Tracing paradigms one hundred years of neophilologus

Rolf H. Bremmer Jr
Thijs Porck
Frans Ruiter
Usha Wilbers
Editors

Tracing Paradigms:
One Hundred Years
of Neophilologus


Tracing Paradigms: One Hundred Years
of Neophilologus



Rolf H. Bremmer Jr • Thijs Porck
Frans Ruiter • Usha Wilbers
Editors

Tracing Paradigms:
One Hundred Years of
Neophilologus


Editors
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr
Leiden University Centre
for the Arts in Society
Leiden University
Leiden, The Netherlands

Thijs Porck
Leiden University Centre
for the Arts in Society
Leiden University
Leiden, The Netherlands

Frans Ruiter
Research Institute for Cultural Inquiry
Utrecht University
Utrecht, The Netherlands

Usha Wilbers
English Department
Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands

ISBN 978-3-319-33583-4
ISBN 978-3-319-33585-8
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33585-8

(eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016953487
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland


Contents

Part I

General

A Centenary of Neophilologus: Retrospect and Prospect ...........................
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr
“For the Time Being, Things Will Remain as They Are.”
A Hundred Years of Neophilologus ...............................................................
Sjaak Onderdelinden
Overview of One Hundred Years of Editors of Neophilologus....................
Thijs Porck
Part II

9
29

Literary Theory

Erasmus’ Praise of Folly: Rivalry and Madness...........................................
J. M. Coetzee (reprinted from Neophilologus 76 [1992], 1–18)
In Praise of the Little Phallus: On J. M. Coetzee’s
Contribution to Neophilologus .......................................................................
Frans Ruiter
Part III

3

35

53

French

Le Nouveau Recueil Complet Des Fabliaux (NRCF) ....................................
Nico van den Boogaard (reprinted from Neophilologus 61 [1977], 333–345)
Le Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux: à propos d’un
article de Nico van den Boogaard dans Neophilologus ................................
Roberto Crespo
The Term “emblème” in Sixteenth-century France .....................................
Daniel Russell (reprinted from Neophilologus 59 [1975], 337–351)

63

79
81

v


vi

Contents

L’émergence des études sur l’emblème français: à propos d’un
article de Daniel Russell dans Neophilologus ...............................................
Paul J. Smith
Part IV

95

Spanish

Classical Tragedy and Cervantes’ La Numancia .......................................... 105
Frederick A. de Armas (reprinted from Neophilologus 58 [1974], 34–40)
La Numancia within Structural Patterns of Sixteenth-century
Spanish Tragedy .............................................................................................. 113
Edward H. Friedman (reprinted from Neophilologus 61 [1977], 74–89)
La Numancia de Cervantes en Neophilologus. Sobre sendas
contribuciones de Armas y de Friedman ...................................................... 129
Rina Walthaus
La estética en Ortega ...................................................................................... 137
José Correa Camiroaga (reprinted from Neophilologus 66 [1982], 559–568)
Reading the Frame: Signalling Politics in Nada........................................... 147
Fenny Ebels (reprinted from Neophilologus 93 [2009], 619–632)
Neophilologus y la literatura española e hispanoamericana
posterior a 1800. Sobre sendas contribuciones de Correa

Camiroaga y de Ebels ..................................................................................... 163
Henk Oostendorp
Part V

German

Versuch eines Bildungsgangs des Simplicissimusdichters ........................... 171
J. H. Scholte (reprinted from Neophilologus 7 [1922], 190–207)
Die Anfänge der wissenschaftlichen Grimmelshausen-Forschung.
Zum Beitrag von Jan Hendrik Scholte in Neophilologus ............................ 189
Jef Jacobs
Der deutsche Briefroman. Zum Problem der Polyperspektive
im Epischen...................................................................................................... 199
Karl Robert Mandelkow (reprinted from Neophilologus 44 [1960], 200–207)
Die Mädchen aus der Feenwelt – Bemerkungen zu Liebe
und Prostitution mit Bezügen zu Raimund, Schnitzler
und Horvath..................................................................................................... 207
W. G. Sebald (reprinted from Neophilologus 67 [1983], 109–117)
Zwei Aufsätze—zwei Extreme. Zu den Beiträgen von
Karl Robert Mandelkow und W. G. Sebald in Neophilologus .................... 217
Sjaak Onderdelinden


Contents

Part VI

vii

English

Beowulf and Literary Criticism ..................................................................... 231
J. C. van Meurs (reprinted from Neophilologus 39 [1955], 114–130)
Tolkien and Beowulf: On J. C. van Meurs’s Contribution
to Neophilologus .............................................................................................. 247
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr
Ernest Hemingway and The Dial ................................................................... 255
Nicholas Joost (reprinted from Neophilologus 52 [1968], 180–190, 304–313)
Periodical Studies avant la lettre: On Nicholas Joost’s
Contribution to Neophilologus ....................................................................... 275
Usha Wilbers



Contributors

Asterisks indicate the reprinted articles; the authors’ affiliations refer to the time of
the original publication.
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society, Leiden
University, Leiden, The Netherlands
*José Correa Camiroaga University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
*J. M. Coetzee University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Roberto Crespo Department of Humanities, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
*Frederick A. de Armas Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
*Fenny Ebels Willem Lodewijk Gymnasium, Groningen, The Netherlands
*Edward H. Friedman Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Jef Jacobs Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society, Leiden University,
Leiden, The Netherlands
*Nicholas Joost Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
*Karl Robert Mandelkow University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Sjaak Onderdelinden Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University, Leiden, The
Netherlands
Henk Oostendorp Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
Thijs Porck Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society, Leiden University,
Leiden, The Netherlands
Frans Ruiter Research Institute for Cultural Inquiry, Utrecht University, Utrecht,
The Netherlands

ix


x

Contributors

*Daniel Russell University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*J. H. Scholte Municipal University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*W. G. Sebald The University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Paul J. Smith Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society, Leiden University,
Leiden, The Netherlands
*Nico van den Boogaard University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*J. C. van Meurs Municipal University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Rina Walthaus Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
Usha Wilbers English Department, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The
Netherlands

Part I

General


A Centenary of Neophilologus: Retrospect
and Prospect
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr

One hundred years of Neophilologus is a momentous achievement and therefore
certainly a jubilee that deserves to be celebrated. One hundred volumes line up that
together have spawned several thousands of articles and, until 1972, an equal number of book reviews, on a wide and sometimes bewildering range of subjects,
authored by scholars from all over the world. Little did the founding fathers—all of
them were men, but luckily, and rightly so, times have changed—of Neophilologus
imagine such a glorious career for their brainchild.
The beginnings of the journal lie in the Netherlands, more precisely, in
Amsterdam, and for the greater part of the journal’s existence, the editorial board
has always consisted of Dutch scholars or of foreign scholars who held a position at
a Dutch university. Even though the contributions in the early volumes were preponderantly submitted by Dutch men and Dutch women (the first issue included a long
and perceptive review by Dr Cornelia Serrurier, privaatdocent of French literature
at the University of Leiden), the journal’s scope nonetheless was directed outwards,
to Western Europe initially but eventually to the world at large, right from the first
issue. Even so, the journal’s long and programmatic subtitle betrayed its Dutch
basis: “Driemaandelijks tijdschrift voor de wetenschappelijke beoefening van
levende vreemde talen en van hun letterkunde” (Three-monthly journal for the
scholarly study of living foreign languages and of their literatures). When, after four
years, the board was extended with two classical scholars, the title was expanded
accordingly: “en voor de studie van de klassieke talen in hun verband met de
moderne” (and for the study of the classical languages in their relation with the
modern ones). Inside the first issue, however, the reader would look in vain for

articles and reviews in Dutch: all the contributions were written in a modern language other than Dutch, whether English, German or French. Occasionally, the title
of a rubric reveals that the editors assumed their initial readership to consist princiR. H. Bremmer Jr (*)
Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
R. H. Bremmer Jr et al. (eds.), Tracing Paradigms: One Hundred Years of
Neophilologus, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33585-8_1

3


4

R. H. Bremmer Jr

pally of fellow-countrymen and -women: “Aankondigingen van eigen werk”
(Notices of [one’s] own work)—that is, a short announcement of a recent publication of one of the journal’s editors, written by the author himself.
Perusal of the first volume is revealing in other respects, too, for it shows how
much the journal has changed its character over the past century. As Sjaak
Onderdelinden explains in his historiographical evaluation in this volume,
Neophilologus was originally intended as a publication platform for a group of
mainly Amsterdam professors. Yet, at the same time, the journal also served as a
source of information for the increasing number of people in the Netherlands who
had studied a modern language. The possibility of creating a university chair in any
of the modern languages had been enabled by law only in 1875, and it had taken
some time before universities realized the potential of this opportunity. By way of
example, Groningen was the first to appoint a professor of English language and
literature, in 1885, while Leiden was the last to found such a chair, in 1950. Most of
the students of foreign languages had found a position as teachers at gymnasia and
other advanced institutes of secondary education that proliferated throughout the

country. Research into the disciplines covered by Neophilologus had not yet become
the prerogative of professional academics as it is today, and many teachers at Dutch
secondary schools were writing their doctoral dissertations at home in their spare
time in order to acquire the title that would give them prestige among their colleagues and, no less important, an increment in salary and the prospect of becoming
the rector of their school. The editors tried to accommodate for this considerable
part of their readership by including reviews of recent books and, additionally, by
presenting regular surveys of the contents of related national and international journals and a list of books received for review.
Not only was it the (self-imposed) duty of the editors to fill the pages of their
journal, they were also given the task of acquiring copy for their respective fields of
study. Usually, potential contributors were found amongst their students who were
encouraged to revise their MA-thesis for publication. Yet, it did not take long before
scholars from abroad discovered a new possibility for publication. The first issue of
volume two contains two international contributions. The first concerned a lengthy
discussion of the Second German Sound-shift by the Berlin scholar Sigmund Feist,
who was to acquire lasting fame by writing a still frequently consulted etymological
dictionary of the Gothic language. The other article was authored by the Paris
scholar Alfred Jeanroy, a member of the prestigious “Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles Lettres,” founded in 1663. Jeanroy was already an established expert in
medieval lyrical poetry, especially as composed by the troubadours in France, but
also in the compositions of the trobadores on the Iberian peninsula and the
Minnesänger in Germany. The two articles at the same time aptly illustrate the
breadth of the journal’s grand scope: Feist’s discussion is highly linguistic, probing
the German language from a diachronic perspective, as was very much the fashion
then. Jeanroy’s essay, on the other hand, takes a historical-literary approach and
tries to formulate a theoretical framework within which the medieval lyrical poetry
can be assessed. Both scholars are representative for the editorial policy that
Neophilologus would take in the course of its centennial existence and which has


A Centenary of Neophilologus: Retrospect and Prospect

5

proven to be so conducive to its longevity. Volume after volume contains a wide
range of articles, some dealing with finicky philological detail, others concerned
with high-flying theoretical problems.
One of the constant factors in its history is the journal’s name: Neophilologus.
Conspicuous in particular is the Latin in which it was cast. Who invented the title is
not known, but the idea to have it include the word ‘philologus’ was nothing less
than an ambitious claim. There was already a journal called Philologus, founded in
1846 with the subtitle: ‘Zeitschrift für antike Literatur und ihr Nachleben.’ Clearly,
Neophilologus was to do in the field of the modern languages what had given
Philologus its highly esteemed reputation in the field of Classical studies. ‘Philology’
at the time of the foundation of our journal was a generic denominator for a discipline that had developed in the course of the nineteenth century as a result of the
great discoveries made in the field of Indo-European comparative linguistics. Not
only did it include the study of a language back to its historic and even pre-historic
(reconstructed) roots (Jacob Grimm), but it also covered the practice of textual criticism (Karl Lachmann) and the study of mythology and literature, especially the
older forms of literature, such as sagas, fables, legend and riddles (again Grimm).
Numerous other journals had adopted the term in their title, including Zeitschrift für
deutsche Philologie (1868, Germany), Arkiv för nordisk filologi (1882, Norway),
Journal of Germanic Philology (1897, USA; later renamed as Journal of English
and Germanic Philology), Neuphilologische Mitteilungen (1899, Finland) and
Revista de Filología Española (1914). The term remained en vogue as a periodical’s
identifier for some time after the foundation of Neophilologus, witness such titles as
Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire (1922, Belgium), Studia Neophilologica
(1927, Sweden), and, a very recent addition to this venerable company, Filologia
germanica (2009, Italy). Especially in the 1950s and 1960s, however, the term ‘philology’ as a designator of a literary and/or linguistics studies became discredited,
since for many students of languages and literatures it smacked too much of juggling with bone-dry sound-laws and nit-picking at insignificant textual details. Its
resilience, nonetheless, showed with the arrival of the New Philology, as propagated
in a special issue of Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies (vol. 65.1) in 1990.

Focussing especially on the manuscript text and how to edit it, followers of the New
Philology defended their more or less traditional methodology against ideas that
were grounded in Foucault’s deconstructive approach.
The vicissitudes of the once popular discipline of philology are also reflected in
the subtitle of our journal. In order to meet the ever increasing international input,
the editors (or perhaps the publisher), at the occasion of the journal’s fiftieth birthday, in 1966, decided to substitute the Dutch subtitle for an English one: ‘A quarterly devoted to the study of the modern languages and their literatures, and the
classical languages in so far as they bear upon the former’. As a matter of fact, the
last contribution in Dutch had appeared in 1964 and in their editorial for the fiftieth
volume the editors wrote that ‘Only in exceptional cases are reviews written in
Dutch accepted for publication.’
In a later modification of the editorial policy, in 1968, the readers were told that
‘The normal languages of publication are English, French, German, Italian and


6

R. H. Bremmer Jr

Spanish, but articles in other languages may also be submitted for considerations by
the Editorial Board.’ In as far as I have been able to ascertain, the Board has never
needed to consider such a request. Indeed, increasingly articles were written in
English, also when the object of study was written in another language, such as
German, French or Spanish. In 1968, too, it was decided to adapt the subtitle to a
development in scholarly character that had gradually taken place: ‘An international
journal devoted to the study of modern and mediaeval language and literature,
including general linguistics, literary theory and comparative literature.’ First of all,
the addition of ‘international’ acknowledged the retreat of the prominent position
that Dutch scholars once held. Furthermore, it was no longer clear to the mind of the
editors that the ‘modern’ in ‘modern languages’ contrasted them to the Classical
languages. Apparently, the then editors conceived of ‘modern’ as ‘of recent times’

and, in order to disambiguate the term, ‘mediaeval’ was added. Finally, the explicit
inclusion of ‘general linguistics, literary theory and comparative literature,’ all
recently young branches in the field, was in all likelihood intended to make overtly
clear to potential new contributors and readers alike that the journal’s editorial policy was abreast of the latest scholarly trends and not as stuffy as the philology to
which the title ‘Neophilologus’ alluded. However, in 1972, when the reformist spirit
of the late’sixties had somewhat subsided, the subtitle was reduced to a more modest self-description: ‘An international journal of modern and mediaeval language
and literature,’ and that is what the journal still claims to be.
In the last decade or two, a silent development in the wider world of scholarly
periodicals that lay beyond the editors’ sphere of influence has further affected the
nature of Neophilologus, especially when seen against the backdrop of its
Werdegang. The journal’s readership that originally constituted of mainly Dutch
subscribers had slowly but steadily acquired international dimensions. More and
more libraries abroad were making the journal available to their readers. According
to the editorial of 1966, celebrating the journal’s fiftieth anniversary, “Neophilologus
established itself in the inter-war years as an organ of intercommunication between
the Netherlands Universities and the rest of the world of learning.” With the rising
professionalization of academia, the number of private subscribers decreased
accordingly and intercommunication with Dutch universities as one of the journal’s
aims receded into the background. For many years the number of subscriptions
remained stable at about 700. However, since the entire run of the journal was digitized and made available to the world at large on the Internet, in 1997, the nature of
the journal’s readership has dramatically altered, at least to the extent that irrespective of place, anyone was able from that moment onwards to access the journal and
download an article for a (relatively) modest price, instead of photocopying it in a
library. This new reality also implied—as it still does—that fewer people will
browse through the latest issue of the journal, as was possible when it was lying on
the open library shelves and inviting to be picked up and perused for interesting
contributions. So, in addition to institutional subscriptions and users—both professional academics and students—associated with these, both in hard copy and in
digital format, the journal is increasingly depending for its existence on stray visitors on the Internet. The journal’s vitality is no longer measured in number of


A Centenary of Neophilologus: Retrospect and Prospect

7

subscriptions but in number of article downloads—for 2014 this was 45,147 times,
much to the publisher’s content and consequently that of the editorial board, I shall
hasten to add.
A diverse and, in many respects, evasive readership may seem difficult to cater
for. Nonetheless, judging by the number of submissions landing on the managing
editor’s virtual desk, scholars in general do appreciate Neophilologus’s diversity. In
the course of the journal’s history a certain preference has grown in the various
disciplines. For example, for English the focus is directed on Old and Middle
English: at least three-quarters of the submissions fall within this category. For
French, Neophilologus proves to be attractive especially for medieval and twentiethcentury studies, while for Spanish there is a healthy mix across the whole spectre of
Spanish and Latin American literature. The occasional Italian contributions, on the
other hand, are confined mainly to the Middle Ages, whereas German again attracts
contributors on topics ranging from the Middle Ages to contemporary literature.
Other modern languages, including (Middle) Dutch and Old Norse/Scandinavian,
feature less frequently in the pages of our journal; the last article on (Old) Frisian
dates from 2001.
The production of Neophilologus has been enabled through a range of publishers. For many years J. B. Wolters in Groningen was responsible for the unbroken
line of four issues per year, until in the mid-sixties the merger virus started to spread
and Wolters joined forces with another Groningen educative publisher, P. Noordhoff,
in 1968. This combination was taken over by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1987,
which itself, finally, merged, at least partly, with the German academic publisher
Springer Verlag in 2004, now the second biggest publisher of academic journals and
books in the world. Fortunately, notwithstanding these many changes in publishing
companies, the editorial independence has remained unchanged. As has been the
tradition for so many years, the published contents have always been diligently
assessed by members of the editorial board and a range of anonymous referees.
Especially, since the latter rarely receive any conspicuous credits in the journal’s

pages, their input in terms of both time and critical thinking is expressly mentioned
here with gratitude. Our existence as a journal also depends, of course, on the scholars who submit the fruit of their hard work to Neophilologus. We would like to
acknowledge the efforts of all those thousands of authors who saw their articles
published and we equally acknowledge the recognition from those who did submit
but whose work we were unable to accommodate, not because they were lacking in
quality but because other submissions were better. Finally, a word of thanks is
extended to our readers, the majority of whom remain unknown to us, but whose
consultation and digestion of the contents of our journal is precisely what has given
us, editors past and present, the energy to carry on with our task, no matter how
burdensome it sometimes may be, and face the future of Neophilologus with
confidence.
***


8

R. H. Bremmer Jr

It is only proper for a journal that celebrates its centenary anniversary to mark this
event with appropriate attention. In consultation with the publisher, it was decided
to do so with a special book. Of course, such a book cannot fail to be furnished with
an introduction, an anecdotal evaluation of Neophilologus’ history and a survey of
all the editors up to the present day. In addition, the Board also desired to showcase
a profile of the journal by publishing a number of pivotal contributions. To this end,
the editors of this celebratory volume asked past and present members of the journal’s editorial board to select one or two articles that in their opinion not only represented their field in a conspicuous way but also played a role in the subsequent
scholarship. Moreover, the contributors were requested to write a commentary in
which they accounted for their particular choice by critically placing the article in
context. Such a set-up, it was deemed, would provide an added value and was to be
preferred over a mere anthology of remarkable contributions. It is hoped that these
highlights from Neophilologus’ rich past, provided with comments from the present, will contribute to the paradigms for its future.

On behalf of the members of the editorial board and the managing editor,
Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, Editor-in-chief


“For the Time Being, Things Will Remain
as They Are.” A Hundred Years
of Neophilologus
Sjaak Onderdelinden

It is with some hesitation that I assume the task to write something about the centenarian history of Neophilologus. After all, scholarly journals, certainly when they
take linguistics and literary studies as their objects of interest, tend to be the most
boring publications one can possibly imagine. Sensational articles are the prerogative of medical or science journals. And even then perhaps only the odd publication
is sensational, not the journal itself. For periodicals of a linguistic or literarytheoretical nature, the main criterion rather is: solidity—and this is hardly a basis
for appetizing historiography.
For Neophilologus an additional factor is that members of the editorial board
frequently remained in function for many years or even several decades—the membership was (and is) an excellent opportunity to fill up the time or at least part of
one’s retirement.
It comes hardly as a surprise, therefore, that a journal of the kind of Neophilologus
has been carried for a considerable part by conservatism. Whatever the board had
once decided was considered good. This motto has influenced the formulation of the
journal’s scholarly principles, its establishment of the quality criteria and the composition of the editorial board itself. I was not at all surprised, therefore, to read in
the minutes of March 1929, concerning an imminent revision of the policy with
regards to book reviews, a conclusion of undoubtedly heated editorial discussions in
which a change was rejected with the sentence: “For the time being, things will
remain as they are.”1 Despite the willingness to change as expressed in the opening
words, the basic attitude is clear: no unnecessary changes of direction.
But alas, or rather: fortunately, the situation is not as it seems. The same minutes
show all too clearly that changes were taking place constantly. Indeed, the minutes,
touchingly handwritten in standard school exercise-books, are the main source of
1

“Voorloopig blijft het zoo als het is.”

S. Onderdelinden (*)
Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
R. H. Bremmer Jr et al. (eds.), Tracing Paradigms: One Hundred Years of
Neophilologus, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33585-8_2

9


10

S. Onderdelinden

information for anyone who wants or has to busy themselves with the history of
Neophilologus. This limitation carries with it the difficulty of eclecticism and superficiality. Only and exclusively the final results of the deliberations are worth their
while for the secretary to include in his minutes, so that much of the editorial din, if
any, will forever remain hidden, purged by the sensible self-censure of the minutes
taker. Be that as it may, not much remains of the fervently aspired ideal of journalpolitical conservatism. Changes galore. The journal changed publisher several
times. The participating literatures and cultures changed: initially, the editors quarrelled about the place of the (Neo-) Classical works; much later, they were confronted with the sharp rise of scholarly interest in Spanish and the cultures of Latin
America. In the beginning, Neophilologus was heavily Netherlands-oriented, concerning both contributing scholars and the language used for publication. These
Dutch elements gradually diminished and eventually disappeared completely, at
least as far as choice of subject and language is concerned. Still, as a matter of
course, space remains reserved for Dutch scholars, although the many and heavy
rounds of downsizing at Dutch universities have not exercised a positive effect on
the number of contributions from the Low Countries. The language used for publication increasingly is the lingua franca of modern times, English. The palette of
submitting scholars exhibits—this too in line with the Zeitgeist—a firm

internationalization.
As a last example of historical turbulences which could not leave to affect
Neophilologus, two World Wars must be mentioned. The journal was founded during the Great War and survived World War II. I shall return to this point, but for now
what matters is the observation that little came of the aspired conservatism. Even if
the editorial board did not want to change internally, there were external factors that
forced to bring about transformations. The standpoint of boring continuity is constantly being corrected by new developments. The common thread running through
the history of a century of Neophilologus is therefore not only conservatism: it is the
constant interplay of tradition and innovation.

The Foundation
Although the publication of the first volume in 1916 is commonly accepted as
Neophilologus’ moment of birth, its conception took place several months earlier.
On 15 February 1915, five professors convened in the Academy Building in
Amsterdam. They were Professors Salverda de Grave, Scholte, Sneyders de Vogel
and Swaen, together with Dr Gallas, who right from the start was designated as the
editorial secretary and who also took care of the minutes neatly penned in a school
exercise-book. Professor Frantzen, also an intended editor, was prevented from
attending that afternoon, but appears to have been completely introduced, for “he


A Hundred Years of Neophilologus

11

had given his opinion on various matters to Dr Scholte.”2 Such a detail is indicative
of a careful preparation, perhaps reaching back to 1914.
The gentlemen apparently knew precisely what they wanted, so that the secretary
immediately after having recorded the list of names, wrote down: “Their aim is to
realize the foundation of a journal for the scholarly study of the modern languages
and their literatures.”3 It is an aim and a declaration of policy at the same time. It

would of course have been possible to say more. For example, the neutral Netherlands
is the topographical centre in the Great War, but no reference is made to it whatsoever, neither in the minutes nor in the first issues. Only when the thirtieth and fiftieth
anniversaries of the journal give occasion, the rather remarkable time of foundation
is being recalled. Not, however, in 1915, since any form is lacking of an ideological
or humanitarian motivation and/or motivation for the foundation of a philological
journal in times of war. What is striking in the early minutes is not only the absence
of high-pitched thoughts but also the total hegemony of a quality in which many a
Dutchman takes pride as a typical, national trait of character: pragmatism.
This attitude explains why a whole list of practical agreements begins as follows:
the journal will “for the time being, appear once every three months at the least”4—
after a hundred years this is still the case. The strictly scholarly character must be
warranted by avoiding pedagogical contributions: “Articles on pedagogy will be
considered for publication only in the second place and even then only if they are
scholarly in nature.”5 As could be expected from members of a consensus society—
and the Netherlands, whether rightly or wrongly, counted for one—is the choice
against a journal as a platform for polemics: “In its columns, no place will be made
for polemics; only a brief rejoinder on a point of criticism, if any, will be allowed.”6
The name of the journal is established as “Neo-Philologus”, with a soonforgotten, in any case abolished, hyphen. Mention is made of three sections, French,
German, and English, but “articles on other modern languages, such as Norwegian
and Italian, will certainly be welcome.”7 Furthermore, the secretary’s role is
described (a unity of font is desired) and each member of the editorial board commits himself to acquire “12 to 15 Dutch philologists for each section” as potential
contributors.8
A brainstorm about the journal’s contents yielded the following: “as envisaged
by the board,”9 the journal will contain “(a) Original essays, which will often treat
2

“dat hij zijn mening over verschillende punten aan den Hr. Scholte had medegedeeld.”
“Hun doel is tot oprichting te geraken van een tijdschrift voor de wetenschappelijke beoefening
der moderne talen en haar letterkunden.”
4

“voorloopig altans, ééns in de drie maanden verschijnen.”
5
“Artikelen over pedagogiek zullen slechts in de tweede plaats voor plaatsing in aanmerking
komen en alleen indien ze van wetenschappelijke aard zijn.”
6
“In zijn kolommen zal geen polemiek gevoerd worden; slechts een kort antwoord op een kritiek
zal eventueel opgenomen worden.”
7
“artikelen over andere moderne talen, als Noors en Italiaans, zullen welkom zijn.”
8
“12 à 15 Hollandse filologen voor iedere sectie.”
9
“naar de redactie zich voorstelt.”
3


12

S. Onderdelinden

matters of detail. (b) Articles of a more general nature, presenting critical surveys of
this or that part of a field.”10 The fact that matters of detail precede surveys is probably speaking volumes. Moreover, reviews of books, especially “studies that offer
new insights, should not be missing. Should the publisher in question be unwilling
to send a copy of the book to the editorial board, the latter will purchase the book at
their own expense.”11 The board’s willingness to buy books for reviewing strikes as
most remarkable.
Equally remarkable is the role assigned to the Dutch language. Even though
Dutch language and literature was not included in the palette of subjects, the board
nonetheless included Dutch as one of the languages suitable for publications, along
with German, English, French, and Italian. There was a reason for this decision, of

course. First and foremost, this was to be a Dutch journal: “Although the journal is
mainly founded to publish the scholarly works of Dutch philologists, the editorial
board will on occasion try to include articles by foreign scholars.”12 The subclause
describes the main matter: Neophilologus wished to create a forum of publication
for Dutch scholars and reserve it for the same. As a consequence, a submission in
1918 by the then still somewhat unknown Austrian germanist and romanist Leo
Spitzer with the interesting title “Die groteske Sprachkunst Christian Morgensterns”
is sternly rejected with the following motivation: “It should be remembered once
more that our journal should preserve its national character, unless truly outstanding
foreigners wish to cooperate.”13 Apparently, Spitzer had not reached that status yet.
Spitzer’s case is illustrative of the policy at that time, which was aimed at giving the
journal a mostly Dutch outlook. Moreover, since the editors themselves formed the
crème de la crème of Dutch philology, a conclusion is easily drawn: they did it for
themselves. This conclusion is confirmed by the tables of contents of the early years
of Neophilologus: each member of the editorial board is represented with at least ten
articles. Matters have changed. The attempts of the editorial board are now much
more aimed at on occasion publishing a Dutch article, rather than the reverse.
Moreover, that Dutch article will always be from a third party, because members of
the editorial board in general do not publish in their “own” journal. In other words,
an editorial change of course of a 180°. The editors only deviated from this policy
once: to celebrate its 75-year existence, a jubilee issue was published, with some
delay, as Volume 75, no. 4. The special issue features specimens of the scholarly
work of a number of the editors themselves.

10

“a). Oorspronkelijke stukken, die vaak detailkwesties zullen behandelen. b) Artikelen van meer
algemene aard, kritiese overzichten gevende van een of ander belangrijk studieonderdeel.”
11
“studies die nieuwe gezichtspunten openen, (mogen) niet ontbreken. Mocht de betreffende uitgever niet genegen zijn’t boek aan de redaksie te zenden, dan zal deze het zich op eigen kosten

aanschaffen.”
12
“Hoewel het tijdschrift hoofdzakelik wordt opgericht om’t wetenschappelik werk van Hollandse
filologen te publiceren, zal de redaksie ook trachten nu en dan stukken van buitenlandse geleerden
op te nemen.”
13
“Nogmaals wordt in herinnering gebracht dat vóór alles ons tijdschrift haar nationaal karakter
moet behouden, tenzij zeer groote buitenlanders meewerken.”


A Hundred Years of Neophilologus

13

Between the first and second editorial board meetings the news about the journal
appears to have spread in the Netherlands, as the minutes of the second meeting
report on the externally expressed desires of classicists and scholars of Dutch language and literature to participate. They are welcome, if only their contributions are
related to the modern languages. For the scholars of Dutch language and literature
this meant concentrating on their own publishing bodies, but a long-lasting collaboration, both fertile and laborious, developed with the (neo-)classicists, leading to the
rapid adoption of a classicist as a member of the editorial board.
The fifth editorial meeting on November 8, 1915, is again led by Salverda de
Grave, but not until after he “has congratulated the secretary with issue number 1.”14
This ostentatiously understated celebration of the publication of the first issue of the
first volume (1916) suggests that it must have appeared before 8 November 1915.
Immediately afterwards, the editors commence compiling the second issue. They
also spend a substantial amount of time and energy on the organisation of so-called
“exchange periodicals.”15 It was especially important for the American market to
achieve a regular exchange with as many kindred periodicals as possible. The publisher is expected to make enough exchange issues available, for it is also in their
own interest to position the new periodical internationally.

Neophilologus and the Two World Wars
The foundation of Neophilologus during the Great War could easily have had political or ideological-humanitarian reasons. After World War II the editors publish an
editorial statement which is explicit on this point, as will be discussed later. But the
archived deliberations of the founding fathers do not reveal any such information.
All letters to and from foreign relations and exchange periodicals have one thing in
common with the founding minutes: not a word about the war. The foreign
periodicals also restrict themselves to the sober observation that a new journal for
the study of living modern languages and their literatures was founded in the
Netherlands. There are approving comments, but nowhere is this event linked to the
war, barring one exception: the announcement in Zeitschrift für französischen und
englischen Unterricht (Berlin 1916, offprint in the Neophilologus archives) starts
with “Mitten im Kriege.” The statement expresses surprise, but there is no enquiry
into the motivations—and none is indeed available. It seems that the editorial board
chose to avoid problematic issues by circumventing them or letting them take care
of themselves, in line with a somewhat unusual motto for a journal: Writing is silver, silence is golden.
This principle proved to be highly useful on several occasions in and after World
War II. During the German occupation of the Netherlands the editors quickly found
a mode to guarantee the continuation and regular publication of the journal. The
14
15

“den secretaris met no 1 heeft gelukgewenscht.”
“ruilperiodieken.”


14

S. Onderdelinden

main stance was to withdraw into the niche of “scholarly journals,” an apparently

entirely uninteresting category from a propagandistic and ideological point of view,
which managed to successfully avoid Gleichschaltung (nazification), unlike the
daily press, for instance. The editorial board did not meet during the occupation, but
the journal continued nonetheless to be published. There were just a few issues
which the editors needed to deal with, because the particular ukase was aimed at the
entire periodical landscape.
The first issue concerned the position of the editor-in-chief of Neophilologus.
Each periodical was required by the Germans to list its editor-in-chief by name and
address, so that the person responsible for the publication was easily traceable
should this be necessary. The editorship had already become an issue in the summer
of 1941 when Wolters, the publisher, passed on the pressure exerted by the
Department of Communication to the editorial board. Now the strictly collegially
and democratically organisational structure of the Neophilologus board offered
more than enough substantive reason to reject this demand, but during an occupation different laws prevail. The way that the editors dealt with the demand therefore
deserves all the more admiration. They denied that the rule should also apply to
scholarly journals, claimed that they belonged to a different governmental department, wrote letters to each other, to the publisher, to various departments—but there
never came an editor-in-chief! The editors perfected the strategy of delaying the
decision until it was abandoned altogether—something that they would use again,
and with more emotions.
It is Autumn 1943, when the Gleichschaltung reaches the palette of journals in
the form of a demand to associate with the Nazi-led Press Guild. This time, too, the
tools for “Operation Delay” were put in readiness, until the Reverend Professor
Ferdinand Sassen, a Roman-Catholic priest, forced the hands of his fellow editors.
His letter has been preserved and deserves to be published here in full. No longer
clever manoeuvring, but brazen resistance. Or was it?
I am told that the ‘responsible editors’ of various scholarly journals have been demanded
these days to join the so-called Press Guild, and have been informed that this should have
been done one and a half years ago. Have You (the letter was addressed to the editorial
secretary, Dr Gallas) received a similar letter?—I would very seriously object against such
an association of Neophilologus with the Press Guild. First of all, such a demand is not

based on any regulation. Scholarly journals completely fall outside the concern of the socalled Department of Information, of which the Press Guild is an organ, and are the responsibility of the Department of Education, etc. Moreover, we should be ashamed before the
entire Netherlands and before posterity, if we accepted the humiliating conditions of the
so-called Press Guild. What exactly is the precise content of these conditions I shall leave
out of account for now, but we must be well aware of running the risk by joining that we
will see our journal sink to the despicable level to which the Dutch daily papers have been
lowered because of this association. Temporarily discontinuing the publication of our journal is much preferable and keeping our escutcheon unblotted. On this day of Italy’s capitulation, it is probably less than ever the moment for us Dutchmen to dance to the tune of the
N. S. B. (Dutch National Socialist Movement).
I think it will be good, whenever possible to spin out the matter for the time being, by
notifying the senders of the letter concerned that scholarly journals do not pertain to them,
while simultaneously inform the so-called Department of Education etc. under protest that


A Hundred Years of Neophilologus

15

the Department of Information has made this demand. The subsequent quarrel between the
two couples of compères will result in some delay.16

An admirable letter it was; courageous too. The trust invested in the editorial manager must have been great, for the letter might easily have fallen into the wrong
hands. The unyielding fundamental stance, however, contrasted somewhat with the
strategy provided: delay the matter, raise protests to as many sides as possible and
play the opponents off against each other—a perfect example indeed of the delaying
tactics that had proved successful on an earlier occasion.
In this way Neophilologus managed to emerge from the war unscathed. The first
pages of the first peace volume 1945 featured a declaration of policy, signed by the
full editorial board, with the neutral title “Bij de dertigste jaargang.” The increased
and still increasing influence of the English language appears from the inclusion of
a translation, immediately after the declaration: “On the issue of the thirtieth volume.” The text is partly a retrospect on the horrors of World War II:
The past tribulation was particularly heavy to bear for our nation. In our stubborn resistance, proud of our ages old independence, relying on our patriotism and our loyalty to the

Royal dynasty, we have constantly kept our eyes fixed on that future, well knowing that we
would nor could ever be subjected.17

The winning rhetoric is rather euphoric and exposes popular fatherland clichés
without making the “tribulation” concrete. It is followed by a recollection of the
foundation of the journal, thirty years ago. The goal then (neatly explained in 1945!)
had been: “To promulgate abroad Holland’s name in the field of modern philology,
and to strike a bridge between nations, till then antagonistic, by inviting
16

“Naar ik verneem, is aan de ‘verantwoordelijke redacteuren’ van verschillende wetenschappelijke
tijdschriften dezer dagen de eisch gesteld tot aansluiting bij het z.g. Persgilde, en ontvingen zij
daarbij de mededeling, dat dit reeds anderhalf jaar geleden had moeten geschieden. Hebt Gij ook
een dergelijk schrijven ontvangen?—Tegen aansluiting van ‘Neophilologus’ bij het z.g. Persgilde
zou ik zeer ernstig bezwaar hebben. Vooreerst steunt de eisch daartoe op geen enkele verordening.
Wetenschappelijke tijdschriften vallen geheel buiten de bemoeienis van het z.g. Departement van
Volksvoorlichting, waar het Persgilde een orgaan van is, en ressorteeren onder het z.g. Departement
van Opvoeding enz. Daarenboven zouden wij ons voor geheel Nederland en voor het nageslacht
moeten schamen, wanneer wij de vernederende voorwaarden van het z.g. Persgilde aanvaardden.
Welke de nauwkeurige inhoud is van deze voorwaarden, laat ik nog buiten beschouwing, maar wij
dienen er ons goed rekenschap van te geven, dat wij door aansluiting grote kans zouden loopen,
ons tijdschrift te zien doen zinken tot het verachtelijk peil, waartoe de Nederlandsche dagbladpers
door die aansluiting is teruggebracht. Dan liever het verschijnen van het tijdschrift tijdelijk doen
staken, en ons blazoen ongerept houden! Op den dag van de capitulatie van Italië is het waarlijk
minder dan ooit het oogenblik voor ons Nederlanders om naar de pijpen van de N.S.B. te dansen.
Het zal m.i. goed zijn, c.q. de zaak voorloopig te rekken, door aan de afzenders van het betreffende schrijven te laten weten, dat wetenschappelijke tijdschriften hun niet aangaan, en tegelijk
aan het z.g. Departement van Opvoeding enz. onder protest mede te delen, dat Volksvoorlichting
(sic!) dezen eisch gesteld heeft. De daarop volgende ruzie tussen de twee stellen compères geeft
dan weer eenig uitstel.”
17

“Voor ons volk is die beproeving zeer zwaar geweest. Het heeft in zijn hardnekkig verzet, trots
op zijn eeuwenoude onafhankelijkheid, steunend op zijn vaderlandsliefde en zijn trouw aan het
vorstenhuis, steeds vol vertrouwen het oog gericht gehouden op die toekomst, wetend dat het niet
tot onderwerping gedwongen kon worden.”