Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

 

Anglia

Journal of English Philology

Ed. by Kornexl, Lucia / Lenker, Ursula / Middeke, Martin / Rippl, Gabriele / Stein, Daniel Thomas


CiteScore 2017: 0.17

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.148
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.672

Online
ISSN
1865-8938
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 137, Issue 1

Issues

Permeable Boundaries: Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year (1722) and Jurij M. Lotman’s Semiosphere

Nicole Falkenhayner
Published Online: 2019-03-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2019-0005

Abstract

This article argues that the cultural semiotic model of the “semiosphere” by Lotman (Lotman, Grishakova and Clark 2009) can be productively employed to interpret the complex layers of social order and liminal sociality in Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year (1722). Defoe’s text, analysed with a cultural semiotic approach, appears as more than a shocking re-narration of a historical event, as it becomes possible to read this proto-novel as a text that showcases and makes experiential the entanglement of social breakdown and social needs. London during the plague is shown as a space that labours to enforce both discursive as well as physical borders, but fails in both instances: The lively media public which Defoe depicts for the mid-17th century is shown as failing to establish boundaries of ‘facts’ and ‘fake news’, while single human beings constantly defy the shutting orders of the authorities, or flee the city illegally. In the semiosphere of a London constituted by a state of exception, Defoe strategically inserts permeable boundaries to show a survival of conviviality in the face of the breakdown of society. The main topoi of Lotman’s cultural semiotic model – explosion and periphery – illustrate both the discursive disorientation during the plague as well as the spatial peripheries of the city as sites of liminal social survival in the face of catastrophe.

Works Cited

  • Agamben, Giorgio and Daniel Heller-Roazen. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Alker, Sharon and Holly F. Nelson. 2015. “(Re)Writing Spaces of War: Daniel Defoe and Early Modern Siege Narratives”. In: Katherine Ellison, Kit Kincaid and Holly F. Nelson (eds.). Topographies of the Imagination: New Approaches to Daniel Defoe. New York: AMS Press. 209–234.Google Scholar

  • Berensmeyer, Ingo. 2007. Angles of Contingency: Literarische Kultur im England des 17. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Defoe, Daniel. 1722/2010. A Journal of the Plague Year. Eds. Louis Landa and David Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • DeGabriele, Peter. 2015. Sovereign Power and the Enlightenment: Eighteenth-Century Literature and the Problem of the Political. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Esposito, Elena. 2007. Die Fiktion der wahrscheinlichen Realität. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Evelyn, John and Samuel Pepys. 1973. Selections from the Diaries of John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys. Ed. James Gibson. London: Chatto & Windus Education.Google Scholar

  • Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

  • Frank, Susi K., Cornelia Ruhe and Alexander Schmitz (eds.). 2012. Explosion und Peripherie: Jurij Lotmans Semiotik der kulturellen Dynamik revisited. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar

  • Hodges, Nathaniel and John Quincy. 1720. Loimologia. 2nd ed. London: Bell.Google Scholar

  • Korte, Barbara. 2016. “Early-Modern Diversity: The Origins of the English Short Fiction”. In: Dominic Head (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Short Story. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16–31.Google Scholar

  • Lachmann, Renate. 2012. “Jurij Lotman: Die vorexplosive Phase”. In: Susi K. Frank, Cornelia Ruhe and Alexander Schmitz (eds.). Explosion und Peripherie: Jurij Lotmans Semiotik der kulturellen Dynamik revisited. Bielefeld: transcript. 97–118.Google Scholar

  • Lotman, Jurij M. 2009. Culture and Explosion. Eds. Marina Grischakova and Wilma Clark. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mayer, Robert. 1990. “The Reception of a Journal of the Plague Year and the Nexus of Fiction and History in the Novel”. ELH 57.3: 529–555.Google Scholar

  • McDowell, Paula. 2006. “Defoe and the Contagion of the Oral: Modelling Media Shift in ‘A Journal of the Plague Year’”. PMLA 121.1: 87–106.Google Scholar

  • McKinley, Alan. 2009. “Foucault, Plague, Defoe”. Culture and Organization 15.2: 167–184.Google Scholar

  • Moote, A. Lloyd and Dorothy C. Moote. 2004. The Great Plague: The Story of London’s Most Deadly Year. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

  • Novak, Maximilian E. 2001. Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Payne, Geoffrey. 2014. “Distemper, Scourge, Invader: Discourse and Plague in Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year”. English Studies 95.6: 620–636.Google Scholar

  • Richetti, John. 2008. “Defoe as Narrative Innovator”. In: John Richetti (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Daniel Defoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 121–138.Google Scholar

  • Vincent, Thomas. 1667. Gods Terrible Voice in the City of London. EEBO Early English books online, Chadwyck-Healy (ProQuest) < https://eebo.chadwyck.com/> [accessed 27 April 2018].

  • Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-03-15

Published in Print: 2019-03-14


Citation Information: Anglia, Volume 137, Issue 1, Pages 70–83, ISSN (Online) 1865-8938, ISSN (Print) 0340-5222, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2019-0005.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in