The English novel in the time of Shakespeare

The rise of the English novel needs rethinking after it has been confined to the "formal realism" of Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding (Watt, 1957), to "antecedents, forerunners" (Schlauch, 1968; Klein, 1970) or to mere "prose fiction" (McKillop, 1951; Davis, Richetti, 1969; Fish, 1971; Salzman, 1985; Kroll, 1998). My paper updates a book by Jusserand under the same title (1890) by proving that the social and moral history of the long prose genre admits no strict separation of "novel" and "romance", as both concepts are intertwined in most fiction (Cuddon, Preston, 1999; Mayer, 2000). The rise of the novel, seen in its European context, mainly in France and Spain (Kirsch, 1986), and equally in England, was due to the melting of the nobility and high bourgeoisie into a "meritocracy", or to its failure, to become the new bearer of the national culture, around 1600. (Brink, 1998). My paper will concentrate on Euphues (1578), a negative romance, Euphues and His England (1580), a novel of manners, both by Lyly; Arcadia (1590-93) by Sidney, a political roman à clef in the disguise of a Greek pastoral romance; The Unfortunate Traveller (1594) by Nashe, the first English picaresque novel, and on Jack of Newbury (1596-97) by Deloney, the first English bourgeois novel. My analysis of the central values in these novels will prove a transition from the aristocratic cardinal virtues of WISDOM, JUSTICE, COURAGE, and HONOUR to the bourgeois values of CLEVERNESS, FAIR PLAY, INDUSTRY, and VIRGINITY. A similar change took place from the Christian virtues of LOVE, FAITH, HOPE to business values like SERVICE, TRUST, and OPTIMISM. Thus, the legacy of history proves that the main concepts of the novel of manners, of political romance, of picaresque and middle-class fiction were all developed in the time of Shakespeare.

Beyond the Prototypical Male Migrant

The primary theoretical accounts of migration have been largely unaffected by the feminisation of migration. But this does not mean that they are gender neutral. Drawing on the concept of gender knowledge developed by German sociologists Irene Dölling and Sünne Andresen, on the feminist critique of knowledge, feminist economics and studies on gender and migration, the paper interrogates two influential models of migration from neoclassical economics for their gendered assumptions: the Roy-Borjas selection model of migration and Jacob Mincer’s model of family migration. An analysis of their gendered assumptions about the individual, the family, the institution of the labour market and immigration policies shows that both theories explicitly and implicitly assume a male migrant as the norm and frame female migrants as passive dependents. However, the paper argues that it is not “men as such” who serve as prototypical migrants, but a specific type of white, heterosexual and middle-class masculinity, which is set as the norm while other migration realities and knowledge about the structuration of migration processes through social relations of gender, race and class are excluded. Finally, it is argued that with knowledge being a powerful site for the production of meaning in social relations, the gender knowledge in mainstream migration theories could lead to discriminatory migration policies and might also affect migrant subjectivities. This underscores the need for a more sustained dialogue between feminist and mainstream migration scholarship to further engender the field.