-------- Original Message --------
Subject: VICTORIA Digest - 9 Feb 2004 to 10 Feb 2004 (#2004-42)
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, February 11, 2004 5:00 am
To: Recipients of VICTORIA digests <[log in to unmask]>
There are 19 messages totalling 574 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Opium in the 19th Century (2)
2. [Fwd: Cahiers Victoriens et Edouardiens n. 58 (Special Trollope)]
3. "Michael Field" and Their World, 27-29 February at the University
of
Delaware
4. Ruskin reference (2)
5. Presumption of death in Lady Audley's Secret? (4)
6. Periodization (2)
7. gender and novel-reading (2)
8. Gender and novel reading
9. periodization (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:24:24 -0500
From: Richard Fantina <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Opium in the 19th Century
Here's another book on the Opium Wars that may have
already been mentioned: "The Opium War Through
Chinese Eyes" by Arthur Waley (Stanford UP, 1979).
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:32:23 +0100
From: Timothy Mason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [Fwd: Cahiers Victoriens et Edouardiens n. 58 (Special
Trollope)]
The following publication may interest subscribers to Victoria. Cahiers
Victoriens et Edouardiens is a journal produced by French scholars of
English literature and civilisation.
Best wishes
Timothy Mason
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SAES] PUBL : Cahiers Victoriens et Edouardiens n. 58
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:29:17 +0100 (MET)
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Parution :
CAHIERS VICTORIENS ET ÉDOUARDIENS N. 58
Numéro spécial Anthony Trollope, coordonné par Laurent Bury.
Les résumés/abstracts sont disponibles sur le site de la SFEVE à la page
:
http://www.sfeve.paris4.sorbonne.fr/res/rcve58.html
Contents :
Ruth ApROBERTS : Historicizing Trollope
Laurent BURY : Trollopian Gothic
Jacqueline FROMONOT : On the Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives
: Trollope's Contribution to the Debate in Dr Thorne
Alain JUMEAU : The Way We Live Now, or Trollope in Vanity Fair
Margaret MARKWICK : The Diocese as Circus
Jane NARDIN : Castle Richmond, the Famine, and the Critics
Hervé PICTON : Trollope and Tractarianism
Brigitte SCHOUBRENNER : Rachel Ray : The Story of a Modern
Mother/Daughter Relationship
Donald STONE : Trollope for the 21st Century : He Knew He Was Right
Cordialement,
Yann Tholoniat
---
Yann Tholoniat
A.T.E.R.
Université de Paris III Sorbonne-Nouvelle
Webmaster du site web de la SFEVE : sfeve.org
--
Timothy Mason
Universit? de Paris 8
http://perso.club-internet.fr/tmason/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:50:26 EST
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "Michael Field" and Their World, 27-29 February at the
University of Delaware
"Michael Field" and Their World
An Educational Weekend at the University of Delaware
27-29 February 2004
This event will be the first devoted to the lives and literary
achievements of the British poets and playwrights Katherine Bradley
(1846-1914) and Edith Cooper (1862-1913), the lesbian couple who wrote
under the pseudonym of "Michael Field." This weekend will also explore
the late-Victorian cultural milieu surrounding them, focusing upon the
artists (including the Pre-Raphaelites) who influenced them; the famous
friends (such as Oscar Wilde, Walter Pater, John Ruskin, Robert
Browning, "Vernon Lee," George Meredith, Bernard Berenson, and Charles
Ricketts) who formed their circle; and the avant-garde publishers and
designers who produced their books. Already the subject of recent
scholarship, the "Fields" are the center of a transatlantic revival of
interest, studied for their approaches to feminism, aestheticism, female
sexuality, collaborative creativity, spirituality, and journal writing.
In keeping with their interdisciplinary cultural vision, the weekend
will include a visit to the Delaware Art
Museum, home of one of the largest and finest collections of
Pre-Raphaelite art.
Program highlights:
Friday, 27 February - University of Delaware,Newark,DE
Lecture: "Poets and Artists:The Michael Fields and their Aesthetic
Circle"
STEPHEN CALLOWAY, Associate Curator,Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Saturday, 28 February - University of Delaware,Newark,DE
Symposium (continued on Sunday) of scholarly papers delivered by
distinguished academics from the United States, Canada, Britain,
Australia, Switzerland, and Japan
Music recital: First performance of song settings by "Michael Field"
Visual presentation: "Attributing the Substance of Collaboration as
Michael Field"
MARIA DE GUZMAN, artist/photographer and Assistant Professor of English,
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Sunday, 29 February - Delaware Art Museum,Wilmington,DE
Lecture: "The Pre-Raphaelite World of Michael Field"
DR. JAN MARSH, author of "Pre-Raphaelite Sisterhood"; "Jane and May
Morris"; "The Legend of Elizabeth Siddal"; and "Christina Rossetti"
More information:
www.udel.edu/WomensStudies/michaelfield.htm
or contact
Margaret D. Stetz
Mae & Robert Carter Professor of Women's Studies
University of Delaware
[log in to unmask]
Mark Samuels Lasner
Senior Research Fellow
University of Delaware Library
[log in to unmask]
Tel. (302) 831-3250
Sponsors: Women's Studies Program, the College of Arts and Sciences, and
the English and Art History Departments of the University of Delaware;
the University of Delaware Library; the Winterthur/University of
Delaware Program in Art Conservation; the Delaware Art Museum; the
William Morris Society; and the Eighteen Nineties Society.
Mark Samuels Lasner
Senior Research Fellow
University of Delaware Library
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Tel. (302) 831-3250
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:04:03 -0800
From: Sara Atwood <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Ruskin reference
Dr. Roth,
The Ruskin quote that you are looking for comes from The Stones of
Venice, Book II, Chapter VII "Gothic Palaces" (Library Edition Vol 10
p.306). Ruskin here writes that "the root of all that is greatest in
Christian art is struck in the thirteenth century."
I hope this helps.
All best,
Sara Atwood
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:27:29 -0600
From: roth <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ruskin reference
Thanks very much, Sara!
Best, Christine
>===== Original Message From VICTORIA 19th-Century British Culture &
> Society
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>Dr. Roth,
>
>The Ruskin quote that you are looking for comes from The Stones of
> Venice,
Book II, Chapter VII "Gothic Palaces" (Library Edition Vol 10 p.306).
Ruskin here writes that "the root of all that is greatest in Christian
art is struck in the thirteenth century."
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>All best,
>Sara Atwood
Dr. Christine Roth
Department of English
800 Algoma Boulevard
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:32:52 -0400
From: Rohan Maitzen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Presumption of death in Lady Audley's Secret?
My students have inquired why Helen Talboys in _Lady Audley's Secret_
can't simply presume George is dead when she has not heard from him at
all in 3.5 years. None of the sources I have seem to address this
precise question, so I'm turning to the always generous expertise of the
members of this list. Was there a set number of years she would have
needed to wait before she could remarry legitimately? She asserts in
her own defence that she had "'a right to think that he is dead,'" but
presumably if she really did have such a right there would be no need
for all her subsequent machinations.
Rohan Maitzen
Associate Professor
Department of English
Dalhousie University
(902) 494-6921
[log in to unmask]
http://is.dal.ca/~rmaitzen/home.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:24:09 -0600
From: "Lawrence S. Poston" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Periodization
The rounding-off theory (giving the period three equal
quarter-centuries) may be the best one. The Wellesley Index has, so to
speak, canonized 1824 as the date of the founding of the Westminster
Review, which to me has always paired nicely with the death of Byron.
But one might equally ask, Why 1900?
Lawrence Poston
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:26:11 -0500
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Presumption of death in Lady Audley's Secret?
I'm not sure about the exact laws on this, but in _Far From the Madding
Crowd_, Bathsheba is supposed to wait 7 years after the disappearance of
her husband, Sgt. Troy, before she can legally marry again. Hardy treats
it like common knowledge. Of course, the laws might have changed in the
30 years between the two books.
Robin Barrow
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:01:49 -0600
From: Ginger Frost <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Presumption of death in Lady Audley's Secret?
According to English law, a person could remarry without fear of a
bigamy charge if they had heard nothing from a spouse for seven years.
If the first spouse proved to be alive, the second marriage would still
be invalid, but the person would not be liable to a bigamy charge.
This rule caused a great deal of confusion among English people, who
came to believe you could marry legally after seven years. The English
authorities found this exasperating, but it is easy to see where the
confusion started.
Cheers,
Ginger Frost
Samford University
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:24:09 -0000
From: Lesley Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Presumption of death in Lady Audley's Secret?
7 years is, I believe, the length of time of needed to support legal
presumption of death.
Lesley Hall
[log in to unmask]
website http://www.lesleyahall.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:49:23 -0000
From: Susan Hoyle <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Opium in the 19th Century
I can't recall the original question, so apologies if this is not at all
what is wanted, but there was an excellent novel a few years back
(1987?) by Timothy Mo -- _An Insular Possession_ -- about the Opium Wars
and how the British annexed Hong Kong. A fine introduction to some of
the themes.
Susan
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:02 -0000
From: Malcolm Shifrin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Periodization
But one might equally ask,
> Why 1900?
The Millenium tug
Malcolm (Sorry Patrick, but it's short!)
--
Malcolm Shifrin
Victorian Turkish baths
A not-for-profit project in the UK
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:26:08 +1100
From: Ellen Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: gender and novel-reading
I can't help jumping in here and saying once again what I've said
before, that gender distinctions are just not possible for Victorian
novel-reading. The classic three-volume novel was designed as FAMILY
reading, and had the same sort of audience as "family" series on evening
television . Some-one, usually the father, read aloud to the whole
family gathered in the parlour while the rest got on with other
activities like sewing, sketching, sorting out stamp collections.
Certainly men and women did read novels "to themselves" at other times
of the day, and women were accused, possibly unfairly, of wasting more
time on this than men. But families as far apart as the Darwins in
England and the Ingalls family (of the Little House books) in the
American west went in for reading aloud as a form of togetherness, and
the novelists catered for this by putting in "something for every-one",
humour, romance, suspense.
Ellen Jordan
University of Newcastle
Australia
[log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/09/04 08:57am >>>
I've checked the archives, but have not been able to locate an answer to
this question. So I'm reactivating my VICTORIA subscription (and saying
hello to all of you I have missed) to ask whether anyone has statistics
on what percentage of novel readers in the late Victorian period were
women. One of my graduate students said he had heard a figure of 87%,
but that sounds very high to me. If anyone has reliable information--or
can explain that 87% figure--I'd be grateful.
Meri-Jane Rochelson
Department of English
Florida International University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:06:52 -0600
From: "Doris H. Meriwether" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender and novel reading
E B Browning is reported as saying that she wrote "Aurora Leigh" in
verse in the hope that she would thereby appeal to male readers. The
obvious implications are that she judged the reading audience of novels
in her day to be largely made up of female reaaders, as well as the fact
that poetry was a more elevated form of literature than prose.
Doris Meriwether
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:58:17 -0800
From: "Tracey S. Rosenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: gender and novel-reading
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Ellen Jordan wrote:
> The classic three-volume novel was designed as FAMILY reading, and had
> the same sort of audience as "family" series on evening television.
I'm not sure it was *designed* as family reading; my research on the
triple-decker indicates that the success of Sir Walter Scott's Waverley
novels was a huge influence in making three volumes standard. Charles
Edward Mudie certainly wished to build a barrier between his subscribers
and the 'lower floods of literature', and his library was far more
amenable to the three-volume form than others (Smith's, for instance),
which may have helped build this connection.
No idea on statistics (to go back to the original question) - Kate
Flint's _The Woman Reader_ might be a good place to check?
- Tracey S. Rosenberg
tsr /at/ spies \dot\ com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:30:36 -0600
From: Doug Thorpe <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: periodization
I'm confident that the members of this list are resourceful enough to be
able to come up with a convincing rationale for almost any date in the
century, and it will, to a point, be an instructive process. On the
other hand, we would do well to remember Ambrose Bierce's definition of
a border: "An imaginary line that separates the imaginary claims of one
country from the imaginary claims of another country." Borders between
historical periods function much the same way. Given the structure of
university curricula, and the sheer impracticality of trying to read and
discuss everything, they are a way of setting limits. Beyond the
practical value of giving one a place to start, they can throw certain
events into a kind of prominence which may reveal important relations,
but may obscure much else in the process.
Given that the term Victorian itself comes from the Queen's name, the
years 1837-1901 seem the most transparent and intelligible border. In
teaching a Victorian course, though, I always include texts that cluster
around those dates, both before and after. Every border calls for an
act of border crossing.
A related topic of interest would be looking at those figures who
regularly get taught in both Victorian and Modern lit classes. As a
student, I first encountered Hopkins, Hardy, Wilde, and Pater in
20th-century classes, while Gosse's Father and Son (1907) is a staple of
Victorian classes, including mine. By assigning texts different
constituencies we read their historic value quite differently. That
kind of slippage is, I think, a good thing, given that, as I argued at
the outset, periods don't really exist apart from our need to template
the past.
Doug Thorpe
University of Saskatchewan
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:01:14 -0000
From: Valerie Gorman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: periodization
Doug Thorpe wrote "periods don't really exist apart from our need to
template the past."
And he is quite right that as many templates exist as there are
questions that we ask or comparisons we make between discreet times,
locations, persons or creations.
Valerie Gorman
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:04:33 -0700
From: Ben Varner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: periodization
The 1825 year nagged at me until I dug up my 1958
copy of Buckler's _Prose of the Victorian Period_
and read the following introduction to Macaulay's
essay "Milton":
"This essay, which established Macaulay's literary
fame with his contemporaries, was written as a review
of Milton's newly discovered (1823) and published (1825)
_Treatise on Christian Doctrine_. One indication of
the importance of the essay is the fact that some
students of the period have offered the date of its
publication in the _Edinburgh Review_ (August 1825)
as the rightful beginning of Victorianism. However,
that may be, the essay provides an example of Macaulay's
earliest prose style, certain propositions regarding
poetry which deserve examination, and a historically
significant comparison of Milton and Dante." (3)
Buckler does not identify who the "students of
the period" are who assign 1825 as the beginning
of the Victorian Period, but I suspect that this
introduction from a well-respected text had an
influence on the individual writing the catalog
description.
Ben Varner
University of Northern Colorado
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:18:12 -0500
From: Michael Wolff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: periodization
Here's my memory of what we did at Indiana in 1956. I'd be interested
to know how people feel now about our choice.
I don't have Victorian Studies, Vol. 1, No 1, in front of me, but my
memory is that, after some thought, we chose the dates 1830-1914. The
rationale had less to do with any notion of the extent of the Victorian
Age than with our feeling that we ought to define our margins: after
the last "real" Hanoverians (and the Romantics) and before the beginning
of the World War which we saw as the end of the 19th Century (and the
rise of Modernism). Neither William IV nor Edward VII was seen as a
significant ruler--William being a sort of accidental though welcome
addendum to George IV and Edward as an equally pleasant but unserious
precursor to George V. We thought the real break in literature and
other humanities was around 1880 but that that wouldn't do and we
thought that in many disciplines periodization didn't make sense at all
and that any dates would serve the economic and (then) Namierite
political historians as well as any other.
If all this seems a bit random, remember that we were fresh out of
graduate school and had all the brashness of innnocents. Perhaps, after
all, there was something about dates in our introductory editorial.
Michael Wolff
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
End of VICTORIA Digest - 9 Feb 2004 to 10 Feb 2004 (#2004-42)
*************************************************************
|
