exceeds Diderot in his praise for the British writer. Diderot placed Richardson on the same Parnassus occupied by great classical authors; Gellert |placed him highers | Die Werke, die er schuf, wird keine Zeit vernichten. Sie sind Natur, Geschmack, Religion. i i kfi ! Richardson, Clarissa, in The Works. . . Richardson. |pp. 430-31. I j ^9Wolff and Deken refer to Schwedischen Grftfin as "a pitiful effort" and as "generating yawns." See E. Wolff and A. Deken, Willem Leevend (The Hague, 1784), V, preface, p. xiv. 28 Unsterblich ist Homer, unsterblicher bei Christen Der Brite Richardson.^ i ! , As a moralistic critic and writer, as well as a pro- I jfessor of ethics at the University of Leipzig, Gellert had jwritten and lectured extensively on that favorite eighteenth jcentury topic, virtue. In a series of lectures he estab- : I ■lished the rules on how to acquire and strengthen virtue. i One of the important rules was: read moral books. ! Lerne Weisheit aus dem Unterrichte des Verstandigern, und | aus dem Lesen nutzlicher Bucher fur den Verstand und das j I Herz.^l 1 jit is not surprising to see that Gellert ranked Richardson's! inovels high on the reading list of "nUtzliche Bucher.” He | ! lists them among prose poems} admitting that they are nov- j iels, he asks the rhetorical question of how any one can rec- I jommend novels for this purpose. He answers: "Ja, wenn es Werke eines Richardsons sind, so halte ich ihre Empfehlung Pflicht.”^ For Gellert, Richardson's novels were godly Jart and godly instruction. He then raises the common prob- ilem of the wicked characters in Clarissa and how their jpresence can be reconciled with moral teaching. Will they not have the opposite effect on youth? He replies to the I iquestion and refers to the above mentioned criticism of 5°Christian Furchtegott Gellert, Gellerts Werke. ed. Fritz Behrend (Berlin, n.d.), II, 13• ^Christian Furchtegott Gellert, Sammtlichte Schriften (Vienna & Prague, 1808), VI, 233. 52Gellert, S&mmtlichte. p. 23^. 29 Haller: Eigentlich sind sie eingerichtet, uns einen Absehen vor dem Laster zu erwecken, und sie haben ihr Gegengift bey sich. Ich verweise Sie auf die Kritik und den Lobspruch des Herrn von Haller uber dieses Buch. . . , und die vielleicht in ganz Deutschland unter den grossen Gelehrten nur ein Haller hat verfertigen konnen.^3 | j Gellert's persuasive championship of Richardson's nov els was so influential that it prompted J. C. Robertson to state that'Richardson was the sole founder of the modern |German novel, and Gellert was his prophet.Apparently I ^ i |the appreciation was mutual, since Richardson arranged for ! i j jthe English translation of Leben der Schwedischen Grafin.55 I I | jGellert was at first an admirer of Pope, but then shifted i ! i i |his appreciation to Richardson after the appearance of i iPamela, Gellert's admiration for Richardson was not limited |to the latter's qualities as a moralist. He also expressed his appreciation for Richardson's approach to the technique of letter writing and he could speak with authority: Like Richardson, Gellert had published a volume on the art of letter writing, entitled: Briefe. nebst einer praktischen j ^Gellert, Sammtlichte. p. 237. & j J as quoted by L.M. Price, English German Literary In fluences Bibliography and Survey in: University of Califor nia Publications in Modern Philology (Berkeley, 1920), Vol. 9» no. 2, 293. 55por a detailed discussion of Gellert's indebtedness to Richardson's Pamela in writing his Schwedischen Gr&fin See: Carsten Schlingmann, Gellert: Eine literarhistorische Revision (Berlin, Zttrich, 1967), in Frankfurter Beitrage jzur Germanistik. ed. Heinz Otto Burger und Klaus von See, Vol. 3, 140-1^5, 30 Abhandlung von dem guten Geschmacken in Briefen.^ in i which he made some perceptive remarks about the art. In it ! Gellert elaborates upon the requirements for letter writ- | ing, pointing out that a letter is a substitute for conver- 1 sation, but that it cannot have the casualness or informal- I ity of the spoken word. One of the sample letters in the i I ; above volume is directed to a Clymene, who asked the writ- i ! er for elucidation on the subject of kissing. In a I I beautiful pun the writer replies s ". . . ich . . . ver- i meine, es konnte ihr diese Wissenschaft mundlich viel be- j | | | quemer werden beygefugt."-57 The sample letter is then subjected to criticism by j I : Gellert, who uses the opportunity to lament that few Ger- ; ! i i man poets know how to write letters, if one compares them j with writers from the past, such as Cicero and Pliny, and j J writers from other countries, such as Voltaire and Pope. j He then indicates that Pope's art pales in the light of 1 Richardson's genius as a letter writer* In seinen galanten Briefen werden vielleicht nicht alle dasjenige finden, was sie von einem so grossen Namen ! erwarten. Wie glucklich hat einer seiner Landsleuthe i das eigenthumliche der Briefe zu treffen gewusst! Ich rede von dem Verfasser der Clarissa und des Grandison. j So verschieden die Charaktere seiner Personen sind, so ! lasst der doch jede, von der Clarissa an bis auf die Arabella, von Sir Grandison bis zum Ritter Meredith herab, so schreiben wie diese Personen geschrieben haben wurden, wenn sie wirklich existiert hattenj und diese Meisterstucke des Witzes verdienen unter den Briefen | 56in Gellert, S&mmtliche. IV. { 1 - 57Gellert, Sammtliche, IV, 89. 31 eine eben so vorzftgliche Stelle, als unter den Roman- en.58 j j Another German writer who was emphatically affected by the "Richardsonfieber" was Johann Timotheus Hermes, who wrote two novels in the Richardson tradition: the Geschichte der Miss Fanny Wilkes appeared in 1766 with the I subtitle: So gut als aus dem englischen ftbersetzt. The "so gut als” was printed so small that purchasers of the book were led to believe that it was indeed translated | from the English, an indication that by this time the English novel had a better reputation than any native pro duct. In the preface to the novel, Hermes touches upon the problem of looking beyond the borders of Germany for good prose fiction: Ist's denn so nothwendig, sich durch das Ansehen fremder Nationen zu empfehlen? Haben wir denn nicht deutsche Originale? Ja, meine Herren, die haben wirj urn eines anzufuhren: wir haben schon lange das Leben der schwedischen GrM.fin.59 The continuing popularity of Hermes imitation of i I 1 Richardson's works is proven by Goethe's mention of it in Werther, when Lotte refers to the novel, a reference which also indicates the lasting popularity of the entire sub-genre of the domestic novel. •Wie ich junger war,® sagte sie, 'liebte ich nichts so sehr als Romane. Weiss Gott, wie wohl mir's war, 5®Gellert„ Sg-mmtliche. LV, 92. 59as quoted bv S.B. Liljegren, The English Sources of Goethe's Gretchen Tragedy (Luna, 1937), p. 59. 32 wenn ich mich sonntags go in ein Eckchen setzen und mit ganzem Herzen an dem Gluck und Unstern einer Miss Jenny j teilnehmen konnte, Ich leugne auch, dass die Art noch einige Reize fCtr mich hat. Doch da ich so selten an ein Buch komme, so muss es auch nach meinen Geschmack sein. Und der Autor ist mir der liebste, in dem ich meine Welt wieder finde, bei dem es zugeht wie urn mich, j und dessen Geschichte mir doch so interessant und herzlich j wird als mein eigen h&uslich Leben, das freilich kein ! Paradies, aber doch im ganzen eine Quelle uns&glicher ! Gluckseligkeit ist.'60 | Hermes' second novel, Sophiens Raise von Memel nach I ! Sachsen, was published in 1770-1772. It is the first time Ithat the Richardsonian epistolary domestic novel appears ! i i iwith German characters and relates to German situations. j i : i According to Fritz Bruggemann it was one of the most widely j i . j I read novels in the last third of the eighteenth century.61 ; j I jSophre is definitely a Richardsonian heroine who, in spite ! ; i I of all kinds of obstacles, manages to write long letters in i which she subtly analyzes her emotions, sprinkled with pious thoughts. Almost any passage in the novel makes this clear. Early in the novel she has taken lodgings in an inns Ich legte mich gleich schlafenj jedoch nur aufs Bett, obgleich in wenigern Kleidern, als ich gestern anhatte, ! weil mir die Kleider|(die Reise hochsj lastig machenj I doch war ich zu schlafrich, die Schnurbrust anzuziehen. Ich liess ein Nachtlicht brennen. 0 wieviel tausend j Menschen haben heute vielleicht nicht Stroh und Lager! | Wie viele haben nurf Stroh und danken Gott eifriger als ich! Dies und das Ehnliche dachte ich, schlief ein und ^°Goethe, Die Leiden des jungen Werther, ed. and with a trans. by Harry Steinhauer (new York, 1962), p. 62. ^Sees Johann Timotheus Hermes, Sophiens Reise von Memel nach Sachsen, ed. Fritz Brttggemann. in toeutscHe 33 schlief ungeachtet meines Dursts sanft, und ich mochte sagen mit Wollust, da mein Herz sich der Gute Gottes so lieblich bewusst geworden war. Ich weiss nicht, wie ! Menschen die Sussigkeit des Schlafs oder des Eryyachens j geniessen kftnnen, wenn sie nicht vorher ihres gutigen | Schopfers sich erfreut haben.62 i | Sophie then wakes up in the middle of the night to notice that there is a gentleman in her room, the mysterious Herr ] | Less**. Naturally, Sophie survives the incident with her i | chastity intact. Not only does Sophie have the steadfast- j ness of Pamela and Clarissa, Herr Less** appears to be a I 1 second Grandison. | For the purposes of this study it is important to | i ; note that Hermes willingly admitted his debt to Richardson j I j ! and indicated that Richardson's novels inspired him to I i i | ! j write, particularly after he had read Young's praise of j ! | Richardson. While he allowed that there are a few faults in Richardson's works, he stated: I Ich bin weit davon enfernt den Richardson zu verachten. Das Loft, welches der grosse Young ihm gab, ist ja hauptsachlich, was mich bewog, mein Buch zu schreibens Er hat, sagt Young, mit einem eben so moralischen, als i originalen Genie, bose Geister ausgetrieben; er hat | sine Art von Schriften zur Tugend bekehrt, die sonst ihr | argster Feind war: wie eben die ersten christlichen i Kaiser Damonen verjagten, und die Tempel derselben dem i lebendigen Gott heiligten. So urtheilte ein so grosser | Mann: aber das war auch Engelland! Ich glaube, auf Richardsons Wege zu gehen: aber ach: mein Weg geht durch Deutschland: vielleicht sah noch kein Mann Literatur in Entwicklungsreihen: Reihe Aufklarung (Darm- stadt, 1967), Bd. 13, p. 5. 62Hermes, Sophiens Reise. . . . Brief IX, p. ^7. 3^ wie Young auf diesen raeinen Weg.^ I At about the same time as Sophiens Reise appeared, • I Sophie von La Roche's Geschichte des Frauleins von Stern- heim (1771)> the story of another Richardsonian heroine, was i published to wide popular acclaim. From then on many more novels appeared in imitation of the Richardson models. ICarl Heine, in Der Roman in Deutschland; 1774-1779.^ j jestimates that close to one-third of all novels published ! ;between 177^-1778 were influenced by Richardson. | Opposition to the Richardsonian novel was not articu- jlated until, some twenty years after the first appearance of a Richardson novel in Germany, MusS.us published his I Grandison der Zweite (1760-1762), which was republished and | revised in 1781-1782 as Der Deutsche Grandison. Mus&us j jshared with Fielding a distaste for the moralizing novel jand, like Fielding, satirized Richardson's excesses. | Joseph Andrews, however, was an independent work of art, a j 'distinction never achieved by Grandison der Zweite. which remains a tedious satire interspersed with overt attacks Ion Richardson. The importance of the satire by Musaus is that it indicates that, as late as 1782, Richardson was |still popular in spite of the proliferation of Sturm und [ prang writings. However, even more important is the fact i | ^ Liljegren, English Sources, p. 60. (Halle, 1892), p. 33- 35 I that Mus&us' negative reaction to Richardson was not at all j appreciated by other writers in Germany: Johann Gottfried von Herder, for example, responds to a favorable review by | Thomas Abbt of Grandison der Zweite by referring to the ! author of the original Grandison as "der gottliche Richard- I ' son" and exclaiming that he would rather be the writer of | Grandison than its parodist.^5 In spite of the attack by Musaus, Richardson's per- vasive influence continued unabated through the next few j | decades. In 1796, Johann Gottfried Herder, looking back i t over the literary scene of the past half century, pointed I i out that Richardson's novels, in his metaphor, were not ! just bright stars but the only stars in the German liter- ! j ary firmament and continued to say: "Pamela, Clarissa, I ! Grandison folgten sich in der Regierung, und theilten diese mit keinen anderen Romanen." As a champion of native German literature, Herder felt disappointed and frustrated by this hegemony of a British author and the i : imitative quality of German writings, which led him to | exclaim: Der Poetische Himmel Britanniens hat mich erschreckt. , , ^ Herders Samtliche Werke (Hildesheim, 1967), II, 320-21. i | ^"Briefe zu der Beforderung der Humanit&t," Brief ?8, | in Herders S&mtliche Werke. p. 400. ——.— — ■ — 1 Wenn in Italien die Dfuse singend ponversirt, wenn sie in Frankreich artig erzahlt und vernunftelt. . . wasMtut sie in Deutschland? Sie ahmt nach. Nachahmung ware also ihr Charakter,. eben weil sie zu spat kam. Die j Originalformen waren alle verbraucht und Vergehen.°? The accumulation of evidence presented above makes it obvious that Richardson's literary presence in Germany j was overwhelming: indeed, as Erich Schmidt^® and S. B. I j Liljegren prove,^ Richardson's pervasive influence can ! even be traced in the two masterpieces of Goethe, Werther and Faust, thus placing his mark, on some of the most j impressive sprachliche Kunstwerke of modern German litera- ! ; | I ture. i i ! Conclusion i ; One major reason which contributed to Richardson's ! pervasive and longlasting fame on the continent was this ; | author's response to the needs of a new reading public. ! | As has commonly been observed about England in Richardson's ( | time, continental Europe too had seen the rise of a new I | kind of reader: a hardworking, prosperous middle class. ! Whereas seventeenth century writers on the continent ; often depended on subsidies of the court for survival, in i ! the eighteenth century it became possible to make a living ^Herder, XVIII, 111. ^ Richardson. Rousseau, und Goethe. ^ The English Sources of Goethe's Gretchen Tragedy. 36 — by writing books, making the writer dependent on a large readership rather than the favors of the aristocracy. Ger many and France had such a new middle class whose sphere of interest was more limited than that of the aristocracy, a new bourgeois class, to whom Racine's Phedre or Lohen- stein's Sophonisbe were alien, but which readily identified with the problems of a young servant girl and appreciated the detailed descriptions of family life. Common people | now became the heroes and heroines of a middle class epic. i Richardson's domestic novel was thus made to order for the new book-buying public; as such, it pioneered a new genre. Several qualities of these novels, such as the in fusion of sentiment and the teaching of virtue, appealed strongly to the public. The sentiment, sensibilite. Empfindsamkeit. the importance of the dictates of the hearii the minute analysis of feelings, or, as Joseph Wood Krutch calls it, ”... the feminine equivalent of passion, struck a responsive chord in readers familiar with the | plays of Marivaux or the poetry of Klopstock. The response was particularly strong in Germany where the pietistic movement was widespread, and where . . . die religiose Bewegung des Pietismus eine Verinner- licftung ermoglicht hat, durch welche die Krafte des Gemuts und Gefuhls zu den entscheidenden Organen des ?QFive Masters* A Study in the Mutations of the Novel (Bloomington, 1959)» p. 160. Glaubens- und schliesslich auch der Welterfahrung wurde.?1 The second most striking quality of Richardson's novels, their moralizing tendency, was perhaps the ingre dient in these works that accounted more than any other aspect for their enthusiastic reception on the continent. One of the main tenets of the Enlightenment was the optim istic view that, through reason, man could improve him self, and with particular zeal writers had addressed them selves to the problems of religion and morality. Moral weeklies were abundant on the continent and artists were preoccupied with questions of the relationship between ! reason and virtue. Typical is the poet Johann Nikolaus Gotz, who in the poem "Das Vernugen" raised the question of where to find real happiness and then concludes: Freunde, wisst ihr, wo ichs fand? Wo ich es mit Blumen band? Zwischen Tugend und Verstand.' Richardson's stylistic vehicle for sentiment, for reason and for virtue- the epistolary form- was itself great cause for the writer's popularity for three particu lar reasons. Letter writing had been elevated to the ?^Max Wehrli, "Das Zeitalter der Aufklarung," in Deutsche Literaturgeschichte in Grundzugen, ed. Bruno Boesch (Bern,1967), p. 189. Deutsche Dichtung im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. Adal bert Elschenbroich (Munchen, n.d.), p. 69. 39 status of art in France and Germany.^he epistolary I form also provided the author with a practical solution to j the intricate technical problem of point of view. And, |perhaps most important, the letter form increased the ! j verisimilitude of the novels by bringing to the bourgeoisie i : a work of art in a form which they themselves commonly i I I practiced. j I i | Thus through translations, imitations, and through | ! j widespread critical and popular reception, Samuel Richard- | son's foreign techniques and approaches ceased to be for- | | ] i eign. Indeed, as we have seen and shall see further, his i i i l i works and the characters he created had been assimilated j i into the mainstream of French and German literature, where | ; his influence was instrumental in shaping literary art for j the next century. This was no less true in the Netherlands. 73The famous letters of Mme de Sevigne and Mme de Lespinasse and Gellert's volume Briefe are indicative of this high respect for the art of letter writing on the continent. CHAPTER II PAMELA IN HOLLAND The Dutch Literary Scene Prior to "Pamela” The strong men of the seventeenth century, Holland's "Golden Age," had given Holland a resounding name in all fields of endeavors shipping, trade, war, and art. Liter- j ature had flourished even though it never reached the in ternational acclaim of Dutch painting. The early eight eenth century inheritors of this vibrant civilization settled back as well-to-do bourgeois. Their interest in creative endeavor seemed to be in inverse proportion to their affluence. The first part of the eighteenth century has generally been considered a period of decline in most aspects of Dutch life when compared with the glories of the "Golden Age." Indeed, it was a decline so marked in literature that some Dutch literary historians begin the eighteenth century, "de Achttiende Eeuw," in 1?66 with the writings of Rijklof Michael van Goens. 40 ! The literary scene of the first half of this century offered little of lasting artistic value. Amadis novels were still in limited circulation, but the Dutch "burghers" did not appreciate these as their fifteenth and sixteenth century ancestors had done. More characteristic of the period are the numerous religious and moralizing pamphlets, often written by ministers. Of course, fiction was read and written in this period | j of decline. Among the few works that did achieve some ! measure of success the picaresque novel dominated, usually in translations from the French. The Dutch version of Lesage's Gil Bias went through several printings and Scarron's Le Roman comique in the translation by Lambert van der Bosch and Nicholaes Heinsius was reprinted several i | times. The latter translator also wrote his own picaresque novel: De vermakeli.iken Avanturier (The Comic Adventurer), which was first published in 1695, and was, in spite of its obvious shortcomings, so well received that it was re- | printed eight times during the first half of the eighteenth | century and translated into German, English, and French. | Another exception to the general lack of prominence of Dutch letters in the period was Justus van Effen (1684-1735). Because his interests were international, he was an important influence in introducing Dutch readers to new kinds of writing and thus helped to prepare the way for the later flowering of new literary forms in Holland. bz During a trip to England, van Effen met Swift, Pope, Steele and Addison, and upon his return he founded De Hollandsche Spectator, which he published from 1731-1735* One of the major contributions of van Effen and his Spectator is that his writings stimulated interest in English literature in Dutch readers who had traditionally focused on French fiction and drama, either in the origin al or in translation. Few Dutchmen could read English, and London traders often learned Dutch to correspond with i their Amsterdam counterparts. English literature had nev er been able to get a strong foothold in Holland. Shake speare was known but his works had been overshadowed by i the many dramas of Holland's greatest writer, Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679). John Milton suffered a similar fate: at the beginning of the eighteenth century his work was practically unknown in Holland.^ It was Justus van Effen who, early in his career, remedied this situation with his well known survey of I English literature in the Journal litteraire of 1717. which helped prepare the way for the appreciation of the first English author to be truly popular in Holland, Samuel Richardson. For our purposes, his work on De Hollandsche Specta- ■^See Herman Scherpbier, Milton in Holland: A Study in the Literary Relationships of England and Holland (Amster dam, 1933)» p. 20b. - J — tor is of equal importance. This journal, with its fre- | quent moral exhortations, was to share in preparing Dutch i readers to be receptive to outright moral sermonizing such ! as Richardson's. In addition, van Effen, following the i example of Addison and Steele, created characters that em- ; bodied his moral lessons. One of his character sketches, j I 1 the Burgervri.jage van Kobus en Agniet.je (The bourgeois I courtship of Jimmy and Agnes), published in three letters ; j in 1733» approaches the form and structure of a novelette, j This work and other similar ones by van Effen also prepared I the way for Richardson, in that they were written in the form of letters and appealed to the bourgeoisie in form and style. i With the death of Justus van Effen in 1735 the Dutch j literary scene appeared barren. Gerard Knuvelder, the I j foremost Dutch literary historian, in surveying this low : ebb of literature states: i Wat de tijdgenoten van Van Effen en de rest van de achttiende eeuw aan proza opleveren, is van gering belang. Reisverhalen, pamfletten, theologische ver- handelingen en preken moeten in dit tijdvak in de schaduw staan van de grote zeventiende— eeuwse voor- gangers. De ancedotische novellen en grotere romans, — navolgingen van Heinsius en van Franse relazen over i liefde en avonturen — , kunnen op slechts geringe lit- | eraire waarde bogen. De nieuwe kunst van de grote j werken ontstaan, zal te onzent pas tegen het einde van j de eeuw tot ontwikkeling komen. i ! p ^"Whatever prose was produced by van Effen's contem- ! poraries or in the remainder of the eighteenth century ! is of little import. Travel stories, pamphlets, theologi*- cal treatises and sermons have to stand in the shadow or However, due in part to van Effen's works, an audience waited for the literary spark that would once again ignite I a great age of literary art. Translations of Pamela ! It is against this lackluster background, sketched i !above, that Pamela appeared in Holland in 17^2. Richard- I — l |son's first novel did not arouse the intense, widespread ( |animosity or adulation that it did in Germany or France. No serious critics paid it much attention and nothing like ; I a querelle de Pamela developed. Yet, as this chapter will | i | j show, the work gained enough renown in Holland to make Rich-; i : lardson well known and thus prepared the literary world of j the country for a later critical reception of Clarissa and ! : l Grandison. ^ In 17^1, prior to any translation of Pamela ir.to Dutch, |the Amsterdam bookseller and publisher, Dirk Swart, brought I |out a translation of the English pamphlet, Pamela Censured. i 'which had been published in England only a few months pre viously. The translator added a fifteen page introduction I their great seventeenth century predecessors. The anecdot ic novelettes and longer novels— imitations of Heinsius jand French love and adventure stories— can boast of min- jimal literary value. The new art of the bourgeoise novel, of which genre great works are being created abroad in this period, will develop in our country only towards the end of the century." jGerard Knuvelder, Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der Neder- landsche Letterkunde ( 's-Hertog-enbosch. 1Q67). TTT. j bb i 45 i and thirty-six pages of "risque” excerpts from the novel. The entire work was entitled: Pamela Bespiegeld, of Het beruchte Boek, het welk onder de Titel: Pamela, of de beloonde Deugd. Nu al binnen *t Jaar viermaal in het Engelsch gedrukt, in het Fransch reeds getranslateert is, en in het Nederduitsch ook overgezet en uitgegeven worden zal, zedelyk in een Brief aan den Uitgever, uit het Engelsch vertaald. Waar by j vooraf geplaatst is een kort uytrekzel van het gemelde Boek. Benevens een voor-reden van den overzetter.3 ! j i j In the introduction, the anonymous translator used | : i any means at his command to degrade Pamela. He predicted j that the French would "... sneer at the work and deride , it with indignation, recognizing the inferior quality of j this novel." Considering the Dutch admiration for French literature and French taste in general this is a rather devastating argument against the novel. The second assault is familiar: the novel plants the i seeds of vice and immodesty by the detailed description of the behavior of Mr. B.: De Autheur van Pamela meend, of geeft ten minsten voor, met dit zyn Boek Deugd en Zedigheid by de Jeugd van beiderlei Sexe aantequeeken en te bevorderen. Ten dien einde vertoond hy een onbeschofte zotte Land.ionker. die van niets anders weet, dan een jonge eerlyke Dochter met list te misleiden, of met geweld te I verkrachten, en beide op zo een grove manier, en die met i I ^"Pamela Considered, or The infamous Book which under ! the Title, Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded, was printed four I ~kimes in England, was translated into French and will be ■ translated into Dutch and published, morally judged and examined, in a letter to the Publisher translated from the : English. Preceded by a short excerpt of the named Book | and a preface by the translator." Anon. (Amsterdam: 1741). ! All future translations from Dutch works will be mine unless ; explicitly stated. i alle verfoeilyke omstandigheden zo breedvoerig beschrev- ' en word, dat een ondeugend gemoed dezelve wel met vermaak lezen en daaruit leeren zal, froe hij doen kan, , om zyn ondeugend oogmerk te bereiken. The third attack is unique among objections made to i j Pamela in that the writer reproached Richardson for being j less delicate than the poets of classical Rome who, accord-J | j ■ ing to him, scrupulously avoided detailed descriptions of j I vice and sex as Richardson did not. He proves his point byj ; j the selective quotation of "clean" passages from Ovid, and j many other classical writers, conveniently ignoring Ovid's ; Amores. ! i ------ j The next target of the translator's indignation is j I Dr. Benjamin Slocock, who had praised Pamela from the pul pit of St. Savior's in Southwark. About Slocock, he stat- j ed that if pagan authors refrained from using explicit passages, it becomes even more surprising that a . . . Geestelyke van de Engelse Kerk zoo vieeslyk heeft Konnen zyn, en verraadden, hoe weinig rechte en gezonde kennis van goddlyke en menschlyke zaaken hy heeft, met dit Boek als het beste Boek na den B.vbel, zyne Toehoorders van den Predikstoel aan te pryzen: en hy verdiende daarom van de geheele Engelse Clergie gecensureert, van den Predikstoel gesuspendeerd, ja ^"The author of Pamela intends, or at least claims to to do so, to inculcate virtue and modesty in the youth of both sexes. To that end he shows them an uncouth idiotic squire who knows of nothing else but to slyly deceive a young honest daughter or to try to rape her violently. These repulsive situations are described in such explicit detail that a wicked heart would read them with great de light and could learn from them how to reach his wicked goal." p. 3. I * J 7 i ! • e j voor al zyn leeven daarvan gebannen to worden ! The writer then recommends reading Pamela Bespiegeld ■ as an "antidote" against the "love potion" of Pamela. Young people should not read Pamela at all, for a young ; girl should learn nothing more than to ". . . feign virtue and modesty as a means to make her fortune in the world " j (p. 9). Older people, however, could read the novel with | some advantage to obtain insight into the deplorable situa- | tion that exists with regard to the clergy and nobility of England and to become aware of the basic level of morality ! practiced in that country. Since McKillop suggests that Dr. Slocock's sermon may have been part of a promotional campaign for Pamela.^ and ; in view of the fact that at this time several publishers were trying to launch the Dutch translation of the novel, | one might surmise that Dirk Swart was trying to cash in on | a potential best seller. Thus, when Gerrit Tielenburg ob- : tained the rights to Pamela. Swart again brought out an edition of Pamela Bespiegeld in 17^. ■*"••• Cleric of the English Church could have been so carnal, and could exhibit how little correct and honest ; knowledge he possesses of divine and human affairs, by | praising this Book from the Pulpit as the best Book after j xhe_Bible: he therefore deserves to be censured by the j entire English Clergy and to be suspended from preaching I from the Pulpit for the rest of his life." Pamela ! Bespiegeld. p. 6. .. . D. McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and Nov- ; elist (Chapel Hill, 1936T, pT If7' . ------- ----------------- The first translation of Pamela was published by ! Gerrit Tielenburg with the titles Pamela of de Beloonde I Deugdi in een Reeks van gemeenzame Brieven? (17^2-17*J4). ; J. Prinsen, in De Roman in Europa in de Achttiende Eeuw^ j i i ! states that Johannes Stinstra made the translation. The j I j translator claims that except for the two or three emenda- j I tions that were necessary, the translation as a whole is as j I close to the original as Dutch syntax and vocabulary allow.j I The well known first few lines are typical of the literalj translation throughout the works j Ik heb U een groot verdriet en tevens iets troostlyks bekent to maken. Het eerste bestaat daar in, dat myne • waarde Mevrouw aan de ziekte, waarvanik U onlangs kennis gaf, is overleden, en ons alien in groote droefheid over ; het verlies van hare persoon heeft gelatens want zy was | eene minzame en goede mevrouw en ons alien, haren dienstboden, zeer genegen. So literal is the translation that the translator even re produced the colon, which is inappropriate in the Dutch. 7"Pamela or Virtue Rewardeds in a Series of familiar Letters." M. Buisman in Populaire Proza schri.ivers van 1600 tot 1815 (Amsterdam, n.d.) lists an earlier edition, 17^1-17^2. I have not been able to locate a copy of this edition or to find this date confirmed anywhere else. The 17^2-17*14 edition consists of four volumes with an allegorical frontispiece portraying Pamela between virtue and vice, with the French captions "Pamela embrasse la ;Vertu, & meprise les offres de la Cupidite, representee par |une vieille Seductrice. Derriere Pamela est son P&re qui |benit le ciel de sa sagesse, & son Amant qui la considfere |du cot£ de sa vertu, sous l'ombre delaquelle il cherche le repos." ^(Amsterdam, 1925), p. 313. Prinsen is probably in |error. No translator is mentioned on the title page and IStinstra never mentioned it in his extensive correspondence |with Richardson. 49 A second printing of the same translation appeared in '1744, brought out by Tielenburg in Amsterdam and Jan Bosch j in Haarlem. The edition is identical to the first one. A Dutch catalogue of all books printed in this period^ |lists another edition of Pamela published by Erven P. I Meijer and G. Warnars in Amsterdam in 1747. This partic ular edition, brought out by a different publisher, may have been a pirated edition. Evidence of the continuing popularity of Pamela is |Tielenburg's third printing of the work, the first volume !of which appeared in 1751* The following three volumes | | were not published, however, until eight years later. This i delay may have been due to the fact that the translation of j Clarissa appeared in 1752, lessening reader interest in 1 any more volumes of Pamela for the time being. All Dutch editions which I have been able to examine j contain both Pamela I and II and carry the "Conclusion" I land the "advertisement" warning against spurious editions. No further editions or reprints of Pamela have appeared, | with the exception of a shortened version retold in istraight narrative (i.e. not epistolary) bound together in i i one volume with the narrative versions of Clarissa and 9Johannes van Abkoude and Reinier van Arrenberg, Naamregister van de bekendste em meest in gebruik zynde Nederduitse Boeken. I, 1^00-17^7 (Rotterdam. 1788). Grandison. The indication on the title page "verbeterde uitgave" (improved edition) suggests that an earlier edi- jtion of this work may have existed. This earlier edition, ! however, is not extant and no reference is made to it in I jany journal or catalogue. ' Apparently demand for Richardson's work continued at this time; the demand warranted a second printing of the jcollection three years later, also published by Ten Brink. |This time the volume was illustrated, and upon request, Ten ; Brink made the illustrations available separately so the ■buyers of the earlier edition could insert them. This was i i I proof again that a book with the name Richardson on the ! cover still was considered a valuable possession. Imitations and Critical Reception Promptly after the appearance of Pamela in Dutch, jEliza Haywood's Anti-Pamela was translated and published by Arent van Huyssteen (Amsterdam, 1?^3) with the title: De Anti-Pamela, of de valsche gevallen van Svrena : Tricksy, zynde eene dienstige waarschouwmg voor de | jeugt om zich to wachten voor bedrieghelyke vrouwen.H 10 Pamela, Clarissa en Grandison verkort. Verbeterde ^Uitgave(Amsterdam, 1805). - * - - * - " The Anti-Pamela or the False Simplicity noted in j the adventures of S.vrena Tricksy, being a useful warning to jyouth to be on their guard for treacherous women." The authorship of this Anti-Pamela has not been definitely established but there are good reasons to be lieve that she was the author. For more on this, see McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist, p. 80. 1 50 51 While it may have been Haywood's intention to stem the tide 'of enthusiasm for Richardson, the very fact that she [brought out the book demonstrates that this tide continued: [ I |While Haywood's book was never reprinted in Holland, Pamela ] jsaw several new printings. i | The popularity of Richardson apparently spurred on the creative efforts of at least one anonymous Dutch author who, in the early 1750's, decided to ride with the tide and write a Dutch imitation of Pamela with the usual extensive sub- ! title: j I De Hollandsche Pamela: of de Zegenpralende Deugd. Behelzende de wonderbare gevallen en ontmoetingen van j j Zoetje Gerbrants, Geboren in Holland} Die van eene arme | en geringe Dogter, door hare schoonheid, vriendelykheid j en deugd, na het uitstaan van vele kwellingen en j tegenspoed eindelyk opgestegen is, tot den hoog-edelen | staat en rang van Gravinne van H. . . . Voorgesteld in | eene verzameling van gemeenzame Brieven, van en aan haar I geschreven, nevens enige tussen-voegingen van i verscheidene zaken tot haar leven behorende} na der- j zelfder dood bijeen gevoegd door een van hare i vriendinnen en bezitster van hare handschriften, nu voor de eerste maal in 't licht gegeven.l^ ! The use of "Gravinne van H. . in the subtitle may jbe an indication that the author also tried to appeal to i no j "The Dutch Pamela or Victorious Virtue. Containing |the wondrous adventures of Zoetje Gerbrants, born in |Holland; Who from a poor and lowly daughter, through her [beauty, amiability and virtue, after suffering many tor- Iments and adversities finally rose to the noble state and |rank of the Duchess of H. . . . Presented in a collection jOf familiar letters, written by her and to her, including |some additions concerning her life? collected after her jdeath by one of her lady friends, owner of her letters, [now published for the first time." (Amsterdam, 175*0* 52 the reader's of Gellert's novel, Leben der Schwedischen iGrafin von G* *. The name of the novel, the introduction ; ■ ■ — — jto it and the approach make it clear, however, that Rich- j jardson's Pamela was his major source. : In his introduction the author (calling himself "ed- I ;itor" for reasons of verisimilitude) gives the various rea- 5sons why he believed that his novel was superior to Rich- i jardson's. He points out that Pamela is a "roman of ver- jciering (a "novel or fiction") and is thus untrue, a pro- Iduct of an author's imagination, whereas the Dutch Pamela i jis the relation of real happenings "in our fatherland." One finds, according to the author, greater genuine sincerity, i j". . . the natural characteristic of the Dutch people," in | the Dutch Pamela than in the English one and this should i i". . . tip the scales for any Dutch reader in favor of the heroine, Zoetje Gerbrants." The writer then makes a justifiable criticism of Pamela lit De Engelsche schryver, meester van zyn onderwerp, ene verciering, zynde, heeft zyn Pamela op ene langdradige wyze tot verscheidene Boek-Delen zoeken uitterekken, door tusschenvoegingen die geheel vreemd aan het onderwerp i zyn, hetgeen de verstandigste Lezers het meeste tegen de borst heeft gestoten.^3 He then advises the reader that since De Hollandsche Pamela i 13 •'"The English writer, who is master of his events since he is writing fiction, has tried to extend his Pamela through prolixity into a number of volumes, by digressions which are foreign to his topic, a fact that is repulsive to the most intelligent readers." De Hollandsche Pamela, p. iv. 53 is based on real letters no such digressions can be expect- led and that for the same reason the reader does not have to I fear for a continuation of the work. The author admits !finally that Richardson's Pamela has been well received and i justly praised but then asserts that, compared with Richard- ! |son's, the Dutch Pamela will stand out as the real master- |piece. It is surprising that the author does not engage in the usual attack on Richardson's novel on the grounds of jits immodesty. j The Dutch Pamela consists of fifty letters, mostly j |written by Zoetje Gerbrands, a young servant girl who has j jjust arrived at the home of Mrs. D., a widow of noble birth. ;The letters are generally longer than Richardson's and in- i I finitely inferior in style and content. Even the worst !letters in Richardson's works seem superb compared to a typical excerpt from De Hollandsche Pamela. In her first letter to her mother, Zoetje relates the death of her father in great detail. After Zoetje, at her father's I I deathbed, has expressed her desire that the father would jlive, the latter answers: I Zo is het myn kind, zeide hyt natuurlyker wyze gesprok- j enf maar ik die tegenwoordig meerder door de genade. als door de natuur leef, zie nu de dood voor myn vriend aan, die myn getrouwe Jezus my toegezonden heeft, die reets aan myn deur klopt en zig aanbied om my uit dit zondige Tranen-dal te verlossen ten einde my in eene ongestoorde ruste en uitmuntende Heerlykheid over te voerenj zoude ik die goede vriend dan niet bereidwillig open doen en hem myne handen. alsof hy een Engel Gods was, toereiken, die gereed staat om mv, op Gods bevel, uit dit werelds Egipten, uit deze akelige en barre woestyne des levens, 5k waar in ik, onder het uitstaan van vele tegenspoeden, zo lange rondgedwaald heb, te verlossen, en my in een ! gezegend land, overvloeijende van geestelyke melk en honich over te voeren: die het scheepke mynes levens, maar al te zeer gefolterd door de woedende baren van aardsche ydelheden, en vuile zonden driften, onder zyn | geleide, in de Haven van eeuwige ruste nu gelukkig zal i doen aanlanden; die my de Adams rok zal uittrekken | om my met de glansryke kledered des Heils te bekleden; ! zoude ik dan niet na de dood verlangen, daar het sterven i zulk een groot gewin is, zo dat het veel beter is te sterven, en met Christus te zyn, dan langer door de banden van dit nietige lichaam, van die besmette rok des vleeschs, aan deeze aarde gekluisterd te blyven.-^ i This passage is typical for the general tone of the novel and thus makes clear why Richardson's popularity exceeded I that of his first Dutch imitator. If Richardson was, at j j j times, prolix in his moralizing, he never reached this j | j ^"This is true my child if we speak from natural in- j | stinct, but I, who now live more by grace than by nature, j | consider Death as my friend sent to me by my devoted Jesus; a friend who is already knocking at my door and offering his services to liberate me from this sinful Valley of Tears so as to conduct me to an untroubled Rest and the greatest of Bliss; should not I then willingly open the door for this friend and reach out my hands to him as if he were an angel of God, who is ready, at | God's command, to liberate me from this Egypt of the I world, from this barren desert of life in which I have | wandered so long and suffered so many adversities, and who : is ready to lead me to a blessed land running over with spiritual milk and honey; who 'is ready to lead me to a blessed land running over with spiritual milk and honey; who is ready to land the ship of life, tormented exceeding ly by the raging waves of earthly vanities and the soiled surf of sin, into the blessed port of eternal rest; a friend who will take Adam's coat, my fleshly being, off to clothe me instead with the resplendent cloth of Salvation; would I not then long for death since dying is but gain, since it is better to die and be with Christ than to be bound to the earth any longer by the fetters of this mis erable body, and by the soiled cover of the flesh." De Hollandsche Pamela, p. 6. 55 extreme. A publisher in Heerenveen, a city not far from Har- | lingen where Stinstra published his translation of Clar- i i issa, brought out a short version of De Hollandsche Pamela j | in 1759» several years after the first publication of the I ! Dutch translation of Clarissa. In this edition the work was cut down to less than one-third its original size. I This time the name "Pamela" was left out of the title of : the book, which was now called De Godvruchtige Hollandsche i ! Schoonheid.^ | i — ■■■■ -in— i-i. M— ■ i i i , j ! In 1787 the character of Pamela was still sufficiently! : ! 1 I known to support the publication of yet another Pamela ! 1 I j novel which was the translation of Pamela franqaise, writiens i I ! by Mme Riccoboni: i De Fransche Pamela; of de Uitblinkende Deugd, zo in de i gehuwden als ongehuwden Staat. Brievswyze geschildert. ! In de Smaak van de Clarisse. Grandison. en andere j soortgelyke Geschiedenissen. Door Mevrouw Riccoboni, I autheur der Brieven van Adelaide de Sancerre.1& 1 i 15'"rhe Pious Dutch Beauty." l6"rphe French Pamela, or shining virtue both in the i married as in the unmarried state. Told in Letters. In j the style of Clarissa. Grandison. and other similar his- j tories. By Mme Riccoboni, author of the Letters of I Adelaide de Sancerre. " Mme Riccoboni, a prolific epistolary novelist, be longed with Mesdames Tencin, de Beamont, de Charriere and de Souza to what has been called an epistolary school of sensibility. At least three of the works of Mme Riccoboni | were translated into Dutch. Godfrey Singer character izes her work as ". . . rather pedestrian and uninspired creations, sometimes relieved by a flow of graceful and exquisite writing, but usually overladen with sentiment and sensibility." The Epistolary Novel (New York, 1963),p.l86. 56 Appearing as it did in what has been called a period of decline in Dutch literature, it is understandable that |the critical reaction to Pamela was almost negligib10 |Newspapers or journals failed to make any mention ox the J original work or the translation. The scarcity of liter- !ary journals at this time may have caused this lack of j |critical reaction. De Hollandsche Spectator had suspended i publication after the death of van Effen (1735) and the :only viable learned journal of the period, Maendelvke Uittreksels, of de Boekzael der Geleerde Waerelt, was more ! interested in theology than in prose fiction. A few French journals, such as the Bibliotheque Universelle. were being published in Holland but they were oriented towards French literature and a French reading public. The appear ance of a Dutch translation of an English novel would not fall within the scope of these journals. ! However, the latter part of the century saw literary [journals proliferate again and there we find frequent [mention of Pamela. By this time the fame of Clarissa and Grandison had overshadowed the first novelj references to Pamela are then made in conjunction with references to Richardson's later novels. Taking into consideration the wasteland of Dutch literature in the first half of the eighteenth century, and the new interest in English literature awakened by Justus van Effen, it is not surprising that Pamela. although at first slowly received, acquired an excellent reputation. This widespread familiarity with Richardson's first novel prepared the Dutch reading public for an even more enthusiastic reception of Clarissa, the subject of the following chapter. CHAPTER III CLARISSA IN HOLLAND Translation and Publication of Clarissa A quarter of a century prior to the rebirth of Dutch i literature or, as Knuvelder calls it, the beginning of modern literature in Holland,^ one of the great works that | was to be instrumental in that rebirth appeared in the Dutch language; Volumes I and II of the translation of Clarissa were published by Folkert van der Plaats in Har lingen in 1752. Based on a third printing of the English . . . edition it was titled; Clarissa, of de Historie van eene . i onge Juffer waarin de Gewichtigste Belangen des Gemeenen Leevens vervat zi.in.2 The translator, Johannes Stinstra, i | ■'"See; Gerard Knuvelder, Beknopt Handboek tot de 1 Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde (*s Hertogen- bosch,~1965), p. 367. "Wil men een enkel jaartal: met Van Goens' inaugereie oratie en de drie essays in de Nieuwe Bi.idragen tot opbouw der vaderlandsche Letterkunde van 176(3. , . , begint de moderne literatur, in theorie en praktijk." ("To name a single date if you will; with van Goens' inaugural address and the three essays in the Nieuwe Bi.idragen tot opouw der vaderlandsche Letterkunde of 17^6..7, modern literature begins intheory and practice.") 2"Clarissa, or the History of a young Lady comprehend ing the Most Important Concerns of Private Life." 58 59 a Harlingen theologian, warned the reader in the introduc tion "... not to judge too rashly the value of the whole from these two volumes," because they give only a "feeble foretaste" of the treasures to be found in the following volumes. These six volumes were published in sets of two !during the following three years, with Volumes VII and VIII I thus appearing in 1755* Volume IV has appended to it a jletter from Richardson in which he defends himself against j |objections to the "fire scene" in Clarissa. In the Preface I |to Volume III Stinstra announces that he is going to trans- jlate this letter and include it in the work. Pointing out that the letter had not been published in English he is |proud to say that, "Deeze Nederduitsche Uitgaave dus ! u hierin zelf voordeel heeft boven de oorspronglijke. •^Samuel Richardson, Clarissa, trans. Johannes Stinstra, (Harlingen, 1753)» IH» Preface, second page (not numbered). Originally Stinstra and van der Plaats had agreed to pub lish the first four volumes at one time. The demand for an early release, however, was too insistent and they de cided to publish the volumes in pairs. | ^"This Dutch edition thus has an advantage over the |original one." Clarissa, trans. Stinstra, III, Preface, last page (not numbered). The original of this rather interesting letter has not been published anywhere. McKillop refers to it (Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist, p. 266) and Dobson (Samuel Richardson, pp. 101-102) discusses the contents of the Dutch translation of the letter. T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel in "Richardsoniana," Studies in Bibliography. XIV (1961), 232-23^, report that they located the original in the volume labeled "Richardsoniana" in the Forster Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The library of the "Vereniging ter Behartiging der Belangen des Boekhandels" in Amsterdam, the most authorita tive source on the history of publishing in Holland, has no figures regarding the number of copies printed of the first edition of Clarissa? judging by the fact that Clarissa made Richardson famous and elicited much critical comment, j one can only assume that the number of copies printed by Folkert van der Plaats approached or exceeded the total number of the several printings of Pamela. ! In addition to the numerous volumes of the first j j edition, Clarissa’s good reception in Holland was further j |evidenced by the fact that another edition of the transla tion was called for in 1797.^ The success of the work will j |be dealt with later in this chapter? for the moment, how ever, it is worthwhile to note three definite sources of that success: the readiness of an audience already primed by Pamela? the art of Clarissa itself? and, in no small way, the skill and zeal of Johannes Stinstra, Richardson's ! imost faithful translator and most avid promulgator. i | Stinstra. the Translator of Clarissa Whereas the Dutch translator of Pamela remained un- i known, the translator of Clarissa. Johannes Stinstra, be came a staunch defender, a knowledgeable critic and an t i -'Geschiedenis van Clarissa Harlowe (Amsterdam. 1797- 1 8 0 5 ) t ------------------------------- 60 active promulgator of Richardson's work. The impact of the English writer on the Dutch novel is due, to a great extent, to the efforts of Stinstra. His excellent critical prefaces to Clarissa and his extensive correspondence with Richardson, to be discussed below, bear witness to that ! t fact. i Johannes Stinstra studied theology, Hebrew philosophy and oriental literature at the University of Franeker and j settled in Harlingen to dedicate his life to scholarship | and writing. In 1735 he was asked by the Harlingen Church j council to deliver a few sermons and was subsequently ! elected minister of the Doopsgezinde (Mennonite8) Congrega- I tion in that city.'* However, as an original thinker, a proponent of freedom of thought and of the necessity of reason in religion, as well as a publisher of numerous religious pamphlets, Stinstra soon got into trouble with the established theologians of the Dutch Reformed Church and was accused of adhering to the rationalistic views of ! Socianism, which led to his suspension as a preacher from ! 17^2-1757.8 i I l c j Followers of the Frisian religious reformer Menno ! Simons. ?See "Stinstra," Encyclonedie van Friesland, ed. J. H. Brouwer (Amsterdam, 195&)» p. 0O7. 8This became a celebrated case, in which the Prince of Orange, the States Delegates and all universities became involved. Some forty books were written about it. For a detailed account see Stinstra's letter to Richardson of I 62 The fact that Stinstra was a controversial figure may have had something to do with the impact of the novel he translated. During his period of suspension, Stinstra com- ple ted the translation of the first two volumes of Clarissa. mailing Richardson a copy of the preface to the first vol- lume together with a letter in which he expressed his ad- i miration for him. Richardson had the preface translated and the letter became the beginning of a long correspond ence between the author and his translator. One of these I ; letters is the well-known autobiographical letter, in which j ! Richardson relates his early life and the circumstances ! that led him to publishing Pamela. This letter has been reprinted by Anna Barbauld, Alan Dugald McKillop, John Carroll and others. Most of the other letters of this correspondence were lost until W. C. Slattery located them recently in the Municipal Archives of Amsterdam. During his suspension Stinstra continued his writing, which culminated in an eighty-one page pamphlet entitled: Waarschuwinge tegen de Geestdri.iveri.i. vervat in een Brief aan de Doopsgezinde in Friesland.9 By implication, the pamphlet attacks such groups as the Moravians and pleads April 2, 1753 in W.C. Slattery, ed., The Richardson-Stins- tra Correspondence and Stinstra*s Prefaces to Clarissa (Carbondale, 111., 1969), pp. 13-18. ^'Warning Against Fanaticism, contained in a Letter to the Mennonites in Friesland (Harlingen. 1750^. 63 for the supremacy of reason in religion. In a letter to Stinstra of December 6, 1752, Richardson quotes from a "... learned and worthy friend," to show the reception of Stinstra's enlightened views in England: I find that your Monsieur Stinstra is the same Gentleman as wrote ye pastoral letter against Fanaticism. I It is supposed that the Book being originally published ! in Dutch, is the occasion of its not being known here. He has published also in Dutch Five Sermons for Liberty of Conscience, and Toleration, and against all Imposition of Human Authority. By his clear manner of Writing, I make no doubt but this is an excellent Work. I am one of his admirers, and think he deserves a Place with Locke &c.l^ In another letter to Stinstra, Richardson re-emphasized the importance of Stinstra's letter against fanaticism: Let me acquaint you, Sir, that your Pastoral Letter is i considered with us a Masterpiece. Two worthy young j Gentlemen of Cambridge, spoke to me in the highest Terms i of Approbation, within these ten Days, and of the Justice done it in that University.11 This correspondence comprises the most extensive body of letters between Richardson and a translator. In it, Stinstra repeatedly expressed the greatest admiration for the English author but this admiration never turned into j blind adulation. Questioning the appropriateness of a passage in Grandison, Stinstra wrote: I form only those doubts, my dear friend, that you may perceive that I not read your works with a prepossessed mind, nor blindly praise them; that I read with a searching eye, yet not finding any blemishes, but meeting -^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of Dec. 6, 1752, p. 7. pt ^Qllsiattery, Correspondence. Letter of March 20, 175^# 6k one or two little bright clouds, which more accurately viewed perhaps are a collection of shining stars.12 On the other hand, Stinstra was also lavish in his praise and was happy to report the reactions to the first two volumes of Clarissa. He quoted a clergyman as saying that he ". . . sometimes doubted whether the angels possess ed more acuteness than the author of that book,”13 and j relates that another reader confessed ! i , . . that he had no doubt that if most parts of these I letters occurred in the Holy Book, they would be pointed out as a clear proof of divine inspiration.1^ These twenty-one letters of the correspondence be tween Richardson and Stinstra provide some interesting insights into both men and are a valuable addition to the body of Richardsonian writings. In his first letter to Stinstra of December 6, 1752, Richardson claims that he has testimonials regarding Clarissa by the greatest writ ers and clerics, including five Bishops, One of whom declared to me on a visit he made me on the occasion (and he scruples not to declare it to every body) that he had read it through Eleven times, and ! proposed to read it over again every two years as long 1 as he lived.13 12Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of Dec. 2k, 1753» p. 65. ^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of April 2, 1753* p. 10. ^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of April 2, 1753> p. 11. ^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of Dec. 6, 1752, p. 6. 65 Stinstra promptly included the statement in the preface to his translation of Volume III of Clarissa. When Rich ardson had the preface translated and found out that this passage was included he expressed his concern to Stinstra "because H . . . those Bishops will imagine that the Intell- ! igence must come from me."-1 -^ Richardson requested Stin- j stra to delete the passage from all the copies and sub- j ! 1 ! stitute another sheet, promising to pay the cost of all ; | this. J In his answer to Richardson, Stinstra pointed out i I j that most of the copies were already in private hands and i | that if corrected sheets were sent around to private per- i sons and bookstores . . . everyone would pay attention to this because of the strangeness of the thing, search out the causej and when the reason for the change was learned, gossip would be created which would by no means be favorable to my witholding an explanation, not to mention the difficulty that there perhaps would be so many people who would not want to hand over their books. Stinstra then gave his rationale for publishing the i J passage, and in doing so he gives us some interesting | glimpses into his personality and demonstrates how well Stinstra understood Richardson's weaknesses* ■ * * ' ^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 12, 1753» p. ^5. l?Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 23» 1753f p. ^7. 66 Lest you should think that I have committed this fault very thoughtlessly, please allow me to point out the reasons which moved me to publish these remarks. I thought that outside the borders of these provinces there would be nobody who would read or seek the Dutch edition, since our tongue is understood almost ex clusively by the inhabitants of Holland itself» I had no idea that it would be transported to England. And I cannot yet be convinced that any Dutchman living in London (to whom this especially would happen) who could drink in these great beauties from the fountain source would prefer to receive them from a drainage ditch. Therefore I thought that no man in England except you would ever know that I had mentioned this. Besides, you yourself had told me this truth so kindly, so sincerely, in order to encourage me (to strengthen your hands was your saying) in overcoming the prejudices with which I had to struggle as a theologian in dealing with matters of this kind. . . . But perhaps (if after committing such a fault I may speak freely), your eagerness to respect propriety renders you too delicate. For from what source, I ask, will those Bishops be able to learn that these things were written to me by you, granted that acquaintance of this affair ever reaches them? Have they not avowed to others the praises of your work which they declared to you? And thus, that which I have mentioned could have been told to me by others, perhaps by one of your friends to whom you had told of the affair who, also solicitious sic for your fame as I am, could have informed me of it.-*-° Stinstra*s wheedling won the day. Readers of Clarissa in the Dutch translation ever since are told of the raptures of those five Bishops. In general, Richardson was quite pleased with the •*-®A. number of Stinstra's letters were written in English and include errors in grammar and spelling. Slattery does not indicate which letters were translated from Latin or Dutch and which ones were written in Eng lish. This one was apparently written in English. ^Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 23, 1753* pp. 47-^8. Dutch translation and continually expressed the highest regard for Stinstra in his letters. Having received the first two volumes, Richardson wrote: Were I a young man, I would endeavor to make my self Master of ye Dutch tongue, for the Benefit I should undoubtedly reap from reading your Works as well as from the pleasure I should have in reading your transla tion of my own Clarissa. Pardon a kind of paternal Fondness; which you have encreased by the Distinction you have given her. I shall be extremely delighted, I am sure, with your Preface to the new Publication. The more there is of Mr. Stinstra in the work, the more valuable it will be.2® Ten days later Richardson wrote again to Stinstra, adding the following Post Scriptum to the letter: I rejoice in the Hopes you give of a Preface to each of the two succeeding Publications. What Labour have you been at! What pains! How much does that Labour and those pains enhance the Value of the Work! What a valuable edition will be the Dutch one.^ Stinstra's Prefaces i Each of the odd numbered volumes of the translation I ; carried a preface by Stinstra, Richardson's expressed ad- | miration for these prefaces is echoed by McKillop: i No contemporary critic gives a clearer description of the transition from didacticism to psychology in Richardson's work. . . . his commentary is essentially i first hand; he is sensitive to the detail and the vividness of Richardson's work, and reports what he has felt. If this discussion had been written in a more accessible language, it would, in spite of its ver- | 20Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 2, 1753* : pp. 22-23» as edited. 21Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 12, 1753» | p. 4-6. 67 68 bosity, have become a locus classicus of Richardson criticism. 2 The prefaces have now been translated by William Slattery and are an important addition to Richardsonian criticism. The importance of these prefaces in the estab lishment of Richardson's literary fame in Holland requires discussion of them in some detail. In the first preface Stinstra explained why he, a minister of the Gospel, had undertaken to translate a nov- i el. He agrees with the apparently prevailing opinion that novels are not worth reading but maintains that Richard son's novel is different: it has ”... the most useful influence on the minds of those who love virtue. . . ,"23 a powerful argument to a Dutch public steeped in Protes- j tantism. In further prefaces, Stinstra defends the use of "loose and crude” language in the novel by stating that even in Holy Scripture one can find similar sayings. This moral argument in the prefaces is thus similar to the | moral criticism of the novel prevalent among English and ! continental critics. In these four prefaces, however, Stinstra frequently transcends the moral argument or the pure adulation so frequent in Richardsonian criticism of the period. He 2^McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist, p. 265. 2^Slattery, Correspondence, p. 112. 69 i i i dwells in detail on characterization, on Richardson's J ability to formulate a plot, on the importance of imagina tion and, finally, on the often criticized ending of the novel. Stinstra was impressed by the uniqueness and consist ency of the characters in Clarissa, a uniqueness even reflected in the individual style of the letters: A profusion of characters is here introduced, as is men tioned above, all according to original nature in every respect, each not only acting according to his special type but thinking, writing and reasoning for himself. From each letter, sufficient in itself, from its type and style, the observant person can conclude to which character it belongs; every character preserves his own personality consistently and each is completely the image of himself.2^ Stinstra, stating that mere consistency is not sufficient and would run counter to reality, cites the example of Clarissa's mother to prove that Richardson reflects nature even in his inconsistent characters: But how many unstable people do we not meet daily, who, swayed by other's views, abandon their own well- understood principles? How often is it that the same person, possessing great intelligence and natural judgment, does not act intelligently in every respect. And how easy is it for a soft hearted person, for the sake of peace, to allow himself to be used by dissatisfied people for the continuation of their quarrelsome purposes? And in such a dissimilarity one will find that Mrs. Harlowe is like her own image.25 0J4. Johannes Stinstra, "Preface to the First and Second Volumes of Clarissa." in Slattery, Correspondence and Prefaces. p. 117. 2%lattery, p. 117. To be sure, Stinstra's remark on inconsistency in charact erization is a critical commonplace today. Yet his criti cism demonstrates remarkable insight, particularly if one considers that it was written not by a critic but by an eighteenth century minister, addressing a general audience I about a relatively new genre. This insight into the im portance of good characterization is demonstrated again in the ''Preface to the Third and Fourth Volumes" where Stin stra returns to this topic at length, pointing out that diversity in characterization is crucial* A virtuous character is not always of the same kind, but different in different people, according as one is of a livelier and quicker, the other of a duller and more melancholy naturej according as the passions in the one j are fiercer and more explosive, in the other more com posed and subdued to a clear intelligence.26 Having given many examples to illustrate his point he con tinues his discourse by showing how the importance of diversity holds true also in characters in whom vice is superior. Stinstra sees the value of literary art in the "in- I jstruction and pleasure" it provides. He takes the "pleas- ! ure" quite seriously and places considerable demands on his readers, asking them not only to study the character in depth in order to determine what principles and passions sway them but also to read between the lines to see what 26Slattery, p. 152. 71 is implied in seemingly unimportant conversations . . . a conversation over the tea table concerning things, as one thinks, of little importance, depicted in all their circumstances, is capable of painting for us several characters with their subtlest features and their clearest colors.2' It is this understanding of the value of implication in dialogue which provides Stinstra with the necessary justification to defend Richardson against the frequently encountered objection that Clarissa is too tedious: | Those who find such descriptions, created from life and nature, tedious, and judge all these trifles super fluous, show that they consider only the outermost bark of the matters and do not penetrate to the c o r e . 2° Richardson's ability to create a unified plot out of the "manifold, diverse and complex" events and circum stances contained in the novel is praised in the first i preface. Though Stinstra does not use the term "organic" in describing the natural unity of all the parts, the language used in analyzing the "excellent perfection" of the plot definitely suggests this concepts i The events naturally stem one from the other, are suited to the other. . . . All of them together are joined to the one important aim of the history in the finest degree and do not cover up or conceal the aim, but each adds a special light and beauty to it. ° 2?Slattery, p. 153. 2®Stinstra, "Preface to the Third and Fourth Volumes of Clarissa." in Slattery, Correspondence and Prefaces. P. 153. 29stinstra, "Preface to the First and Second Vol umes. . . ," in Slattery, p. 117• 72 This admiration for the organic unity of the novel is a topic to which Stinstra returns several times in his pre faces speaking of "exact proportion," "careful uniformity," and "excellent organization." Again he tells the reader how to go about discovering this unitys j We should first accurately trace the thread of this history, observing the particular occurrences, from which the whole is woven together, and by which ties, incidents or intentions the one is connected with the next.3 | A number of Dutchmen raised objections to the fact that a minister of the gospel who had been proclaiming all along that reason was "the only basis for all virtue and true religion" would get involved in translating a novel, which was a work of imagination, not of reason. Stinstra uses almost the entire preface to the fifth and sixth volumes to defend his association with the translation of a novel. He does this by a ringing defense of the faculty of the imagination. He admits that reason is important j but that since people are not exclusively rational beings, i imagination is of equal importance. Then follows a lengthy discourse on the power of imagination which in cludes several descriptive definitions such ass This power does not merely receive its ideas from external objects, but also creates them from word descriptions, yes, shapes them from things that it has never encountered or received. It preserves the 3°Stinstra, "Preface to the Third and Fourth Vol umes," in Slattery, p. 150. 73 received ideas in the memory and knows how to exchange them in an endlessly varied way. . . . 31 jAlthough Richardson's novel is never mentioned in this preface, Stinstra's perceptive comments on imagination | lend credibility and weight to his criticism of Clarissa. ! Finally, in the last of the prefaces, Stinstra defends | the sad ending of the novel against the frequent objections i that it depresses the reader whose life is already beset | by so many cares and that poetic justice opposes the sad i j ending. Why would anyone bother with virtue if it leads to Clarissa's ending? i I Stinstra replies to the first argument that if this | ! ' | | world is such a vale of tears, if one cannot avoid adver- j j sities, the reading of Clarissa would strengthen the spir- i ; its of the readeri if, on the other hand, life offers many joys to people— and Stinstra believes it does— then ”... it is not inexpedient that their spirits be kept in balance l j by the contemplation of sad ideas,"32 prompting the reader | to remain aware of his frailty. To the second objection !Stinstra answers that virtue has never made anyone immortal, ! that moralists are wrong in associating virtue with a "... joyous life, riches and honor, blessings and pros- ■^Stinstra, "Preface to the Fifth and Sixth Volumes," in Slattery, p. 170. 32stinstra, "Preface to the Seventh and Eighth Vol- Volumes," in Slattery, p. I89. perity,"^ and that, finally, the true rewards of virtue are in Heaven. The critical acumen demonstrated in these excellent prefaces adds authority to Stinstra*s high praises of Richardson at the end of the first preface, where he states s Therefore this author deserves to he numbered among the most excellent luminaries, among the greatest men of ancient and modern ages. And though England may boast of some extraordinary minds, she will not dishonor a Newton, a Milton or an Addison by having a Richardson henceforth sparkle in their ranks with no less lustre, whether one looks at the PQWer of his spirit or the usefulness he has wrought.^ Critical Reaction i I j Critical comment and reviews of Clarissa appeared I j promptly. The Boekzaal der Geleerde Waerelt judged the work important enough to publish a lengthy review of the first volume of Stinstra*s translation immediately after its appearance in July, 1752. This review introduces Richardson and suggests that his work is better known than | the writer, who "... voor den schryver van Pamela gehouden wordt."35 While most of the review is taken up by a retelling of the events in the first volume, the 33siattery, p. 195. 3^Stinstra, "Preface to the First and Second Volumes," in Slattery, p. 125. 35", , , is believed to be the author of Pamela." Boekzaal. LXXV (July, 1752), p. 717. 75 reviewer ends by explaining the strange fact that a minis ter would lend his hand to the translation of a work of fiction ("ene verdigte Historie") concerning the love affairs of a young couple, by stating that the translator compared himself to the Most Reverend author of Telemaque. The second volume of the translation also received an ex tensive review in the same journal, consisting again of a synopsis of the action with little critical comment,3^ ■ Shortly afterwards, the Nederlandsche Spectator pub- jlished a facetious letter from a reader with the pseudonym "Lugthart" (i.e. happy-go-lucky). This gentleman, who had | been delighted that the working girl he courted was en- i 1 grossed in a novel and thus more likely to submit to his i advances, now writes of his perplexity, for the girl in stead rejected him with the advice that he read Clarissa to improve his moral life. He then addresses the "Heer Spectater" asking about this topsy-turvy state of affairs when novels are used to teach morality. He provides the ! information that the novel in question is the "Historie | van een Juffer Catrina Bardows," translated by ". . . een heer die zy noemde, maar zyn naam is my vergetenj ik geloof haast, dat het een predikant was,"3? He adds that 3^Boekzaal. LXXVI (June, 1753)» PP* 617-638. 37"History of a Miss Catrina Bardow," translated by ". . .a gentleman whom she named, but whose name I for- f otj I almost believe that it was a preacher." De Neder- andsche Spectator. Ill, 122, Pt. 5 (July, 1753), 139. 76 it might become risky for a "ligtmis" (playboy) like him self to read novels since he would expose himself to the possibility of being converted to pietism. The "Spectator" answers Lugthart's query by suggesting that he read the prefaces to Volumes I and III of Clarissa i Harlowe. where he would find the answer to his problem of "... whether one can draw moral lessons from novels." The "Spectator" continues by saying that Lugthart, upon ireading the novel, will find there . . . de levensloop van een Avanturier of Ligtmis. ja, van een Generaal der ligtmissen, zo wel als van eene deugdryke jonge juffer.i^ j Indeed, the name Richardson gradually became a house- i hold word and his works were found in the hands of simple | working girls. The circulation, however, did not stop there. Businessmen as well as highly educated people be came familiar with the works. De Denker of May 2, 1763^ printed a letter signed by a "Dorothea." This young lady was living with her uncle, a wealthy businessman with an I I extensive library who insisted that she read the Bible, j I Theological writings, the English and Dutch Spectators, and Clarissa and Grandison. The latter works are the only 3®". . . the life of an Adventurer or Rogue, indeed, of a General of rogues, as well as that of a virtuous young lady." p. 1^0. 39pe Denker. I, 18 (May 2, 1763). 137-1^. 77 two novels mentioned, indicating both their supposed moral qualities and their importance at this time on the literary scene. Another "Spectator” type publication carried an article discussing biographies and novels. Having surveyed the history of biographical writings and the lessons one can draw from them, the writer revealed the prevailing view of the value of "novels": Onze eeuw is inzonderheid zeer vruchtbaar in dramatische stukken in proza, welken men in *t algemeen Romans noemt. Deezen, wanneer ze in een goeden styl, met vermengelinge van allerleie gebeurtenissen geschreven zyn, en derzelver uitkomst merkwaardig is, verdienen agting, in zo verre zij toonen, dat de ondeugd over 11 algemeen ongelukkig is, en eindelyk straf ontvangt, daar in tegendeel de deugd door haare in wendige vportreflykheden schittert, en ten laatsten nog zegepraalt The writer then stated that England can boast of two geniuses who have introduced an entirely new kind of writings in this vein. He applied the critical common place to them that Richardson describes the world as it ought to be and Fielding as it is in reality. However, applying the writer’s own criterion that the respected novel shows the punishment of vice and the triumph of ^0"Our century is particularly rich in dramatic pieces in prose, generally called novels. These, when written in a good style, with a mixture of all kinds of happenings, and ending with a remarkable ending, deserve our respect, in as far as they show that vice is generally unfortunate and is punished in the end whereas on the other hand virtue shines by its inward beauties and finally emerges victorious." De Grvzaard. VIII. 101 (June 2, 1769), 387. 78 virtue, and taking into consideration that in the eight eenth century "virtue" often meant "chastity," it is clear that Richardson is the greater novelist by his standards. Referring to Richardson he states that: Zyne Pamela. Clarissa, en Grandison maalen ons zulke proeven, van deugd af, als nimmer gegeeven zullen worden.^ Another journal, De Opmerker. dedicated an article to the various kinds of current books and to the people who read them. A good book is that which is both "ver- maaklyk en nuttig" (enjoyable and useful), the Horatian criterion employed by most of the Dutch critics of the i time. This article observes that excellent historians are i j those who not only relate happenings but also search out I i | their causes and frequently inculcate virtue by the lessons ! they draw from history. Authors of good novels can obtain the same effect as good historians, for although the novel ist does not have the advantage of past events, he has a much greater appeal to the emotions because: . . . de schryver, de gevallen schikkende naar de Zedenkunde die hy wil leraren, meer meester is om bekwame gelegenheden te doen geboren worden, om zyne' grondregels voortestellen, aantedringen, en inteboezemen, dan de historieschryver, die zyne zedenkunde naar de gevallen schikken moet. ^In dit opzicht dingt Richardson met Tacitus om den Prys. ^"His Pamela. Clarissa, and Grandison paint us such convincing pictures of virtue as ndver will be presented again." De Gryzaard. p. 388. ^ . . . the author, arranging the events according to the moral^lessons he intends to teach, has more mastery to give birth to the appropriate events, to present, urge 79 The writer then lists Richardson's works and urges the reader to read them not only for the events related there- j in but especially for the moral lessons contained in the i i novels. Included in Richardson's novels is De Freule van I j Sternheim. The reason for this confusion may have been i that Sophie von La Roche's Geschichte des Frauleins von i i Sternheim had only recently been translated into Dutch. A later issue of De Opmerker contained an attack on ! ! the reading of licentious classics such as Ovid's Meta- j morphoses and mythological stories in general; the writer warns of the danger in reading these stories, liberally j interspersing his essay with some of the most risque' ex- i J amples to illustrate his point. The next object of attack | are novels s I Maar zyn de fabelen der Goden geschikt om de harten der menschen, en inzonderheid der meisjes, te bederven, de romans zijn het omze gek te maken.^3 The writer then qualifies the term "novels" by excluding "verdichte levens-gevallen, zedenkundige vertellingen, en I : diergelyken" (fictitious histories, moral stories, etc.) j such as Karel Grandison. Pamela and Clarissa, which can and inculcate his principles, than the historian who has to arrange his moral lessons according to the events. In this regard Richardson vies with Tacitus for the prize." De Opmerker. II, 38 (July 19t 1773)» 302. ^3»But if the fables of the Gods are apt to corrupt the hearts of people, particularly those of young girls, novels are apt to drive them insane." De Opmerker. V, 202 (Sept. 2, 1776), 365. 80 j rather be classified as moral essays. ! Diderot's "Eloge de Richardson” was translated and : printed in Vaderlandsche__Letteroefeningen of 1763. The I I ! editor added the following comments, indicating that the ! Dutch translation of Clarissa was considered to be superior ! ; ; to the French one, as indeed Richardson believed himself: j I j ' Gij die de Werken van Richardson niet gelezen hebt, dan j | in uwe sierlijke Fransche Vertaaling, en gelooft j derzelve te kennen, bedriegt U. . . . Onze lofredenaar j spreekt tegen zijne Landgenoten, en 't geen hij van j de Vertaaling hier en in 't vervolg zegt, is op de | Fransche en niet op onze Neerduitsche toepaslijk.^ ! i Favorable comments on Richardson continued to appear ; in the journal. Elisabeth Wolff, whose works will be discussed later on in detail, referred to Clarissa as a i i "masterpiece of human understanding,"^^ and a writer in De ; | Vaderlander considered Clarissa and Grandison to be such I cultural landmarks that he believed that Aristotle's rule should be changed since rules should follow the master- l i f t piece. 0 Even as late as 1796, a writer in De Algemeene Konst-en Letterbodelooking back at the impact of ^"You who have not read the works of Richardson ex- ; cept for the elegant French translation, deceive your- ! self. . . . Our eulogist is addressing his fellow country- ; men, and whatever he is saying about the translation, here ! and in the continuation, is applicable to the French and | not to our Dutch translation." Ill, Pt. 2, 1*1-3. i ^ De Grvzaard. VI (Aug. 7, 1767)» 46. ^vol. II (1776), 219. ^7Vol. VI (1796), 141-1*1-2. Richardson's works on Dutch literature, marveled at the fact that they had been continually held in such high re gard and avowed that they had led to an improvement of taste. Imitations i I I The success of Clarissa spawned many imitations in 48 other countries and in the Netherlands. Foreign imita tions soon found their way to the Dutch reading public by means of translation. Frances Brooke's Lady Julia Mande- ville (1763) was the first of the imitations. The title | of the translation as Historie van Lady Julia Mandevillei ! Geschreeven in den smaak van Pamela, Clarissa en Grandi- son^ shows that the publisher was aware of the continuing magic of the Richardson name with the reading public. The original work is generally recognized today as a second rate imitation of Richardson's works. Godfrey Singer characterizes the novel as having ". . .a great deal of ado about very little incident" and a ". „ . thinly sus- ! tained plot,"5^ A contemporary Dutch reviewer of the work I hO | H'°The Dutch imitations will be discussed extensively in later chapters, ^ " History of Lady Mandevilleg Written in the style of Pamela, Clarissa, and Grandison. (Amsterdam, 1764). The same work was republished by Johannes Sluyter in Amsterdam in 1773. 5°The Epistolary Novel (New York, 1963), p. 15. 81 82 demonstrates his critical acumen by finding fault with the work not because it does not teach virtue but because it lacks the technical finesse of Richardson's works to which he compares Mrs. Brooke's novel. This review of Lady Julia Mandeville is important because it uses a comparative approach, setting up Richardson as the standard, the "touchstone" by which other works are to be judged. The review begins with an attack on the subtitles I | Zy draaght op den tytel, geschreeven in den smaak van Pamela, Clarissa en Grandison; schoon ze, op verre na, I noch in styl, geest, zwier, menschkunde, ja, in I geenerley opzicht, naar een van de drie gemelde Werken | van den beroemden Richardson gelykt.-^1 i | The writer then analyzes some of the shortcomings in more ; detail. The novel is weak in characterization because I ! there are characters who "... iets onnatuurlyks en onbestaanbaars in zich hebben,"^ and the plot is poorly constructed because so many of the situations are im plausible; particularly the forced ending, resulting in the death of hero and heroine. To the writer, Richardson's I | technique is far superiors 5^"lt carries the subtitle, written in the style of Pamela, Clarissa and Grandison* although the novel does not have the slightest resemblance in either style, spirit, elegance, psychological insight or any other aspect to any | of the three named Works by the famous Richardson." "His torie van Julia Mandeville," Letter-Historie Konst-en Boek-Beschouwer. Vol. 3-^ (March, 1?^), 252. 52". . . seem to have something unnatural and im plausible about them," (p. 253). 83 Men zal in de Clarisse van Richardson, en't berigt dat Belford aldaar van *t Christelyk overlyden en de deugd en grootmoedigheid van Miss Harlowe, aan Lovelace en anderen geeft, geene zulke onbestaanbaarheden en strydigheden vinden, als zich in dit kleine bestek voordoen; zynen Grandison zich veel verstandiger en roemwaardiger zien gedragen van 't begin tot den einde toe, dan deezen driftigen en dollen Minnaarj en zyne Pamela, hoewel de gene, op welke de meeste berispingen j konden vallen, op verre na niet vinden, in deeze Julia Mandeville welke evenwel, in Engeland, haare aanpryzers gevonden heeft en, zo als we van ter zyden hooren, ook hier te lande, by sommige Leezers gesmaakt wordt.53 I j In spite of this negative critical response to Julia I IMandeville. the same translation was published again by jJohannes Sluyter in Amsterdam in 1773* Ten years later the I desire for the Richardsonian novel was further evidenced I <L l !by a translation of Emily Montague. another one of Mrs. jBrooke's inferior imitations of Richardson. Godfrey Singer I jstates that both novels have an excess of sentiment and a lack of verisimilitude mainly because Mrs. Brooke 5^"0ne will find none of the implausibilities and con tradictions of this short passage in the Clarissa of Richardson and Belford's report there to Lovelace and others of the Christian death, virtue, and generosity of Miss Harlowe. One will see Grandison behave himself much |more sensibly and courageously from the beginning to the end than this irascible and frantic lover, and one will not even find anything remotely comparable to Pamela in this Julia Mandeville in spite of the fact that Pamela is the novel which could be criticized most severly of Richardson's novels. Yet, even Pamela has found her ad mirers in England and we have learned that the novel is being enjoyed by some readers in this country too." (p. 255). 5^Historie van Emilia Montague: Door den schryver van Lady Julia Mandeville. (Amsterdam: 1787)„ 84 lacked the penetrating knowledge of the human s o u l .”55 This judgment is not unlike that of the anonymous Dutch re viewer we considered above, who exhibited a critical in- | sight rare in the Dutch journals of the time. i | Clarissa had become the most popular and talked about i | novel of the period. Publishers, realizing the cash value of the name, sought to associate imitations with the original work. When the translation of Sophie von La : Roche's Geschichte des Frauleins van Sternheim was brought i | out in Holland, the publisher changed the title to De ! Hoogduitsche Clarissa of de Geschiedenis van de Freule van i ^ j Sternheim.^ Similarly, the French novel by Marie La j Prince de Beaumont, La Nouvelle Clarice, was translated and j | published in 1777 and 1780 under the titles De Nieuwe | £.n Clarisse; eene waarachtige Geschiedenis. ' From its sales, its critical reception, its imitators, | even its so-called moral influence, it is clear that i | Clarissa did indeed make a noticeable impact on the Dutch j literary scene. It is equally evident that much of the I c ; 5 i -^The Epistolary Novel: Its Origin, Development, De cline and Residuary Influence (New York. 196>3). t>. 116. 56"The High-German Clarissa or The History of the Honorable Miss Sternheim” (Utrecht, 1772). 57»The New Clarissa, a True History” (Utrecht). The title page gives 1758 as the date of publication. Since the work, however, has a French publication date of 1767, the 1758 date must be a misprint. 85 success of this novel can be attributed to the faithful translation and excellent critical prefaces of Richardson's Dutch promulgator, Johannes Stinstra. CHAPTER IV GRANDISON The Translation After the success of Clarissa, the translation of Richardson's next novel was bound to be a best seller and thus a profitable venture to the publisher. The potential i profits led to friction between Folkert van der Plaats and an Amsterdam publisher named Isaac Tirion, with whom he had previously been associated. To the consternation of van der Plaats and Johannes Stinstra, the Amsterdam publisher had announced his plans to publish Grandison. This prompted Stinstra to ask what was going ons How goes that offspring which we are eagerly expecting, The Fine Gentleman? A certain Amsterdam bookseller long ago announced publicly that he would publish a Dutch I and French translation of it, from which you can judge | how greatly your writings are appreciated by our countrymen.1 flattery. The Richardson-Stinstra Correspondence and Stinstra*s Prefaces to Clarissa (Carbondale. Illinois. 196^), Letter of Stinstra to Richardson, April 2, 1753» 86 8? i Stinstra asked Richardson to interfere, expressing the hope that any publication of the new novel might be post- | poned until the completion of the publication of all | volumes of the Dutch Clarissa, since an early release of The Fine Gentleman might cut into the profits of the earlier novel. Afraid that Richardson had given the rights to Grandison to Tirion, van der Plaats and Johannes Stinstra | decided, in a countermove, to publish the new novel them selves, though, in another letter to Richardson, Stinstra pointed out that he had warned his publisher "... not to | give cause for lawsuits in this way or to indulge in j hostility.The latter had retorted that it was "... I | not unfair to restrain a man so greedy,"3 and on August I 1^-th, 1753» van der Plaats placed the following advertise ment in the Amsterdamsche Courant; FOLKERT VAN DER PLAATS, Boekverkoper te Harlingen maekt bekent hy van voornemens is te drukken, als in het Engels uit is in 't Nederduits THE GOOD MA.N, dat | is de DEUGDZAME MANj in *t Engels beschreven door S. Richarson Csic}♦ Schryver van de Pamela en de HISTORIE VAN CLARISSE. 't wordt..in 't Engels gedrukt in 6 Delen, in 8°en 7 Delen in 12*. 2Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of August 11, 1753, P. 55. 3siattery, p. 55. ^"FOLKERT VAN DER PLAATS, Bookseller in Harlingen, j announces that he intends to print in Dutch, after the earance in.England, THE GOOD MAN, i.e. the VIRTUOUS , written m English by S. Richarson £sicj writer The belief that Richardson had given the rights to Tirion proved, however, to be unfounded. Richardson answered, in a letter dated September 11th, that although spokesmen for Tirion had contacted his nephew, William Richardson, he himself had made no promises whatsoever concerning the translation and publishing rights of Grandison.^ While Stinstra was still working on the translation I Clarissa, Richardson sent him the first four volumes of Grandison in October, 1753* In spite of his work on the translation and pressing family problems, Stinstra avidly read the volumes; and, in a letter to Richardson of December 2M-, 175 3» he commented on the novel. In this ! letter Stinstra regretted that Richardson had admittedly | left out the minutiae of his Clarissa and suppressed a number of letters, noting as the reason for his displeasure: . , , not only we miss the enjoyment of these productions which no doubt merit the eyes of the publick, to say no more: But I am of opinion, if I may take leave to | offer it, Sir, that this omission takes away a little the appearance of a veritable History, which you have otherwise the inimitable art of preserving.6 of the Pamela and the HISTORIE VAN CIARISSE. It is being printed in English in 6 volumes in 8° and 7 volumes in 12°. ^Slattery, pp. 55-57. ^Slattery, p. 65. 89 With his usual tact Stinstra suggested that a second reading would probably dispell his misgivings. And yet, on the affirmative side, he pointed out that this time there would be little fear that readers would complain about tediousness in the first volumes "... because of the affecting and dreadful scene herein painted. . . and suggested that in this novel pious readers would not be disturbed by ". . . the shocking levity of a Love- ; lace."8 Further letters show that Richardson expected Stin stra to translate Grandison. The latter, however, begged to be excused in a letter of December 27, 1763: You must surely apprehend, Sir, that translating is a very heavy work, especially such books which are written in a familiar style, with vulgar phrases and witty turns. I have yet a great deal of Clarissa to absolve. Both these together were a burden too heavy for my shoulders. . . . After Clarissa shall be performed, think I, that I sufficiently have had my portion of translating and discharged my duty in this respect to my countrymen.° Stinstra then added many other reasons, mainly concerned | with his family affairs and his publication of theological i writings. He did, however, agree to "direct" the transla tion. He transferred his rights to Folkert van der Plaats ^Slattery, p. 65. 8Slattery, p. 65. ^Slattery, p. 65. 90 and asked Pieter Adriaen Verwer, the translator of Field ing's Amelia, to take charge,-*-0 suggesting that the work not he released until after the publication of all the volumes of Clarissa. Verwer, however, decided later that he could not submit to Stinstra's condition, that Stinstra i should have the right to revise the translation before it went to press. Stinstra had thus to resume his search for a translator who could do justice to the work. This task was made even more difficult by the fact that, because of | i | his quarrel with Tirion, a number of translators had sided against Stinstra. In a letter to Richardson, Stinstra re- i j lated his efforts to find the right person. One of the I j difficulties was that many of the translators lacked a i thorough knowledge of Dutch or English. The following case is typical* I have therefore sought another, and conferred me to a publick instructor of the English Language at the University of Franeker; from whom I have had a specimens But this man was so little master of the idioms and elegancies of our Dutch, that I should have 1 had more pains from correcting his version, than from i translating the work myself.I3- | Finally, in a letter of September 17, 1755» Stinstra i J | notified Richardson that he had found the right man, or ^°Alan D. McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist (Chapel Hill, 1936), p. 276. ll-Slattery, Correspondence. Letter of June 23» 1755» p. 90. rather, men. An Amsterdam friend of Stinstra had agreed I to undertake the task, with the aid of a number of trans lators, who would work under his s u p e r v i s i o n . - ^ This arrangement apparently worked well, since five of the sev- ! en volumes were published in the following year, with the ! | title: j Historie van den Ridder Baronet Karel Grandison. In een reeks van Gemeenzame Brieven. Uit de Oorspronckelyken in * t licht gebracht. Door den Uitgever van Pamela I en Clarissa. En nu naar den derden Druk, uit het ! Engelsch overgezet. Folkert van der Plaats was the publisher but shared the venture with Kornelis van Tongerlo in Amsterdam. The ! work was published in seven volumes, and the last two j volumes were brought out in 1757* Volume I had an intro- | j duction by the publisher, apologizing for the long delay i ! and suggesting that there were some advantages, including the fact that this translation was based on a later, im proved English printing. Much of this introduction was also an analysis of the novel by a "keurig kenner" (ex- ! quisite connoisseur). This connoisseur may have been | Stinstra, since Folkert van der Plaats was likely to turn i i to no one else but his learned neighbor. Stinstra*s, or •^See: Slattery, p. (Stinstra does not reveal the name of the friend.) ^"History of the Knight Baronet Charles Grandison. In a series of familiar Letters. Based on the original. By the Publisher of Pamela and Clarissa. And now translated 1756?) *fchird Engiisn printing. (Harlingen and Amsterdam, the "keurig kenner's" analysis discusses the character of 1Grandison and the relative importance of Henriette and |Clementina in the novel, maintaining that they are intro- i |duced to illuminate the excellence of Grandison*s charact er. The analysis ends with the statement: - Kortom, de Historie van Karel Grandison is een tafereel i j van den mensch zo als hy is, zo als hy kan zvn. en zo j I als hy behoort to zvn. in zeer veele voornaame en min j i voornaame omstandigheden van zyn leeven.-^ • i ! : ‘ ! 1 A second edition of this translation of the complete j ;work was published by Johannes Allart in Amsterdam from j i1797-1802, in seven volumes entitled: Geschiedenis van ;Karel Grandison. In the introduction the publisher called j the work . . deze uitmuntende Roman, welks innerlyke j ! . 1 5 ' ,waarde zoo algemeen erkend is," ^ stating also that he :had not spared any costs in improving upon the style, and !in adding artistic illustrations. The publisher expressed i ;his convictions that it would be superfluous to lavish ipraise on the book, but that he placed his trust . .op den gevestigden smaak zijner Landgenoten en houd zich dus verzekerd van de gunstige aanneming, . . ,»*1^ | l^”In short, the History of Charles Grandison is a ;picture of a man, as he is, as he can be. and as he ought to be. in many important and less important circumstances of his life.” Karel Grandison. p. 2. 15”. . . this excellent Novel, the inner value of |which is so generally recognized.” Geschiedenis. p. 1. j i / ”. . .in the well established taste of his fellow countrymen and thus remaining confident of a favorable reception." Geschiedenis. p. 2. This second edition is basically the same as the first except for stylistic changes. It is not a new trans- ■ ! lation as suggested by Slatteryl? in the introduction to his book. As Allart, the publisher admits: the only changes are in "verbetering van den stijl" and "verfraaij- i ing met uitnemende kunstplaaten."1® Agreeing, a review of ! i Grandison in De Algemeene Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen I | does not mention a new translation but only speaks of im provement: "... doorgaande heeft dit Werk by den op- ; nieuw daar aan besteedden arbeid gewonnen."19 3 i ! Further evidence of the enthusiasm of Dutch publishers i j for Richardson's Grandison is found in the fact that both I j j i the Monod and Prevost translations of Grandison were pub- ! | lished in Holland prior to the Dutch translation.20 j ! i i | Critical Reception and Imitations Having read the last volumes of the English edition of Grandison, Stinstra immediately wrote Richardson about i l?siattery, P- xxiv. 18»stylistic improvements" and "embellishment with ex cellent illustrations." Karel Grandison. Introd., 3rd page. 19"... in general this book has gained by the new efforts spent on it." I (1798), p. 1^3. 2QHistoire de Sir Charles Grandison. trans. J.G. Monod, 7 vols.(Gottingen and Leyden, 1755-56) and Nouv- elles Lettres Angloises. ou Histoire de Chevalier Grandi son, trans. Prevost, 8 pts. in 4 vols, (Amsterdam, 1755- 1756). 93 94 his impressions, lavishing praise on the work and added: ! And now no more of your praises. I could have wished, ; that you had contrived it, that the conclusion of this [ History had ended in a more affecting and interesting j scenei for the sake of the common readers which love ! to be dimitted^l with strong impressions. However, I I am apt to think, that as the story is supposed to be so very new, this ending as it is, bears a more natural resemblance to the truth.22 i i ! This critical comment is indicative of the favorable reac- ; tion to Grandison. yet Clarissa was generally preferred ; over Grandison. Elisabeth Wolff, having praised Clarissa as "a work written for eternity," admits to having doubts j about the quality of Richardson's last novel: I | j j Is zyn Grandison, vraag ik, het Werk van dien zelfden ' ' Man? Schreef hy Grandison na Clarissa, en nog in ! den Kragt van zyn leven?*^ | i Rhijnvis Feith (1753-1824), a romantic novelist and i i | author of an epistolary novel, also reflected this judgment when he wrote of Richardson's works: "Zijne Clarisse vinde ik zeer schoon, zijn Grandison minder schoon, maar Pamela behaagt my in 't geheel niet."2^ As Wolff and ! i I 2lprobably coined from the L. dimittere. to send away. 22siattery, Correspondence. Letter of May 23» 1754, p. 80. 23"ls this Grandison. I wonder, the work of the same man? Did he write Grandison after Clarissa while he was still in the strength of his life?" Historie van de Heer Willem Leevend (The Hague, 1785), I» Introd., xii-xiii. 24»j fj[nd his Clarissa very beautiful, his Grandison less so, but his Pamela does not please me at all." Dxcht-en Prozajscne Werken (Rotterdam, 1824), II, 61. 95 Feith suggest, Clarissa thus remained the most successful ■ of the works in Holland as it was in England and other ! countries. A translation of The Paths of Virtue Delineated was | published in Holland in 1?66. The work consisted of narra-| i tive prose versions of the more inspiring sections of the ; i i i i j three novels which are retold separately in straight ! : I i I inarrative. It appeared with the title: Het Pad der j : Deugd. als lieflyk en vreedzaam. Schetsgewyze vertoond in | I de Geschiedenissen van Pamela, Clarissa en G r a n d i s o n . I | A reviewer of the book indicated that the works themselves I i ; were well known at that time, referring to the three novels! I as ", . . overbekend en hoog geacht."2^ j i ! t So popular was the work that, in 1793» an abridged | | version of Grandison was published in Leyden as a language ! aid, entitled De Geschiedenis van Sir Charles Grandison. !Verkort. Ten nutte der Nederlandsche Jeugd uit het ( !Engelsch vertaald,2^ The work may be a translation of the -^"The Path of Virtue, as sketched so charmingly. * -peaceably in The Histories of Pamela, Clarissa and Grandi- json." (Dordrecht, 1760). . . . very well known and highly esteemed." De Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, VI (1760), 466. 27»»The History of Sir Charles Grandison. Abridged. |Translated from the English for the use of the youth of ! the Netherlands." i 96 i popular shilling edition which had been published by | Francis Newberry in London in 1769. This translator ; praised Richardson in the introduction as an excellent j author, indicating that his translation had two main aims ! in mind for Dutch youth. His first aim was to present a j ! good novel which was both "vermakelijk en nuttig" (enjoy- j ! able and useful). The second aim was ”, . „ om in het | ; | ! aanleeren van taalen. . . de behulpzaame hand de reiken."2^! : To this purpose the translator kept to a very literal trans-i lation and announced that the same book would also be ! ; | i i translated into other languages. The translation of the ! I : abridged version of all three novels in one volume may have | i similarly been based on the Newberry shilling editions. j I This combined work was published in Amsterdam in 1805 with 1 ' the title: Pamela, Clarissa en Grandison. Verkort.29 A ] , _ “ ' ^ - - - - - - - - " r . ! second printing was brought out in 1808, this time contain- i ing illustrations. i Subsequent to the publication of Grandison. a consid erable number of imitations were brought out. At this time | Richardson's works had not yet spawned worthwhile creative i I efforts by Dutch writers and most of the imitations were i ! still translations, usually taken from the avalanche of p f t j * "... to give a helping hand in the learning of 'languages." De Geschiedenis van Sir Charles Grandison, | p. 6. I 29"Pamela„ Clarissa and Grandison. Abridged." 97 | the English offspring of Richardson, Typical of the ' translations from the English are Sarah Scott's Historie i | van den Heer George Elisson. geschreven in de smaak van j Grandison^0 and Anne Meade's Historie van den Heer William ! Harrington.^ The latter novel's subtitle indicates the . ------ j i extent to which Richardson's name was used in order to ; ; ] ! promote the sale of books* it ran as follows! Geschreeven ! in den Smaak van Clarisse, Sidney Bidulph en Karel Grandi- j son. Overgezien en verbeterd door wylen den Heer Richard- i ; son. 32 The use of Richardson's name on the title page I 1 1 j of the translation is an indication of the lasting magical i 1 ' power of this author in Holland. J The novel Sidney ! ; i 1 Bidulph, referred to in the above subtitle, is the work of 1 Mrs. Francis Sheridan, mother of the great English play wright, Richard Sheridan. The Dutch subtitle suggests ' 30»History of George Elisson. written in the style : of Grandison." (Amsterdam, 1770). 3i"History of Sir William Harrington.1 * (Amsterdam, , 1772). 32»Written in the Style of Clarissa, Sidney Bidulph f and Charles Grandison. Revised and corrected by the late Mr. Richardson." 33william M. Sale, Jr., in "Samuel Richardson and i Sir William Harrington," Times Literary Supplement (Aug- ! ust 29, 1935)? maintains that Richardson did indeed re- j vise and correct this novel in spite of the fact that I Richardson's relatives published an ad in 1771» denying | any involvement of Richardson with this work. 98 that Mrs. Sheridan's work is really Richardson's: Om deszelfs zedige, natuurlijke en oordeelkundige | Schryfswyze, door de kundigste liefhebbers van diergelyke j Werken, toegekent aan de Schryver van de Gevallen van | Clarissa, en van de Heer Charles Grandison.3^ - Richardson's three novels were thus well known, high- ! ly respected, and imitated in Holland. Their influence ! , i | on Dutch literature is, however, best exemplified in the j 1 i i outstanding novels Sara Burgerhart and Willem Leevend by I | j Elisabeth Wolff and Agatha Deken, who may be considered | the most creative disciples of Richardson, not only in ! Holland, but possibly in all of Europe. | I ; i The co-operative effort of these writers had definite j influence on the development of the novel in Hollandj any | ! i ; relationship between Richardson and Dutch prose art I should be traced through these novelists. Alan D. McKillop | regrets that they have never received their due honor in i : other countries: ! Students of Richardson have had much to say about the Nouvelle Heloise and Werther. but practically nothing, until the recent works of Prinsen and Downs, about the line of influence which leads to Sara Burgerhart and Willem Leevend. The former is overwhelmingly more ! important, of course, but any generalizations in the matter should be tempered with a doubt as to just how much of Richardson is left by the time we get to | Rousseau and Goethe. In the work of Wolff and Deken | we have novels of great merit which stem directly I and unmistakably from Richardson. Moreover, they i ! ^"Because of its moral, natural and judicious style j of writing, ascribed to the author of the History of ! Clarissa and of Sir Charles Grandison by the most knowl- | edgeable devotees of this kind of work." 99 follow Richardson not weakly and blindly, like the obscure women who supplied the circulating libraries of England in the late eighteenth century, but deliber- | ately and critically. . . . Sara Burgerhart (1?82), i the earliest and most important of the Wolff-Deken novels, j is perhaps the best example in European literature of the ! lightened Richardson novel, of distinguished work j executed almost entirely within the limits of the form | Richardson had established. . . . For discriminating I and sincere admiration and for tact and skill to pro- i fit by his example, Richardson nowhere else found such j disciples as Wolff and Deken.35 | When such an eminent Richardsonian scholar as Profess- ior McKillop states that Wolff and Deken are superior to j ;the literally nundreds of imitators in England and on the I continent, it is a worthwhile endeavor to have a closer ilook at these authors and their most important novel, Sara 1Burgerhart. | I I 35]vicKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and Novelist. pp. 266-268, | CHAPTER V 1 j l | ELISABETH WOLFF: HER LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY Her Biography ! ! | Elisabeth (Betje) Bekker Wolff was born in Vlissingen,j in the province of Zeeland, on July 2kt 1738, as one of I seven children of a prominent businessman in that city. j | At a very early age she demonstrated many talents but de- j ! i I cided to develop her literary ability, convinced that lit- j j erature, of all the arts, appealed most strongly to the "denkenden Mensch," the reasoning faculty of man.^ She was the kind of precocious child who read poetry, studied Latin and discussed theological questions before | she reached the age of thirteen. Before long she wrote her first poems. Her pleasant childhood came to an abrupt end when, at the age of seventeen, she spent the night of September 9> 1755 away from home with a young officer named Mathijs Gargon. %.J. Vieu-Kuik, Keur uit het Werk van Bet.ie Wolff en Aag.je Deken (Zutphen, n.d.), p. 7* 100 I 101 j j While later in life Betje was to insist, in a letter ! ! to Aagje Deken, that she "„ . . never transgressed the j p ! laws of virtue. . . 9UC her community, at that time, was i | confident that she had. She and Gargon received the I ! official censure from the Vlissingen Council of the Dutch i j ! I Reformed Church and were ostracized by the community, | ; j i which was dominated by a stifling Calvinistic spirit. j 1 Even the local druggist felt compelled to note the fact j in his diarys "Juffw. Elis. Bekker buiten weten van haar ! ; vader met den vaandrig Gargon Weggegaan. 25 Juli 1755.”3 j : 1 j In the forefront of the people accusing her was her own ! | 1 brother Laurens. This condemnation from her co-religion- j ; I 1 ists and her own family may have been instrumental in | ! j I prompting her later satires against the "Fijnen," a catch- I all name for hypercritical, letter-of-the-law fundamental- | ! ists. Shortly after these events Gargon left for the ! Dutch East Indies, never to return to Holland again.^ ! Betje decided to leave the hostile environment of Vlissin gen for a while, to spend some time with a family friend ^See: joh. Dyserinck, "Van en Over Betje Wolff," De j Gids, XLVIII (188*0, 11. * o •^"Miss Elis. Bekker taken off with ensign Gargon with out knowledge of her father." As quoted by J, Dyserinck in "Van en Over Betje Wolff, De Gids. XLVIII (1884), 2. ^Sees R. Nieuwenhuys, ed. De Wereld heeft twee I Aangezichten (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 31. 102 in Amsterdam. This friend, an erudite lawyer named Her- mannus Noordkerk, was to remain a lifelong inspiration to i Betje. Upon her return to Vlissingen Betje dedicated her self for several years to the study of Latin, French, German, and English. In 1759, when Betje was twenty-one, she married the Reverend Adriaan Wolff, a dull fifty-year old widower, pastor of a church in De Beemster, a small town in the jnorthern part of Holland. This marriage, more of an escape i than a love match, never seemed to have given her much fulfillment.^ This often led to introspection and to the consideration of the possibility of what might have been. In a letter to her friend Noordkerk, written in 1770, she reflected on her early life and her first romantic in volvements Met een hart, gescheurd tot aan den wortel toe, en wiens wonde na tien treurend, nog niet nalaat somtyds eens to bloeden, heb ik de verrukkingen eener jeugdige liefde betaald! .... Ik ben nooit geweest hetgeen men eene schoone vrouw noemt, maar 1* irresistible en charmant air de olaire heb ik in vergoeding daarvan ontvangen. Myne zuster is eene beaute. Dog, haal me de drommel, ik kaapte alles voor haar neus weg wat het hart had op 'Altijd Wei' to komen en smaak had. Myn fortuin is echter sober uitgevallen, zult gy zeggens een ouwe boeren-dominee. Gy hebt gelyk, dog wagt, tot dat ik mes m£moires eens in 't light geef, om te oordelen of ik wel een zot stukje^begon, toen 20 jaar oud, myne familie en ma tres chere Patrie adieu zeide om in het styve Noordholland met een oud statig man te hokken, . , Een ding is jammer, dat ik myn wensch niet hebj de ^Betje usually referred to her husband as "mijn ouwe paai," ("my old dad"). Nieuwenhuys, p. 31* 103 geleerde waereld zoude nooit met myne Poetische fratsen zyn opgescheept geworden. Ik zou niets Gods ter waereld ' gedaan hebben dan myn lieven jongen beminnen & nagt en : dag myn harsens hebben gebroken, om tog zyn heele hart ; te houden, want ik zou er geen klein stipje van hebben kunnen missen, als eene speldeknop groot. i i I According to some Dutch writers it is the public out- ; i i cry to her escapade with Gargon that prompted Betje to | ! write Sara Burgerhart. whose heroine is away with a man ; j I ; overnight without being violated. A few nineteenth century| : i ; critics, assuming that a "national monument" cannot have ; a passionate affair, tried to explain away Betje's involve-! ! I ; ment. In this manner, Johan Dyserinck, discussing Betje's ! night with Gargon, wrote: j j . . . hoe weinig kon zij vermoeden dat deze hier van het j laaghartigst gebruik zou pogen te maken, om haar op te j j offeren aan zijn schandelyken lust? doch Betje weerstond ; i hem met al de kracht der wanhoop van haar gefolterd j | ^"With a heart torn to the roots whose wound does not | refrain from bleeding occasionally, even after ten years, : I have paid for the ecstasy of a young love! I have ! never been what you would call a beautiful woman, but I I was given 1* irresistible and a charmant air de plaire to make up for that lack. My sister is a beautd, yet I managed to snatch away from her anything wixh taste and good looks that had the heart to come to 'Altijd Wei.' : £?A11 is Well £3 You may say, however, that my fortune | turned out very meager: an old country minister. You are j correct, but wait until I publish mes memoires before ' judging whether I did something foolish when, at the age of :twenty I said good-bye to my family and ma tres chere lnatrie in order to be tied to an old stately man. . . . j There is only one disadvantage to the non-fulfillment of jmy wish: the learned world would not have had to put up jwith my poetic trivia. I would have done nothing else in |God's world than love my dear young man and rack my brains !night and day to hold on to his whole heartj I would not i have wanted to forego even the tiniest pin-head particle of it." Vieu-Kuik. pp. 7-8. 104 eergevoel en wist den deugniet to onkomen.? I A comparison of Dyserinck's attitude toward Gargon jwith Betje's in the preceding letter would suggest that she |knew Gargon better. Betje's letter does indicate, however, j ithat she preferred the uneventful life in the rectorate in i ! i I ;De Beemster over the possibility of further romantic in- i i jvolvement. Her well-ordered life without the distractions |of passion enabled her to give herself to the life of her I imagination. Being confined to the monotonous routine of a pastor's I i i !wife in a rural village was far from easy for a young worn- j 1 an of such wide ranging literary, political and intellec- j ! itual interests. In her letters she often referred to the ! :frustrations of country living and complained about the ’ |avalanche of mud that made the roads and footpaths impass- i ! iable from fall to spring. Though she found the summers |pleasant, she could hardly share in the romantic raptures !about the pastoral setting which so delighted the well-to- ;do visitors from Amsterdam who came down to De Beemster to i"commune with nature." Her letters frequently paint I humorous, slightly satiric, pictures of these "summer romantics." . . . how little could she suspect that this one ! Gargon would make the vilest use of this and try to |sacrifice her to his shameful lust; yet Betje repelled him with all the power of her tortured honor and managed to escape the rascal." Dyserinck, p. 15. 105 It was in the writing of letters that she found one i I of the satisfying outlets for her creative spirit. Before jlong she had built up an extensive correspondence with I ! I many of the intelligentsia in Holland. Her readings of j |Locke, Pope, Voltaire, Rousseau, Marmontel, Lessing and iothers convinced her that she was correct in her view that i |Holland should be the bulwark of free thought and free : I i I !expression, particularly in the field of religion. In her j letters and in her essays in journals, such as De Rhapso- !dist and De Gryzaard. she repeatedly returned to these J i ; [concepts. i , ! I These activities gave her a certain renown in Holland 1 ! j 1 and it was reported that Prince Willem V remarked, upon j imeeting her while travelling through De Beemster, i i ... dat hy gecharmeerd was om eindelyk eene vrouw te zien, die zo veel eere aan haar Vaderland deed, en die j voor eene superieure Genie bekend was.° ! By 1770, however, after some ten years of arguments |with her husband, she apparently agreed upon some modus vivendi with the Reverend Wolff and her marriage took on jthe appearance of stability, In 1771 she even began to !study theology and literature together with her spouse, who I helped inspire some of her more conventional writings. j jIndicative of this calming down of her emotional life is 1 j . . . that he was charmed to finally meet the woman jwho had done so much to honor her fatherland, and who was known as a superior genius." Vieu-Kuik, p. 12. 106 !her statement to Noordkerk: "Ik heb mijn hartstogt over- i 'leefd. Vriendschap is sedert mijn idole."9 I | One of Betje's early admirers was an Amsterdam writer !of moral verse, a young woman named Agatha (Aagje) Deken jwho, though she had never met Betje, had written a poem i | dedicated to "my friend B.W.," in 1768. Subsequent :malicious gossip about Betje's supposed excessive liberal- I jism, freethinking and unorthodox ways, dimmed the luster of | i Aagje's new-found star. Upon meeting her personally, ! however, in 1776, both realized that they had found a j 1 sister-soul and in that encounter the groundwork was laid | 'for later co-operation. j When the Reverend Wolff died in 1777» Aagje moved in i ;with Betje and thus began a lifelong friendship between : the two writers. From then, until their deaths in 180^-, I ! they were to share all their experiences. Together they i moved from De Beemster to De Ryp and from there to Bever- wijk, where they jointly produced the two novels on which their fame rests. Together they sought political exile ; in France in 1787 and together they moved from there to ! ; The Hague where they lived out their remaining years in a small house on the Spuistraat. In a letter, signed by both Betje and Aagje, they 1 I I have overcome my passion. From now on friendship I is my ideal." J. Dyserinck, Brieven van Betje Wolff aan IAagje Deken (The Hague, 1904), p. 22. j expressed their desire not to survive each other too longs "Ach, dat het den Hemel behaagen mooge, dat wij I elkanderen niet lang overleeven! " - * - 0 Their desire was to j be fulfilled, since Aagje died less than ten days after j Betje, who passed away on November 5th, 180^-. Her death j notice in the Algemeene Konst-en Letterbode was more of a | eulogy than an obituary and ended with the fitting words: j ' De vrolyke opgeruimdheid van geest bleef haar altoos by, j | zoo ook de troost der vriendschap van Agatha Deken, die j 1 onafgebroken, gedurende ruim acht en twintig jaren, het j zuur en zoet des levens met haar deelde.......... Hoe I veel zyn wy Nederlanders aan haar niet verplicht? Hoe vele uren van vermaak en stichting hebben wy aan haar I I vernunft en verstand te danken? Hoe zeer is de Letter- j I kundige roem van ons land, door haar vermeerderd, die, I wat geleerde vrouwen betreft, zeer zeker de roem van alle andere volken te boven gaat.H j Wolff*s Literary and Philosophical Concents Betje Wolff was too much a child of the Enlightenment ! to be a dogmatic Protestant. Since she was both deeply ! -^"Oh, may it please Heaven that we do not survive ^ each other too long!" Letter of February 8, 1800, in H. Frijlink, Elisabeth Wolff geb. Bekker en Agatha Dekens Bijvoegsels en Verbeteringen ('Amsterdam, 1863), p. 21. , 11"She never was without her delightfully cheerful ; spirit or the consolation of the friendship of Agatha i Deken, who, uninterrupted, for more than twenty-eight I years, shared the good and the bad with her. .... How much are we Netherlanders indebted to her? How many hours of entertainment and edification do we owe to her imagin ation and intellect? How much has the literary renown of our country increased through her, a renown which, as far as erudite women are concerned, certainly surpasses the ! fame of all other peoples." "Korte Levensschets van I Elisabeth Bekker, Weduwe van Adrianus Wolff," XXXXIX (Nov. ! 16, 180*0, 310. I 107 I 108 ! | religious and was considered to be a radical freethinker, | it is important to say a few words here about Betje9s | view of religion. The concept of tolerance as propagated j | by Voltaire and Lessing became to her the most admired | tenet of the Enlightenment, for in spite of Holland's I j | reputation for freedom of expression in the eighteenth j | century, this freedom was mostly restricted to those who j j i ! belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church. Betje spoke out j ! for freedom for people of all religious persuasions and was consequently accused of being anti-Dutch or against j i i I the House of Orange. Again, in spite of objections on the I I i part of the Dutch Reformed clergy she attended services j ; I 1 in Mennonite and other churches, even though she did not i ; i belong to any of them. She repeatedly expressed contempt i for theologians, dogmatic hair-splitting, sermons, and I ! religious squabbles between the various sects. In one of i her writings she pictures a utopian vision of the future, i in which deists and protestants meet together and agree 1 that defenses of or attacks on the Christian religion are | useless and dangerous; there people meet in the midst of : nature with feelings of gratitude and love for the "0 . « | good Father of all."-*-^ I j Her religious outlook can be defined as a "reasonable I ! faith," a faith based as much on reason as upon the Bible. i | | l2Anon. (Elisabeth Wolff), Holland in »t Jaar MMCCCCXL j (Hoorn, 1777), p. 17. 109 In 1770 she translated William Graig's Life of Jesus Christ which was instrumental in convincing her, as she expressed |it, that i ! . . . de Christelijke godsdienst op waarheid rust, en in | * t geheel niet strijdt met die reden, welke ons ; insgelijks door den Stichter der Natuur als een dierbaar ; geschenk gegeven is.3 jIn a eulogy appearing shortly after her death she was ;described as ... een der weinigen, die in den tyd van slaperige onverschilligheid, zich voor verlichting, vrijheid en verdraagzaamheid lieten horen. Zij bestreed tevens I . . , de domheid en dwepery, al dekten zich deze met 1 masker van kerelyk gezag, ! Her views on religion and virtue are thus far broader and :more humane than those of her literary mentor, Richardson. ,These views are reflected in her novels, particularly in Willem Leevend. where she even has the main character ! study theology, enabling her to discuss the theological and :philosophical currents of that period. | j The irony and the humor which Betje employed to establish and defend her theological views, as well as her ! 13", , , the Christian religion is based on truth and . | is not at all in conflict with Reason, equally given to : us by the Founder of Nature as a beloved gift." As quoted I in Gerard Knuvelder, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letter- !kunde ('S Hertogenbosch, I907), p. 91. 1^". . 0 one of the few who, in a period of sleepy indifference, spoke out for enlightenment, freedom, and tolerance. She also attacked stupidity and fanatacism even though these were covered with the mask of ecclesiastical authority," Algemeene Konst en Letterbode, IXXXXIX (November 16, 180*0, 308-309. 110 more imaginative writings, are additional appeals which 1 distinguish her from Samuel Richardson, j Betje's literary activity may be divided into two J ■periods with 1770-1771 as the dividing line. In her earli-| !er period Betje was influenced by the heroic verse of j :Lucretia van Merken, who wrote in imitation of the French | 'classicists. Betje*s poetry in these earlier years is j i ' [also, in style if not in content, reminiscent of the I 1 I :stateliness of Vondel and of the kind of hollow and bom- ibastic poetry emanating from poets associated with Nil ! I ; jVolentibus arduum. a group of proponents of Dutch class- j I ! icism. Much of this poetry is occasional verse with ! J l titles such as "Rozemond, Veldzang ter Bruiloft van den j i i ;Heer Mr. Laurens Petrus van der Spiegel, Secretaris der Stede Goes, en Jongkvrouwe Digna Iohanna Ossewaerde," or i !"Vlissings vreugd by de aankomst zyner Doorlucht. Hoogheid Willem V."!5 ; In 1764 Betje published her own translation of Rob- - 1 Z ert Blair's The Grave. The work on this translation and ithe readings of the other "graveyard school" poets may jhave inspired her own Eenzame Nachtgedachten over den Slaap ! Rosamund, Pastoral poem at the occasion of the I wedding of Mr. Laurens Peter van der Spiegel Esq. Secretary I of the city of Goes, and Mistress Digna Iohanna Ossewaerde." 1(1759) or "The Joy of Vlissingen at the arrival of his jExalted Highness William V." (I766).. 1 •l^Gedachten over het Graf, van R. Blair (Hoorn, 1764). I 111 | en den Dood,^ published in the following year. One of ' her early works in verse, however, shows a glimpse of her S talent for humor and satire which was to be prevalent in I her later writings. Her work Aan de Nederlandsche Juffer- ' 18 | schap, a satire in stately alexandrines, is the vehicle j I ; for an all-purpose attack on women whose aim in life is to i j conform to exaggerated French fashions, on the high regard ! for ossified thinking associated with the Ancien Regime j and on the arrogant attitude of the impoverished nobility, i The poem also suggests that women have a task in the j ! I | changing world. She addresses them at their dressing ; ! tables: "'t Gordyn viel neer, 't is uit; die tyden zyn ! I ; ; geweest."'*'^ Unfortunately, the poem is so full of topical | i i allusions that it can hardly be appreciated today. After 1770, however, strongly influenced by Lessing, j ; Voltaire and Rousseau, she “ began to see the function of 1 ■ literature as a means to influence the opinions of others i ’ and her works took on a decidedly different tone. The first of the works of her second period was De onverander- ! lyke Santhorstsche Geloofsbelydenis. Ter Drukkerye van ! ! -^"Lonely Night-Thoughts about Sleep and Death"(Hoorn. 11765). I I 181 ' To Dutch Womanhood1 ’ (Hoorn, 1765). i 1 ^"The curtain is down, it is over, those times are I past." 112 haare koninglyke Ma.iesteit Reden.20 This long poem, deal- | ing with freedom, tolerance and religion was based on I | Rousseau's Profession de foi du Vicaire Savoyard, and I satirized many of the established views. The castle of | Santhorst had been the meeting place for a number of free i i ; thinking liberals where Pieter Burman, a history professor i ! at the University of Amsterdam, was their host. The i i ! Santhorsche Geloofsbelydenis, however, was too outspoken j : for even Burman, who asked Betje to publicly disassociate ! herself from the Santhorst group, which she promptly did, i Another occasion for Betje's writings to espouse the i cause of the Enlightenment occurred in 1772 when the Amster-j dam Theater burned down, killing a number of theater-goers. i ! i 'Dutch Reformed ministers used the occasion to attack the I ; theater as a satanic institution and portrayed the deaths i I as a punishment from God. In the same way as Voltaire had iattacked the official reaction to the Lisbon earthquake by i his Sur le desastre de Lisbon. Betje wrote a satire Zeden- zang aan de Menschenliefde,2^ - a reductio ad absurdum of the ; reasoning on the part of the ministers. Prior to her co-operation with Aagje Deken, Betje had |written and published more than forty works, including |satires, poetic works, essays, and translations from Eng- i ; 2OhThe Unchangeable Santhorst Creed. Published by her |Royal Highness Reason." 1772. | 2l"Moral Ode to the Love for Humanity,” 1772. 113 lish, German and French authors. This prolixity prompted ! her to writes Gy hebt te veel geschreven Een mensch zou schrikken als hy zulke stapels ziet. En zo gy in 't vervolg, het daarbv slechts nog liet! j Maar neen, dat staat nooit stil{22 | Indeed, few of her early works are read today. Some i of her delightful satires and a few of the poems are still regularly anthologized, but her best works date from the ] ; time of her association with Aagje Deken and their assim- j I ! ilation of Richardson's art, culminating in their novels I Sara Burgerhart and Willem Leevend. The following chapter j j I i will introduce Aagje Deken and will deal with the events I ! I ! surrounding their joint literary activity. pO "You have written far too much One is frightened to look at such a stack. If only you would let it go at this! But no, it does not stop!" i CHAPTER VI ] I AGATHA DEKENs HER LIFE AND LITERARY ACTIVITY ■ Her Biography Agatha (Aagje) Deken was born in Amstelveen, near j Amsterdam, on December 17, 17^-1. Orphaned at the age of : three, she was placed in an orphanage run by a pietistic I i group called the "Collegianten," an association of persons j | who, inspired by the brotherly spirit of the early Church, | j aimed at the unification of Christians by ecumenical meet- I ' ings of the various antagonistic denominations. Many j j important eighteenth century Dutch personalities belonged i to this group. The wealthy members contributed heavily to ; charitable institutions which helped to disseminate their ; ideas of tolerance and freedom of thought. It was in this i atmosphere that Aagje was raised and educated,^ One of her favorite works studied in the orphanage was Balthazar Huydecoper's Proeve van Taal-en Dichtkunst2 : Co M. Ghijsen, "Aagje Deken in haar Amsterdamsche | tijd 17^1-1777," De Gids. Ill (1920), passim. ! 2"Essay on the Art of Language and Poetry." (1720) a neo-classic handbook of the technique ,x>f“'poetry !not unlike Gottsched's Versuch einer kritischen Dichtkunst. |This work and others inspired her to write her first I poetry, mainly dealing with the pietistic sentiments of |her mentors, the "Collegianten," j ! In 1767, at the age of twenty-six, she left the 'orphanage and worked in menial positions for several years, juntil she found employment in 1770 as a companion to a twenty-six year old ailing lady, Maria Bosch, with a similar penchant for writing sentimental religious poetry, j ! After Maria's death, Aagje published their joint efforts in 1 a volume entitled Stichtelijke Gedichten (Edifying Poems) 'in 1775. I Soon admired by the bourgeoisie as a "moral" poet, Aagje moved in literary circles and became acquainted with | ! Betje's writings and reputation as a free thinker, both of 1 |which shocked the pious and timid Aagje, who wrote to |Betje Wolff, censuring the latter's views and conduct. Betje answered, expressing admiration for the style and quality of Aagje's letters? subsequent correspondence ibegan to hint at the possibility of co-operation, I In 1776 an Amsterdam businessman, Mijnheer Grave, I | | arranged a meeting between the two ladies which resulted ! in an immediate friendship, Betje, upon returning home, first suggested the collaboration that was to make them 116 | "both famous with these short lines of verses i Myn Vriend. Durf ik nog iets van Uwe heuschheid smeeken? | Denk nooit aan Betje Wolff of denk aan Aagje Deken.3 As different as these women were in character, Betje's |ebullience and Aagje's stability seemed to complement each |other. Thus, when the Reverend Wolff died in 1777» it was j i j inot surprising that Betje invited Aagje to come and live i |with her. Betje remained in De Beemster for five more ; I imonths before moving to a small house in De Ryp with Aagje. | From then on, until their deaths in 1804, the two women i j i I remained inseparable. Betje's joining of Aagje's Mennonite j |Church and their visits to the ecumenical meetings of the j i"Collegianten" at Rynsburg are indicative of the rather i | ! istrong religious influence of the timid Aagje on her ! I independent thinking friend. In 1?81 the pair moved to a inew and larger home in Beverwijk, where, under the influence :of Samuel Richardson, their major writings, Sara Burger- jhart and Willem Leevend. were completed. 1 This period of their most successful collaboration was :interrupted by events in Dutch politics, in which they had become involved. Their liberal commitments were to lead i :them into exile when the repressive forces of the estab- i lished government clashed with those of reform. William V, |of the House of Orange, the stadtholder of the Republic, j I -^"My friend, may I ask you one more favor? Never think of Betje Wolff without Aagje Deken." was not able to cope with the many factions in the extreme ly complex governmental structure in which cities, pro vinces, and the states-general had overlapping responsibil ities, a system that provided ample opportunity for corrup- !tion. The ideas of the Enlightenment which had found their ;way into the Republic were instrumental in the creation of la party, the Democratic Patriots, nicknamed "Keezen" (Kees- i 'hounds) after a common Dutch dog. Their moderate aims were !to secure democratic elections on the city level and to | I allow non-Calvinists admission to official positions. The j i I ifriction between the Patriots and the "orangemen," who j I wanted to maintain the status quo, culminated in 1787» when | 'in the Provincial government of the Province of Holland a j jnumber of anti-orange resolutions were passed. When the j !situation became so critical that a civil war was in the ! I making, William, residing at the palace of Het Loo in the |Province of Gelderland, did not dare to take any action. [His wife Princess Wilhelmina, however, decided to go ;personally to the Hague to rally the pro-orange factions jaround her, On her way she was stopped by the Patriots at I |the Goejanverwellesluis near Gouda and was promptly sent !back home, Enraged, Wilhelmina complained to her brother Friedrich II of Prussia who, with the aid of 20,000 !Prussian troops, restored William V to power. I Fearing unfavorable reaction to their outspoken views, [Betje and Aagje felt that it would be safer to leave the 118 | country as most of the active Patriots were doing. They ! sold all their possessions, left the money in a trust with i | a friend in Amsterdam and travelled to France, where they j ; settled in the town of Trevoux in Bourgogne. They stayed I ! | for ten years, partly subsidized by the French government. i | They returned to the Netherlands in 1797 when they heard i ! I that Betje's widow's pension would be paid again, retroac- ! tively, under the condition that it would be spent in Holland. ! Upon their return they found that their friend had i ! I | gone bankrupt and had squandered the money they had put in ' | i 1 trust. Resigned to living on Betje's meager pension of j ! one hundred guilders a year, they rented a small house in i ; i : the Spuistraat in the Hague where they worked together on j translations from German, French, and English, and pro- I i duced some volumes of poetry and essays. None of their | works, however, reached the level of their production of the Beverwijk period. Betje died on November 5» 180^. The Algemeene Konst ! en Letterbode of November 16th of that year carried a | eulogy, a biography and a listing of her major works. The | next issue of this journal (Nov. 23rd) carried the death notice of Betje's inseparable friend: ! Toen wy, in de vorige week, de verpligting der Nederland- I ers, jegens Elisabeth Bekker, Weduwe van Adrianus Wolff, j deden opmerken, en daar by aantoonden, dat aan hare waardige Vriendin, AGATHA DEKEN, een gelyk regt op erkentenis toekwam, hadden wy niet kunnen denken, dat het Vaderland en de beminlyke Sexe, zoo spoedig, door den dood van haar, een ander ciersel zoude verliezen: dan, helaas! zy is op den 14* dezer uit ons midden weggerukt Joint Literary Activity i Individually, neither Betje Wolff nor Aagje Deken wrote ■ i I masterpieces of lasting value nor works which might be ! i noted for their originality. Betje's essays and satires |were instrumental in creating the climate of opinion of the Dutch Enlightenment, but these works are valuable mainly j |as a part of the history of ideas rather than of literary i 'history. When the two women began to co-operate, however, ! |their creative energy was unleashed and during the next few j j years they produced the epistolary novels Sara Burgerhart I | | 1(1782) and Willem Leevend (1784-1785), two masterpieces j which became the pioneering landmarks in the history of the i |novel in Holland, comparable in their importance to the j combined impact of Richardson and Fielding on the English i novel. | ^"When we, last week, noted the debt owed by the !Dutch people to Elisabeth Bekker, widow of Adrianus Wolff, |and at the same time indicated that her valued friend, |Agatha Deken, had equal claim to such recognition, we could |not foresee that Fatherland and the gentle Sex would lose so soon another ornament for, unfortunately, she was snatched away from our midst on the fourteenth of this month.” Jacobus Scheltema, "Korte Levensschets van Agatha Deken," Algemeene Konst-en Letterbode van het Jaar 1804. jXXXXIX (November 23), 322. 119 120 After their departure for France, in 1787, their 'creativity declined. The next major work, Brieven van jAbraham Blankaart in three volumes, was published in !1787-89. This epistolary work consists of letters written |by Abraham Blankaart, the very successful "Dutch uncle" !character from Sara Burgerhart. Though the letters are I !well written and touch upon a great number of important I political and philosophical issues of the time, the work does not have the structure of a novel. Their last major work, the Historie van Mejuffrouw iCornelia Wildschut. of de Gevolgen van de Opvoeding.5 is ;also an epistolary novel, closely paralleling Richardson's 'Clarissa. Cornelia, like Clarissa, has to cope with two 1 suitors, an upright, honest man named van Veen, who has 1 |received the approval of her parents, and a romantic j scoundrel, van Arkel, who sees Cornelia as a means to ob- jtaining the family fortune. Van Arkel, the Lovelace in the i : novel, seduces Cornelia but leaves her when he hears that her father has lost his fortune. Yet the novel, with its !endless theorizing, is so overly didactic that it never t j I became popular. Critics since have generally condemned the work for its lack of imagination and its excess of theoretical discussions. ! | ^"Historie of Miss Cornelia Wildschut. or the Results 1 of Education,1 1 (The Hague. 1793-179^). 121 The problem of the extent of each author's contribu- ; tion to the major works needs to be touched upon. To what i extent can one work of art be created by two artists? How can a unified vision be conceived and created by two | people, particularly when the two persons are as different i I I i ! in mentality and emotional make-up as Betje Wolff and ! i j I Aagje Deken? j i i i i ! Various solutions to this problem have been suggested | i ! ! over the years. Conrad Busken Huet, the Dutch equivalent j I of Sainte-Beuve, inspired by the appearance of Georg ! Brandes' Hauptstromungen der Literatur der Gegenwart. wrote| a critical evaluation of a number of the novels written in ! ! i : i i : the second half of the eighteenth century, including Sara | s j ! Burgerhart and Willem Leevend. In his essay on these two ! novels, he recognizes only Betje Wolff as the author, main- ! taining that she did all the work. She conceived the t ! novels, she wrote them, she published them. He maintains ’ that Aagje's part in the enterprise is confined to being a ; pleasant companion who was allowed to answer the mail, | Huet goes on to accuse Aagje of being the "epitome of i ! Dutch bourgeois narrow-mindedness," a woman of limited intelligence who cannot be compared to the urbane, witty, and sophisticated Betje Wolff. I I | j ^Litterarische Fantasien en Kritieken, XIX (Amsterdam, i 187^),~89-21^ passim. 122 Dr. J. G. Brandt Cortius, the Dutch comparatist, !suggests as one reason for Huet's attitude his inability |to forgive Aagje for having been an obstacle to a closer I friendship between Betje and Coosje Busken, who was to be- |come Huet's grandmother.? And indeed, Betje, who had want-j j i Ied to become close friends with the beautiful Coosje Bus- ! , I I ken, in 1786 had written to her that "... niemand dan I Q ! |Coosje zou het (nl. haar hart) kunnen vervullen."0 j i Another critic, Martinus Nijhoff, goes even further j i and accuses Aagje of being the "... wicked demon of Dutch j ' Q ! ! bourgeois narrowmindedness,"y allowing, however, that Aagje ; ■ 1 j did co-operate with Betje but only in the latter volumes j 1 j of Willem Leevend. volumes which have generally been recog- j ! ; nized as being of inferior quality. Other critics reason i ithat, in view of the fact that we are dealing with a i |work in letters with the explicit aim to realize the i j spiritual, moral, and educational ideals of the Enlighten- j !ment, and, taking into consideration Aagje's creative iabilities, co-operation and exchange of ideas was not only possible but quite likely. Miss H. Ghijsen, one of the ?J. C. Brandt Cortius, ed., Lotje Roulin (Zwolle, 195*0, P. ?• . . . no one but Coosje would be able to satisfy it (i.e. her heart)," Knuvelder, Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandse Letterkunde. Ill ('s Hertogenbosch, 1965), 101. j Martinus Nijhoff, "Aagje Ammers en Top Deken," De !Gids. IXC, Pt. II (1927), 419. 123 most perceptive critics of the novels of Wolff and Deken, 'concedes that Wolff did most of the writing but that both j authors should be credited with the conception of the works i I * i |and with the development of the ideas contained therein. 1 No significant research has been done to determine the j iextent of the contributions of each of the writers. It is I my impression that most of the actual writing was done by j | j i Betje Wolff. There is nothing to suggest that the authors I divided up the parts, e.g. that Betje would have taken the ;part of Sara and Anna Willis and that Aagje would be cast j t * | as some of the other characters. Nothing in the earlier or; i ; !later writings of Aagje suggests that she has the humor, | i ! I the ability for the witty turn of phrase, the irony and the ! wide range of style found in Sara Burgerhart and Willem | Leevend. Her writings do indicate, however, a familiarity ! with the ideas of the Enlightenment and a concern for the ; dangers of rationalism. It is therefore most likely that, j ; in discussion with Betje, many of the ideas were explored i and discussed before they were finally crystallized and | incorporated into the novel. ! The concepts and ideas embodied in the works are thus i | likely their common property, but evidence suggests that j | the stylistic and structural execution of the ideas are i I i Betje * s, i ! j 10H. C. M. Ghijsen, "Wolff en Deken's Romans uit haar | bloeityd," De Gids. LXXXVI, Pt. Ill (1922), 96 ff. 124 In view of the fact that similar ideas had been pro pagated in the spectatorial journals for some time, these |works are important and innovative because of their |execution. It thus seems to me proper to give most of the i jartistic credit to Betje Wolff. Credit, too, for the !execution, must go to the example of Samuel Richardson. CHAPTER VII SARA BURGERHART In writing Sara Burgerhart Betje Wolff and Aagje Deken were inspired by Richardson's novels; they were in debted to that author for the technique and content of their novel. Unlike many of Richardson's disciples, how ever, they went far beyond a slavish imitation of their English precursor and created a new kind of epistolary novel, a novel that went, in aim and execution, beyond mere didacticism. It became a vehicle for their ideas on a variety of subjects, ranging from the desirability of virtue to the value of the theatre and from the pollution caused by the Schiedam distilleries to the happiness of a marriage based solely on reason and religion: a novel that painted Dutch life with the artistry.of a Vermeer or a Jan Steen, a novel, finally, that set the pattern for the development of Dutch fiction by starting trends which continue in works of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Encouraged by the success of their first joint work 125 in prose, the Brieven over Verscheiden Onderwerpen.in which they discussed a variety of literary, political and ! religious topics in a manner reminiscent of van Effen's | spectatorial writings, the authors wrote their first novel, l ! which was published in 1782, with the title Historie van ! q : Me.juffrouw Sara Burgerhart (Niet Yertaalt) . Reception and Translations I The novel was immediately well received by the public I ! and the press. Typical of the reaction in literary circles! ; is the review in the Algemeene Vaderlandsche Letter-Qefen- ! ! ingen: I ' i ! Het getal van Nederlandsche Romans is, gelyk men weet,| niet groot; en die er nog zyn leveren ons meerendeels j I buitenlandsche tooneelen, of ten minste zodanigen die, zo ze al hier to Lande gespeeld worden, in een buiten- i landsche smaak uitgevoerd zyn. Daarvan is nu deeze Roman; geheel onderscheiden. Gelyk dezelve oorspronglyk in onze taal geschreeven is, zo is ook. de uitvoering in alles | Hollandsch; de tooneelen zyn niet hier te Lande, maar j ook de characters, de zeden, enz zyn Vaderlandsch. Er I komt in de Historie van de beminnelyke Burgerhart j nagenoeg niets voor, dan 't geen dagelyksch in onze | gewesten voorvalt; te meer daar men 't niet zo zeer ; toegelegd heeft, op het verwonderlyke, als wel op het huiselyke leven, om bedryven van dien aart te ontvcuwen. Hierin zyn de geachte opstellers van deezen Roman zo wel geslaagd dat ze, bestendig de natuur in 't oog houdende, ! waar voor een ieder vatbaar is, hierdoor eene zeer ; uitgebreide goedkeuring van de Natie verworven hebben.3 | ^"Letters on Various Tonics1 1 (The Hague, I78O-I78I). I j ^"The History of Miss Sara Burgerhart (Not a Trans- ! lation)" (The Hague, 1782). The number of Dutch novels is, as is known, not large; and the ones we have present us to a great extent 126 127 The "widespread approval" of the nation was such that | it necessitated an immediate reprint in 1783 and a third | printing in 1786. The popularity of Wolff and Deken was | further evidenced by the demand for the publication of | their new novel, Willem Leevend, in 1784-1785. i ! In the period from 1787 to I836, no new editions of I ! either novel were issued. The reason for this temporary j decline in popularity may lie in the fact that the world view presented in Sara Burgerhart is predicated upon the i assumption of a stable society. The violent political | upheavals around the turn of the century suspended the I possibility of such a view and it was natural that intel- | lectual and popular interest at that time began to center j around the Dutch Romantics, such as Bilderdijk, Feith, ' Kinker, Staring, and Da Costa.^ It was not until the ; with foreign scenes, or such scenes which, even though they ; are enacted in this country, are executed in a foreign j manner. The present novel is completely different. In the ! same way that it was originally written in our language, so the execution is Dutch in all respects: not only are all ! the scenes placed in this country, but the characters, the : customs, etc. are native too. Hardly anything takes place | in the history of the lovely Burgerhart that does not jhappen daily in our country, especially since one has not iconcentrated so much on the marvellous but rather on every- | day family life in order to develop the plot. The respect- |ed authors of this novel succeeded so well in this, their aim, that, steadily focusing on nature to which everyone is susceptible, they have deserved the widespread approval of the nation." Algemeen Vaderlandsche Letter-Oefeningen, Y, Pt. I (1783), 225-276. 1 1 ^W. P. V/olters, in a review of the 1889 edition of Sara Burgerhart in De Gids. XXXXVI, Pt. I, 311-325» places the blame for the decline in popularity of the Wolff-Deken 128 comparative tranquility in I836 that Sara Burgerhart was published again and then three different publishers came ! out with a new edition within a time span of five years. I | Hereafter the novel was reissued at various intervals | throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A j dramatic version of Sara Burgerhart. adapted by Johanna j i ! ! Pabst, was performed on the stage of the Amsterdamsche j | Schouwburg in 1911. The latest edition^ of the novel is ' i ' not dated but a reference in the introduction suggests a ; fi ' I terminus a quo of 1965. This edition represents the ; i ! < twenty-eighth time that Sara Burgerhart has been published, : | a valid indication of the lasting appeal of a novel which ! ! j !lacks the more obvious qualities that tend to make a best- ! 'seller, such as a suspenseful plot, exotic descriptions, i or sex and violence. i | Although Dutch literature through the centuries has j rarely become known outside the borders of the country, :novels solely on Rhynvis Feith, whose excessively senti mental works Julia (1783) and Ferdinand en Constantia !(1785) did indeed attract an enormous following. I ^Dutch publishers and bibliographers often do not distinguish between editions and printings. The word "druk" (printing) refers to either. ^Sara Burgerhart (Amsterdam, Zeventiende druk Seven teenth printing , n.d.), p. 5. Even though this is referred to as the seventeenth printing, the publishing 'house "Wereldbibliotheek" modernized the spelling jat least twice and changed the type at least once. j i 129 Sara Burgerhart found translators in both France and Ger- ; many. A French translation of Sara Burgerhart was pub lished in 1787 with the title: Histoire de Mademoiselle Sara Burgerhart. oubliee en forme de lettres par Mesdames 7 I B. Bekker, veuve du ministre. et A. Deken.' j O l 1 The translation in German, by Johann Gottwerth Mtlller, : ! . . I ! is excellent and approaches very closely the colloquialisms j i ! ! | | ' | and unique style of the original. Muller makes use of j t j copious footnotes to editorialize or to make the typically : : ] i Dutch characteristics understandable to German readers. | i 1 j I For instance, in reference to the "fijnen" he notes: 1 In Holland erkennet man die heuchelnde Sekte der ' ! sogenannten Fijnen gemeinlich an der Kleidung, in ; Deutschland tragt sich der Heuchler wie der ehrliche j I Mann, wenigsten so lange er auf freyen Fussen gehet.9 , I i I In his afterword, Muller assails the Germans for their un- | critical admiration of French and British works of liter- ! I ature, all of which were promptly translated into German | regardless of their quality, and claims that they ignored ?Translated by Mme de Saint-Hyacinthe de Charriere I nee J. A. van Tuyll van Serooskerken. See H. Frijlinck, ! Elisabeth Wolff, geb. Bekker en Agatha Deken. zo uit hare ! Geschriften als uit andere Bescheiden geschetst (Amsterdam. 1862), p. 1^1. and J. Te Winkel. De Ontwikkelingsgang der Nederlandsche Letterkunde. Series VI, VolT! I (Haarlem, 1925), lfifc;-------------- ' R < • i °Sara Reinhert, Bine Geschichte in Briefen dem schonen I Geschlechte gewidmet vom Verfasser des Siegfried van ! Lindenberg (Berlin, 1806). 9sara Reinhert, I, 295. their closest neighbor: Nur um Holland bekummert sich von dieser Seite fast niemand beyi ( uns. Wir lieben die Dukaten dieser nation j und ihren Kase; damit lassen wir es gut seyn.^0 | Muller continues by describing a view of Holland held by I I many: Dutchmen produce the finest potatoes, know how to ; market excellent herring, etc., but they do not know how I i i to write. He points out that things had changed and that ! ! I Holland had come to produce writers who deserved to be read,| | j ! particularly in the field of the novel, a new and differentj i f j genre evidenced by the fact that Sweden and Denmark, in j : spite of their rich literary heritage, had not produced j t ' | ! any novel of value and that Germany itself had not brought i ’ i ; forth anything that could rival Fielding's Tom Jones. j i t i ; Muller finally states that Sara Burgerhart rivals the i I I | finest German novels. j I j Since its first appearance, Wolff and Deken's novel i has been the subject of many articles and reviews. No j complete secondary bibliography, however, has been publish- ; ed on this work or on the total oeuvre of the authors. Synopsis of Sara Burgerhart j 1 Sara Burgerhart is the story of a young girl endowed i with a sharp sense of humor, a tremendous zest for life, a great love for everything the world has to offer, and a gift for expressing her experiences and emotions in a very j ^~°Sara Reinhert. IV, 289. i 130 131 felicitous manner. Having been orphaned she is placed with I an aunt, Suzanna Hofland, who, for payment, directs her j upbringing. She is almost twenty years of age at the !beginning of the story. Her aunt Suzanna is her mother's I maiden sister, who, compelled to spinsterhood, has joined ( those people "... die wij 'fijnen' en die zich zelven ; vromen noemen. j It becomes clear that Sara and her mother have been ! victimized by the "fijnen" and that perhaps for that reason ;Sara's mother has asked Suzanna to take charge of Sara, j This early introduction to excessive piety is probably j instrumental in creating the inordinate desire for the j (more pleasurable things of life which, as she readily ad- j jmits, seems to be her only vices "Vrij, vroolijk en onbeknord to leven, dit is myn enig oogmerk"-^2 and "Ik begeer niets, dan een leven, dat vry, vroolijk en schoon jafloopt; goed gezelschap, aangename boeken en het vry ". . . whom we refer to as 'fijnen' and who call themselves 'the pious ones,' " E. Bekker, Wed, Ds. Wolff ;en A. Deken. Historie van Mejuffrow Sara Burgerhart (Niet i Vertaalt). (Amsterdam, 1906), 1, All further references ito Sara Burgerhart are to this edition. The "fijnen" are (frequently the object of Betje's satire. They do not form |part of any organized church but meet in homes where they hold their exercises. Both authors paint them in novels and letters as hypocrites who do not shrink from using re ligion as a veil to cover all sorts of immoral and sometimes illegal activities. j 12 f «qi0 love free, merrily and without being chided, this jis my only goal." Sara, p. 6. 132 gebruik van het clavier."-*-3 The avaricious, hypocritical and bigoted aunt Suzanna, [ j her alcoholic maid Bregt and two fellow "fijnen," the | | dissembling and mean Cornelia SIimpslamp and the sly, | sponging brother Benjamin make life impossible for the ! j I young Sara. After having spent three miserable years 1 i ! i among these religious fanatics who demand conformity, not j i i : ! ! only in religious thinking but also in outward appearance, j | j ; Sara decides to escape and moves in with Mrs. Spilgoed, ; / l 4 I j nee Buigzaam. The flight receives the approval of j l ! : 13"j desire nothing more than a life that passes j | freely, merrily and beautifully; good company, pleasant j I books and free use of the piano." Sara, p. 15. ! I | l^The names the authors chose for some of their char- i ; acters are indicative of what these characters represent. i The heroine, Burgerhart (heart of a burgher), suggests the ■ authors' dislike for the high born heroines who had usually ! been the subject of novels. The name Cornelia Slimpslamp I is self-explanatory. Mrs. Spilgoed (money-waster) nee ; Buigzaam (flexible) carries both the character of her late j husband and herself. Her husband had squandered away his j fortune on mistresses and other miscellaneous joys; her ! own adaptability to circumstances contrasted strongly with the rigidity of the "fijnen." There is also a Rev. iRedelyk (Reasonable) who combines religious faith and com- | rnon sense. Finally there is Hendrik Edeling (noble one) who has enough noble qualities to become Sara's husband, i In the choice of these names the authors also applied | a lesson learned from Richardson. Ian Watt, in The Rise j of the Novel (Berkeley, 1964), suggests that the giving of particular names to characters rather than the type names of earlier fiction was a break with tradition, adding that Richardson '. . . faced a minor but not unimportant | problem in novel writing, that of giving names that are jsubtly appropriate and suggestive, yet sound like ordinary jrealistic ones. Thus the romance connotations of Pamela I were controlled by the commonplace family name of Andrews; j both Clarissa Harlowe and Robert Lovelace are in many 133 Abraham Blankaart, who stands in the same relation to Sara as Sir Grandison to Emily Jervois. j Sara's fellow boarders are her old friend Letje Brun- i |ier, the good natured but not-too-bright Lotje Rien-du-Tout ;and Cornelia Hartog, the "femme savante" who is able to | iquote every French philosopher and who represents reason l I jwithout goodness or joy. Two young men fall in love with (Sara: the goodnatured, but dull Willem Willis, brother of :her faithful correspondent Anna, and the petit maitre !Jacob Brunier, brother of Letje. Sara refuses the advances J |of both. She even denies a proposal from Hendrik Edeling, a young businessman whom she admires for his intelligence 'and character. Her reason for the denial is that she wants ito enjoy her freedom, her youth, and the pleasures of the i jbig city. This refusal, indicative of Sara's basic weak- Iness, makes her vulnerable to the advances of the villain of the novel, Mr. R., who entices the young girl to come ■to the "home of a friend," — his estate -- where, he tries i I to dishonor her. The daughter of the gardener helps her to iways appropriately named; and indeed nearly all Richard- ;son's proper names, from Mrs. Sinclair .to Sir Charles IGrandison. sound authentic and are yet suited to the per- jsonalities of the bearers.' (p. 19)* Wolff and Deken thus adopted a specifically Richardson ian innovation. It may be argued that Henry Fielding used similar appropriate names in Tom Jones (Sophia Western, etc) yet, I am inclined to agree with Ira Konigsberg, who main tains that Fielding's work was part of the tradition estab lished by Richardson, in Samuel Richardson and the Dramatic Novel (Lexington, Ky., 1968), p. 2. escape, however, and by the next morning, after the gates of Amsterdam are open again, she returns home to Mrs. I Spilgoed. Having been so close to a moral abyss, Sara | arrives at a certain self-recognition. In spite of the j fact that appearances are against her, Hendrik Edeling j j proposes marriage again, to which she now promptly agrees. I A happy wedding follows and the novel ends with the birth j I of her first baby. j | Most of the correspondence is between Sara and her | ; friend Anna Willis, a very proper young lady who is ' ; usually correct in everything but does not have the liveli- I i | !ness of Sara. A number of other relationships are ex- i : i jplored throughout the novel, several of which end up in ' i | imarriage and form interesting contrasts with the develop- I i " i |ment of Sara's character. ; Sara is the object of an avalanche of good advice ifrom the "wise" people in the novel— Mr. Blankaart, Mrs. jWillis, the widow Buigzaam and others— but somehow they | :don't seem to make an impression on her. It is only when ;She, in her innocent thirst for pleasure, finally comes in to real danger that she begins to realize the wisdom of her elders and gains a sense of responsibility. I Sara Burgerhart and Richardson ! Gerard Knuvelder, who spends some ten pages on Wolff I and Deken in his Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, 135 never once mentions Richardson in connection with their work. He does admit that the epistolary form suggests i I foreign influence: | Het is een roman in hrieven, zoals die in het buitenland ! met veel success beoefend werd en in de Sara Burgerhart ■ een gelukkige navolging vond, . . .15 i ; Knuvelder expresses the view that the Wolff-Deken novels | | are the outgrowth of the spectatorial writings and the i ! ! characters of Justus van Effen in the earlier part of the j I century: i Wat van Effen bescheiden aanving werd door Wolff en Deken ; voortreffelyk voltooid in onze eerste moderne Neder- j ; landsche 'niet vertaalde' roman.1° j i i : Knuvelder is, of course, partly correct; Wolff and Deken 1 i ; ; could build upon an existing genre, the "character." They j ; were familiar with Theophrastus and La Bruyere. There are i many references to these authors in their works and ; letters. They were even more familiar with van Effen and i the "characters" in Dutch spectatorial writings. Van i i Effen's "Bruiloft van Kobus en Agnietje" was one of the more popular pieces of the century. Yet, as Professor i Brandt Corstius asserts, the epistolary novel is not merely ' an extended "character;" the characters are placed into I I j | 15"It is an epistolary novel, a form successfully practiced abroad which found a happy imitation in Sara Burgerhart." Knuvelder, III ('s Hertogenbosch, 19£>5), 98. | l6"What had been begun on a modest scale by van Effen | was superbly completed by Wolff and Deken in our first modern 'not translated' novel." Knuvelder, p. 98. 136 a plot, . . . into a specific sequence of time and into a narrowly defined society, in which they act, feel, re- I fleet and converse and in the process grow in depth and ! size. In addition to the separate genres of "character" and i "novel" which had each undergone a development of its own i there was a third genre with an equally impressive history, j | j ; the "epistle." The origin of the epistle as a literary j ! i ! form dates back at least to St. Paul and Cicero and it has | ! ! : i counted among its practitioners such diverse writers as | . | I Erasmus and Mme de Sevigne. In England Bishop Hall (157^- | i i 1656) had called his letters a ". . . new fashion of dis- j I 1 1 courses by epistles, new to our language, usual to others, j ! . . ,"1® These three genres were merged into one new j i genre, the "epistolary novel,"-*-9 and it was Richardson who j -^Jan Brandt Corstius, Introduction to the Comparative ! Study of Literature (New York, 1968), p. 86. j l^Godfrey Frank Singer, The Epistolary Novel (New York, 1963), p. 18. ■^Other genres, also, may have contributed to Richard son's innovation. Katherine Hornbeak, in her article : "Richardson's Familiar Letters and the Domestic Conduct | Books," Smith College Studies in Modern Languages. XIX i (1939)» 1-29, suggests that the Domestic Conduct Books were influential in Richardson's novels. Ira Koningsberg, in his work Samuel Richardson and the Dramatic Novel (Lexing ton, Ky., 1968), makes a strong claim for drama as a source not only for Richardson's novels but for the entire genre of the novel by stating that he ". . . brought to the Eng- i lish novel subject matter and techniques developed in the I drama, and that it was the resulting integration of these J dramatic elements with fiction which caused the mutation j in genre that is responsible for the subsequent course of the English novel." (p. ^). 137 first combined these genres to create a new one. Thus the j debt of Wolff and Deken is more substantial than their i I common sharing of a popular prose form. The exact nature of this debt to their English predecessor and their own contributions to the genre in the case of Sara Burgerhart i j will be the subject of the remainder of this chapter. j i I ! The authors never explicitly state that they were m- j j i | spired by Richardson to write their novels or that they I ; borrowed his techniques, characterizations, or style. Yet,1 ! even if they had done so, this would not constitute proof ! I i j of a tangible evidence. Any such proof should be deduced ; 1 from the works themselves. : i i | There is, however, sufficient evidence that the j t I i authors were thoroughly familiar with Richardson. Betje, who knew English well— she translated from Pope, Blair and | other English authors— had read the works in the original j and it is known that Aagje had read them in translation, i This familiarity with Richardson is clear from the many ireferences to his works and characters in their writings (and letters. In the Foreword to Sara Burgerhart they refer 'to Richardson's "Godlyke Clarissa;"20 in speaking about |Sara's suitor they says "Wie zou zich met eenen Hendrik i ! |Edeling, (die echter geen Grandison is) niet gelukkig 1 ? 0 I "Divine Clarissa," Sara Burgerhart. Foreword, ip. xxxiii. I 138 | achten?"21 This introductory reference is echoed in the !statement of Cornelius Edeling who, in encouraging his i I brother Hendrik to pursue his courtship of Sara, tells him: i i "Gy zyt geen Grandison, doch wie heeft dit van uwe hand I geeischt?"^ j I Like Clarissa, Sara has a confidante named Anna and ! j , | similarly, the bulk of correspondence is between those two j I girls. When Sara, in accordance with her lack of prudence, begins to meet and receives a letter from Jacob Brunier, a j I I typical petit maitre, Anna warns Sara: j 1 I ! 'Overweeg ook eens, of het wel voorzichtig is, met zo een jongetje briefwisseling to houden? Denk aan ! Claartje Harlowe. 3 ; i I ; Sara replies: i ■ I ; I I 'Het zou een zot stukje zijn, met zo'n borstje | briefwisseling to houden: maar,( ( wie zegt u, dat ik dit I van zins ben? 't Komt niet in my op. Ja, ik gelijk I omtrent zoveel naar de goddelijke Clarissa Harlowe als | mijn schaapshoofd naar den vervloekten Lovelace.24 i 2^"Who would not consider herself fortunate with a Hendrik Edeling (who, however, is not a Grandison)?" Sara Burgerhart. I, Foreword, xxxvii. 22"You are no Grandison but who demands that of you?" j Sara. I, 84. 23«Consider sometime whether it is really prudent to [correspond with such a lad. Think of Clarissa Harlowe." Sara. I, 86. 2^"It would indeed be folly to correspond with such a lad, but who is saying that I plan to do this? It never jentered my mind. Yes, I am as much like the divine jClarissa as my sheep's head resembles the cursed Lovelace." I Sara. I, 88. I I . 139 In their correspondence and in their other writings, the authors continue to make frequent and obvious refer- ! ences to the novels of Richardson. i i Most Dutch and foreign literary critics and histor- i ' ians, with the rather obvious exception of Knuvelder, as I i i was noted above, assume and assert that Wolff and Deken were! i i ; i : disciples of or influenced by Richardson, as is evidenced | by a random sampling of statements of Dutch critics: Sara Burgerhart is ontstaan onder invloed van de Engelse Romanschrijver Richardson. - 5 ! Wolff en Deken hebben voor de inhoud van haar romans zeer veel aan Clarissa Harlowe en Grandison ontleend. . . op | de vorm heeft het grote voorbeeld van Richardson nauwelijks gewerkt.2° i Brian W. Downs finally suggests that the work of Wolff and ! Deken is influenced by all the great writers admired by i them but is "uncompromisingly Richardsonian" in its | | "groundwork."27 The ladies were thus familiar with Rich- i ardson's works and admired them greatly. "Sara Burgerhart was created under the influence of the English novelist Richardson." J. Haantjes and W.A.P, 1 Smit, Panorama der Nederlandsche Letteren (Amsterdam, | 19^8), p. 254. ! 26i»w0iff anci Deken have borrowed very much from Clar- i issa Harlowe and Grandison for the content of their novels , . . the great example of Richardson hardly influenced the form." M. H. de Haan, "De Invloed van Richardson op Jane Austen etc." Nieuwe Taalgids.XXXIX (1938), 279. De Haan does not substantiate this latter claim. I will take issue with this assertion below. ^Brian W. jowns, Richardson (London, 1928), p. 22^. 140 One would be inclined to read Richardson with more respect if one realized that not only major English novel- | ists but also crucial continental masters of the novel may ! be counted among his offspring. Enjoyment and appreciation ' of the Dutch novels will be heightened by an analysis of | I these works, by determining what the authors borrowed from j j ! | Richardson and by thus delineating the exact contribution j : ! I of the imitators to the genre. Even those aspects of the j novel that will be found to be patterned after Richardson j ; should not be regarded as easy imitation. By imitating i ! certain aspects and disregarding others, the receiver, the : imitator, makes certain choices which in themselves indi- j ; i i cate an evaluation of the work imitated. i [ ] | New international literary movements and forms do not ! i necessarily have one originator in one country who is then i imitated abroad. A case can be made for an independent J ! occurrence of the didactic epistolary novel in various I ! western European countries. In France, Germany, England, , : and Holland the letter as a means of communication had, for I a number of sociological, cultural, and demographic rea- i i sons, reached theretofore unknown heights in artistic | execution? the "character" as a genre and the novel, albeit in rudimentary form, were well established. Furthermore, the writers of the Enlightenment were basically didactic. i j Considering all these factors, a separate genesis of the | epistolary novel would not only have been possible but even likely. Yet it did not happen that way. As suggest ed in the first chapter of this study, the overpowering | presence of Richardson in the various countries was in- ! I strumental in the development of the bourgeois epistolary I novel in France and Germany. The same process took place j in Holland. i ! The word "influence" has, at times, been used too j loosely. J. Brandt Corstius posits certain requirements i ! for the concept of influence: ... there is room for it. . . only in so far as the | work of a certain author has in a demonstrable manner | provided the ideational and formal inspiration for a ! work in the new direction, written by an author or a poet in one of the countries whose climate favored such a 'development.2° I | The key phrase in the above is, of course, ", . . in a | demonstrable manner provided the ideational and formal in- I j spiration. ..." For our purposes, that is, that in any | ! attempt to prove influence one is thus to demonstrate that j jWolff and Deken were inspired directly by Richardson in : both form and content of their novel. As we shall see, the ;parallels in form and in ideas between the works of Rich- J j ardson and those of Wolff and Deken are too striking to be i i reduced to mere chance similarities. i Such similarities between Richardson's works and Sara Burgerhart are many and may be found in the didactic goal, I i |in the letter technique, in characterization, in the ^Brandt Corstius, p. 187. approach to realism and in the use of sentiment. In each instance it will also be important to discover what Wolff and Deken borrowed from Richardson and where they created | their own unique approach, using the Richardsonian frame- ! ; work as a basis. Didactic Goal I Even though some epistolary novels, such as Goethe's | i i ! Die Leiden des .jungen Werther and Choderlos de Dados' Les i : i ! Liaisons dangereuses have the basic characteristics of the epistolary novel, one can hardly say that a direct influ- ! I i i ence by Richardson is discernible. Richardson's works are,| i I ! or at least are intended to be, a chronicle of virtue, j I whereas Dados' work is a chronicle of evil. Richardson's i l - heroes and heroines try to base their conduct on some norm I based on a reasonable code of ethics, which is hardly the i ! case with Werther. In the case of Wolff and Deken, how- ! ever, there is a great similarity between the aim of their i j work and the professed aims of Richardson. In the original I subtitle of the novel Pamela, Richardson proclaimed his ! goals: : Now first published in order to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the Youth of Both Sexes. A Narrative which has its foundation in Truth and Nature; and at the same time that it agreeably entertains, by a variety of curious and affecting inci- l dents, is entirely divested of all those Images, which, | in too many Pieces calculated for Amusement only, tend to inflame the minds they should instruct. In the preface to Clarissa Richardson restates this prin- 142 ... I thought the story, if written in an easy and natural manner, suitable to the simplicity of it, might possibly introduce a new species of writing, that might possibly turn young people into a course of reading different from the pomp and parade of romance-writing, and dismissing the improbable and marvellous, with which novels generally abound, might tend to promote the cause of religion and virtue.29 Similarly, in the postscript to Clarissa, Richardson in sists on the didactic value of the work. He deplored the fact that Christian virtues were not being practiced, that the doctrines of the Gospel were being questioned and that there existed a general . . . wantonness for outdoor pleasure and luxury, to the general exclusion of domestic as well as public virtue, industriously promoted among all ranks and degrees of people.30 In order to counteract this depravity, . . . the author thought he should be able to answer it to his own heart, be the success what it would, if he threw in his mite towards introducing a reformation so much wanted.31 Richardson had thus the following aims: to please and to instruct in accordance with the traditional Horatian dic tum. The means by which he intended to convey this wisdom 29 'Samuel Richardson, Clarissa, V, preface, vii, in The Works of Samuel Richardson, ed. Edward Mangin, XII, London, l6ll". 3°Richardson, Clarissa. VIII, 412. 3!Richardson, Clarissa. VIII. 412. | was by the narration of interesting facts which have their i foundation in truth and nature, facts which are not ex- j aggerated as were the adventures of the popular novel of I I the time. In his preface to Clarissa Richardson made it j j clear that this reaction against the then current trend in i ' | : novels was included in his major aims. The Wolff-Deken | I ; I novels do not have the long subtitle but in their intro- j | duction to Sara Burgerhart the ladies profess quite simil- I ! ar aims: In this introduction it is made clear that their ! I novel is written in order to instruct: i I ; I I ... velen uwer lezen, om uwe denkbeelden te vermeerder-I 1 en, en dus verstandiger to leren denken en doen ... ; | ' Onze hoofdbedoeling is aan te tonen: Dat eene overmaat j ! van levendigheid, en eene daaruit onstaande sterke drift j ; tot verstrooiende vermaaken, door de Mode en de Luxe j I gewettigd, de beste meisjes meermaal in gevaar brengen, | om haar in de allerdroevigste rampen te stortenj die haar veracht maken by zulken, die nimmer in staat zijn j om haar in de goedheid des harten en zedelyke volkomen- i heid gelyk te worden. Men vindt in deeze Roman geen wandaden, die een Engelsch- man zelfs met rilling leest; geen zo overdreven deugden, dat zy voor ons zwakke menschen onbereikbaar zyn .... Daar wordt in dit gehele werk geen Duel gevochten. Eens echter wordt er een oorvijg uitgedeeld. Er wordt noch geschaakt, noch vergif gedronken. Alles blijft in het natuurlvke; de uitvoering zal alles moeten goed maken.32 3^", . . many of you read in order to increase the scope of your ideas thus enabling you to learn, think and to act with more wisdom.................................... Our main purpose is to demonstrate: that an excess of | liveliness and the resulting passion for distracting j pleasures sanctioned by Fashion and Luxury, often endanger j the best of girls, thrusting them into the saddest disas- ! ters, making them contemptible to those who will never ikS i Both Richardson and the Dutch authors are thus aiming j ' for the same goals they want to instruct and inculcate jvirtue, and both argue that this is their main aim. At the end of their introduction, Wolff and Deken, apparently j I I ! fearing that readers might get carried away with the story ! i ! j i itself, remind the audience again of their aims "Voldoet | uwe nieuwsgierigheid en vergeet niet, wat het hoofdoel j deezer Historie is."33 i I j Richardson's third aim, to turn young readers away ! I from the popular novel of the time, is echoed by Wolff and j ! i jDeken, who shared Richardson's contempt for that genre. i ! I | Wolff and Deken, however, were convinced that they had to j i | l perform another function and cope with a problem peculiar j i | : to authors who write in a little known tongues their own i i compatriots prefer to read books by foreign authors. This ; problem was and still is particularly acute in Holland, | even today, as reported by Seymour Flaxmans : be able to equal them in goodness of heart or moral perfec tion .................................................... : One does not find in this novel any evil deeds which would t make an Englishman shudder; no virtues so exaggerated that , they are unreachable for us weak humans .... In this entire work no duel is fought; one time someone is boxed ; on the ear; no girl is abducted and no poison is drunk. | Our imagination has not thought up anything marvellous; everything remains quite natural; everything depends on j the execution of the work." Sara Burgerhart. I, Foreword, | xxi-xxxvi. I 33»satisfy your curiosity and do not forget the main | purpose of this History." Sara, I, Introduction, xxxvii. 146 Editions are small, and it is difficult for even a successful writer to live on his royalties. Besides, the educated Dutch reader usually knows at least one or j two foreign languages, and Dutch bookstores regularly I display books in these languages, which compete for j attention. Also, some intellectuals in the Netherlands j suffer from a literary inferiority complex} they pride ! themselves on reading pnly books published outside | their mother country.34 j This same problem was faced by Wolff and Deken; in I | spite of this they produced a novel that was fully Dutch in I ! setting and character. They did not compromise with popu- ' | lar taste; rather, they emphasized their daring approach j i by boldly adding "not a translation" to the title of their J j novels. In the foreword they anticipated a typical reac- | : . j I tion by describing a young girl haughtily snubbing her nose j ' ; | at the sight of a Dutch novels i i j • Een Hollandsche Roman! Ma chere, wel hoe vindt gij dat? (en ma chere vindt het even ridicul als ons juffertje). j Ik lees geen Hollandsch.35 ; The authors, arguing that each country should have its own i great writers in the same way that each should have its ! own heroes and statesmen, expressed the hope that this ■ idea would eventually be generally recognized, but that in ! the meantime they had produced an "original Dutch novel." i I Over the years, Richardson, Wolff and Deken have been i ! 3^Seymour L. Flaxman, "The Modern Novel in the Low Countries," in Fiction in Several Languages, ed. Henri | Peyre (New York, 1968), p. 141. ! | 35"A Dutch novel! Ma chere, what do you think of ! that? (and ma chere finds it equally ridiculous). I do not read Dutch." Sara. I, Foreword, p. xxxii. 147 taken to task for their didacticism and, indeed, both in ! ! aim and in actual practice the novels are didactic and | moralizing. Both of them, according to modern taste, do I j indeed go to excess in this. Yet, the fault, if any, is ! ! only in the excess. The didactic aim is inescapably tied | I to each work in the epic genre, whether an epic, a novel, I | or a short story. The wellspring of all great works of i j i art in this genre is a philosophy of life which the artist I : j ; is eager to communicate. This is true whether we are deal-' ing with Virgil’s Aeneid, Dante's Divina Gommedia, Tol- j | stoy's War and Peace or Melville's Moby Dick. Each of j i j | these authors wrote in order to persuade, to convince the I readers to accept his Weltanschauung. i I As this list of works may indicate, there is also a I I | difference in the extent to which they are willing to go I in their moralizing, Richardson, in his zeal to picture I the dangers and pitfalls to which young girls may be ex- | I posed, goes to great lengths to paint these dangers in the ; most graphic and realistic manner--witness Mr. B's bedroom I scene and the violation of Clarissa by Lovelace. Wolff land Deken stop short of these "indelicate" scenes.3^ They i ! | 3^Later, in expressing their delight about the excell- jent reception of Sara Burgerhart the authors returned to | this issue: "Uit het onthaal, 't welk onze Roman geniet, | kan men gerust zyn, dat men niet licentieus behoeft to j schryven . . . om geleezen te worden ook door Menschen, die I zich al mede van het gros pogen te onderscheiden door een I geheele Buitenlandsche Lectuur, . . ." ("From the fine 1^8 made it clear in their introduction that this was done because they believed that the battle for virtue is fought | in the occurrences of daily domestic life rather than in l | the highly dramatized unlikely encounters of strong I 'passions. What they wrote was: j i Een Roman, die berekent is voor den Meridiaan des I Huisselyken Levens. Wij schilderen U Nederlandsche | Karakters? menschen, die men in one Vaderland werkelyk ; Vindt .... Ons hart kan trillen van vrees, wanneer j wy bevallige, zoetaardige, ouderloze, of niet wel opgevoede jonge Juffertjes, in dien gevaarlyken leeftyd, waar in de jeugd gevoelige harten ontwikkelt, en nog sluimerende driften wakker maakt, eene waereld zien intreden, met de onargdenkentheid eens kinds, j dat geen gevaar kan vreezen 't geen het niet kent. i Niet altyd berokkent het fyn overdagte bedrog het bederf deezer kinderen: neen! daar zijn mooglyk geen ! 'Lovelaces' dan in de denkbeeldige waereld: maar zy behoeven er niet te zyn. Om onherstelbare rampen ! voorttebrengen, zyn veelmaal tomeloze liefde, en niet { vooruitziende onvoorzichtigheid, meer dan toereikende.37 ! t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | reception our novel enjoys, one can be convinced, that one i does not need to write licentiously in order to be read, | even by people who try to be different from the masses by i reading only foreign literature.") E. Bekker (Wed. Ds. i Wolff) and A. Deken, Historie van den Heer Willem Leevend | (The Hague, 1785), V, Preface, vi. 37"A novel that is geared toward the meridian of ; domestic life. We paint Dutch characters, people you : really find in Holland .... Our heart may shudder from j fear when we observe sweet, orphaned or carelessly brought I up young misses entering the world in that dangerous age i in which youth develops a sensitive heart and awakens the ! still slumbering passions, while we realize that they still ! act with the guileless innocence of a child that cannot fear dangers it does not know. "It is not always meticulously planned deceit that causes the corruption of these children: no! There are | possibly no 'Lovelaces' but in the world of the imagination, j but they don't have to exist. Unbridled love, and a lack ! of foresight and prudence are frequently more than suffi cient to cause irreparable disasters." Sara Burgerhart. I, Foreword, xxxiv-xxxv. 14-9 It could be argued that, as women, Wolff and Deken ! had a more feminine view of girls as complete human beings. | Betje Wolff, in particular, who came close to Mme de Stael ' in learning and intelligence, could hardly be expected to I i see the maintenance of virtue as the outstanding quality in i a woman. Furthermore, there is no indication that either i | Wolff or Deken had Richardson's excessive interest in i j sexuality, as has been suggested,3^ | In actual practice Wolff and Deken appear to have been ! influenced by Richardson in their excessive eulogizing of i virtue and in their explicit moralizing. This characteris- I tic is well known in Richardson and one can take passages | practically at random to illustrate this tendency: ! This act of despondency ["Pamela's contemplated suicide] j thought I, 'is a sin, that, if I pursue, admits no 1 repentence, and can therefore hope no forgiveness. ! And wilt thou, to shorten thy transitory griefs, heavy | as they are, and weak as thou fanciest thyself, plunge j both body and soul into everlasting misery?39 | This very peculiarly Richardsonian characteristic of let- ; ting his characters sometimes speak as if they are quoting from moral tracts was imitated by Wolff and Deken, though i i only in a limited manner. Sara's confidante is Anna jWillis, who, at times, may be the spokesman for the views i of the authors. Anna frequently chides Sara for her ! 38see Morris Golden, Richardson's Characters (Ann !Arbor, 1963), pp. 1-14-. | 39gamue; | _ Richardson, Pamela, ed. George Saintsbury I(London, i960), I, 151. I 150 lighthearted approach to serious matters: ! Hoe dikwijls heb ik U gezegd, dat, zoo men eenen lossen I aard toegeeft, men ongemerkt van de eene zotheid tot i de andere komt. Hoe ras krygt men dan eene hebbelijk- i heid, om onze daden niet meer te schikken naar het ! snoer der rede! Dit blijkt in U, alles is drift .... j Vermaak gaat boven allesj en welk een vermaak! Vindt 1 men, dat iets goed te doen ons vermaakt: fiat, goed ■ doen! Vindt men vermaak in onbetaamlijkheid, men offert de welvoeglijkheid daaraan op. Men loopt voort tot ; i aan de uiterste grenzen der deugd, of, wilt gy? van j | het geoorloofde. Glipt men uit, dan TOoet een 'och, daar j had ik geen erg in,' alles g o e d m a k e n . ^ ® j ! ' The intended objects of all the moralizing on the part! ; I 1 of Richardson and his Dutch disciples are young women, and j | the works are meant to warn them against the dangers a 1 girl faces and to paint a portrait of the ideal woman to be j J ! : emulated by their readers. Pamela, Clarissa, and Sara j i j 'all have to cope with sophisticated gentlemen with strong : carnal desires and all three heroines valiantly resist | attempts at seduction. The plot of the three novels • hinges, to a great extent, on the wisdom and strategy ; employed by the girls in holding on, at least technically, to their virtue. i j - 0 ; "How often have I told you that if you give in to a : frivolous nature you run unnoticed from one folly into the i next. How rapidly then one acquires the habit of abandon- : ing reason as the guide of our actions. This is apparent in you: everything is passion .... Pleasure goes above everything, and what kind of pleasure! If one finds that doing good is pleasurable, let it be, one does it. If one finds pleasure in impropriety, one sacrifices decor- !urn. One continues into the extreme limits of virtue or, !if you will, of the allowable. If one slides then it is made up for by an 'Ah, I did not realize this.' " Sara Burgerhart. I, 103. This emphasis on sexual virtue suggests that, somehow, chastity is the dominant virtue in an ideal girl to the j exclusion of other important social and religious qualities which should he desirable in any human being. Such a view i is understandable when we realize that the English and jDutch novels were a reaction against the prevalent writings i |in prose and the rather subservient position of women at j ! i !the time. i | 1 ' I ! In spite of this overemphasis on chastity, Richardson ! | | created a work of great power in Clarissa. Wolff and i I Deken did not reach this dimension of greatness in their \ | I ■ main character but they did shift their focus away from j ! sexual purity to encompass in their heroine a number of : i ! j very positive characteristics which they deemed desirables : ! ( ; passion, enjoyment of life, a sense of humor, appreciation \ j j of intellectual pleasures and an alert mind. j i Letter Technique i It is beyond doubt that Richardson was a master in the | technique of letter writing. Wolff and Deken were also ex- ; perts in the field and had written volumes of letters i i prior to the publication of their novels. Yet they borrow- 1 ed some techniques from Richardson, their master, in the writing of their novels. | The letters of Richardson's novels generally fall into a definite pattern. They most frequently begin with a ! _____________ 151 152 reference to a newly received letters i j Hannah has just drought me, from the private place in the i garden wall, a letter from Mr. Lovelace, signed also ; by Lord M. (Clarissa, I, Letter XXII) j | You tell me, my dear, that my clothes and the little sum ! of money that I left behind me will not be sent me--but j I will still hope. (Clarissa. Ill, Letter XVI) . Since most of the Pamela letters are written by the main ! i ! ! character, the letter usually opens with a justification j | for writings I know you longed to hear from me soon. (I, 21) | | You and my good father may wonder you have not had a j | letter from me in so many weeks. (I, 10) j I ! i Another frequent opener is the reference to a recent I i : i happening, an unpleasant experience or some other circum- j ; ' I i stance which made the letter writer reach for quill and j i j I papers Though pretty much pressed in time and oppressed by my mother's watchfulness, I will write a few lines upon the new light that has broke in upon your gentle- | man. (Clarissa. Ill, Letter XXIII) t : Well, here is a sad thing! I am denied by this bar barous woman to go to church .... (Famela. I, 251) ' His introduction is like a proem or preamble. The body of I ; the letter, no matter how long, is usually an elaboration of the opening statement and does not exceed the limits of j | the topic suggested in the latter. A letter of Miss Howe | to Clarissa is possibly one of the clearest examples of a perfectly organized letter, in which we find the proem, the narrative and arguments and the peroration. For the pur- 153 pose of comparison it is necessary that the core of the 1 letter be reproduced in full: ! MISS HOWE TO MISS CLARISSA HARLOWE I J Wednesday Night, March 22. j You and I have often retrospected the faces and minds ! of grown people; that is to say, have formed images from | their present appearances, outside and in what sort of figures they made when boys and girls. And I"11 tell you i the lights in which Hickman, Solmes, and Lovelace, our | | three heroes, have appeared to me, supposing them boys ! ; at school. | I Solmes I have imagined to be a sordid little pilferingj ! rogue, who would purloin from everybody, and beg every j boy's bread and butter from him; while, as I have heard | a reptile brag, he would in a winter morning spit upon I his thumbs, and spread his own with it, that he might j | keep it all to himself. j Hickman, a great, overgrown, lank-haired, chubby boy, i I who would be hunched and punched by everybody; and go j | home with his finger in his eye, and tell his mother. j | While Lovelace I have supposed a curl-pated villain, j | full of fire, fancy, and mischief; an orchard-robber, i I a wall-climber, a horse-rider without saddle or bridle, j I neck or nothing: a sturdy rogue, in short, who would | kick and cuff, and do no right, and then take no wrong i of anybody; would get his head broken, then a plaster | for it or let it heal of itself; while he went on to do more mischief, and if not to get, to deserve broken bones. ; And the same dispositions have grown up with them, and | distinguish them as men, with no very material alteration. | Only, that all men are monkeys more or less, or else : that you and I should have such baboons as these to choose out of, is a mortifying thing, my dear.^1 i In the preamble Richardson indicates the topic of the I ; letter and then, in separate paragraphs, he elaborates on i | each of the issues. The narrative is followed by a perora- ! tion in the form of a general conclusion summing up the j | content of the letter: "Only, that all men are monkeys more or less . . . ." Not all letters are as well con- ^Richardson, Clarissa. II, Letter I. | structed as the one above. A number of them are no longer i ^ than one paragraph, others are many pages long. The basic | scheme, though, is followed by Richardson in most letters: I they have a beginning, a middle and an end which are all ! related and deal with a single issue or event. The fact i I that there is such a sharp contrast between the unorganized/ ! personal correspondence of Wolff and Deken^ and the well | organized epistles of Sara Burgerhart indicates that they j i ! consciously imposed a structured form on their letters, a I form most likely learned from their mentor Richardson. For I example, the letters begin with the familiar proem: i i ■ ! Dat was een bliide postdag voor mij en brief van mijn ! i geeerden voogd. I i i | Or, again, ! Wel, wat heb ik een dag gehad, een dag gehad! Och! ik vrees dat de booze maar al te veel vat op my i I I ^Typical of their personal correspondence is a letter I to Mr. Vollenhoven dated February 9, 1800, signed by Betje jand Aagje. The letter deals with all of the following | topics: an analysis of the friendship between the two authors, their love for Mr. Vollenhoven, several current 'political issues, Aagje's reputation as a loquacious I spinster, the expressed hope that Betje and Aagje should | not outlive each other, a series of personal financial | affairs, their finding a home in the Hague, etc., etc., ! all in the space of three pages. The letter is completely haphazard in its construction. In H. Frijlink, Elisabeth Wolff en Agatha Deken zo uit hare Geschriften als uit andere Bescheiden geschetst. Bi.jvoegsels en Verbeteringen (Amsterdam, 18£>3)» PP» 20-22. ^3"That was a very happy mail delivery for me: a :letter from my respected guardian." Sara Burgerhart. I, 5. 155 gehad heeft . ^ • it I In order to demonstrate the parallel between the structure of Richardson's letters and those of Wolff and Deken, an entire letter follows here: Geeerde Heer, zeer waarde Voogd! De steen is geworpen: ik hen 't ontvlucht, en acht het plichtmatig u alles te melden. Gisterennamiddag ben ik hier in mijn nieuw logement gearriveerd: ik zal u alles vertellen. Ik twijfel dikwijls, of tante mij deze laatste weken niet zo geplaagd heeft, om mij dezen stap eerder te doen verrichten. Het volgende deed mij nog te eerder tot een besluit komen. Ik ontmoette in een franschen winkel, waar ik een paar handschoenen kocht, een mijner school- vriendinnetjes, zekere Letje de Brunier. De vader van het lieve meisje was de heer Philips de Brunier, geen ongeacht commissionaris op Duitsland en Italien. Ik leg haren brief aan mij, ook die der weduwe, bij wie zij logeert, hier in, opdat gij alles zoudt weten wat er van mij bekend is. Nu de vertelling. Gisterenmiddag ging tante uit eten. Ik kleedde mij aan, stak wat linnen bij mij, ook mijne juweelen die ik van u gekregen heb voor gij naar Frankrijk ging, doch die ik nooit heb aan gehad, met een weinig gelds (want zij geeft mij niets,--geen duit). Brecht had de stout- heid mij te vragen, 'waar ga jij heen?' - 'Dat raakt jou niet.' - 'Dan zal je ook in huis blijven.' -'Heb jij 't hart, en belet mij dat eens.' Ik kan wel boos worden, maar niet kijven; en ziende dat Brecht haar talent te werk stelde, bedacht ik mij: 'Brecht,' zij ik, 'heeft tante je die orders gegeven, dan moet ik haar de reden vragen als zij thuis homt; wat zullen wij eten?' - 'Kliekjes,' zei zij. - 'Goed ik heb honger; maar wij zullen tantes gezondheid eens drinken; toe meid, haal eens een flesch wijn, jij hebt zeker den sleutel.' -'Ik doe niet, juffrouw Saartje!' (nu ik van putten sprak, kreeg ik aanstonds dezen titel!) 'Jij jokt, Brechtf als tante er van spreekt, zal ik haar den wijn betalen.' - 'Je tante heeft altoos den sleutelj maar als juffrouw mij niet beklappen zou, ik kan er toch wel bij.' - 'Ik je beklappen! wel, dan moest ik wel gek zijn; krijg maar, toe, schielijk.' Zij ging. Ik had al lang 4^"Weli what a day this has been, what a day! Oh! I feel that the evil one has too much of a grip on me." Sara Burgerhart. I, 18. 156 [ bemerkt, dat zuster Brechtje aan de fep was; ik tastte \ haar dus van de zwakke zijde aan. Doch pasjes was zij | in den kelder, of ik, flink de deur in slot, en de j grendels er op. Toen ging ik het huis uit, en haalde ! de huisdeur achter mij toe, Hoe het verder met de j zuster gegaan is, weet ik niet. j Ik heb op tantes tafeltje een kaartje laten liggen, I opdat zij niet ongerust zijn zoude. Zij heeft mij i schrikkelijk geplaagd: mogelijk zal zij zich dit ! herinneren; en wat hoef ik haar te kwellen, nu ik uit j hare macht bens is 't niet waar, mijnheer! ' 1 Wat verlang ik naar een brief van u! De muziek heb ik j I ontvangen. 0 wat zijt gij een goed man! Kon ik u j : mondeling zeggen, hoezeer ik u acht, en hoe gelukkig I | ik mij reken van te zijn mijnheer, j 1 Uwe ootmoedige Dienaresse en Pupil, i Sara Burgerhart^5 j i (Sara Burgerhart to Abraham Blankaart) I i "Respected Sir, dear Guardian, j "The die has been cast: I have escaped and consider j ! it my duty to relate everything to you. Yesterday after- ; ! noon I arrived here in my new boarding house. I'll tell I ! you everything. j ; "I often wonder whether my aunt hasn't been badgering! ! me to this extent during the past few weeks in order to ; force me to take this step earlier. The following made me : come to my decision so much the sooner. When I went into | a French shop to buy a pair of gloves, I met one of my j former schoolmates, a certain Letje de Brunier. The father i of the dear girl was Mr. Philips de Brunier, a respected i business agent to Germany and Italy. I enclose her letter j and also the one of the widow with whom she is staying : so that you may know all that is known about me. Now the story: "Yesterday afternoon my aunt went out to eat. I got : dressed, packed some linens, the jewels you gave me before | you went to France but which I have never worn, and my j little bit of money (for she does not give me anything,— | not a penny). Brecht the maid had the audacity to ask 'Where are you going?' - 'None of your business' - 'Then you will stay home' - 'Try to stop me.' I can become angry but I cannot stand a brawl and, seeing that Brecht was going to apply all her talents in that area, I recon- ; sidered. 'Brecht,' I said, 'if Aunt has given you these ! orders I must ask her the reasons when she returns. What shall we eat?' - 'Leftovers,' she said. - 'Good, I am hungry; but let us drink to aunt's health; say dear, why | don't you get out a bottle of wine, I'm sure you have the ! key.' - 'I don't, Miss Saartje!' (now I was talking about 157 Both authors are thus very meticulous in the internal i structure of their letters. They had chosen the form for ! a variety of reasons, ranging from plausibility to immed- i i iacy, and worked within the limitations of that form. j j Richardson experienced some difficulties in Pamela and thus : had to intrude as an outside narrator in several instances,' ! ! I but he remedied that problem in his later novels by using aj j | j wider range of letter writers. Wolff and Deken, no doubt I ' having learned from Richardson's later novels, introduced | ; a number of characters which made authorial intrusions j | | i unnecessary. I : i I In the judicious use of letters as building blocks | : j ! within the total structure of the novel there is both great; ; i j similarity and difference. The crisis in Clarissa as in j ; Sara Burgerhart consists of a confrontation with the | boozing I was suddenly accorded this title). 'You are I fibbing, Brecht; if aunt says anything I'll pay her for | the wine.' - 'Your aunt always keeps the key, but if Miss ' will not blab I know where to find it.' - 'I tell on you! I would have to be crazy; go quick, get it.' She went. : I had noticed a long time ago that Sister Brecht was a : secret tippler; I hit her thus on her weakness. Hardly ; was she in the cellar, however, when I forcefully slammed i the door shut and bolted it. Then I left the house and I closed the front door behind me. I don't know how the j sister fared. j "I left a note on my aunt's table so that she did not have to be worried, She has badgered me terribly; maybe she will remember this; and why should I torture her, now I am out of her clutches; isn't that true sir? "I am longing for a letter from you! I received the music score! Oh, you are such a good man! I wish I could tell you in person how much I respect you and how fortunate I consider myself to be, dear Sir, your humble servant and pupil, Sara Burgerhart." Sara Burgerhart. I, 26-28. 158 j seducer and the resistance of the heroine. In hoth novels i ■ this crisis is anticipated as the necessary outcome of the [ heinous villany of the seducer and the innocence of the : girl and in both cases the reader is made aware of the i attempt long before the heroine reports the impact of the : i shocking event upon her delicate and innocent mind. In ! | Clarissa the seduction is told in gleeful letters by Love- | i lace^6 and it is not until almost three hundred pages laterj that Clarissa herself reports on the happening.^ From the time of the seduction until Clarissa*s report there is j ■ no letter from her except for a few incoherent notices. j The letter technique is thus consciously applied to height-j ■ i en the suspense of the psychological drama. i i Wolff and Deken use a similar technique in Sara Burgerhart. Mr. R., the villain, who has gradually worked | his way into Sara's circle, reveals his plans to his ; friend Mr. G., plans which are reminiscent of Lovelace's scheming: Vriend Jan! Uit is de klucht! de mijne, de mijne is zij, moet, zal zij zijn! 0! Dat lief bekje .... Zorg, dat morgen voor den middag mijn Fourgon en de harddravers Kwast en Bles gereed zijn, om naar buiten, doch langs een omweg te rijden. Houd U daar vandaanj ik heb U niet nodigj zeg alleen aan den tuinbaas dat ik met een meisje kom, | dan weet hij genoeg .... Onthoud mijn orders wel. ; Daar! daar hebt gij vijftig ducaten om uwe schulden van i | i ^ R i c h a r d s o n . Clarissa. V. Letters XXXI and XXXII. t ~ | ^Richardson, Clarissa. VI, Letters XLIV-XLVI. 159 eer te betalen. Ik ben flauw van vreugd. Zoo een meisje, zo een engel; zo rein als een kind zo onkundig van haar gevaar; die niet eens vermoedt, dat ik de Belsebub ben, die het op haar bederf toelegt! j trouwen, liefstetje, daar kan ik niet aan doen, j | This short passage makes it obvious that Mr, R. is ! much less eloquent and complex than is his counterpart in j ! ■ Clarissa--a matter to be discussed below--yet the basic | i I | situation is the same, Wolff and Deken introduce a number j i I j of letters from various characters all pointing to the bas-| i ! i ically evil character of Mr, R. Sara, however, is not im- ! | pressed and continues to meet him until the reader is in- j i ! f formed by Hendrik Edeling that the inevitable has happened:' | i | Ik schrijf, of begin dezen te schrijven, aan het huis, | daar de beminde mijner ziel sedert gisternamiddag vier | ; ure, niet is teruggekeerd .... Mijn bloed stolt in i j mijne aderen .... 0! Gij engel onder de menschen! j j Bekoorlijke lieve lachende lenteroos, zal een geweldige j : deugniet u baldadig verscheuren, en na u bespot te I | hebben, onder zijne voeten vertreden . . . . ° i | j ^®"My dear friend Jan! j "The farce is over! She is mine, she will be mine, she jmust be mine! Oh! That lovable creature .... make sure ' that tomorrow before noon my carriage and the finest ihorses, Kwast and Bles, are ready to go, by a detour, to the !estate. You stay away; I don't need you; just tell the i gardener that I am coming with a girl and he will under- j stand .... Remember my orders. Here, have fifty ducats ito pay your debt of honor. I almost faint for joy. Such a |girl! as pure as a child; so unaware of the danger she is I in; not even suspecting that I am the Beelzebub who is aiming at her corruption! For, marrying my dear angel, is not in my line . . , Sara Burgerhart. II, 8*1 -85. ^9"1 am writing, or I am beginning to write this at |the house where the beloved of my soul has not returned !since yesterday afternoon at four .... The blood con- !geals in my veins .... Oh! You angel among men! Ten- jder, lovable, laughing rose of spring, will now a violent 160 | Taking their cue from Richardson, the authors keep the reader in suspense by postponing any direct comment | about the event from Sara. As in the case of Clarissa, | Sara is violently ill as a result of the episode, which in i i I both cases is a very plausible excuse for postponement. ! j j Other correspondents keep writing but Sara's letters re- ; | main conspicuously absent. There is one brief mention by j ! i , i I Hendrik Edeling that Sara has promised to give a full re- j I i port as soon as she feels able to do so. More than fifty pages later, equivalent to Richardson's three hundred j i i i i i pages considering the comparative length of the two novels,j ! Sara is finally ready to report. At this time, however, ! ! j ' Sara is surrounded by all her friends waiting for her recov-j i ery. Wolff and Deken solve this technical difficulty by ‘ letting Sara explain that it is too painful and delicate i ! to talk about the event, and having her resort to a written j report which then is promptly copied by Hendrik Edeling and | ' mailed to his brother. Another technique similar to Richardson's is the use of dialogue in letters. One of the greatest drawbacks of the letter form is the necessarily limited viewpoint of the first person narrators. Whereas the omniscient or objec tive narrator can wander around at will to let the various characters express their opinions or relate their exper- i i | scoundrel wantonly destroy you, and, having derided you, | walk all over you?" Sara Burgerhart. II, 88. iences when required for the story, the letter writer has i | no such freedom. Richardson did not solve this problem in Pamela. Every time Pamela comes in contact with other j characters her letters are crowded with expressions such | j as "said he," "said I," "added he," and "replied she," a j i | • stylistic oddity that tends to become very monotonous, : I I j particularly when discussions with several people are re- j | ported. In Clarissa, Richardson solved this problem by ■ using dialogue, often with dramatic notation, e.g.: ! , ] I Miss Charlotte, (reddening) Spoke like a man of vio- j t lence, rather than a man of reason! I hope you'll i ! allow that, Cousin. ! Lady Sarah. Well, but since what is done, and cannot be , j undone, let us think of the next best. Have you any j objection against marrying Miss Harlowe, if she will ; have you! ! I Lovelace. There can possibly be but one, . . .50 , ! i Profiting from Clarissa's example, Wolff and Deken, ! endowing their characters with the superhuman memory of l I i epistolary correspondents, chose a similar technique to re- i I create such discussions, thus widening the scope of their I narrative. Mrs. Spilgoed is the first one to apply this adapted dramatic technique: I Toen de heeren vertrokken waren, waren Saartje en hare vriendin Letje alleen bij mij: Wel meisjes, zei ik, wat zegt gij van den heer Edeling? (Ik zal, om het j lastige zeide ik en zeide zij voor to komen dus elk I laten spreken): | Saartje: Knap slag, dunkmij, mooi genoeg voor een man. [ 5°Richardson, Clarissa. IV, Letter XVII. 162 Let.jet En ik vindt, dat die heer een zeer aangenaam man is, die er excellent uitziet.^l i One aspect of literary technique in which Wolff and Deken are definitely superior to Richardson is the plausib ility of circumstances surrounding the writing of letters. It seems improbable that a young girl such as Pamela would | ! have the endurance to write such endless epistles, even under the most forbidding circumstances in an often hostile ; environment: she always manages to procure the quills, the ; i ; paper and the wax to write the letters which then, at t i m e s , , ' have to be smuggled out. At another time she performs the j i feat of writing a letter in a carriage which, though very ! i | I much in line with Richardson’s "writing to the moment," is j i : i highly improbable: ; I have been vilely tricked, and instead of being driven | by Robin to my dear father’s, I am carried off, to where i I have no liberty to tell.^2 The main problem the epistolary novelist faces is that he is compelled to manipulate the movement of the charact ers in such a way that they, though well enough acquainted i I 51”After the gentlemen had gone, Sara and her girl j I friend Letje were the only ones left with me: Well, girls, ; said I, what do you think of Mr. Edeling? (In order to avoid the bothersome ’said I* and ’said she' I will let each of them speak): Sara: A rather good looking sort, it seems to me, not bad for a man. Letje: And I find this man a very pleasant gentleman, with excellent looks." Sara Burgerhart. I, 146. 52RiChardson, Pamela. I, 81. to bare their souls to each other, remain at a distance | most of the time, so that they may have the opportunity to i | correspond. I ! In Pamela, Richardson avoids the problem by having the i j heroine herself carry the bulk of the one-sided correspond- | ence, compelling him to have a third-person narrator fill j | j 1 in the gaps of the plot. In Clarissa, however, Richardson | chose to have recourse to numerous stratagems, many of them strained beyond credibility, in order to keep the characters I writing instead of conversing. In Sara Burgerhart this is I 1 never the case: the occasion for every letter in the en- j i tire novel can be explained quite rationally, which makes j | each letter plausible. Mr. Blankaart, Sara's guardian, | is a businessman who, throughout most of the novel, main- j tains an office in Paris. Their relationship and the dis tance between the two demands a letter. The same basic i situation explains the letters from the other characters j : who are directly involved in Sara's welfare. The rather • important and at times lengthy correspondence between the I widow Spilgoed and Mr. Blankaart receives additional just ification by the incipient romantic involvement between the | two. The correspondence between Sara and her husband-to-be j | Hendrik Edeling finds a logical explanation in Edeling*s | being sent on a business trip abroad. Sara's correspondence | with her aunt Suzanna can be explained by the fact that she | would not likely be interested in a confrontation with 16k the woman she loathed, i When, towards the end of the novel the various char- |acters converge on Amsterdam for the celebration of the t | wedding, Hendrik's brother, Cornelius, gives a detailed j report of the celebration to his fiancee who does not re- i : i i side in Amsterdam. When Blankaart closes up shop and moves! i | ! back to Amsterdam towards the end of the novel, he lives j | apparently within easy distance of Mrs. Spilgoed and, | mobile and with time on his hands, one would expect him to ' make the rounds personally. Wolff and Deken solve this ! problem by having Blankaart explain it in his letters 't Is een regenachtige dag. Ik zei, wel, heeft Abraham Blankaart er niet den hooi van om aiweer daar heen te laveren, en mijn tijd te vermallen met die meisjes, Ik zal thuis blijven en schrijven . . . .53 J Apparently very conscious about the forced situation, the I authors have Blankaart give additional apologies for not ' coming personally, such as the fact that Sara should not i | overhear the discussion. Another aspect of epistolary technique applied by i Wolff and Deken is that of keeping their letters brief and i j to the pointj in other words, their letters remain letters i ; and do not turn into extended diaries, essays, or chron- j icles. Richardson frequently escapes the limitation of the It is a rainy day. I said to myself* well Abra- I ham Blankaart just does not have the oomph today to fight j the wind to while away the time with those girls. I'll | stay home and write . . . ." Sara Burgerhart. II, 172. 165 | short letter by having his correspondents send a series | ! of letters "in continuation," in which case the letters | turn into diaries. Yet the very fact of the "continuation"! i ! recognizes the principle that the length of the letter I : should be limited to some ten to twelve pages at the most. | ! i Wolff and Deken follow Richardson's works in the relative ! : I I ‘ ! brevity of the letters and even improve on this by limit- j | ing their letters to fewer pages, generally not exceeding j i four pages. Even then the businessmen, such as Blankaart i ; and Jan Edeling, apologize for the length of their letters j I because they either dislike writing or are only familiar i with the discussion of business matters. Only on a few ! : occasions do Wolff and Deken use the technique of writing ; letters "in continuation" but each time with ample justif- i ication. An example is a letter by Sara while she is still i j living with her Aunt Suzanna. The letter deals with her | reaction to the continually hostile attitudes and actions i of her dominating and constantly nagging aunt* Hoe kan ik nu langer wonen bij eene tante, die, schijnt het, eene belofte gedaan heeft om mij zoveel bitterheid j aan te doen, als vrekheid en dweeperij maar immer | konnen op baggeren . . . .5^ \ The sudden end to the letter and the necessary continuation later becomes a device to illustrate the point Sara has | 5^"How can I continue to live with an aunt who, it |seems, has made a vow to cause me as much bitterness as I avarice and fanaticism can possibly drag up. ..." iSara Burgerhart. pp. 7-8. 166 j has been making: ! Daar schreeuwt zij alweer haar keel uit het lid, *Ja, | tante, ik kom.' Eerst echter deze achter het slot, i Zodra ik kan, zal ik een tweeden brief beginnen. . . .55 i 1 A further similarity between Clarissa, in particular, I ! and Sara is in the paired correspondences. Thus we en- I — — i counter a correspondence built upon alternate letters be- I ! tween the characters and their confidents: Clarissa and j Anna Howe, Sara and Anna Willis, the villains and their i cohorts and various other pairs. Like Richardson, Wolff : and Deken use the secondary correspondents to illustrate j the principal characters. | Finally, both Richardson's novels and Sara Burgerhart i end with a "conclusion” by the author or, as in the case | of Clarissa, by one of the characters. This conclusion, a : sort of denouement, gathers the loose ends and reports how | the characters fared, and points out the moral lessons i | that may be drawn from the final disposition of the events. j Such parallels between the epistolary technique of , Richardson and the Dutch authors are but a few of the many I clear indications that Wolff and Deken learned a lesson j | from the master, Richardson. Their application of his | i epistolary techniques, together with the stylistic profits they garnered from his pathfinding, were to become a solid i I j 55«There she is screaming her throat to pieces again, j 'Yes, aunt, I'm coming.' Let me first lock up this one. [/the letterj As soon as I can I'll begin a second letter." Sara Burgerhart. p. 8. basis for their own greatness. Characteri zation ! Another similarity between Sara Burgerhart and the | works of Richardson is in characterization, even though ! j this is, at the same time, the area in which Sara Burger- ' j hart greatly differs from Richardson's novels. In the | I ; i postscript to Clarissa. Richardson uses the words of one of| ! | I his critics to support the length of his work and claims j that characters should be ". . . various and naturalj well! 1 | distinguished and uniformly supported" and maintains, j ; | ". . .if characters and incidents are unnatural and extrav-; : agant . . . the performance will be judged tedious."56 j | Wolff and Deken's views on character in relation to plot ; ! are strikingly similar to those of Richardson} even the I I language used is reminiscent of the latter*s statement: ! ! Wij bekennen ook gaarn, dat alles zeer natuurlyk ! afloopt, maar begrijpen meteen, dat dit, ten minsten de ! door ons hoogstgeschatte lezers niet kan mishagen. j *t Waar ons zeker geen moeite geweest een Roman to verzinnen, zo samengesteld, zo ingewikkeld, zo vol Episoden, als de door een verwartste Comedie van eenen Spaanschen Lopes de Vega. Doch wie, in staat om over I het stuk in verschil te oordelen, zal ontkennen, dat ! een karakter, eens gegeven zijnde, moet uitgewerkt | worden naar vaste en onveranderlyke regels? Het byzondere in de karakters is iets aantrekkelyks voor | den Lezer, zo is het niet met de Gevallen, indien zij | al te Romanesk zijn.^' | ^Richardson, Clarissa. VIII, ^3^-435. | 57»v/e readily admit that everything takes a very natural course, but we understand too that this cannot 167 168 The criteria for consistency and naturalness in I characterization coupled with plausible events are thus j shared. The extent to which Wolff and Deken went further than Richardson in striving for plausibility and natural ness will be discussed in due course, The manner, however, in which they emulate Richardson in his expressed restraint! I i | indicates the direct line of influence from Richardson to | | Wolff and Deken, rather than through the many imitators of j i i I ; Richardson, in whom restraint was not so prevalent. i In both Richardson®s works and Sara Burgerhart we findj ! a predominant interest in female characters who, in both | : cases, are usually drawn better than their male counter- | i parts.58 James Harlowe and Mr. Belford share with most j ! i ! male characters in Sara Burgerhart a certain flatness and j j ; vagueness. The exception to this is Lovelace in Clarissa J displease at least those readers esteemed by us. It cer- j tainly would not have been so hard for us to think up a i novel so forced, so complex, so full of episodes as the ; mixed-up comedy of a Spanish Lope de Vega. But which per- ; son, capable of judging such a work, can deny, that a character once established must be supported and maintained according to fixed and unalterable rules? The unusual in j characters is something attractive for the readerj this is i not the case with the incidents if they are too reminiscent | of romances.” Sara Burgerhart. Foreword, xxviii-xxix. 58charlotte Lefever, ”Richardson*s Paradoxical Success," PMIA, XLVIII (1933), 857. "Having a complete knowledge of the psychology of women, especially lower or middle class, he could present women as he knew them* but having a meager knowledge of the psychology of men, he por trayed them through imagination only, and imagination tends towards painting the ideal." jand Abraham Blankaart in Sara. Richardson's heroines and 'those of his Dutch imitators are developed by placing the i 'restraints of conventional morality, reason and religion ;and those imposed by social living upon themselves. The i |conflict in the major female characters is between their Idesire to act as they please and those restraints. Civil- I i | ization, happiness, and fulfillment can, according to both j i i Wolff and Deken and Richardson, only be achieved if those j i restraints are accepted. The other characters stand in- : dieted as the villains and form the striking contrast, the i counterweight, the horrid alternative to the exemplary ; characters who embody the moral teachings of the authors. j Richardson's "good" characters exercise these re- ! | | straints in spite of a strong drive in the opposite direc- I I tion. They are strong and it is for that reason that, i | even today, it is possible to remain interested in the ! character throughout the long novels. Joseph Wood Krutch appears to take the opposite view when he describes Clarissa as weak: . . . Clarissa became above all else, the model for j sentimental fiction by which term we mean here to denominate that vulgar sort of demi-tragedy produced | when goodness is substituted for greatness as the necessary qualification of the hero and when, as a result, the catastrophe reveals him, not going down in rebellious defeat,-but tamely, acquiescent to the forces which destroy him.-^ 59joseph Wood Krutch, Five Mastersi A Study in the Mutations of the Novel (Bloomington, l930)» P* li>3* 170 Mr. Robert Lovelace, Esq. would hardly agree to this | description as "tamely acquiescent" and neither can one | consider Pamela as such. No matter in which light one I j looks at the characters one must admit that the constantly i j battling Clarissa and the scheming little Pamela emerge as characters with strong passions and equally strong wills. ! I It is because of those strong wills that they are able to j t I l I | place the required restraints upon themselves. And it is j ! in these qualities that Sara Burgerhart resembles the good ! ; characters in Richardson's novels. | In Richardson's novels these restraints are most fre- ' i ' quently religion and conventional morality, which become ! i I i j ! the wellspring of their actions or prevent them from act- j I ing in a certain manner. In Sara Burgerhart the characters i are subject to the same struggle between the instinctual I | urges and the necessary restraints with the difference that the restraints in the latter novel are imposed mainly | by reason. Reason is always the final arbiter and will even arbitrate when there are differences between religious ! viewpoints or if two views of conventional morality clash. i I It is particularly in Sara where the authors make this | clear. Sara's character, witty, proud, intelligent, and down-to-earth, makes her susceptibility to reason quite believable, and the instances in which a reasonable argu ment helps win the day are legions Mrs. Sophia Willis, the mother of Sara's confidante, Anna, describes this 171 characteristic of Sara* ! Juffrouw Burgerhart is een vele opzichten, uitmuntend Jong meisje, maar zij heeft zwakheden, die haar beletten l datgene te zijn 't welk zij worden kan, tenzij zij een I man krijgt, voor wien zij niet alleen liefde maar ook ; achting heeft. Hoe los en beuzelachtig zij ook moge | schijnen, nooit zal zij hare verkiezingen met genoegen | afstaan, dan door overtuiging. Sara uses well reasoned arguments to refuse the pro- ! | posals from various suitors and when she finally, after the j 1 I | ! ; incident with Mr. R., decides to accept Edeling's marriage i ' proposal she asks him to have patience for a while, be- ! cause she wants to make certain that her decision is based i i 1 j ; ! on reason* I ' i . . . eerst moet ik toonen, dat mijne betuigingen de j gevoigen zijn mijner eigen redej voor dit zoo is, j kan ik uwe vrouw niet worden. 1 i ; i Whereas Clarissa and Pamela are constantly analyzing their ! ! changing emotional reactions to the statements and behavior j i of their suitors, Sara rarely lets emotion, whether it be | love or fear, overpower her reasonable approach to affairs i I of the heart. ^®"Miss Burgerhart is, in many respects, an excellent young girl, but she has weaknesses which prevent her from being what she can become unless she can get a husband j whom she not only can love but also respect. How frivol- ; ous and chatty she may appear, she will never willingly ! abandon her choices but through reasonable argument." ! Sara Burgerhart. I, 126-127, | 6‘ U ... i first have to prove that my declarations | are based on my own reason. Before this has been estab- j lished I cannot become your wife." Sara Burgerhart. I II, 185. 1?2 Though the authors may agree in theory, Wolff and Deken's actual approach to character differs from Richard- i json's. Pamela and Clarissa are continually under siege, j Their letters are battle reports which assay the strength I !and changing strategies of the enemy and describe the I ! j morale of the person within the forts I I i ! MONDAY, TUESDAY THE 25TH AND 26TH DAYS OF MY HEAVY | RESTRAINT. ! Still more and more strange things to write! A j messenger is returned, and now all is out! 0 wretched, | wretched Pamela! What at last will become of me? Such strange turns and trials sure never poor creature of my years experienced.®2 j |The same thing is true for Clarissa, particularly in her j :many letters to Anna Howe. Typical is the one in which j she reports her reaction to the new rules imposed upon her* j Can such measures be supposed to soften? But surely they j l can only mean to try to frighten me into my brother's views. All my hope is to be able to weather this point ! till my cousin Morden comes from Florence* and he is i soon expected. Yet, if they are determined upon a : sho?$ day, I doubt he will not be here in time to save | me. I Richardsonian characters are drawn constantly into extreme situations. The opening of both novels suggests ! the tone of the works* "I have great trouble, and some ;comfort, to acquaint you with H(Pamela) and, "I am extreme- !ly concerned, my dearest friend, for the disturbances that ^2Richardson, Pamela. I, 1 *K ). ^Richardson, Clarissa. I, 173. | have happened in your family" (Clarissa). The novels ! begin on a high pitch and situations develop along an up- ! ward curve without letdown, letter following letter with | increasing intensity. In order to analyze his characters j Richardson needs to place them in unusual situations lead- j ing up to the highly dramatic seduction scene in both ! novels. ! j i It is in this aspect that Wolff and Deken differ ; significantly from Richardson, not because they lack the ability to invent dramatic situations but because they feel; that theirs is the better approach from a psychological i point of view. They had stated in their foreword that they| could have easily invented complex dramatic situations. Iti is evident from their writings, however, that they are : convinced that one can make a more profound analysis of the soul when the character is at rest, in her natural sur roundings and in every day situations than in some highly dramatic confrontation. It is this, an aspect of Wolff and Deken never explored by a critic, in which they become forerunners of some aspects of nineteenth century realism such as the predeliction for the stressing of the ordinary aspects of experience and the "realism of the commonplace" as propounded by Flaubert and Howells. The best expression of this approach can be found in a letter from the widow Spilgoed to Mr. Blankaart, in 17^ which Mrs. Spilgoed briefs Sara’s guardian on the marriage 'prospects of her protege. ! I Het belang, dat zy stelt in ons meisje, zal my zeker excuseren, indien ik u nu of dan eens wat kleinigheden schrijf. Evenwel, ik geloof, mijnheer, dat men uit vele zogenaamde kleinigheden veel beter demands | karakter— doorgaand karakter— kan opmaken dan wel uit I sterker passages: omdat de ziel, als zij heftig bewogen i wordt, of al te bestudeerd werkt, minder op haarzelve : 1 kan beschouwd worden.5^ ! I ! Thus there exists a correlation between their concept ! i j of plot (no abductions, no violence, no earth-shaking ad- ! ventures) and their view of character. Whereas Rousseau, | in the second preface to Julie, had spoken of achieving | ' believability by focussing on what he called "evenements j [ ! : communs" and "personnages rares," Wolff and Deken go one j i :step further and limit themselves to common events and j : common characters, realizing that with such severe limit- I ations the entire weight and value and interest of the j novel would depend on the execution: ". . . de uitvoering zal alles moeten goed maken."65 There is ostensibly little plot in the novel, which ! 6^"The interest you have demonstrated in our girl will j definitely excuse me if I now and then write you some de tails. Indeed, I believe, dear Sir, that one can better ; fathom a character— the over-all character— from the many |so called minor incidents than from the stronger passages, because the soul in violent upheaval or under great duress, is less susceptible to be analyzed on its own merits." Sara Burgerhart. I, 216. ! 65»it , t everything will depend on the execution of jthe work." Sara Burgerhart. I, Foreword, xxxvi. 175 depends primarily on characterization for the value it | has, This is another instance in which Wolff and Deken, | abandoning the high exploits and marvellous adventures ! ! of the Dutch prose fiction up to this time, are forerunners | ! of later novels, in their focus on characters in familiar i i ! i routines and quotidian episodes. This is no mean feat, ! since, having chosen the epistolary form, they were forced j to limit themselves to the various "first person narrators" i | : of the lettersj thus they were restricted by the back ground and the more or less individual vocabulary and i | | style of the various letter writers. Still they managed ' |to create a gallery of the most lively and fascinating j ;characters. i J Unlike Cornelia Wildschut, whose situation resembles Clarissa's in many ways, Sara Burgerhart is an original ! I creation and therefore perhaps one of the finest characters | created by Wolff and Deken. To be sure she does have a | few things in common with Clarissa» she is young, innocent, and inexperienced. Her only relative tries to impose a ! way of life repugnant to her and she is waylaid by a ‘Scoundrel, an abbreviated copy of Lovelace, who tries to ;force her into becoming his mistress. From this basic i jframework, reminiscent of Clarissa, there emerges, however, Ian entirely different character. As has been suggested before, Sara is a lively, witty 176 young girl with a sparkling sense of humor and she is j endowed with a generous quantity of common sense and [ spontaneity, qualities which are lacking in Clarissa and | Pamela. It is Sara's self-confidence and common sense ! | I which give this novel such an entirely different tone and ! ! i plot structure. The plot of Pamela and Clarissa is pred- j I i j icated on the lack of resolution and common sense of the j i I heroines. Pamela could have handed in her resignation and gone home with her chastity preservedj Clarissa managed to fall, proudly and virtuously, into every trap Lovelace | i : I prepared for her. While in London she had the means and ! j the opportunity to return home and throw herself upon the | ' mercy of the Harlowe family rather than face certain dis- J j i honor at the hands of Lovelace. It is this lack of common sense that, on the one hand, weakens the credibility of the heroine and, on the other, enables Richardson to make ia protracted in-depth study of every possible nuance in i i the emotional life of his heroines. By the very fact that ! Sara is quick-witted, the possibility of a long, drawn-out, dramatic confrontation is obviated. She refuses to be used i : by anyone. When Suzanna Hofland and her fellow "fijnen" ! are gorging themselves on a sumptuous meal, Sara is served j the leftovers and is asked to prepare a dessert of thin !pancakes, which she promptly eats herself and then returns Iio the table. When the time for dessert arrives, Suzanne asks i i Waar bennen de flensjes, Saartje? I Die bennen in mijn maag, tante. I Snap, mijn servet neergegooid . . . en het onweer op | mijne kamer ontweken.66 I When, later on, the atmosphere of pious hypocrisy becomes j too stifling, she locks up the maid and flees. Judging by I Sara's previously established initiative, the villainous Mr. R. has little chance of success when he takes Sara to the "estate of a friend" to see some exotic flowers. In deed, Sara manages to elude his advances before he reaps j her maiden bloom. To a certain extent Sara and her confidante Anna : Willis are the counterparts of Clarissa and Anna Howe, ex- ! cept that some of the characteristics are reversed. Anna Willis is overly prudent and careful and reflects con- i ventional morality in all her judgments and advice to her friend, whereas Sara has some of the wit and daring of ! I Anna Howe. Sara could well tell Anna Willis in the words of Anna Howe to Clarissa, . . I am fitter for this world | than youi you for the next than me— that's the differ- i | 66"Where the pancakes, Sara? | They is in my stomach, aunt., | Quickly, I threw my napkin down and went to my room to i escape the thunderstorm." Sara Burgerhart. I, 25. j (Suzanna speaks in a colloquial language--"bennen" is a j bastard form of the verb "zijn" to be . This colloquial- ' ism is, satirically, echoed by Sara. "Where is" seems ; to be the best way to render this). 178 ence .”^7 | In each letter Anna expresses her fear for Sara’s | moral well-being and takes umbrage at everything Sara does j that falls even slightly outside the scope of what is j I ! deemed proper for a bourgeois puritan girl. j ! After Sara has escaped from the clutches of Suzanne j ! Hofland she relates to Anna the pleasure of buying, for the i ! ! | first time in her life, the latest French fashions, the de-j light in a game of cards and the enjoyment of meeting and I conversing with a young man of her age. Anna’s answer is | I typical of the tone of most of her letters, and it is in- j i } i teresting to note that, even though the novel is education-j ! i i al and meant to keep adolescent young girls in line, Anna I does not represent the viewpoint of the authors* Her kind ! of moralizing is rather seen as an expression of a conven- ! ! tional, mediocre mind in sharp contrast to Sara, every one | of whose statements and actions is based upon personal con victions. A few passages from Anna's reply to Sara’s let ter will ilustrate Anna’s character: Ik merk, uit uwen laatsten, dat uw lot geheel veranderd j is: uwe kleeding, uwe verkeering, uwe levenswijs, I alles, is veranderd, uitgenomen uw goed, onschuldig hart! Vol vrees voor dat hart schrijf ik d e z e n . 6 8 i j I ^Richardson, Clarissa. I, 64. | 68»j notice from your last letter that your situation | has changed completely: your clothing, your choice of I company, your mode of living, everything has changed ex- ! cept your good, innocent heart! I am writing you this full j of fear for that heart.” Sara Burgerhart. I, 59-60. 179 She continues questioning the propriety of Sara's various ' activities, such as her dressing according to the latest ; fashion, her playing at cards and her meetings with the | petit maitre Jacob Bruriier, ending with the exhortations I Het kan zijn, dat gij thans veel gezonder wordt, net is j ook waar, dat uitspanningen dien schat helpen behouden; j maar, kan men goud niet te duur koopen? Ik vrees voor ! een zedelyke ziekte, gy zult u overladen met mer- j i maken . . . .°9 j i Sara, on the other hand, has few of these conventional j qualms and her self-assured, witty statements differ great- i ly from those of the often plaintive Richardsonian heroines.! 1 Characteristic is a letter to Anna describing her visit to ! ! the theater with her friends Aletta and Jacob Brunier: | Daar hebt gij immers niets tegen? Ik kon U wel wijs ! maken, dat ik er ging om mijn Fransch te onderhouden, J doch dan jok ik U wat voor. Neen, ik ging er met geen ; ander oogmerk, dan om eens een Fransche comedie te zien speelen. Wel, Naatje, ik raad u sterk aan om, voor gij ! van staat verandert, er ook eens heen te gaan. En zoo | dit, gelijk mijn tante zegt, de tente des Satans is, dan moet ik U maar zeggen, dat hij als un homme de gout en comme il faut gelogeerd is! Ik zag les Femmes savantes spelen, een stuk van den grooten Moli&res mijn genoegen was groots alles, dacht mij, was natuur, Het karakter van Chrysale smaakt mij; maar dat 'excusez moi, monsieur, je n'entends pas du greq,' hoe bekend ik daarmede ben, had al het aantrekkelijke der nieuwigheid, toen het werd uitgesproken door eene schone jonge actrice, wier talenten men toejuichte.7° 1 69”it may be true that you are becoming much healthier | now; it is also true that entertainments may help maintain J that treasure; cannot the price for that gold, however, ; become too high? I fear for a moral disease; you will I overburden yourself with entertainment." Sara Burger- | hart. I, 60. 70”You don't object to that jjgoing to see a French | comedy] do you? I could make you believe that I went down 180 In comparison with Clarissa, Sara thus gains in credibility what she loses in depth of emotion and perfec- ition of character. Wolff and Deken wrote for the large i j audience of Dutch bourgeois ladies whose parents or grand- I parents had become rich and powerful during Holland's I 1 j i Golden Age. The eighteenth century saw much of this am- | } i ! bition and sense of purpose vanish. With their affluence j | I |assured, Dutch bourgeois retired to their mansions along j the Amsterdam canals and indulged in all the frills and fads that filtered down from France. It was to prevent I j . i i young ladies from immersing themselves in these superficial ! i j ;pleasures and to give them some sense of direction, that ! !Wolff and Deken created the character of Sara. All the j major characters in the novel are businessmen or sons, J i |daughters, servants, or widows of businessmen, enabling I I the majority of readers to identify closely with Sara and |her social circle. Whereas Clarissa reminds one of the 'heroic characters of a drama by Corneille, Sara lacks this there to brush up on my French, but then I'd only be lying !to you. No, I went for no other purpose than to see a |French comedy performed. Well, Anna, I suggest strongly to you, before you change your status, go and see one too. ;And if, as my aunt suggests, this is the tent of Satan, Ithan I can only tell you that he is lodged as un homme de jgoftt and comme il faut. I saw Les Femmes savantes. a play Iby the famous Moliferes my enjoyment was greati everything, jl thought, was in accordance with nature. I like the char acter of Chrysale, but that •excusez moi, monsieur, je n'entends pas du greq,' how well I may know this line, had all the excitement of being new, when recited by a beautiful young actress, whose talents were applauded." Sara Burgerhart. I, 118-119. 181 | heroic stature and becomes in her everyday aspects a fore- ! runner of the realistic characters of the later Dutch i novels. i | With the creation of Sara, Wolff and Deken became I | pacesetters for the concept of verisimilitude as opposed to j | the earlier criterion of credibility in literature. Fran- j ! I icois Jost discusses in detail the difference between these 'two terms, showing that the novelists of the Enlightenment i ! | aimed for the truth-like quality of verisimilitude which ; j !was achieved if the reader had to admit that the narrative | I I 'not only could be true but must indeed be true. The cred- j j ibility of the earlier novels, on the other hand, was j | i achieved when "l'enchantement se produisait en transferant ! ^ \ d'emblee le spectateur . . . dans un monde merveilleux et lointain . . . ."71 Francois Jost discusses Richardson*s i !works as having verisimilitude. In comparison with Sara, however, Richardson's characters, particularly Clarissa and Grandison, are endowed with such superhuman virtues that, though they may be credible, they do not fully meet the |requirements of verisimilitude which, according to Jost* I . . . ckde aux tendances syllogistiques de 1'esprit | humain. Truth-like, wahrscheinlich. vraisemblable. supposent qu'une intelligence proc&de a la verification! 71 / Franpois Jost, "Le Roman epistolaire et la Technique narrative au XVIIIe Siecle," in Comparative Literature: I Matter and Method, ed. A. Owen Aldridge (Urbana, 111., j1969)* p. 176. on arrive k la conclusion que ^el fait narre dans le roman, ressemblant a la v^rite, pourrait bien etre ! vrai, doit l'Stre, l'est.72 j Sara, on the other hand, is very vraisemblablei there is | nothing extreme or unusual about her, for every reader ! would know dozens of girls endowed with similar character- ; istics, placed in similar circumstances. ! j Sara is also more harmonious as a character than her ; I I Richardsonian counterparts. This concept of harmony in its| many applications was widely discussed in intellectual J circles towards the end of the eighteenth century, and it i ! was felt that harmony in the universe should find its re- i i i flection in a harmony of the opposing tendencies within j ; i i j man. Advocating such harmony Schiller had pointed out in j i 17807^ that in the past the importance of either the spir- j ; it or the senses, duty or inclination had been overemphas- | i^zed and that too often the senses were considered as a i hindrance in man's flight to perfection. Schiller char- ! acterizes this trend of thought as nothing more than a . . . Verirrung des Verstandes, ein Wirkliches Extremum, das deft einen Teil des Menschen allzu enthusiastisch j herabwuerdigt und uns in den Rang idealischer Wesen erheben will, ohne zugleich unserer Menschligkeit zu i entladen.™ | 72Jost, p. 176. i ^ F r i e d r i c h Schiller, "Versuch ueber den Zusammenhang ! der tierischen Natur des Menschen mit seiner Geistigen," 1 in Saemtliche Werke (Munchen, i960), V, 2^9-315. ^Schiller, "Versuch ueber den Zusammenhang . . . ,” p. 290. 183 Familiar as they were with the European currents of ! thought, Wolff and Deken must have been aware of Schiller's j theories on harmony, which gave them new insights not : accessible to Richardson. As a consequence all the major i | characters in Sara Burgerhart exemplify this concept, I which was to capture the imagination of artists and philos-; ; ophers in the last decades of the eighteenth century. The I ; i I fact that Wolff and Deken consciously created harmonious, i I i balanced characters is made clear in their critical writ- ! : ing. In discussing contemporary novelists such as Crebill-j I i t i on, Sterne and Gellert they find fault with their extremes ' i I in characterization, statingt ! i i Veelen deezer Schryvers verhoogen den Mensch tot eene j j Volkoraenheid, hier onbereikbaar. Veelen stooten hem in j den keten der weezens zo diep ter neder, dat snoodheid 1 en onreinheid maar zelden dermaate kunnen woeden. Wie | is bekwaam om de eerste voorbeelden te volgen? Wie is er i verplicht toe? De laatsten staan in geen verband meer met onsj zy zyn niet uit onsj alles is daar vreemd.75 I j Even though this seems to apply equally to Clarissa and | iLovelace, they explicitly exclude Richardson's novels from their verdict. ! , '-'"Many of these writers elevate man to a perfection junattainable here. Many place him down so low in the chain of being that wickedness and immorality can rarely rage to such an extent. Who is able to follow the example of the former? Who is even obliged to do so? The latter ones have no relevance to usj they are not from among usj everything there is alien." Willem Leevend. I, Preface, xvii. The Realism of Richardson and Wolff and Deken The realism of Sara Burgerhart is similar to the real- : istic approach of Richardson. In so far as Richardson's i approach is a definite innovation in fiction, the similar- ; ity of Wolff and Deken's technique indicates indebtedness. ! Their use of realism, and that of Richardson, may be called! a technique because of its basic contrast with that prin- i ! ciple of the nineteenth century realists, that exact imita tion of reality is sufficient justification for art. For I Richardson, Wolff and Deken, imitation of reality was, in- . j j stead, a means to moral instruction. The term "realism" covers so many concepts that it is I i ; necessary to clarify first what is meant in the context of ; ; the novels under consideration. The term has nothing in i common with the realism of those medieval scholastic : philosophers who insisted on the reality of the universals, | not even as adapted by modern Thomists who have modified this principle to a position between the Nominalists and ! the Realists.76 The realism of Richardson and Wolff-Deken, rather, is ; that noted by Watt and Mme de Stael as referred to in the 76MUniversala non sunt solum nomina nec sunt meri con- ceptus nullo modo naturas rerum exhibentes." Carolo Boyer, S.J., Cursus Philosophise. I (Rome, 1937)» 219. ] 18^ 185 j beginning of this paper* Richardson marks the change from ! the objectivity of classical literature to the subjectivity of modern literature. Whereas the characters of earlier literature had often been ideal types, embodying ideal I characteristics (Achilles, Aeneas, Beowolf, Phedre, Can- | i I 1 i dide) moving in a generalized setting, or characters pre- j sented only in great detail during crucial situations in j ! • ! their lives, Richardson's characters exhibit a unique in- j dividuality, an individuality characterized and expressed by the exhaustive detailed description of the character in j : i ! every conceivable circumstance and situation. Francis Jeffrey, in the Edinburgh Review of 180^, suggests that j ! this exhaustive delving into the private experience of the ; character is one of Richardson's greatest achievements* Other writers avoid all details that are not necessary ' or impressive .... The consequence is that we are only acquainted with their characters in their dress of ceremony, and that, as we never see them except in those critical circumstances, and those moments of strong emotion, which are but of rare occurrence in real life, we are never deceived into any belief of their reality, and contemplate the whole as an exaggerated and dazzling illusion . . . . With Richardson, we slip, invisible, into the domestic privacy of his characters and hear and | see everything that is said and done among them, whether it be interesting or otherwise, and whether it gratify our curiosity or disappoint it . . . . We feel for Richardson's characters , as for our private friends and ! acquaintances, with whose whole situation we are famil- j iar .... In this art Richardson is undoubtedly without an equal, and, if we except De Foe, without a competitor, we believe, in the whole history of liter ature .'1 7?as quoted by Ian Watt, in The Rise of the Novel. 186 It is this same stress on the everyday experiences of the ! character which is so typical of the realism of Richardson I and Wolff-Deken. i This stress on the importance of the detail, the I minutiae. rather than on the large stroke, focuses on the | 1 | description of psychological reality rather than physical j i 1 i reality in the works of Richardson. In view of the fact i I ! that it has been argued by critics such as Clara Thomson and Joseph Texte that Richardson is a master of physical | i : description, it is necessary to re-examine this point. i ; The passages exhibited by such critics to prove Rich- | ! j | ardson's power in physical description are indeed impress- ! i | ively realistic in their detailed description. One of ! i i them, Belford's description of Rowland’s house, begins: ! ; A horrid hole of a house, in an alley they call a court, | stairs wretchedly narrow, even to the first floor rooms: ! and into a den they led me, with broken walls, which had been papered, as I saw, by a multitude of tacks, and some i torn bits held on by the rusty heads. ! The other passage frequently quoted is the well-known des- i cription of the death-bed scene of Mrs. Sinclair.Both ! Studies in DeFoe. Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley and | Los Angeles, 1964) , P- 175* ^ Clarissa. VI, Letter LXVI. The letter is quoted al most in its entirety by Clara Thomson in Samuel Richard son (New York, 1970), pp. 253-25^, where it is adduced as proof of Richardson's realism. I ^Clarissa. VIII, Letter XLI. Selections from this letter are used by Joseph Texte in Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Cosmopolitan Spirit in Literature, trans. J.W. Matthews (New York,- i970)", p. 1?8 ff. 187 passages are taken from letters by Belford, who apparently j 1 was endowed by his creator with a good eye for detail. j These two instances, however, are exceptions. One can j j open Clarissa at random to realize that a most striking I characteristic is the absence of detailed description of j the physical environment. In the first volume of Clarissa.; ; for example, there is frequent mention of the heroine's j : predilection for the garden, the ivy summer house and the cascade in the rear of the garden. Yet these places and ; objects are, in spite of their frequent mention, never des-j i cribed in any detail. When Pamela or Clarissa travel— and i ’ particularly Clarissa moves about quite frequently— the j i I reader, who is made aware of the heroine's emotional stress! f ! i during the trip, knows exactly what she feels but never j | realizes what she sees. Almost all descriptions of places, rooms, and people is given in the barest outline. A room | is called "handsome” and that is all the description we i get. What do the coaches, the streets, the Harlowe estate, London, St. Albans look like? The reader will never know. ! Even the description of persons is kept vague. The read- ; er hardly knows what physical qualities make either Pamela or Clarissa so desirable except for a few general remarks on the part of Lovelace (which would apply to all but the ! most skimpily endowed women) when he finds Clarissa in her | | negligee after the famous "fire scene." 188 Even the passages adduced as proof of Richardson's !realistic description are not great feats of descriptive |power. The passage in which Richardson gives us Mrs. Sin- i clair's deathbed scene presents an unimaginative picture j iand does not at all exhaust the descriptive potential the | j scene has to offer. The "ladies” surrounding Mrs. Sin- j | clair's bed are all pictured as being ”. . .in shocking j ! dishabille, and without stays.” Yet both phrases approach | the scene negatively, indicating what the women do not i ! waerj the phrase does not draw a picture. Rowland's | | ; house is presented with a similar, general description with I ; i frequent use of words like "worm-eaten," "horrid," and j "wretched,” There is little, if any, objective descrip- ! i ! tioni no colors are mentioned in either passage. The main i | interest is subjective! it is purely psychological. Any I ! physical description merely sketches the necessary back- i I ground against which the psychological drama unfolds. Thus j having described Mrs. Sinclair's deathbed and the ladies surrounding her, Richardson zeroes in on his main interest, Mrs. Sinclair's mental statei i j The old wretch had once put her leg out by her rage and violence, and had been crying, scolding, cursing, ever j since the preceding evening, that the surgeon had told | her it was impossible to save heri and that a mortific- | ation had begun to show itself . . . her apprehensions j of death, and her antipathy to the thoughts of dying, were so strong that their Lthe surgeons * 3 imposture had not the intended effect, and she was raving, crying, 189 cursing and even howling, more like a wolf than a human creature . . . I Wolff and Deken approach their novel with a similar i | single-minded interest in psychological reality. While ; much of the action takes place in Amsterdam, the background ; is kept so vague and the interest so centered on the em- j I otions and the mental state of the letter writer that, with! i | | a single change of name, the locale could have been Rotter-! i dam or The Hague. Similarly, the many businessmen who ! figure in the novel belong vaguely to the world of commerce.; i Yet the reader has no idea whether Mr. Blankaart, Mr. Edel-i ! ' | ing or others are traders in coffee, books, or stocks. The! actions, thoughts and outlooks of all these characters, however, are typical of the particular class of people I : i whose viewpoints they represent. ! The characters in Sara Burgerhart move about with as i ; little interest in their surroundings as the characters in i ; Richardson's novels. Except for one brief mention of a sidewalk cafe in Paris, Mr. Blankaart never makes any reference to that fascinating city. Hendrik Edeling i travels abroad, but, as his mind is only on business and love, he does not give the reader any physical description, j Only Willem Willis, a one time suitor of Sara, in a letter I to his mother, takes the time to look around* ; Ik ben zeer vermoeid, door ettelijke dagen op postwagens i j I 80Clarissa, VIII, Letter XLI. 190 : te hebben moeten zitten, en bevind my thans een goed eind in Duitsland. De stad heet ______ . Hare ligging, ' zoals ik bij het helder maanlicht bemerkte, is bekoor- lijk, het oord heerlijk, en de vermaarde Rijnstroom ! bruist langs hare overoude muren. Morgen ga ik de J heren kooplieden . . . spreken . . . i His description is quite general, and once it is presented in its barest outline, Willis briefly discusses business, j 1 I j and then turns to an extensive examination of his emotional! | j dilemmas whether to follow his heart or his head in his ! i ! ; relationship with Sara. He concludes, j Zou de liefde, die alleredelste harstocht, als zij eene goede keuze doet, mij verleiden om iets tegen Uwen j beredeneerden wil aan te g a a n ? ° 2 : . . . i Thus Wolff and Deken share with Richardson this interest in| ; i ; the psychological landscape to the virtual exclusion of I I I physical detail. We must surmise that Wolff and Deken studied their master well, i Indeed, it is likely that Richardson is their master rather than any other previous prose writer because it is I only in Richardson's works that we find this limited physical description combined with a single-minded interest 81"I am very tired, having had to spend several days ; in coaches, and I am presently quite a distance into Ger- ! many. The city is called ______ . I noticed in the moon- I light that it is beautifully situated, the place itself is ; lovely, and the famous river Rhine eddies around her ancient walls. Tomorrow I will go and see the gentlemen traders . . . ." Sara Burgerhart. I, 166. 82«would love, that noblest of all passions, when she ! has made a good choice, tempt me to go at all against your I well reasoned will?" Sara Burgerhart, I, 167. I in the exploration of the emotions. As mentioned before, ! this similarity in approach between Richardson and Wolff- ! I Deken does not by itself necessarily prove the latter's de pendence on Richardsoni it is the cumulative aggregation : of evidence, of which this is only a part, which leads to the conclusion of influence. ! I ! ! This influence on the part of Richardson is naturally j i | 1 not exclusive. Wolff and Deken were familiar with all i I major European writers and it is likely that the authors j assimilated some techniques and approaches from various j writers. Yet, if we make even a surface comparison between1 I the realism of Wolff and Deken and that of such writers as j i Daniel Defoe or Jean Jacques Rousseau it becomes obvious that there is little similarity. Defoe's realism is char- j acterized by a strong emphasis on things, on exhaustively detailed physical description including the exact number of nails used in the construction of his shelter. Neither can a case be made for a discernable influence of Rousseau's Julie on Sara. It may be true that Rousseau does exhibit marked interest in the psychological state of his charact ers, yet, at the same time the development of the plot is continually interrupted by lengthy descriptions of la vie rustique in order to demonstrate its charm and its benificent effects on the moral life of his characters. Psychological analysis of a character in prose fiction, jhowever, was not a completely new innovation. Martin Turnell refers to La Princesse de Cleves. written more than i | a century before Sara Burgerhart. as a ’ ’modern psycholog- | I ical n o v e l ” ® 3 and rightly so. Yet, in the case of La j j Princesse de Cleves. only one aspect of the heroine's innerj I life, her relationship to the Due de Nemours, is explored | and thus, here too, applies Francis Jeffrey's criticism that 1 we see the character only ” ... in those critical circum- : stances and those moments of strong emotion, which are but of rare occurrence in real life . . . ." I i i i ; I it was Richardson who first made his characters anal- ! ! yze, discuss and weigh the motivations of all their actions.j Pamela and Clarissa report in detail of their struggle to ; i I find solutions to the dilemmas in which they find them- ; selves. The conflict within them is that they are torn be tween society's moral code on the one hand and the circum- i stances in which they find themselves combined with their ! own inclinations on the other hand. Richardson's novels lack the more profound personal or even religious motiva- ! tion which could have simplified their dilemma. Lip ser- i I vice is given to Christian morality but frequently it is just that— lip service. The anguish caused by the moral dilemmas of the heroines is mostly based on their desire | to do those things, to conform to those virtues which are i | 83The Novel in France (New York, 1958), p. ^8. j 193 generally accepted by their relatives, friends, and peers. The impression is given that the concept of virtue, sexual | virtue, is as intimately connected with property value and j I the settlement of estates as it is with Christian moral I I values. | The struggle in Wolff and Deken*s heroine, Sara, is | of a different nature. Sara is exposed to a number of I moral standards ranging from the extreme fundamentalism of the "Fijnen" to the natural religion of the French phil- ' j osophes as expounded by Cornelia Hartog and from the con- j | i |ventional accepted moral code as suggested to her by the j | ! widow Buigzaam to the view of emotional tranquility as the j j highest good as propounded by her guardian Mr. Blankaart. I The result is that Sara has to make up her own code, which I is based on biblical morality tempered or, as is suggested, !strengthened by reason. Throughout the novel, instances abound where Sara has to face moral decisions. She has been told that the French itheater is the home of the devil. She goes anyway and 1 comes to the conclusion that instead a play by Moliere is a I valuable aesthetic experience. Having been indoctrinated |in the "proper" place of a woman in society, she decides i |that she cannot accept society's norm and in a letter to i I Willem Willis she explains whyj i Wil ik eens zeggen, hoe het eigenlijk zit? Wij meisjes worden, meest alien, op een zeer kinderachtige wijze 19^ i opgevoed. Men schijnt omtrent het bestaan onzer zielen als rechtzinnige muzelmannen te denken. Ons postuur, onze kleur, onze houding, trekken al de zorgvuldigheids | men leert ons de kunst van behagen, en hierom krijgen wij dans- en zangmeesters, en hierom moeten wij 't Fransch, 't ombre leren, enz.8^ | She continues to say that girls are of equal intelligence | as men and that, ironically, their future lords and mas- j ters, supposedly endowed with a superior intelligence, j I j I idolize women for these nonsensical trifles. i 1 i Sara's internal struggles, reported in her letters, j are therefore different from those of Pamela and Clarissa ; i I since Sara does not endeavor to meet the standards or the j ! i code as accepted by society but is rather trying to fashionj ! ! her own code based on a biblical Christianity and her own j : reasoned insights. Wolff and Deken's psychological realism! ! is thus a step beyond that of Richardson, particularly if we consider that Richardson's novels with their plethora i ! of intrigues, machinations, forgery of letters and other | stratagems are still very reminiscent of the novel of adven ture. There is no incident in Sara Burgerhart that could i not have happened to any young girl of that period or any i |other period. 8 * * ' " Would you like me to tell you what is really going on? We girls, at least most of us, are brought up in a most childish manner. They seem to look upon the existence of our souls as would orthodox Muslims. Our figure, our |complexion, our deportment are the subject of the most care ful attention; we are taught the art of pleasing and for that reason we have song- and-dance teachers, and have to learn French, to play omber, etc.” Sara Burgerhart. I, 96-97. 195 | We may thus credit Wolff and Deken with a psychological realism, learned from Richardson but innovative in its ! restriction to everyday events. j Innovative, too, is Richardson's use of middle or low- j er class people rather than high nobility. There is a ; difference, however, between Richardson's choice of char- i i acters and the choice of the Dutch ladies. This difference | ! has already been discussed under the heading "characteriz ation," where we spoke about Jost's distinction between j ; credibility and verisimilitude. The gallery of characters J ! created by Wolff-Deken is wider and more varied than Rich- 1 ; i I ' ardson's, The latter's characters, particularly in Glar- j : issa. belong to a leisure class. The Harlowes, the Solmes,! i the Lovelace family, all have made their fortune. They may not be of high noble birth but they do belong to the landed | I gentry. Wolff and Deken, on the other hand, place their I characters in the solid middle class. Sara has an inher itance coming to her but no estate of any great value. Mrs. Spilgoed can hardly make ends meet. Mrs. Willis is a 1 widow in similar circumstances and is delighted that her j ! daughter Anna will marry a small-town minister. The many | businessmen in the novel are hard working, with little time I for leisure. In addition, Wolff and Deken'paint a variety I of other characters on the periphery of society, such as | the whole subculture of the "Fijnen," the petits maitres, the ministers, the widows, the femmes savantes and the ser vant girls. i J The presence of these very identifiable characters i irequired additional skill on the part of the authors in j their portrayal of reality. The largely middle class |audience that would not examine too closely the verisimili- ! tude of the adventures and problems of a Lady X, a Comte j I i de Y or of the very well-to-do such as the Harlowes, would j i : I : place the description of the daily life and emotions of ; their own peers under intense scrutiny. And, indeed, the i ! | , psychological realism of Sara Burgerhart can bear that j i i 'scrutiny. Use of Sentiment j ; i Richardson's novels are frequently regarded as sent- j imental, and most literary reference books classify his ; work as such.®^ There is, however, a difference between I 9 w ! sensibility and sentimentality. Richardson's novels, with their focus on the analysis of the feelings of the char- ; acters, may be called novels of sensibility. The term j "sentimental" should not be used in the case of Richardson's ; works since the term implies an excess of unwarranted feel- i ; °^e.g. Thrall-Hibbard, Handbook to Literature and I Cassel's Encyclopedia of Literature speak of Richardson as j a sentimental novelist. i ; 196 197 ; ing, as when . . . tenderness, compassion, naive faith in human nature have pervaded the work in such a way as to produce a j pathetic rather than an ethical experience.®® i i |There is no such excess of pathos in Richardson's novels. |The only time that Richardson seems deliberately to evoke I | strong emotional response is in the funeral scene of Clar- j l |issa. Mr. Belford, present at that funeral, expresses his j !emotions stronglys j ; i You crowd me, Sir, methinks, into the silent slow pro cession-- Now with the sacred bier, do I enter the aw ful porchj now measure I with solemn paces, the vener- 1 able aisle» now, ambitious of a relationship with her, | placed in a pew near to the eye-attracting coffin, do I ; listen to the moving eulogyj now, through the buz of ! gaping* eyeswoln crowds, do I descend into the clammy v a u l t . I ' I This excursion into pathos is balanced, however, by the ; I | immediately following discussion of the "discharge of i funeral expenses" and the "re-imbursement of sums advanced." Wolff and Deken are not unlike Richardson in their I t I moderate use of sentiment. At the time that they were writing their novels in Holland, the cult of sentimental ity, the "Gefuhl ist Alles" syndrome, had already deeply ■ penetrated into Dutch thinking and writing, as it had in ; the rest of Europe. The works of Rhijnvis Feith had intro- I I duced the "man of feeling" to Holland. Wolff and Deken, ^Joseph T. Shipley, ed. Dictionary of World Liter- j ature (Totowa, N.J., 1966). Entry* "Sentimental" j ®7ciarissa, VIII, Letter XLVII. 198 however, remained squarely within the rationality of the Enlightenment, with the result that their concessions to | the vogue of sentiment are few and rare. Thus they fought this tide by opposing it in their critical writings, and not by exploiting sentiment in | their main novel, Sara Burgerhart. In the preface to S Willem Leevend they make the observation* Weinige schriften worden door jonge lieden met zoveel drifts gezogt en doorloopen, dan zulke die de gevoeligheid opwekken . . . ,88 | and then warn of the dangers inherent in sentimentality: | I it may degenerate into a moral disease, it may lead the j j reader to wasteful melancholy and it may undermine the in- ! born optimism of young people. They make it very clear I | that they do not believe in exploiting the feelings of their readers and that feeling, sentiment, is not, by it self, a reliable wellspring for action. They do not ob ject, however, to a judicious, moderate use of sentiment | when used appropriately as Richardson had done: ! i Men versta my wel! Ik stel geene onvergelykelyke Clar issa— dat meesterstuk van een groot men--op de lyst van I schadelyke boeken. De traanen, die men stort over haare | rampen, verzwakken ons niet; nooit voelt men zo zeer i het vermogen der deugd, dan in haare z e g e p r a a l . ° 9 88«Few writings are so avidly sought and rushed through by young people as those which arouse their feel ings." Willem Leevend. I, i. ®9»Don't misunderstand me! I do not place the in comparable Clarissa— that masterpiece of a great man— on the list of harmful books. The tears we shed over her disasters do not weaken usj never do we feel so intensely 199 It took courage and artistic integrity on the part | of Wolff and Deken to go against the stream and follow ! Richardson's footsteps in the moderate application of j ; sentiment. The following passage, from the novel Julia ! j "by Rhijnvis Feith, published less than a year after Sara i ! Burgerhart. illustrates the kind of sentimentality that | was to become so popular among Dutch readers* i I 0 Mijne Julia! Ik ben de eenigste ellendeling niet, j die hier zijn pad met traanen doorweekt. Er zijn ongelukkiger wezens dan ik ben, ongelukkiger, duizendmaal ongelukkiger— Ik vond hier onder eene geheele schaare van gevoellooze menschen een gevoelig | hart.90 I Sentimentality in a work of literature is usually j associated with the concepts of nature, love, death and i religion. It is on these subjects that the writers of j sentimental works tend to dwell at length. An analysis of | a few of these instances in Sara Burgerhart will demon- | i strate the restricted use of sentiment in that novel. The i I j plot of the novel hinges on that most intense of human | feelings, love, allowing ample opportunity to let the ■ the power of virtue as in her triumph." Willem Leevend. j I, ii. 9®"Oh, my Julia! I am not the only wretch who soaks his path with tears. There are others, more miserable than I, more miserable, thousand times more miserable— I found here, among the masses of unfeeling people, only one sensitive soul." Julia, ed. M.C. van den Toorn (The Hague, n.d.), p. ky. Feith's Julia was to be reprinted four times in the next ten years. -----------——— — — — I 200 characters luxuriate in the pleasure of that delicate j feeling. Instead the authors return, time and time again, 1 I I to their main point* emotions should be restrained by i j reason. Hendrik Edeling, in love with Sara, does admit I this love in stock sentimental phrases* ". . . nu vliegt | | mij het bloed in 't aangezicht, dan zie ik zo bleek als ! de muur."91 gu^ when he informs his father about his love j : i i 1 | for Sara, he simply tells him* J i j Mijne jaren en mijn werkzame aard hebben mij gesteld j boven die dwaze drift, die men doorgaans liefde noemt. j : Mijne liefde is wel niet Platonisch, maar zij is echter i ! mijner reden ondergeschikt » zij is bedaard, sterkj j ; zij rust op de innerlijke waarde van haar, die mijne J | oogen streelt . . . .92 | Similarly when Willem Willis, a suitor of Sara, learns I that he has been rejected by her, he does not leave for the j | mountains or decide to roam in an ancient forest. He | leaves, instead, on a planned business trip and takes little ! i time to bemoan his ill fortune. Sara and Anna do shed tears j ! but then promptly reason prevails, as happens in one of ! Anna's letters after she has had a particularly traumatic 91". . . now the blood rushes to my face, then my face i is as pale as the wall . . . ." Sara Burgerhart. I, 72. 92«p/jy age an(j my active nature have placed me above that foolish passion generally called love. My love, to be true, is not Platonic, but yet it is subservient to my reasonj it is calm, strongj it is based upon the inner worth of her who is the delight of my eyes.” Sara Burgerhart. II, 65. 201 experience. She reports to her closest friend: Er onstonden zoovele en zo strijdige aandoeningen in mijne ziel, dat ik, in spijt en droefheid enige tranen j stortte, die bij groote druppels, evenals in een onweer, I nedervielen. Daarop wat bedaard, vloeiden zij bij zachte ! stroomenj mijne onstuimige droefheid werd stil en ; gelaten: de driften zwegen, 't licht der rede brak ' door . . . .93 ! In their creation of harmonious characters, however, I | Wolff and Deken, though stressing the supremacy of reason, j i balance that supremacy with insistence on the importance ofj ' i ! a healthy emotional life. A number of the correspondents ! proudly admit that they are "gevoelig" (sensitive). Abra- j ; i I j I ham Blankaart, the hardened, no-nonsense businessman, re- ! j lates in a letter how he had to cry upon witnessing a j ! touching scene. He then launches upon a tirade against i j " . . . lompe heiblokken van kerels, die een man uitlachen, I als hem eens een losse traan ontvalt,"9^ and asserts the i ! importance of a sensitive heart. | Thus Wolff and Deken, in their judicious use of senti- i ment in Sara Burgerhart. again follow the path hewed out by their innovating predecessor Richardson, as they had done i 93»So many and such contradictory emotions unleashed | in my soul, that I shed some tears in sorrow and sadnessi j tears which descended in large drops as in a thundershow- j er. After I calmed down, the tears came in gentle streamsj my turbulent sadness became quiet and resignedj the passions slowed down, the light of reason broke through." Sara Burgerhart. I, 242. i 94". . , those uncouth blockheads who ridicule a man because he drops a tear now and then." Sara Burgerhart. II, 160. — I 202 | in their didactic aim, in their epistolary technique, in ! their characterization, and in their approach to realism. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION My study of the fortune of Richardson on the Dutch literary scene, as exemplified by the novel Sara Burger- j i i ! hart, was inspired by a few intriguing lines by McKillop* | I The persistence and importance of Richardson's in fluence in Holland are best illustrated not by scattered ! references but by the work of the distinguished novelists| Elisabeth Bekker Wolff and Agatha Deken. Though Wolff j j and Deken have been elaborately studied in Holland, they j have never received due honor in other countries. . . . j They follow Richardson not weakly and blindly . . . but deliberately and critically .... Sara Burgerhart, the | earliest and most important of the Wolff-Deken novels, i is perhaps the best example in European literature of the lightened Richardsonian novel, of the distinguished work executed almost entirely within the limits of the form Richardson had established.1 It is my hope that this study substantiates McKillop's perceptive remarks. The foregoing pages do indeed make it I clear that Richardson's influence, so profound in France I and Germany, was not less so in Holland, as is witnessed i I by the extensive critical comments, the high esteem for the name of Richardson, and the popularity of even the imitators I | ^Alan D. McKillop, Samuel Richardson Printer and i Novelist (Chapel Hill, 1936), pp. 266-267, I 203 2 0 * 4 - of his novels. Richardson’s decisive impact on Holland, it is clear, was due to a great extent to his principal translator Jo- j i hannes Stinstra who, though a preacher, went beyond adul- i ation and moral criticism to an excellent technical analy- ! i ( sis and appreciation of Clarissa as a serious and innova- | j tive work of art. j i ’ > While it is correct, as McKillop states in his eval- ! uation that Sara Burgerhart. the best of the Wolff-Deken novels, is executed "... within the limits of the form j i j | Richardson had established," it is also new. Indeed, I i Wolff and Deken followed Richardson in all the major as- ! pects that were innovative and pathfinding in Richardson’s novels, as is evidenced in their characterization, their i | approach to realism, their epistolary technique and their [ use of sentiment. To be sure, Sara Burgerhart does not | have the dramatic power of Clarissa since it is smaller in scope and since the very character of Sara, who does not feel inextricably bound to a moral code not of her i making, obviates the protracted struggle of Clarissa’s | "divided soul." Yet, Wolff and Deken make up for this lack ; by their feat of creating an entirely new national domestic | | in spite of the Richardsonian limitations they placed upon j themselves. They improved on Richardson’s technique by i | their restraint in moralizing and by their fresh approach 205 to psychological analysis. On the other hand, they did not ; fall into the tendency of other writers of the period of i presenting an excess of sentimentality. Their novel, like 1 j ; the characters they created, is well-balanced and harmon- : ious. j Another credit to their work— not fully explored in I this study— is that Sara Burgerhart transcends the level ofj ! mere conduct books, moral tracts or ladies novels: Wolff | | and Deken's creation is a novel of ideas, a microcosm of i eighteenth century Dutch society and at the same time a 1 synopsis of all the concepts of the Enlightenment as they ! i were current in Holland at the time. j Believing and writing that marriage is not the only ! i thing that is important for a young woman, the authors j : visualized, ahead of their time, a complete woman who ! could take issue with all the intellectual currents and be I discriminating enough to absorb or reject them. In their i work, long discussions occur on such issues as the rights of women, the value of the theater, religious tolerance, the deistic concept of virtue and the superiority of friendship over love. The novel is thus not only alive | through psychological penetration of character! it vibrates with the spirit and the issues of Wolff and j Deken's world. | The focus of the latter part of this study has been 206 on Richardson's Clarissa and Wolff-Deken's Sara Burgerhart: I ; there is general critical agreement that these are the ! masterpieces of the respective authors. We have briefly ! touched upon the weaknesses of Cornelia Wildschut as a work I | of fiction. Its major fault was that it copied Clarissa j i I too closely and thus became a mere imitation, bound to com-j i i pare unfavorably with the original. ! I i Willem Leevend, with its eight long volumes of letters] I was new in its conception— though Richardsonian in its : form— but has other shortcomings which make it less success-j i i i ful than Sara Burgerhart. It has been generally recognizedj that Willem Leevend does not have the perfection and unity ' : i of Wolff and Deken's first novel. Though in the first few i volumes of the novel we find some of the insights and the sustained characterization of Sara, the later volumes are i marred by an emphasis on theoretical discussions and ex cessive didacticism. These weaknesses may have been the reason that, in contrast to Sara Burgerhart. which was re published many times, Willem Leevend was never reprinted 1 again in toto.^ 2 Some of the weaknesses of Willem Leevend are satir ized in a two hundred and eighty page work entitled: Aanhangzel on de Historie van de Heer Willem Leevend (Appendix to the History of Willem Leevend). 1763. no publisher. The copy in my possession is leather bound and ! in the same format and type as the first edition of Wolff- j Deken*s Willem Leevend and marked IX Peel (Volume IX) of I this set. i The anonymous writer uses the pseudonym Willem de 20? | Yet, since Willem Leevend is mentioned so often together with Sara Burgerhart. the choice of the latter as the most j representative work of the two should be explained by say- i ing a few words about the former novel and its shortcom- | ings. i i The central character of the novel is Willem Leevend, i l 1 i an impetuous, impulsive hero, who is eased out of home and j i family business by his stepfather and sent to Leiden to i j study theology. In spite of the fact that he is pract- : ically engaged to be married to the respectable Christina i Helder, he allows his feelings for Lotje Roulin, the sister j of his landlord, to progress from friendship to love. j ; i Lotje, an orphan who, like Willem, never had parental i I guidance in her emotional life, cannot cope with her vio- ! lent emotions and dies young from a combination of unre- j quited love and tuberculosis. When one of Willem's fellow | boarders makes an insulting remark about Lotje, Willem i challenges him to a duel and wounds him fatally, an event which compells Willem to leave the country and roam around I Germany and France. After a number of adventures he re- Reedenaar (William the Reasoner or William the Talker). | The work begins with a letter from the Rev. Heftig, one of j the main characters in Willem Leevend. to the ladies Wolff and Deken. He tells them that he has not read Willem Leevend and proceeds to give his various reasons. Most of the "Appendix" is taken up by a two hundred page pseudo- ! theological novel satirizing the ideas of Wolff and Deken. I The approach is reminiscent of Sterne's Tristram Shandy. 208 turns home to marry his first love, Christina Helder. Willem's problems at Leiden are not restricted to his j emotional life. As a student of theology he also re- : examines traditional religious beliefs and practices and ! eventually comes into contact with a gentleman named i j i Jambres, who is a professed athiest. Willem initially i i j ' embraces many of his concepts and later repudiates them. j Willem's religious and emotional problems are the i subject matter of many of the letters written by two groups! | of correspondents. The older people, including Willem's ! ] | ' mother and the Reverend Heftig, try to steer Willem to- ' : wards the correct path. A group of young people sets an ! example for Willem by their own balanced and harmonious | : | i relationships. j ; ; The novel is thus mainly concerned with two issues i frequently debated in the last decades of the eighteenth I ! century: natural religion vs. biblical Christianity and ■ emotionalism vs. rationalism. The authors vehemently re jected both an exclusively rationalistic view of life and ! what they called the dictatorship of the emotions. In ' Sara Burgerhart these and other ideas were touched upon : but the characters remained alive and vibrant. In Willem | Leevend the exposition of doctrine, the didactical aims | tend to overshadow the character and, as Virginia Woolf and other authors and critics have suggested: it is to ex- 209 press character, not to preach doctrine that the novel has ! been evolved. j The Lotje Roulin episode was intended as a warning ; against the dangers of unbridled emotions and the pitfalls : of the cult of feeling. Even the name Lotje is reminiscent I of Goethe's Werther and the ensuing Wertherkrankheit. which! ! j | had also infected the Low Countries. In painting Willem's j i ! | character as a victim of unchecked emotionalism, the auth- j ors make him a caricature of the man of feelings l Hygend, vermoeid, bleek, beevend, knielde ik op haaren ; zerks myne oogen pynelyk droog heetj myn borst zo i bekneld, dat ik myn kamisool open rukte. Geen woord, geen zucht, konde zich doorgang bannen .... Myn ; angst, myne stikkende aandoeningen, dreeven weg, in eene | smeltende balzemende weemoedigheid. Ik zuchtte, ik stortte traanen? de naam, de lieve naam van myne Lotje, ! zweefde weder, zagt als myn adem zelf, over myne be- j weegende lippen.3 j ; The letters from Willem's elders advising him in his | emotional turmoil tend to be too didactic, too numerous i | and too long. Similarly, the letters dealing with relig- i ! ious problems frequently turn into theological tracts bury- 3»panting, exhausted, pale, shuddering I knelt on her I gravestone? my eyes burning, dry, painful? my chest so ; tight that I tore open my shirt. No word, no sigh could ! break its way out .... My anxiety, my suffocating ! emotions, floated off in a melting, soothing melancholy. I sighed, I shed tears? the name, the sweet breath of my Lotje wafted again, as soft as my own breath, over my mov ing lips." Elisabeth Wolff and Aagje Deken, Historie van den Heer Willem Leevend (Niet Vertaalt) (The Hague, 1784— 17S5), V, 11-12. 210 ing the characters under the mass of arguments and counter- ! arguments. Typical is a long letter from Willem to Jambres ! which, with almost Thomistic precision, sets out to refute ! point by point Jambres' views on God and then proceeds by systematically developing his own counterarguments.^ Sara Burgerhart thus remains the finest work by Wolff i i ; I and Deken> as such it rightfully has been considered the | ! first psychological novel, the first novel of ideas, in- i deed the first true novel in Dutch literature. As we have seen, the work's creators were inspired by and followed i the techniques of Samuel Richardson. His impact on the * ! continent and on Holland in particular therefore bore fruit; i ; beyond the popularity and critical response which has been : generally accorded to him. While it has not yet been explored in all its ramif- j i ications, the influence of Wolff and Deken on further Dutch i literature is undeniable: in the dominance of the domestic novel, in the ascendance of female novelists, in the con- 1 tinued use of rich idiomatic Dutch in fiction and in the emphasis on psychological analysis. Naturally this in fluence is reflected in major writers of fiction in the i nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The outstanding ex ample of Dutch early realism, Camera Obscura (1839) by | Nicolaas Beets echoes Wolff and Deken in its focus on ^Willem Leevend. V, 3^-kZ. 211 | domestic scenes and everyday events. The novel Ma.ioor i Frans (187*0 by Mrs. Bosboom-Toussaint goes beyond this j and even returns to Wolff and Deken's epistolary method. ! Those novels by Louis Gouperus set in the Hague such as i 1 Eline Vere (1889)» De Boeken der kleine Zielen (1901-1904) i ! ; and Van oude Menschen (1906), recreate domestic life in j | j ! a manner reminiscent of Sara Burgerhart. These works and j I many other Dutch novels bear the imprint of the legacy of j Wolff and Deken. Much of this legacy, willed first by Richardson to I 1 Europe, then by Wolff and Deken to Holland, was to shape the course of fiction in the future. To understand that course, to properly accept that legacy, students of Eur- 1 opean literature, students of the European novel, ought to ■ turn the pages of Sara Burgerhart as well as those of | I Clarissa. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Abkoude, Johannes van and Reinier van Arrenberg. Naamreg- | ! ister van de bekendste en meest in gebruik zvnde Nederduitse Boeken. 1600-1787. Rotterdam, 1788. | Algemeene Konst-en Letterbode. VI (1796), 1^1-1^2. i ! Algemeene Konst-en Letterbode. XXXXIX (Nov. 16, 1804), j ; 308- 309' . Amsterdamsche Courant (August 14, 1753). ! , “ " — " I ; Anon. De Geschiedenis van Sir Charles Grandison. Verkort, i trans. anon. Amsterdam, 1793* ! , i ' Anon. De Godvruchtige Hollandsche Schoonheid. Heeren- veen, 1759. I Anon. De Hollandsche Pamela. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 175^. I Anon. (Elisabeth Wolff). Holland in 't Jaar MMCCCCXL. ! Hoorn, 1777. : Anon. Pamela Bespiegeld. Amsterdam, 17^1. Anon. Pamela, Clarissa en Grandison verkort. Verbeterde | Uitgave. Amsterdam, 1605. Barbauld, Anna Laetitia, ed. The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson. 6 voli^i London, 1804. Beaumont, Marie La Prince de, De Nieuwe Clarisses eene waarachtige Geschiedenis. Utrecht, 1768. Blair, Robert. Gedachten over het Graf, van R. Blair, trans. Betje Wolff. Hoorn, 176^-. Boekzaal der Geleerde Waerelt. LXXVI (June, 1753)» 617-638. 212 213 Bosch, Maria and Aagje Deken. Stichteli.ike Gedichten. Amsterdam, 1775* i ! Boyer, Carolo, S.J. Gursus Philosophiae. 2 vols. Lou- ! vains no publisher, 1937. Brandt Gortius, J.C., ed. Lot.ie Roulin. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, 195^. I i ____________________. Introduction to the Comparative | Study of Literature. New York: Random House, 1968. 1 "Brief van Dorothea," De Denker, I, no. 18 (May 2, 1763)* 137-1^. I "Brief van Lugthart," De Nederlandsche Spectator. Ill, ; no. 122, pt. 5 (July, 1753), 137-1^2. | Brockes, Barthold Heinrich. Irdisches Vergnugen in Gott. | 9 vols. Hamburg, 1721-17^8. i ! Brooke, Frances. Historie van Emilia Montague. trans. ' anon. Amsterdam, 1787* I ■ . Historie van Lady Julia Mandeville I Geschreeven in den smaak van Pamela. Clarissa, en Grandison, trans. anon. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1764. ; Buisman, M. Populaire Prozaschri.ivers van 1600 tot 1815. j Amsterdam, B.M. Israel, n.d. | | Canby, Henry Seidel. "Pamela Abroad," Modern Language I Notes. XVIII (November, 1903), 206-213. 1 I Carroll, John, ed. Samuel Richardson. A Collection of ! Critical Essays. In: Twentieth Century Views, series ed. Maynard Mack. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: ! Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. I i Cowler, Rosemary. Twentieth Century Interpretations of ! Pamela. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. de Haan, M.H. "De Invloed van Richardson op Jane Austen, etc.," Nieuwe Taalgids. XXXIX (1936) 27^-280. De Opmerker. II, no. 38 (July 19, 1773), 301-30^. ! De Opmerker. V, no. 202 (Sept. 2, 1776), 361-368. 214 Diderot, Denis. Oeuvres de Diderot, ed. Andre' Billy. Paris: Gallimard, 1951* Downs, Brian W. Richardson. London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd. and New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1928. i ! Dyserinck, J. Brieven van Bet.je Wolff aan Aag.je Deken. ! The Hague: GebrT van CleefV 1904. | ____________ . "Van en Over Betje Wolff," De Gids. j XLVIII (1884), 1-41. i Eaves, T.C. Duncan and Ben D. Kimpel, "Richardsoniana," Studies in Bibliography. XIV (1961), 232-233* | : Elschenbroich, Adalbert, ed. Deutsche Dichtung im 18. Jahrhundert. Munchen: Hanser Verlag, n.d. Feith, Rhijnvis. Dicht-en Prozaische Werken. 13 vols. 1 Rotterdam, 1824. i S ________________. Julia, ed. M.C. van den Toorn. The Hague: W. van Hoeve, n.d. ! Flaxman, Seymour L. "The Modern Novel in the Low Count- j ries," Fiction in Several Languages, ed. Henri i , Peyre, Boston: Beacon Press, 1908. I Frijlinck, H. Elisabeth Wolff, geb. Bekker en Agatha | Deken. zo uit hare Geschriften als uit andere j Bescheiden geschetst. Amsterdam, 1862. j Gellert, Christian Furchtegott. Gellerts Werke. Auswahl i in zwei Teilen. ed. Fritz Behrend. 2 vols. Berlin: j Deutsches Verlagshaus Bong & Co., n.d. 1 | _______________________________ . S&mmtliche Schriften. 10 vols. Vienna & Prague, 1808. I ; "Geschiedenis van Karel Grandison," Anon, rev., De Alge- i meene Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, I (179$)» j 143-146. | I Ghijsen, H.C.M., "Aagje Deken in haar Amsterdamsche tijd 1741-1777," De Gids. Ill (1920), 311-379* . "Wolff en Deken's Romans uit haar Bloeitijd," De Gids. LXXXVI, pt. 3 (1922), 96-106. 215 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Die Leiden des .jungen Werther. ed. and with a trans. by Harry Steinhauer. ! New Yorks Bantam Books, Inc., 1962. Goethes Werke. 135 vols. no ed. given. Weimars H. Bohlou, 1912. Golden, Morris. Richardson1s Characters. Ann Arbors The University of Michigan Press, 1963* Green, F.C. Literary Ideas in 18th Century France and ! England. New Yorks Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1966. Haantjes, J. and W.A.P. Smit, Panorama der Nederlandsche | Letteren. Amsterdams Amsterdamsche Boek-en | Courantmij, 1948. Harrisse, H. l*Abb/ Prevost. Paris, 1896. Haywood, Eliza. De valsche Gevallen van Syrena Tricksev. trans. Arent van Huyssteen. Amsterdam, 1743. I i Heine, Carl. Der Roman in Deutschlands 1774-1779. Halle,j j 1892. | ; I j I i Heinsius, Wilhelm. Bucherlexicon. 19 vols. Leipzig, | 1812 ff. Herder, Johanna Gottfried. Herders S&mtliche Werke. ed. Bernhard Suphan. 33 vols. Hildesheims G. 01ms Verlag, 1967. j Hermes, Johann Timotheus. Sophiens Reise von Memel Nach Sachsen, ed. Fritz Bruggemann, vol. 13 in Deutsche I Literatur in Entwicklungsreihens Reihe Aufklarung. j ed. Fritz Bruggemann. 15 vols. Darmstadts | Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1967. ! I Het Pad der Deugd. als lieflyk en vreedzaam. Schetsgewyze ! vertoond in de Geschiedenissen van Pamela. Clarissa ! en Grandison. trans. anon. Dordecht, 1760. | "Het Pad der Deugd," Anon, rev., De Vaderlandsche Letter- oefeningen. VI (1766), 464-465* "Historie van Julia Mandeville," Anon, rev., Letter- Historie Konst-en Boek-Beschouwer, III-IV (March, 17^4), 252-256. 216 Hornbeak, Katherine Gee. The Complete Letter-Writer in English 1568-1800 in Smith College Studies in Modern i Languages, XV, Nos. 3-^. Northampton, Mass., 193^• | Huet, Conrad Busken. Litterarische Fantasien en Kritieken. | XIX. 25 vols. Amsterdam, 187^- ff. j Jost, Francois. "Le Roman ^pistolaire et la technique 1 narrative au XVIIIe Siecle," Comparative Literature: ! Matter and Method, ed, A. Owen Aldridge. Urbana, j 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1969* Knuvelder, Gerard P.M. Beknopt Handboek tot de Geschieden is der Nederlandsche Letterkunde. 's Hertogenbosch: L.C.G. Malmberg, 1965. ; _____________________ . Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der ! Nederlandsche Letterkunde^ 4 vols. 's Hertogenbosch:j i L. cTgT Malmberg, 196fT. | | Konigsberg, Ira. Samuel Richardson and the Dramatic Novel. | Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1968. | ! ! Krutch, Joseph Wood. Five Masters: A Study in the Muta- j ! tions of the Novel. Bloomington: Indiana Univer- ; | sity Press, 1959. j La Roche, Sophie von. De Hoogduitsche Clarissa of de Geschiedenis van de Freule van Sternheim, trans. anon. Utrecht, 1772. Lefever, Charlotte. "Richardson's Paradoxical Success," PMLA, XLVIII (1933). 856-60. ; Liljegren, S.B. The English Sources of Goethe's Gretchen Tragedy. A Study of the Life and Fate of Literary ; Motives. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup; London: Humphrey Milford; Oxford: Oxford University Press; Paris: | Librairie E. Droz; Leipzig: 0. Harrassowitz, 1937. | Meade, Anne. Historie van den William Harrington, trans. j anon, Amsterdam, 1772. McKillop, Alan D. Samuel Richardson Printer and Novel ist. Chapel Hi11: University of North Carolina Press, 1936. _______________ . The Early Masters of English Fiction. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press and London: Constable and Company, Ltd., 1962. 21? Mornet, D. "Les Enseignements des Bibliotheques privees (1750-1780),” Revue d' histoire litteraire de la ! France. XVII. 1910. 549-496~ j ! Nieuwenhuys, R., ed. De Wereld heeft twee Aangezichten. | Amsterdam: Em. Querido, 1969. ! Nijhoff, Martinus. "Aagje Ammers en Top Deken," De Gids. IXC, pt. 2 (1927), ^19-538. | ! ! "Over de Nuttigheid van Leevensbeschrijvingen," De I Gryzaard. VIII, no. 101 (June 2, 1769), 378-390. i Praz, Mario. The Romantic Agony, trans. Angus Davidson. New York: Meridian Books, 1956. Price, Lawrence M. Die Aufnahme englischer Literatur in ' Deutschland. 1500-1966. Bern und Munchen: Francke | i Verlag, 1961. | j 1 i _________________ . English-German Literary Influences: ! | Bibliography and Survey in University of California j | Publications in Modern Philology. 9 (Berkeley. 1920), 1 no. 2, 119-6l6. | I _________________. "On the Reception of Richardson in j Germany," Journal of English and Germanic Philology. XXV (1926), 7-33. J Prinsen, J. De Roman in Europe in de Achttiende Eeuw. The Hague and Groningen: J.B. Wolters, 1925. Riccoboni, Mme. De Fransche Pamela, k vols. The Hague, 1787. ! Richardson, Samuel. Clarissa, of de Historie van eene i .jonge Juffer waarin de Gewichtigste Belangen des Gemeenen Leevens vervat g-i.in. trans. Johannes j Stinstra. 8 vols. Harlingen, 1752-1755* j i __________________ . Geschiedenis van Clarissa Harlowe. i trans. Johannes Stinstra. 8 vols. Amsterdam, 1797- 1805. __________________ . Geschiedenis van Karel Grandison. 2nd. ed. of Historie van den Ridder Baronet Karel Grandison. trans. anon. 7 vols. Amsterdam, 1797- ! 1802. I 218 Richardson, Samuel. Histoire de Sir Charles Grandison, trans. J.G. Monod. 7 vols. Gottingen and Leyden, ! 1755-1756. I ___________________. Historie van den Ridder Baronet Karel | Grandison. 1st ed., trans. anon. 7 vols. Amsterdam, 1756-1757. ! __________________. Nouvelles Lettres angloises ou His- ! toire de Chevalier Grandison. trans. Prevost. vols. ; Amsterdam, 1755"1756. 1 . Pamela, ed. George Saintsbury. 2 vols. Londons J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. and New Yorks E.P. j Dutton & Co., Inc., i960. i | ‘ __________________ . Pamela of de Beloonde Deugds in een j Reeks van Gemeenzame Brieven. trans. anon. Amster- | dam, 1741-17^2. j I _______ . The Works of Samuel Richardson with a j | sketch of his Life and Writings, ed. Edw. Mangin. ! 19 vols. London, 1811. j j Rousseau, J.J. La Nouvelle Heloise. k vols. Pariss j Libraire Hachette, 1925* j 1 | Sale, Wm. M., Jr., "Samuel Richardson and Sir William Harrington," Times Literary Supplement (London), August 29, 1935» p. 7, col. 3. Sara Burgerhart. Anon rev., Algemeen Vaderlandsche Letter-Oefeningen. V, pt. 1(1783)» 225-276. ‘ Scheltema, Jacobus. "Korte Levensschets van Agatha Deken," Algemeene Konst en Letterbode van het Jaar 180^-. k9 ^November 23), p. 322. Scherpbier, Herman. Milton in Hollands A Study in the Literary Relationships of England and Holland. Amsterdams H.J, Paris, 1933. Schiller, Friedrich, "Versuch uber den Zusammenhang der tierischen Natur des Menschen mit seiner Geistigen," Samtliche Werke. ed. Gerhart Fricke and Herbert G. Gopfert. 5 vols. Munchens Hanser Verlag, i960. 219 Schlingmann, Carsten. Gellert: Eine literarhistorische Revision, vol. 3 in Frankfurter Beitr&gezur Gei> ! manistik. ed. Heinz Otto Burger and Klaus von See. : 5 vols. Berlin, Zurich: Verlag Gehlen, 1967. Schmidt, Erich. Richardson. Rousseau, und Goethe. Jena, 1875. Scott, Sara. Historie van den Heer George Elisson, j geschreven in de smaak van Grandison. trans. anon. ! Amsterdam, 1770. i | Singer, Godfrey. The Epistolary Novel. Its Origin, De- I cline. and Residuary Influence. New York: Russell & I Russell, Inc., 1963. ; i ! Slattery, W.C., ed. The Richardson-Stinstra Correspondencei ! and Stinstra*s Prefaces to Clarissa. Carbondale and j Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press; 1 and Amsterdam: Feffer & Simons, Inc., 1969. j | i j Spector, Robert Donald, ed. Essays on the Eighteenth j Century Novel. Bloomington: Indiana University j I Press, 1965. | I "Stinstra." Encyclopedia van Friesland, ed. J.H. Brouwer. ! ; 1st ed., p. 607. Stinstra, Johannes. Waarschuwinge tegen de Geestdri.jveri.i, vervat in een Brief aan de Doopsgezinden in Friesland. Harlingen, 1750. Te Winkel, J. De Ontwikkelingsgang der Nederlandsche Letterkunde. Series VI, 3 vols. Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1925. i ' Texte, Joseph. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Cosmopolitan Spirit in Literature, trans, J.W, Matthews. New | York: Burt Franklin, 1970. i | Thompson, Clara Linklater. Samuel Richardson. A B10- | graphical and Critical Study. Port Washington, N.Y. j and London: Kennikat Press, 1970. Turnell, Martin. The Novel in France. New York: Vintage Books, Inc., 1958. 220 van der Heijden, M.C.A., ed. 'k Wou zo graag verstandig wezen: Geschriften uit de Sfeer der Verlichting. Vol. l6 in Spectrum van de Nederlands'e Letterkunde. Utrecht and Antwerp, 19^8. j j Van Tieghem, Philippe. Les Influences etrangeres sur la Litterature franchise (1550-1880). Paris * Presses | Universitaires de France,1961. ! | Vieu-Kuik, H.J. Keur uit het Werk van Bet.ie Wolff en | ! Aag.je Deken. Zutphen: W.J. Thieme & Co., n.d. ! Voltaire, Francois Marie Arouet de. Oeuvres completes de Voltaire, ed. Beuchot. 52 vols. Paris: Gamier ' Frferes, 1877-1885. | I ! von Haller, Albrecht. "Review of Clarissa," Bibliotheque ! raisonnee. XLII (1749), 325-331. | Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. Studies in DeFoe. i Richardson and Fielding. Berkeley and Los Angeles: ! University of California Press, 1964. j j ! Wehrli, Max. "Das Zeitalter der Aufklarung," Deutsche | Literaturgeschichte in Grundzugen, ed. Bruno Boesch. 1 Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag, 1967. I i 1 . i | Wilcox, F.H., "Prevost's Translations of Richardson's Novels," University of California Publications in Modern Philology, XII, no. 5» Berkeley ( 351-352. Wolff, Elisabeth. Aan de Nederlandsche Jufferschap. Hoorn, 1765. . De onveranderlvke Santhorstsche ! Geloofsbelydenis. Ter Drukkerye van haare koninglvke Ma.jesteit Reden. 1772. i _________________. Eenzame Nachtgedachten over den Slaap en den Pood. Hoorn, 1765. _________________. Zedenzang aan de Menschenliefde. 1772. Wolff, Elisabeth and Aagje Deken. Brieven over Verscheiden Onderwernen. The Hague, 1780-1781. _____________ . Brieven van Abraham Blankaart. 3 vols. The Hague, 1787-1789. 221 Wolff, Elisabeth and Aagje Deken. De Historie van Me.iuffrouw Sara Burgerhart. l?th ed. Amsterdam* Wereldbibliotheek, n.d. _____________________ . Historie van den Heer Willem Leevend (Niet Vertaalt). 8 vols. The Hague, 1784-1785• Historie van Me.iuffrouw Cornelia Wildschut. of de Gevolgen van de Q-pvoedinFi 6 vols. The Hague, 1793-1796. ________________________________. Historie van Me.iuffrouw Sara Burgerhart (Niet Vertaalt). 2 vols. 3rd. ed. The Hague, 1782. | _________________________________ . Sara Reinhert. Eine Geschichte in Briefen dem schonen Geschlechte ! gewidmet vom Verfasser des Siegfried von Linden- j berg, trans. Johann Gottwerth Muller. 2 vols. i Berlin, 1806.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Literary Styles Of Jean-Paul Sartre And William Faulkner: An Analysis, Comparison, And Contrast
PDF
Some Imaginative Motifs From Primitive Sacred Myths In The Theater Of Eugene Ionesco
PDF
Blake, Novalis, and Nerval: the poetics of the apocalypse. A study of Blake's Milton, Novalis' Hymnen an die Nacht and Heinrich von Ofterdingen, and Nerval's Aurelia
PDF
Through To The White: Initiation And Creation In The Poetry Of Kenneth White
PDF
Narrative Purpose In The Novella
PDF
Ralph Ellison'S "Invisible Man" As A Repository Of Major Elements From Principal Western Literary Traditions
PDF
Neo-Metamorphoses: A Cyclical Study. Comparative Transformations In Ovidian Myth And Modern Literature
PDF
Studies In The Contemporary American And British Science Fiction Novel
PDF
The Artful Artificer, Bertolt Brecht: A Study Of Six 'Bearbeitungen.'
PDF
The Game-Play In Twentieth-Century Absurdist Drama: Studies In A Dramatictechnique
PDF
The Relationship Between The Poetry Of T. S. Eliot And Saint-John Perse
PDF
Form As Theme: A Study Of Andre Gide
PDF
The Act Itself And The Word: A Study Of Abstraction Versus The Concrete In The Work Of Albert Camus
PDF
A Syntactic Analysis Of The Writing Of Some Fourth-Grade, Fifth-Grade, And Sixth-Grade Caucasian Children In The Los Angeles Schools
PDF
'Guingamor,' 'Guigemar,' 'Graelentmor,' 'Lanval,' And 'Desire': A Comparative Study Of Five Breton Lays
PDF
The Grammar Of English Causative-Transitivity
PDF
Theological And Dramatic Concepts Of The End Of Man In The Middle Ages
PDF
The Proteges Of Lancelot: A Study Of Malory'S Characterization Of Lancelot In The 'Morte Darthur'
PDF
The Giant And The Dragon Of The Folk Epic
PDF
The Critical Reception Of The Dramas Of Albert Camus In The United States, 1945-1964
Asset Metadata
Creator
Van Betten, Herman
(author)
Core Title
Richardson In Holland And His Influence On Wolff And Deken'S 'Sara Burgerhart.'
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Comparative Literature
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Literature, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Malone, David H. (
committee chair
), Koole, Arend (
committee member
), Winterowd, W. Ross (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-570830
Unique identifier
UC11363069
Identifier
7211964.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-570830 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7211964.pdf
Dmrecord
570830
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Van Betten, Herman
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
Literature, Modern