Abrams, M.H. – 1953 The Mirror and the Lamp. Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford University Press. Londen / Oxford / New York.
Akker, W.J. van den – 1984 ‘En marche vers le ciel. Over “Het lied der dwaze bijen”’. In: De revisor 11 (1984) 4 (aug): 72–79,85.
Akker, W.J. van den – 1985 Een dichter schreit niet. Over de versexterne poëtica van M. Nijhoff. 2 dln. Proefschrift Utrecht. Veen. Utrecht.
Akker, W.J. van den – 1987 ‘De schrijver in een impasse; over “De schrijver” van M. Nijhoff (I)’. In: De nieuwe taalgids 80 (1987) no. 5: 386–406.
Akker, W.J. van den en G.J. Dorleijn – 1985 ‘Stemmen uit de redactie. Een documentatie over het redactiebeleid van De gids tussen 1916 en 1926’. In: W.J. van den Akker e.a. (red.), Traditie en vernieuwing. Opstellen aangeboden aan A.L. Sötemann. Veen. Utrecht / Antwerpen: 146–177.
Anbeek, T. – 1996 Het donkere hart. Romantische obsessies in de moderne Nederlandstalige literatuur. Amsterdam University Press. Amsterdam.
Anbeek, T. – 1999 Geschiedenis van de literatuur in Nederland, 1885–1985. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen. 5de, herz. dr. (1ste dr. 1990).
Bai Juyi – 2001 Gedichten en proza. Vertaling en toelichting W.L. Idema. Atlas. Amsterdam / Antwerpen.
Bakker, S. – 2002 ‘J. Slauerhoff’. In: A. Zuiderent, H. Brems en T. van Deel (red.), Kritisch lexicon van de moderne Nederlandstalige literatuur. 86ste aanv., aug.
Baudelaire, Ch. – 1976 O’Euvres complètes II. Éd. C. Pichois. Gallimard. Parijs. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade no. 7].
Baudelaire, Ch. – 1995 De bloemen van het kwaad. Vertaling en commentaar P. Verstegen. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam [Franse bibliotheek – klassiek]. Tweetalige uitgave (integrale vertaling van de 2de druk van Les Fleurs du mal. Poulet-Malassis et De Broise. Parijs 1861)
Bergh, Hans van den – 2002 ‘Paul Verlaine – voorvechter van het symbolisme?’. In: De tweede ronde 23 (2002) 3 (herfst): 91–99 [Verlaine-nummer].
Bergh, Herman van den – 1918 ‘Studiën (tweede reeks) VI: Van grondslag en onderscheid’. In: Het getij 3 (1918): 192–196. Ook in: idem, Nieuwe tucht. Studiën over litteratuur. De Spieghel. Amsterdam z.j. [1928]: 7–13.Bergh, Herman van den – 1958 Schip achter het boegbeeld. Over het werk van J. Slauerhoff (1898–1936). L.J.C. Boucher. ’s-Gravenhage.
Blok, W. – 1983 P.C. Boutens en de nalatenschap van Andries de Hoghe. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Blok, W. en K. Lekkerkerker – 1985 Het China van Slauerhoff. Aantekeningen en ontwerpen voor de Cameron-romans. Nederlands Letterkundig Museum en Documentatiecentrum. ’s-Gravenhage. [Achter het boek 21ste jrg., afl. 1–3].
Boeft, J. den (red.) – 1994 Denken over dichten. Dertig eeuwen poëticale reflecties. Amsterdam University Press. Amsterdam.
Boendale, J. van – 1846 Der leken spieghel, leerdicht van den jare 1330, toegekend aan Jan Deckers, klerk der stad Antwerpen. Ed. M. de Vries. Werken uitgegeven door de Vereeniging ter bevordering der Oude Nederlandsche Letterkunde. 3de jrg., 2de afl. Leiden.
Boots, J. – 1984 Slauerhoff en Corbière. Kandidaatsscriptie Moderne Letterkunde. Instituut voor Neerlandistiek (Universiteit van Amsterdam).
Borgers, G. – 1996 Paul van Ostaijen: een documentatie. 2 dln., Bert Bakker. Amsterdam. 2de dr., nawoord G. Buelens en E. Spinoy (1ste dr. 1971).
Bork, G.J. van en N. Laan (red.) – 1997 Twee eeuwen literatuurgeschiedenis. Poëticale opvattingen in de Nederlandse literatuur. C.J. Aarts. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. Wolters-Noordhoff. Groningen 1986).
Braak, M. ter en E. du Perron – 1962–69 Briefwisseling. Ed. H. van Galen Last. 4 dln. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam.
Braber, H. van den – 2002 Geven om te krijgen. Literair mecenaat in Nederland tussen 1900 en 1940. Proefschrift Utrecht. Vantilt. z.p. [Nijmegen].
Brandt Corstius, J.C. – 1968 Het poëtisch programma van Tachtig: een vergelijkende studie. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam [Utrechtse publikaties voor Algemene Literatuurwetenschap 11].
Bronzwaer, W. – 1993a Lessen in lyriek: nieuwe Nederlandse poëtica. Sun. Nijmegen.
Bronzwaer, W. – 1993b ‘De bal krijgt medelijden met de werper’ [bespr. van R.M. Rilke, Gedichten uit de jaren 1913–1926.
Vertaling en commenaar W. Blok en C.O. Jellema. Ambo. Baarn 1993]. In: de Volkskrant, 9 juli.
Büch, B. – 1980 ‘De alchemie van het woord. De schizofrene dichter Rimbaud vertaald’. In: Vrij Nederland, 23 februari.
Büch, B. – 1985 ‘“Hij is voor mij geen dokter, geen dichter, maar mijn speelgenoot geweest”. Een gesprek met de zuster van Slauerhoff’. In: Vrij Nederland / Boekenbijlage 9 feb.: 3–4, 14.
Buelens, G. – 2001 Van Ostaijen tot heden. Zijn invloed op de Vlaamse poëzie. Proefschrift Antwerpen. Vantilt / Kon. Acad. voor Ned. Taal- en Letterk. Nijmegen / Gent.
Bulhof, F. – 1989 ‘Quelle coïncidence’. In: T. van Helmond en J.J. Oversteegen (red.), Voor Arthur Lehning. Over anarchisme, anarcho-syndicalisme en architectuur [etc.]. Gerards & Schreurs. Maastricht: 44–50.
Calasso, R. – 2001 De literatuur en de goden. Wereldbibliotheek. Amsterdam. [Oorspr. titel: La letteratura e gli dèi, 2001].
Calis, P. – 1964 ‘J.J. Slauerhoff’. In: idem, Daling van temperatuur. 12 Nederlandse dichters 1890–1960. Bert Bakker. Den Haag. [Ooievaar 171]
Carpenter, H. – 1990 A Serious Character. The Life of Ezra Pound. Delta. New York. Herdr. (1ste dr. Boston, 1988).
Cirlot, J.E. – 1967 A Dictionary of Symbols. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Londen. 2de druk (1ste dr. 1962). [Oorspr. titel: Diccionario de simbolos tradicionales, 1958].
Claes, P. en M. Nys – 1985 ‘Pound en de Pisaanse Canto’s. In: Ezra Pound, De Pisaanse Canto’s. Ed. P. Claes en M. Nys. De Bezige Bij. Amsterdam.
Coleridge, S.T. – 2002 Twee balladen. De ballade van de oude zeeman van Samuel Taylor Coleridge en De ballade van Reading Gaol van Oscar Wilde. Vertaling W. Blok. Inleiding W. Tigges. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Corbière, T. – 1970 O’Euvres complètes. Éd. P.-O. Walzer et F.F. Burch. In: Charles Cros, Tristan Corbières, O’Euvres complètes. Gallimard. Parijs. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 221].
Cornelissen, M.K.A. – 2001 Poëzie is niet een spel met woorden. De criticus Willem Kloos temidden van zijn tijdgenoten. Proefschrift UvA. Vantilt. Nijmegen.
Cornets de Groot, R.A. – 1970 ‘Met andermans veer V: Het antiplagiaat’. In: Raam (1970) 70 (dec): 25–31.
Cornets de Groot, R.A – 1981 ‘Rilke, Rilke, Rilke!’ In: Ladders in de leegte. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. ’s-Gravenhage: 57–82, m.n. 72–82.
Coster, D. (samenst.) – 1932 Nieuwe geluiden. Een keuze uit de hedendaagsche poëzie. Van Loghum Slaterus. Arnhem. 4de, herz. en bijgew. dr. (1ste dr. 1924).
Coster, D. – 1961a Verzamelde werken. Brieven 1905–1930. Ed. H.L.T. de Beaufort. A.W. Sijthoff. Leiden.
Coster, D. – 1961b Verzamelde werken. Brieven 1931–1949. Ed. H.L.T. de Beaufort. A.W. Sijthoff. Leiden.
Coulon, M. – 1923 Le problème de Rimbaud. Poète maudit. A. Gomès. Nîmes.
Dale, Van – 1999 Van Dale. Groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal. Red. G. Geerts en T. den Boom. Van DaleLexicografie. Utrecht / Antwerpen. 13de, herz. dr. (1ste dr. 1872–1874).
Décote, G. en J. Dubosclard (éd.) – 1991 Histoire de la littérature française. XIX e siècle. Hatier. Parijs.
Dicker, P. – 1986 Slauerhoff, slodderhoff: over de muze en de slordigheid van J.J. Slauerhoff. Bosbespers. Oosterbeek.
Dijk, C. van – 1992 Alexandre A.M. Stols 1900–1973 uitgever-typograaf: een documentatie. Walburg Pers. Zutphen.
Dorleijn, G.J. – 1989 Terug naar de auteur. Over de dichter M. Nijhoff. de Prom. Baarn.
Dresden, S. – 1980 Symbolisme. Arbeiderspers / Wetenschappelijke uitgeverij. Amsterdam. [Synthese – stromingen en aspecten].
Droulers, Eug. – 1949 Dictionnaire des attributs, allégories, emblèmes et symboles. Brepols. Turnhout.
Dujardin, É. – 1921 ‘Les premiers poètes du vers libre’. In: Mercure de France. 15 maart, tome CXLVI: 577–621. Onder dezelfde titel als boek verschenen bij uitgeverij Mercure de France. Parijs 1922. [Les Hommes et les idées 31].
Eeden, F. van – 1930 Liber Amicorum Dr. Frederik van Eeden. Aangeboden t.g.v. zijn 70ste verjaardag 3 april 1930. Wereldbibliotheek. Amsterdam.
Eerd, K. van – 1987 ‘Jules Laforgue (16 augustus 1860 – 20 augustus 1887)’. In: De tweede ronde 8 (1987) 2 (zomer): 48–52 + 142–151.
Eggels, B. en P. van der Lecq – 1985 ‘“Wat een mens onderscheidt van beestjes is het feit dat hij cultuur bezit”. Gesprek met A.L. Sötemann’. In: Vooys 1 (1985) 1 (okt): 5–13.
Elburg, J.G. en K. Schuur (vert.) – 1949 ‘La fin’ van Tristan Corbière. In: Ad interim 5 (1949) 8/9: 228–230.
Eliot, T.S. – 1971 On Poetry and Poets. Faber & Faber. London. 6de dr. (1ste dr. 1957).
Elshout, R. – 1996 ‘Groeten uit Babylon. In het doolhof van het symbolisme’. In: Bzzlletin 25 (1996) 236/237 (meijuni): 99–110.
Endt, E. – 1986 Herman Gorter Documentatie 1864–1897. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam. 2de, zeer verm. dr. (1ste dr. 1964).
Erens, F. – 1989 Vervlogen jaren. Ed. H.G.M. Prick. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam. 3de, geheel herz. dr. (1ste. dr. 1938) [Privé-Domein 154].
Evans, I.H. (ed.) – 1994 The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable. Based on the original book of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer. Wordsworth Reference. Ware (UK). Herdruk (1ste dr. 1970).
Fens, K. – 1984 De tweede stem. Querido. Amsterdam.
Fessard, L.J.E. – 1964 Jan Slauerhoff (1898–1936). Sa vie, son oeuvre. Proefschrift Parijs. A.G. Nizet. Parijs.
Fessard, L.J.E. – 1982 ‘Het doodsmotief bij Slauerhoff’. In: Juffrouw Ida 8 (1982) 2 (aug): 8–13.
Fokkema, D. en E. Ibsch – 1984 Het Modernisme in de Europese letterkunde. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam. [Synthese – stromingen en aspecten].
Fokkema, R.L.K. – 1990 ‘Kinderen van Saturnus’. In: De nieuwe taalgids 83 (1990) 6 (nov): 481–493.
Fokkema, R. – 1999 Aan de mond van al die rivieren. Een geschiedenis van de Nederlandse poëzie sinds 1945. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen.
Fontijn, J. – 1992 De Nederlandse schrijversbiografie. Hes. Utrecht. [HES Literatuur].
Fontijn, J. – 1997 Broeders in bedrog. De biograaf en zijn held. Essays. Querido. Amsterdam.
Friedrich, H. – 1988 Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik. Von der Mitte des neunzehnten bis zur Mitte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Nachwort J. v. Stackelberg. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Reinbek bei Hamburg. 12de dr. (1ste dr. 1956).
Goedegebuure, J. – 1981 Op zoek naar een bezield verband. II: Documenten, brieven en verspreide publicaties van H. Marsman.Van Oorschot. Amsterdam.
Goedegebuure, J. – 1999 Zee, berg, rivier. Het leven van H. Marsman. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen. [Open Domein 35].
Gomperts, H.A. – 1981 ‘De holle man en de halve vrouw’. In: idem, Intenties 2. Terug tot Simon Vestdijk en andere essays. Meulenhoff. Amsterdam: 76–90. Ook in: Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden 1971–1972. E.J. Brill. Leiden 1973: 3–14.
Gorp, H. van, D. Delabastita en R. Ghesquiere – 1998 Lexicon van literaire termen. Martinus Nijhoff / Wolters Plantyn. Groningen / Deurne. 7de herz. dr.(1ste dr. 1980).
Gorter, H. – 1978 Verzen. De editie van 1890. Inleiding en commentaar E. Endt. Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1977).
Greshoff, J. – 1990 ‘Beste Sander, Do it now!’ Briefwisseling J. Greshoff – A.A.M. Stols. I: 1922–1941. Ed. S. Chen en S.A.J. van Faassen. Nederlands Letterkundig Museum en Documentatiecentrum. ’s-Gravenhage. [Achter het Boek 24].
Grosskurth, Ph. – 1997 Byron. The Flawed Angel. Hodder & Stoughton. Londen.
Hadermann, P. – 1991 ‘Les métamorphoses de “Sélection” et la propagation de l’expressionnisme en Belgique’. In: J. Weisgerber (éd.), Les Avant-gardes littéraires en Belgique. Au confluent des arts et des langues (1880–1950). Labor. Brussel. [Archives du Futur]: 241–275.
Halsema, J.D.F. van – 1989 Bijeen het vroeger en het later, de dichter Leopold en zijn bronnen. Een onderzoek naar de verwerking van de bronnen in een groep onvoltooide gedichten uit de nalatenschap van J.H. Leopold. Proefschrift VU Amsterdam 1986. Veen. Utrecht / Antwerpen.
Hamburger, M. – 1982 The Truth of Poetry. Tensions in Modern Poetry from Baudelaire to the 1960s. Methuen. Londen / New York. Herdr. (1ste dr. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Londen 1969).
Hamel, H. – 2003 Het journaal van Hendrick Hamel: de verbazingwekkende lotgevallen van Hendrick Hamel en andere schipbreukelingen van het VOC-schip de Sperwer in Korea (1653–1666). Vertaling, inleiding en toelichtingen H. Savenije. Donker. Rotterdam. [Oorspr. uitgave: Van de ongeluckighe voyagie van ‘t jacht de Sperwer van Batavia ghedestineert na Tayowan in ‘t jaer 1653, en vand daer op Japan. Jacob van Velsen. Amsterdam 1668.]
Hamel, A.G. van – 1902 ‘Fransche symbolisten’. In: De gids 66 (1902) I: 407–442 en II: 448–489.
Hazeu, W. – 1995 Slauerhoff. Een biografie. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen. (3de dr. 1998) [Open Domein 28].
Heerikhuizen, F.W. van – 1963 Albert Verwey. Desclée de Brouwer. z.p. [Brugge]. [Literaire ontmoetingen 48].
Hellemans, D. – 1991 ‘Être ou ne pas être… surréaliste: coordonnées du surréalisme en Flandre’. In: J. Weisgerber (éd.), Les Avant-gardes littéraires en Belgique. Au confluent des arts et des langues (1880–1950). Labor. Brussel. [Archives du Futur]: 373–418.
Hellens, F. – 1957 Le Dernier Disque Vert. Hommage à Franz Hellens. Éd. J. Paulhan. Albin Michel. Parijs.
Heumakers, A. – 1983 ‘Een feest als inspiratiebron voor ’n boek’ [bespreking van de vertaling van William Beckfords Vathek]. In: de Volkskrant, vrijdag 7 januari.
Heumakers, A. – 1995 ‘Mompelend een kabbalistische sensatie ondergaan. De grenzeloze ambities van Stéphane Mallarmé’ [bespreking van Paul Bénichou, Selon Mallarmé, en S. Mallarmé, Correspondance complète 1862–1871]. In: de Volkskrant, vrijdag 11 augustus.
Heynders, O. – 1995 ‘De toekomst van het poëtica-onderzoek: problemen van een reconstructieve-institutionele benadering’. In: Spektator 24 (1995): 3–20 (reactie op Van Rees en Dorleijn 1994).
Hölderlin, F. – 1988 Gedichten. Vertaling en commentaar Ad den Besten. de Prom. Baarn.
Hoetink, B. (red.) – 1920 Verhaal van het vergaan van het jacht De Sperwer [etc.]. ’s-Gravenhage. Martinus Nijhoff. [Werken uitgegeven door de Linschoten-Vereeniging, XVIII].
Holmes, R. – 1985 Footsteps. Adventures of a Romantic Biographer. Penguin Books Ltd. Harmondsworth.
Holmes, R. – 1989 Coleridge. Early visions. Hodder & Stoughton. London etc.
Janssens, M. – 1992 ‘J.J. Slauerhoff en Columbus’. In: Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie der Nederlandse Taal- & Letterkunde 2/3: 209–218. Ook in: idem, Met groter L. Van Couperus tot Claus. Davidsfonds / Clauwaert. Leuven 1994: 93–104.
Jessurun d’Oliveira, H.U. – 1967 Vondsten en bevindingen. Essays over Nederlandse poëzie. Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. [Kartons].
Jorna, R.B.J. – 1982 Slauerhoff als criticus bij de Nieuwe Arnhemsche courant. Doctoraalscriptie. Instituut voor Neerlandistiek (Universiteit van Amsterdam).
Kalff jr., G. – 1923 De sage van den Vliegenden Hollander. Naar behandeling, oorsprong en zin onderzocht. W.J. Thieme & Cie. Zutphen.
Kamerbeek jr., J. – 1966 Albert Verwey en het nieuwe classicisme. “De richting van de hedendaagsche poëzie” (1913) in zijn internationale context. Proefschrift Utrecht. Wolters. Groningen. [Studia Litteraria Rheno-Traiectina IX].
Kapteijns, H.M. – 1949 Autonome dichters. Typen van poètes maudits. Proefschrift Nijmegen. Dekker & Van de Vegt. Utrecht [etc.].
Kelk, C.J. – 1968 Ik keek alleen. Desclée de Brouwer. Brugge / Utrecht. [Open-kaart].
Kelk, C.J. – 1981 Leven van Slauerhoff. Bzztôh. ’s-Gravenhage. 2de dr. (1ste dr. Van Kampen. Amsterdam 1959) [Forum Haganum 14].
Kellendonk, F. – 1992 Het complete werk. Meulenhoff. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1992).
Kermode, F. en J. Hollander (ed.) – 1973 The Oxford Anthology of English Literature. Volume II: 1800 to the Present. Oxford University Press. New York / Londen / Toronto.
Kinker, J. – 1982 De verlichte muze. Bloemlezing uit de poëzie van J. Kinker. Ed. G.J. Vis. Martinus Nijhoff. ’s-Gravenhage. [Nijhoffs Nederlandse Klassieken].
Kleinrensink, G.J. – 1992 ‘Het gedicht als woning of als kraakpand. Over de poëtica van J. Slauerhoff’. In: Preludium 8/9 (1992) 4/1: 44–57.
Kloos, W. – 1891 ‘Nieuwste Fransche letteren’. In: De nieuwe gids 6 (1891) 4 (april): 75–91.
Komrij, G. – 1996 ‘In liefde bloeyende: “In memoriam mijzelf”’. In: NRC Handelsblad, 1 augustus. [Achterpagina].
Komrij, G. – 1999 ‘Trou moet blijcken’. In: NRC Handelsblad, 1 april. [Achterpagina].
Kramer, J.G. – z.j. [1911] Dertien jaar krijgsgevangen. Gebr. Kluitman. Alkmaar.
Krijger, E. – 2003 Slauerhoff in zelfbeelden. Atlas. Amsterdam / Antwerpen.
Kroon, D. (samenst.) – 1981 Ik had het leven me anders voorgesteld. J. Slauerhoff in vraaggesprekken en herinneringen. Bzztôh. ’s-Gravenhage.
Kroon, D. (samenst.) – 1982 Er bleef toch geen bewijs. Opstellen over de poëzie van J. Slauerhoff. Bzztôh. ’s-Gravenhage.
Kroon, D. (samenst.) – 1985 Maar toen het lag ontdekt, leek het verraad. Opstellen over het proza van J. Slauerhoff. Bzztôh. ’s-Gravenhage.
Laan, K. ter – 2003 Nederlandse spreekwoorden, spreuken en zegswijzen. Spectrum. Utrecht. 25ste dr. (1ste dr. Van Goor. ’s-Gravenhage 1950).
Lautréamont, C. de – 1980 De zangen van Maldoror. Vertaling C.N. Lijsen. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. 3de dr. (1ste dr. De Bezige Bij, 1962).
Lehning, A. – 1955 Brieven van Slauerhoff. A.A.M. Stols. ’s-Gravenhage.
Lehning, A. – 1979 ‘Een land nog niet in kaart gebracht’. In: idem, De draad van Ariadne. Essays en commentaren 1. Het Wereldvenster. Baarn: 45–54. 2de druk (1ste dr. Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam 1966). Eerder verschenen in Maatstaf, mei 1962.
Lehning, A. – 1980 ‘De dichter en de politiek. Een aantekening over Marsman en Rilke’. In: idem, Ithaka. Essays en commentaren 2. Het Wereldvenster. Baarn:212–220. Eerder, bekort, verschenen in: Thema’s voor een uitgever. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam 1978.
Lehning, A. – 1981 ‘Over J.J. Slauerhoff’. In: Juffrouw Idastraat 7 (1981) 2 (juni): 1–5.
Leopold, J.H. – 1982 Verzamelde verzen I. De tijdens het leven van de dichter gepubliceerde poëzie. Ed. A.L. Sötemann en H.T.M. van Vliet. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. [Nederlandse Klassieken].
Leopold, J.H. – 1990 Verzamelde verzen II. Nagelaten poëzie. Ed. H.T.M. van Vliet en A.L. Sötemann. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. [Nederlandse Klassieken].
Leppmann, W. – 1990 Rainer Maria Rilke. Zijn leven en werk. Balans. Amsterdam. [Oorspr. titel: Rainer Maria Rilke. Leben und Werk. Scherz Verlag. München 1981].
Levie, S. – 1994 ‘La Revue belge Le Disque vert 1921–1941’. In: Sophie Levie (éd.), Reviews, Zeitschriften, revues. Die Fackel, Die Weltbühne, Musikblätter des Anbruch, Le Disque vert, Mécano, Versty. Rodopi. Amsterdam: 97–137. [Avant Garde Critical Studies 9].
Luijters, G. – 1993 ‘Is Rimbaud te vertalen?’. In: Het Parool, 3 september.
MacCarthy, F. – 2002 Byron. Life and Legend. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York.
Mallarmé, S. – 1950 OEuvres complètes. Éd. H. Mondor et G. Jean-Aubry. Gallimard. Parijs. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1945). [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 65].
Mallarmé, S. – 1986 Gedichten. Vertaling en toelichting P. Claes. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. [Kleine Bellettrie Serie].
Mallarmé, S. – 1998 O’Euvres complètes I. Éd. B. Marchal. Gallimard. Parijs. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 65].
Mallarmé, S. – 2003 O’Euvres complètes II. Éd. B. Marchal. Gallimard. Parijs. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 497].
Marsman, H. e.a. 1928 aNti-schUnd. Brochure gericht tegen het nieuwe tijdschrift ‘Nu’. De Gemeenschap. Utrecht.
Marsman, H. – 1947 Verzameld werk III. Critisch Proza. Querido. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1938).
Marsman, H. – 1990 Achter de vuurlijn van de horizon. Verspreid gepubliceerde gedichten 1917–1940. Ed. H.T.M. van Vliet. Querido. Amsterdam.
Martineau, R. – 1925 Tristan Corbière. Le Divan. Parijs. [Collection Saint-Germain-des-Prés 1].
Meeuwesse, K. – 1965 ‘Een Frans proefschrift over Slauerhoff’. In: De nieuwe taalgids 58 (1965): 397–403.
Meyer, R.P. – 1955 ‘Slauerhoffs Chinese bewerkingen en hun Engelse voorbeelden’. In: De gids 118 (1955) 5: 355–363.
Minderaa, P. – 1942 Karel van de Woestijne. Zijn leven en werken. Proefschrift Utrecht. Van Loghum Slaterus. Arnhem.
Mörchen, H. – 1958 Rilkes Sonette an Orpheus. W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Stuttgart.
Mooijman, W. (samenst.) – 1969 Forum: brieven, citaten, dokumenten en knipsels. Inleiding L. Mosheuvel. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. ’s-Gravenhage / Rotterdam.
Musschoot, A.M. (samenst.) – 1999 Bloemlezing uit de poëzie van Karel van de Woestijne. Poëziecentrum. Gent. 3de dr. (1ste dr. 1989) [Dichters van nu 11].
Nap, J. (samenst.) – 1993 Ik heb iets bijna schoons aanschouwd. Over leven en werk van P.C. Boutens 1870–1943. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep / Letterkundig Museum en Documentatiecentrum. Amsterdam / Den Haag.
Nijhoff. M. – 1982 Verzameld werk II. Kritisch en verhalend proza. Ed. G. Borgers. Bert Bakker. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1962).
Nijhoff, M. – 1993 Gedichten III. Historisch-kritische uitgave. Ed. W.J. van den Akker en G.J. Dorleijn. Van Gorcum. Assen / Maastricht.
Nijhoff, M. – 1996 Brieven aan mijn vrouw. Ed. A. Oosthoek. Bert Bakker. Amsterdam.
Nijland-Verwey, M. – 1956 ‘Gerrit Kalff jr.’ In: Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1955–1956:95–103.
Noomen, W. en J.A.G. Tans – 1977 Franse letterkunde. Het Spectrum. Utrecht / Antwerpen. 3de dr. (1ste dr. 1968). [Prisma Compendia 53].
Oerlemans, F. en P. Janzen – 2003 ‘Wie dat schrijft, zal mij niet in de steek laten. Het leven van Willem Kloos (1859–1938)’. In: De parelduiker 8 (2003) 2/3: 4–53.
Oversteegen, J.J. – 1978 Vorm of vent. Opvattingen over de aard van het literaire werk in de Nederlandse kritiek tussen de twee wereldoorlogen. Proefschrift UvA. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. 3de dr. (1ste dr. 1969).
Paardt, R. van der – 1987 ‘Slauerhoff en de Maatschappij’. In: Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1985–1986. Leiden: 16–18.
Paardt, W.J. van der – 1980 Over de poëzie van J. Slauerhoff. Wetenschappelijke uitgeverij. Amsterdam. [Synthese].
Peperkamp, B. – 1997 ‘Inleiding’. In: R.M. Rijkse (samenst.), De P.C. Boutens-collectie van de Zeeuwse Bibliotheek te Middelburg. Schiphouwer en Brinkman. Amsterdam.
Perk, J. – 1980 Gedichten (volgens de eerste druk [1882]). Ed. G. Stuiveling. Martinus Nijhoff. Den Haag. 4de, ongewijzigde dr. (1ste dr. 1965).
Perron, E. du – 1977 Brieven I. 9 september 1922 – 28 december 1929. Ed. P. Delen e.a. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam.
Perron, E. du – 1980 Brieven VI. 1 november 1935 – 30 juni 1937. Ed. P. Delen e.a. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam.
Perron, E. du – 1981 Brieven VII. 2 juli 1937 – 30 november 1938. Ed. P. Delen e.a. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam.
Poe, E.A. – 1958 Poems and Essays. Introduction Andrew Lang. J.M. Dent & Sons / E.P. Dutton & Co. Londen / New York. (1ste dr. in deze editie 1927).
Poe, E.A. – 1985 The Fall of the House of Usher and Other Writings. Poems, Tales, Essays and Reviews. Ed. D. Galloway. Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. [Penguin Classics] (1ste dr. als Selected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe, 1967).
Pos, A. – 1987a ‘J. Slauerhoff: van dichterlijke brekebeen tot groot schrijver’. In: Ons erfdeel 30 (1987) 3 (mei-juni): 367–381.
Pos, A. – 1987b ‘Het onherroepelijk einde’. In: Spektator 16 (1986–1987) 4: 287–297.
Pos, A. – 1992 ‘De strijd met de demon. Het demonisatiemotief in het werk van J. Slauerhoff. In: Preludium 8/9 (1992) 4/1: 26–42.
Pos, A., C. Shaogang en N. Scheltens-Boerma (samenst.) – 1993 Dronken in de lente. De Chinese gedichten van J. Slauerhoff. Uitgave van de bronnen van Slauerhoff, andere vertalingen en de Chinese originelen. Barabinsk. Leiden.
Poucke, W. van – 1994 Magie van woord & woud. De Literaire Ardennen. Globe / de Prom. Groot-Bijgaarden / Baarn.
Prick, H.G.M. – 1979 ‘Stéphane Mallarmé en Tachtig’. In: Maatstaf 27 (1979) 5/6 (mei-juni): 129–148.
Prick, H.G.M. – 1997 In de zekerheid van eigen heerlijkheid. Het leven van Lodewijk van Deyssel tot 1890. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Prick, H.G.M. – 2003 Een vreemdeling op de wegen. Het leven van Lodewijk van Deyssel vanaf 1890. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Rees, C.J. van en G. Dorleijn – 1994 ‘Literatuuropvattingen in het literaire veld: over de integratie van twee benaderingen’. In: Spektator 23 (1994): 91–114.
Rees, C.J. van en G. Dorleijn – 1999 ‘Een tussenbalans met betrekking tot het aandachtsgebied “Literatuuropvattingen”’. In: idem (red.), Literatuuropvattingen in het perspectief van het literaire veld. NWO. Den Haag.
Rilke, R.M. – 1958 Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge. Insel Verlag. z.p. [Frankfurt am Main]. Herdruk (1ste dr. 1910).
Rilke, R.M. – 1978 De elegieën van Duino, 1912–1922. Vertaling en commentaar W.J.M. Bronzwaer. Ambo. Baarn. [Ambo-tweetalig].
Rilke, R.M. – 1981 De aantekeningen van Malte Laurids Brigge. Vertaling P. Lukkenaer. Het Spectrum. Utrecht / Antwerpen. [Prisma Klassieken 49].
Rilke, R.M. – 1995 Die Gedichte. Nach der von E. Zinn besorgten Edition der Sämtlichen Werke (Insel Verlag. Fr. am Main 1957). Insel Verlag. Frankfurt am Main. Siebte Auflage (Erste Auflage: 1986).
Rilke, R.M. – 1996 De Elegieën van Duino & De Sonnetten aan Orpheus. Vertaling en commentaar W. Blok, W. Bronzwaer en C.O. Jellema. Ambo / Kritak. Baarn / Antwerpen. [Ambo-tweetalig].
Rimbaud, A. – 1995 Een seizoen in de hel. Une saison en enfer. Vertaling P. Claes. Kritak / Goossens [z.p.]. [Kritak Klassiek 16].
Rimbaud, A. – 1999 Gedichten. Vertaling P. Claes. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Rimbaud, A. – 2002 Brieven 1870–1875. Vertaling P. Claes. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam.
Rodenko, P – 1956 Met twee maten. De kerm van vijftig jaar poëzie, geïsoleerd en experimenteel gesplitst. Bert Bakker / Daamen. Den Haag [Ooievaar 38].
Rodenko, P. (samenst.) – 1957 Gedoemde dichters. Van Gérard de Nerval tot en met Antonin Artaud. Een bloemlezing uit de ‘poètes maudits’. Bert Bakker / Daamen. Den Haag. [Ooievaar 63].
Rodenko, P. – 1977 ‘De experimentele “explosie” in Nederland (2)’. In: De gids 140 (1977) 8: 568–579.
Roover, A. De – 1968 Paul van Ostaijen. Antwerpen.
Ruitenbeek, K. – 1985 ‘Slauerhoffs “Yoeng Poe Tsjoeng” in de Europese letterkunde’. In: Literatuur 2 (1985) 1 (jan-feb): 2–10.
Ruiter, F. en W. Smulders – 1996 Literatuur en moderniteit in Nederland, 1840–1990. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen.
Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen, M.A. (red.) – 1998 Nederlandse literatuur. Een geschiedenis. Contact. Amsterdam / Antwerpen. 2de, ongewijzigde dr. (1ste dr. Martinus Nijhoff. Groningen 1993).
Schermer, P. en H. de Vries – 2000 Lautréamont in Nederland. 2 dln. Labyrint. Enkhuizen.
Scott, C. – 1990 Vers libre. The emergence of Free Verse in France 1886–1914. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Scott, C. – 1991 ‘The Prose Poem and Free Verse’. In: M. Bradbury en J. McFarlane (red.), Modernism. A Guide to European Literature 1890–1930. Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. Herdr. (1ste dr. 1976).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1922 ‘Aanteekening over Jules Laforgues’. In: Het getij 7 (1922) 3 (mrt): 52–55. (ook in Slauerhoff 1958: 69–73).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1924 ‘Arthur Rimbaud: “poète maudit”’. In: De vrije bladen 1 (1924) 3 (mei): 153–160. (ook in Slauerhoff 1958: 59–68).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1925a ‘René Martineau over Tristan Corbière’. In: in De witte mier 2 (1925) 4 (15 april): 145–163. (ook in Slauerhoff 1958: 44–58).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1925b ‘In memoriam J.H. Leopold’. In: De vrije bladen 2 (1925) 9 (sep): 229–230. (gedeeltelijk ook in Slauerhoff 1958: 92).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1931 ‘Herinneringen aan de symbolisten. Rachilde: Portraits d’hommes’. In: Nieuwe Arnhemsche courant, 19 september.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1933 prospectus Saudades. A.A.M. Stols. Maastricht. [in eerste-drukexemplaar Saudades. UB-UvA sign.: K 69-9].
Slauerhoff, J. – 1940–58 Verzamelde werken. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. 8 dln. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Rotterdam.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1946 In memoriam J. Slauerhoff. Bij zijn tienden sterfdag. Uitgeverij Contact. Amsterdam. (speciaal Proloognr., okt-nov).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1954 ‘De piraat (eerste versie)’. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. In: Maatstaf 2 (1954) 8 (nov): 567–579.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1955 ‘Over het “vrije vers” en versbevrijding in het Nederlandsch’. In: Maatstaf 3 (1955) 6 (sep): 481–503.
(ook, maar zonder annotaties, in Slauerhoff 1958: 6–27).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1957 Dagboek. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. K. Lekkerkerker. z.p. [Amsterdam].
Slauerhoff, J. – 1958 Verzamelde werken VIII. Proza V. Critisch proza. K. Lekkerkerker. Amsterdam.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1970 ‘Le cas Lautréamont’. In: Le Disque vert, revue mensuelle de littérature. 3e an, 4e série, No 4. 1925: 80–85. Réimpr. intégrale. 4 dln. Jacques Antoine. Brussel 1970–1971: 370–375.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1982a Het lente-eiland en andere verhalen. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Bzztôh / Nijgh & Van Ditmar. ’s-Gravenhage. 9de dr. (1ste dr. 1930).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1982b Het verboden rijk. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Nijgh & Van Ditmar / Bzztôh. ’s-Gravenhage. 11de dr. (1ste dr. 1932).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1983a Slauerhoff student auteur. Ed. E. Francken, G. van Munster en A. Pos. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. ’s-Gravenhage.
Slauerhoff, J. – 1983b De opstand van Guadalajara. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Bzztôh / Nijgh & Van Ditmar. ’s-Gravengage. 5de dr. (1ste dr. 1937).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1984 Brieven aan Hans Feriz. ed. H. Vernout. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam. [Privé-Domein 91].
Slauerhoff, J. – 1985 Hij droeg de zee en de verte aan zich mee. De briefwisseling Dr. P.H. Ritter Jr. – J.J. Slauerhoff (1930–1936). Ed. J.J. van Herpen. H&S HES. Utrecht. [Kwarto].
Slauerhoff, J. – 1988 Verzamelde gedichten. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Amsterdam. 3de ed. 13de dr. (1ste dr. 1947) [Tot en met de 18de dr. (1999) loopt de bladzijdennummering van deze 3de editie gelijk. De nieuwste, vierde editie (19e dr.) van 2005, onder de titel Alle gedichten, heeft vanwege nieuw zetsel een andere bladzijdennummering.].
Slauerhoff, J. – 1991a Het leven op aarde. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Amsterdam. 13de dr. (1ste dr. 1934).
Slauerhoff, J. – 1991b Schuim en as. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Amsterdam. 20ste dr. (1ste dr. 1930).
Slauerhoff, J. – 2001 ‘Ruslands letterkunde’. Inleiding A. Pos en H. Visser. In: Vestdijkkroniek no. 96: 2–23.
Slauerhoff, J. – 2003 Alle verhalen. Ed. K. Lekkerkerker. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Amsterdam.
Snoek, K. – 2005 E. du Perron. Het leven van een smalle mens. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Amsterdam.
Sötemann, A.L. – 1965 inleiding bij J. Slauerhoff, Het eind van het lied. Querido / Wolters. Amsterdam / Groningen: ii-vii.
Sötemann, A.L. – 1976 ‘“Non-spectacular” modernism: Martinus Nijhoff’s poetry in its European context’. In: F. Bulhof (red.), Nijhoff, Van Ostaijen, ‘De Stijl’, Modernism in the Netherlands and Belgium in the first quarter of the 20th century. Martinus Nijhoff. Den Haag: 95–116 (ook in Sötemann 1985).
Sötemann, A.L. – 1984 ‘Vier poëtica’s’. In: De nieuwe taalgids 77 (1984) no. 5: 437–448 (ook in Sötemann 1985).
Sötemann, A.L. – 1985 Over poetica en poëzie. Een bundel beschouwingen. Red. W.J. van den Akker en G.J. Dorleijn. Wolters Noordhoff. Groningen.
Somerwil, J. – 1957 Bibliografie van bijdragen aan tijdschriften van Jan Jacob Slauerhoff (1898–1936) t/m juni 1957. Bibliotheek Neerlandistiek P.C. Hoofthuis. Universiteit van Amsterdam. [sign. 175B Ned. Broch. 02.242]
Starkie, E. – 1968 Arthur Rimbaud. New Directions. New York 1968. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1961).
Sterne, L. – 1982 Een sentimentele reis door Frankrijk en Italië. Vertaling en voorwoord F. Kellendonk. Tabula.
Amsterdam. [Oorspr. titel: A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy. Londen, 1768].
Straten, H. van – 2000 Weer wankelt de boekenkast. de Prom. Baarn.
Touret, M. (éd.) – 2000 Histoire de la littérature française du XXe siècle. Tome I. 1898–1940. Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
T’Sjoen, Y. – 1996 ‘De dood van de hardnekkige mythe rond J.J. Slauerhoff’. In: De Vlaamse gids 80 (1996) 3: 40–46.
Vaessens, Th. – 1998 Circus Dubio & Schroom. Nijhoff, Van Ostaijen en de mentaliteit van het modernisme. Arbeiderspers. Amsterdam / Antwerpen.
Vancrevel, L.D. – 1965 ‘Arthur Rimbaud – Le bateau ivre. Enige opmerkingen bij de Nederlandse vertalingen’. In: Hollands maandblad 7 (1965/1966) 215 (juni 1965): 32–36.
Veenstra, J.H.W. – 1984 ‘Du Perron en Slauerhoff, een vriendschap en een breuk’. In: Ons erfdeel 27 (1984) 2 (mrt-apr): 225–244.
Verbeek. E. – 1997 De hemel mag het weten. Over de poëzie en de persoonlijkheid van Tristan Corbière. Van Gorcum. Assen.
Verlaine, P. – 1884 Les poètes maudits. Tristan Corbière, Arthur Rimbaud, Stéphane Mallarmé. Léon Vanier. Parijs. [Éd.
R. Pierrot. Réimpression photographiques. Ressources. Parijs / Genève. 1979].
Verlaine, P. – 1938 OEuvres poétiques complètes. Éd. Y.-G. Le Dantec. Nouvelle revue française. Parijs. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 47].
Verlaine, P. – 1969 OEuvres poétiques. Éd. J. Robichez. Éditions Garnier. Parijs.
Verlaine, P. – 1972 OEuvres en prose complètes. Éd. J. Borel. Gallimard. Parijs. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 239].
Verlaine, P. – 2002 Een droom vreemd en indringend: een leven in gedichten. Vertaling en commentaar P. Verstegen. Van Oorschot. Amsterdam. [Franse bibliotheek – klassiek].
Verwey, A. – 1905 Inleiding tot de nieuwe Nederlandsche dichtkunst (1880–1900). Schreuders. Amsterdam.
Verwey, A. – 1931 Ritme en metrum. C.A. Mees. Santpoort.
Vestdijk, S. – 1966 ‘De demonische mens en de schoonheid’. In: Muiterij tegen het etmaal II. Poëzie en essay. Bert Bakker. Den Haag: 204–209. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1947). Oorspronkelijk verschenen in de Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant van 5 november 1938.
Vestdijk, S. – 1975 Gestalten tegenover mij. Persoonlijke herinneringen. De Bezige Bij. Amsterdam. 3de dr. (1ste dr. 1961).
Vestdijk, S. – 1976a Lier en lancet. Athenaeum—Polak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. 3de dr. (1ste dr. Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Rotterdam 1939).
Vestdijk, S. – 1976b Zuiverende kroniek. Essays. Meulenhoff. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. 1956).
Vestdijk, S. – 1979 De glanzende kiemcel. Acht lezingen over wezen en techniek der poëzie. Gehouden te Sint Michielsgestel in 1942–1943. AthenaeumPolak & Van Gennep. Amsterdam. 5de herdr. (1ste dr. De Driehoek. ’s-Graveland 1950).
Vestdijk, S. – 1980 Voor en na de explosie. Opstellen over poëzie. Meulenhoff. Amsterdam. 2de dr. (1ste dr. Bert Bakker / Daamen. ’s-Gravenhage 1960). Vg = Slauerhoff 1988.
Visser, H. (i.s.m. M. Nord en E. Overbeeke) – 1987 Simon Vestdijk: een schrijversleven. Kwadraat. Utrecht.
Vliet, H.T.M. van (ed.) – 1999 Tussen twee generaties. Briefwisseling A. Roland Holst en H. Marsman (1922–1940). Letterkundig Museum. Den Haag. [Achter het boek 34].
Voorde, U. van de – 1931 Critiek en beschouwing. Tweede bundel. De Sikkel / C.A. Mees. Antwerpen / Santpoort.
Vries, A. de – 1981 Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery. North-Holland Publishing Company. Amsterdam / London. 3de dr. (1ste dr. 1974).
Vries, H. de – 1966 Lautréamont in Nederland. Een beknopt critisch literatuuronderzoek. Brumes Blondes + Bureau de Recherhes Surréalistes. Amsterdam.
Vries, J. de 1979 Etymologisch woordenboek. Herzien door P.L.M. Tummers. Spectrum. Utrecht / Antwerpen. (eerste uitg. 1958) [Aulapocket]. Vw = Slauerhoff 1940–58.
Waley, A. (vert.) – 1918 One Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems. Constable. Londen.
Waley, A. (vert.) – 1919 More Translations from the Chinese. Allen & Unwin. Londen.
Waley, A. (vert.) – 1989 Chinese poems. Unwinn Paperbacks. Londen / Boston / Sydney / Wellington. 5de dr. (1ste dr. 1946).
Watson, L.J. – 1980 Jules Laforgue. Poet of His Age. Ramapo College of New Jersey. Mahwah. NJ. Wellek, R. en A. Warren – 1962 Theory of Literature. Harcourt, Brace & World. New York. [A Harvest Book] 3de herz. dr. (1ste dr. 1949).
Wenseleers, L.. – 1966 Het wonderbaarlijk lichaam. Martinus Nijhoff en de moderne westerse poëzie. Bert Bakker / Daamen. z.p. [Den Haag].
Wessem, C. van (inl.) – 1919 De jongeren. Bloemlezing uit het werk der jongere Nederlandsche dichters. Samenst. Ernst Groenevelt. De Branding. Utrecht.
Wessem, C. van – 1938 Slauerhoff-herinneringen. In: De vrije bladen 15 (1938) schrift X (okt). H.P. Leopold. Den Haag.
Wessem, C. van – 1940 Slauerhoff. Een levensbeschrijving. A.A.M. Stols. Rijswijk.
Wessem, C. van – 1941 Mijn broeders in Apollo. Literaire herinneringen en herdenkingen. A.A.M. Stols. ’s-Gravenhage.
Wessem, C. van – 1941b ‘Slauerhoviana’. In: Criterium 2 (1941) 5 (mei): 378–384.
Wester, R. – 1986 ‘Busken Huet en de Franse literatuur’. In: Maatstaf 34 (1986) 4/5 (apr): 66–71.
Wilson, E. – 1982 Axels burcht. Creatieve literatuur van 1870–1930. Arbeiderspers / Wetenschappelijke uitgeverij.
Amsterdam. [Synthese – stromingen en aspecten] [Oorspr. titel: Axel’s Castle. Fontana Library. Londen 1931, 1959].
Zwaap, R. – 1990 ‘“Een asiel, voor dichters uitverkoren”. De eilanden van Slauerhoff’. In: De groene Amsterdammer, 11 april.
Zweig, S. – 1928 Der Kampf mit dem Dämon. Hölderlin, Kleist, Nietzsche. Insel-Verlag. Leipzig. (1ste dr. 1925).

Het Letterkundig Museum in Den Haag bemachtigde de literaire nalatenschap van zwervend dichter en schrijver J.J. Slauerhoff. Adriaan van Dis en museumdirecteur Aad Meinderts lichtten toe wat er in de kist en vijftig dozen werd aangetroffen.

VARA ~ De wereld draait door ~ april 2014

Ills.: obrag.org

The global economic system is inherently unequal and the poor bear the full brunt of this nequality. In other words, the way finance flows and the systems that perpetuate resource distribution are inherently weighted against inclusion of the poor. Banks do not supply loans on terms affordable to slum dwellers, cities sink budgets into formal taxpaying areas rather than slums while policies, rules and regulations prop up a grossly uneven distribution of wealth. Traditional market finance does not, and in all likelihood cannot, work for the poor on a city scale – slums continue to grow, as does the gap between rich and poor, north and south. The problem is not poor people’s inability to access the global economy but the formal global economy’s inability to provide solutions that are flexible enough to include the poor.

Read more (PDF-format): http://www.sdinet.org/media/CityFundsReport_SDI_032014.pdf

Ills.: guarantco.com

designboom.com. March 8, 2104.  international studio urban think tank led by alfredo brillembourg and hubert klumpner are currently exhibiting the ‘empower shack‘ at the galerie eva presenhuber in zurich. the project is developed as an adapting response to urban informality, offering not only improved housing but a strategy that allows the citizens of self-built urban communities to dynamically structure their urban environment as an instant response to their needs. the empower shack was a largely collaborative project between U-TT, south african NGO Ikhayalami (‘my home’), transsolar, brillembourg ochoa foundation, meyer burger, the BLOCK ETH ITA research group, and videocompany. over the course of extensive research and close communication with community leader phumezo tsibanto, a prototype was developed featuring a two story metal-clad modular wood frame structure that is economical for the residents and can be self-built. jumping back in scale, the project also features a master plan that begins to structure informally developed neighborhoods to include courtyards, public space, and improved circulation through a ‘blocking out’ system.

read & see more: http://www.designboom.com/slums-western-cape

The Housing Bibliography has been produced to cover a wide range of housing-related literature, e.g. housing policy, housing finance, social housing, informal settlements.
The material has been divided into two phases:
1) Up to 1999; and
2) 1999 – 2003.

Read more: http://www.wits.ac.za/publications_archive.html

Douglas Ehninger’s theoretical gem, “Argument as Method” (1970), introduces us to two unsavory debate characters. First, there is the “neutralist” – an interlocutor who eschews commitment at every turn. Following the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, the neutralist thinks that since nothing can be known, standpoints should float freely, unanchored by the tethers of belief. The neutralist’s counterpart is the “naked persuader” – someone who approaches argument like Plato’s Callicles – clinging doggedly to preconceived beliefs and resisting any shift no matter how compelling the counterpoints (Ehninger 1970, p. 104).

Naked persuaders and neutralists each have difficulty engaging in argument, but for different reasons. According to Ehninger (1970, p. 104), argumentation is a “person risking enterprise,” and by entering into an argument, “a disputant opens the possibility that as a result of the interchange he too may be persuaded of his opponent’s view, or, failing that, at least may be forced to make major alterations in his own.” In this account, naked persuaders are hamstrung by their unwillingness to risk the possibility that the force of reason will prompt alteration of their views. Neutralists, on the other hand, prevent the “person risking enterprise” from ever getting off the ground in the first place, since they place nothing on the table to risk.

Ehninger’s unsavory characters illustrate how the concept of standpoint commitment has salience in any theory of “argument as process” (Wenzel 1990). To reap the full benefits of the process of argumentation, interlocutors must adopt stances vis-à-vis their standpoints that strike an appropriate balance between perspectives of the naked persuader and the neutralist. For Ehninger (1970, p. 104), such a balanced posture consists of “restrained partisanship,” where advocates drive dialectic forward with tentative conviction, while remaining open to the possibility that the course of argument may dictate that their initial standpoints require amendment or retraction. Finding this delicate balance resembles the tuning of violin strings – a metaphor that underscores his point that the proper stance of restrained partisanship must be tailored to fit each situation.

The public argument prior to the 2003 Iraq War offers a clear example of a poorly tuned deliberative exchange. While several official investigations (e.g. US Commission 2005; US Senate 2004) have explained the breakdown in prewar decision-making as a case of faulty data driving bad policy, this paper explores how the technical concept of foreign policy “intelligence failure” (Matthias 2001) can be expanded to offer a more fine-grained explanation for the ill-fated war decision, which stemmed in part from a failure of the argumentative process in public spheres of deliberation. Part one revisits Ehninger’s concept of standpoint commitment, framing it in light of related argumentation theories that address similar aspects of the argumentative process. This discussion paves the way for a case study of public argument concerning the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. Finally, possible implications of the case study for foreign policy rhetoric and argumentation theory are considered.

1. Standpoint commitment in argumentation
From a pragma-dialectical perspective, an argument is a “critical discussion” between interlocutors, undertaken for the purpose of resolving a difference of opinion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2003, 1984; van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans 1996, pp. 274-311). In the “confrontation stage,” parties lay their cards on the table and establish the central bone of contention. By elucidating their divergent standpoints, disputants provide the impetus that sets into motion the process of critical discussion. This step is essential, since “a difference of opinion cannot be resolved if it is not clear to the parties involved that there actually is a difference and what this difference involves” (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans 1996, p. 284). However, in pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, once interlocutors advance standpoints, critical discussion norms oblige them to proceed in certain ways. For example, the ninth pragma-dialectical “commandment” requires arguers to retract standpoints if they are refuted in the course of argument, and conversely, to accept successfully defended standpoints offered by their counterparts (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1992, pp. 208-209).

Here, it becomes apparent that pragma-dialectical theory presupposes the ability of interlocutors to enact a version of Ehninger’s “restrained partisanship.” Arguers are expected to advance standpoints clearly and with conviction, but also to couple this performance with a double gesture that signals a willingness to amend or retract such standpoints should they be refuted during the course of argument. This delicate balancing act challenges participants to find an appropriate middle ground between two poles that have served as perennial topics of inquiry for a wide variety of argumentation theorists.

Consider Chaim Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s distinction between “discussion” and “debate.” For Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969), while discussion is a heuristic activity, “in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (p. 37), debate is eristic, where the focus is on “overpowering the opponent” (p. 39), regardless of the truth of the propositions at hand. Occluded in this neat polarity, of course, is the subtle fact that discussion and debate are Siamese twins. They cannot be fully separated without placing the argumentative enterprise at risk. For example, the activity that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca call “discussion” requires interlocutors to embrace, to some extent, a “debating” posture that moves them to contribute concrete standpoints to the conversation. This caveat does not deny that an overly aggressive debating stance runs at cross purposes with the heuristic goals of discussion, but it does, once again, point to the importance of finding that proper balance that Ehninger calls “restrained partisanship.”

One can isolate other vectors of this pattern playing out in discussions about the proper role of argument in society. For example, the subtitle of Deborah Tannen’s bestseller (1998) The Argument Culture is “Moving from Debate to Dialogue.” Tannen’s distinction between debate and dialogue mirrors Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s debate-discussion polarity. While Tannen thoroughly criticizes excessively adversarial and combative styles of debating, she points out that there is still value in constructive forms of argument that allow interlocutors to vet opposing viewpoints (see also Foss & Griffin 1995; Makau & Marty 2001). In fact, she underscored this point by changing the subtitle of The Argument Culture for the paperback edition to “Stopping America’s War of Words” (Tannen 1999).

A similar pattern of analysis appears in the work of James Crosswhite (1996), who posits a distinction between argumentation as “inquiry” and argumentation as “persuasion.” To elucidate the relationship between these categories, Crosswhite (1996, pp. 256-58) compares inquiry with the “context of discovery” and persuasion with the “context of justification” in philosophy of science. In this scheme, argument-as-persuasion involves attempts to convince others of settled beliefs that have already been justified, while argument-as-inquiry is a process of discovery initiated to yield new insights when clear answers may not yet be apparent. As Crosswhite (1996) explains: “There is a difference between the kind of reasoning we engage in when we have already made up our minds about some issue and simply need to persuade other people to take our side, and the kind of reasoning that goes on when we have not yet made up our minds but are trying to come to a conclusion ourselves” (p. 256; see also Meiland 1989). Notably, Crosswhite locates the key difference between these two modes of reasoning in the “kinds of audiences that are active in the argumentation” (Crosswhite 1996, 257).

In pragama-dialectics, this distinction between modes of reasoning is connected to a corresponding differentiation between rhetoric and dialectic. Drawing on Leff (2000), Frans van Eemeren & Peter Houtlousser (2002, pp. 15-17) identify as rhetorical those aims and objectives that interlocutors pursue in their quest to achieve effective persuasion in a critical discussion. Alternately, dialectical obligations flow from the argumentative procedures that parties must respect in order for a critical discussion to proceed. Echoing the other theorists considered in the preceding paragraphs, van Eemeren & Houtlousser develop this polarity synergistically, arguing that rhetoric and dialectic are complementary concepts. If a critical discussion were an airplane, rhetoric would be the force that drives the propeller and dialectic would be the navigational system that keeps the aircraft calibrated and on course. Without a strong propeller (standpoint commitment by interlocutors), the plane cannot get off the ground. Without a sound navigational system (disputants’ fealty to discussion norms), the plane cannot reach the destination point of mutually acceptable resolution of a difference of opinion.

In working out this relationship between rhetoric and dialectic, van Eemeren & Houtlousser have expounded another important concept – strategic maneuvering. This concept stems from their insight that “there is indeed a potential discrepancy between pursuing dialectical objectives and rhetorical aims” (van Eemeren & Houtlousser 2002, p. 16). Arguers want to persuade their counterparts to accept their standpoints, yet the passion driving such commitments may sometimes conflict with the procedural requirements for carrying on a critical discussion. Rather than declare that in these cases, dialectical obligations always trump rhetorical aims, van Eemeren & Houtlousser stipulate that interlocutors have a middle option of strategic maneuvering, a mode of arguing that bends the dialectical rules of critical discussion in a protagonist’s rhetorical favor, yet stops just short of breaking them and thereby committing a fallacy.

For example, in the context of establishing the burden of proof for a given critical discussion, interlocutors may engage in strategic maneuvering by highlighting certain features of their standpoints (e.g. scope, precision, moral content) so as to configure their burden of proof in a rhetorically advantageous way (van Eemeren & Houtlousser 2002, pp. 22-25). However, there are limits to this process. Taken too far, strategic maneuvering moves beyond bending the rules for critical discussion, resulting in a “fallacious derailment” of the discussion (van Eemeren & Houtlousser 2002, pp. 22-25).

While the exact location of this boundary line that separates legitimate strategic maneuvering from fallacious derailment remains elusive, it is clear that the concept of strategic maneuvering represents an inventive response to the theoretical challenge of developing sound accounts of the relationship between “discussion” and “debate” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969); “inquiry” and “persuasion” (Crosswhite 1996); and “dialectic” and “rhetoric” (van Eemeren & Houtlousser 2002, pp. 22-25). This same challenge motivates Ehninger’s (1970) effort to explain the complementary relationship between the “naked persuader” and “neutralist” outlined in the introduction to this paper.

Anticipating a key element of pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, Ehninger (1970, p. 102) explains that the speech act of joining an argument involves an implicit agreement that the exchange will exert bilateral influence on the argumentative process. This insight dovetails with his view that argument should be a “person risking” enterprise, and that by entering such an exchange, participants signal that they are ready to place their standpoints in middle space, where tentative commitment drives the exchange, yet is contingent on what transpires in the course of argument. Ehninger (1970, p. 104) elaborates on this posture of “restrained partisanship” by comparing it to the process of tuning a violin: “Just as the strings of a violin must be neither too slack nor too taut if the instrument is to perform properly, so must the threads which unite the parties to an argument be precisely tuned.”

Ehninger’s violin metaphor may provide insight that contributes to pragma-dialectical argumentation theory’s project of delineating the boundary lines that mark off legitimate strategic maneuvering from fallacious derailment. Further insight on this point can be gleaned by considering a specific case study where the issue of standpoint commitment looms large.

2. Prewar public argument on Iraq
The U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003 is widely perceived as an “intelligence failure,” in large part because official investigations conducted by a presidential commission (US Commission 2005) and a congressional panel (US Senate 2004) have explained the ill-fated preventive war as a bad policy outcome driven by poor data provided by official intelligence analysts to political leaders. While it is the case that the U.S. Intelligence Community’s prewar analyses on Iraq were imperfect, this is only part of the story. Journalists, citizens, members of Congress and the White House also played key roles in the breakdown. According to Chaim Kaufmann (2004, p. 7), a “failure of the marketplace of ideas” resulted in breakdown of the U.S. political system’s ability to “weed out exaggerated threat claims and policy proposals based on them.” Peter Neumann and M.L.R. Smith (2005, p. 96) call this phenomenon a “discourse failure,” where “constriction of the language and vocabulary” produced a “failure of comprehension.” Elsewhere, I have drawn upon argumentation theory to explain dynamics of this “discourse failure” (see Mitchell 2006; Keller & Mitchell 2006). Here, I isolate a specific element of this phenomenon that has not yet received rigorous scrutiny – derailments in the process of public argument caused by poor tuning of the deliberative exchange with respect to standpoint commitment.

In President George W. Bush’s September, 2002 letter to Congress, he explained that since possible war with Iraq was “an important decision that must be made with great thought and care,” he called for argumentation on the matter: “I welcome and encourage discussion and debate” (Bush 2002a). Bush (2002b) emphasized this point two days later during a fundraising luncheon, inviting “debate” on the Iraq situation, calling for “the American people to listen and have a dialog about Iraq,” and for “an open discussion about the threats that face America.” What exactly did these statements mean? From a pragma-dialectical argumentation perspective, they would seem to constitute “external” evidence that Bush sought to enter into a critical discussion with interlocutors, engaging in argumentation as a way to reach an informed decision on optimal U.S. policy toward Iraq. On this reading, one would expect Bush to proceed as a protagonist in the critical discussion, advancing standpoints, listening to counterarguments, isolating key differences of opinion, and working toward resolution of those differences.

As the first section of this paper established, one key element of this mode of constructive participation in a critical discussion involves tentative standpoint commitment that seeks a middle ground between the postures of Ehninger’s hypothetical interlocutors, the naked persuader and the neutralist. As Ehninger explains further, as disputants search for this middle ground, “investigation not only must precede decision, but is an integral part of the decision-making process” (Ehninger 1959, 284). In other words, a crucial part of an interlocutor’s constructive argument stance involves deferral of a final decision pending completion of the critical discussion. This position has a corollary in pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, where “Rule (9) is aimed at ensuring that the protagonist and the antagonist ascertain in a correct manner what the result of the discussion is. A difference of opinion is truly resolved only if the parties agree in the concluding stage whether or not the attempt at defense on the part of the protagonist has succeeded. An apparently smooth-running discussion may still fail if the protagonist wrongly claims to have successfully defended a standpoint or even wrongly claims to have proved it true, or if the antagonist wrongly denies that the defense was successful or even claims the opposite standpoint to have been proven” (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans 1996, pp. 285-286).

In the case of President Bush’s argument regarding U.S. policy toward Iraq, Bush’s own statements seemed to express commitment to these principles. After calling for the initiation of a debate on Iraq policy in September 2002, Bush set forth arguments justifying the ouster of Saddam Hussein, but also qualified these standpoints with gestures of “restrained partisanship” (Ehninger 1970, p. 104). For example, during a 6 March 2003 press conference, Bush (2003) stated: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action.”

However, recent disclosure of official documents and insider accounts complicate this picture. We now know that British intelligence chief Sir Richard Dearlove visited the U.S. in July 2002 for meetings where the possibility of war against Iraq was discussed. Regarding developments in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on 23 July 2002 that, “there was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The memo goes on to say that it “seemed clear the Bush had made up his mind to go to war, even if the timing was not yet decided” (Sunday Times 2005). According to National Security Archive Senior Fellow John Prados, the Dearlove memo shows, “with stunning clarity,” that “that the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was set at least a year in advance,” and that “President Bush’s repeated assertions that no decision had been made about attacking Iraq were plainly false” (Prados 2005). Further evidence in support of this view comes from insider accounts of White House communication during the September 2002 – March 2003 “discussion and debate” period. For example, journalist Bob Woodward explains that while Bush was publicly maintaining a posture of “restrained partisanship” during the public argument on Iraq, he privately told National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in January 2003 that, “We’re gonna have to go. It’s war” (qtd. in Woodward 2004). Further, Woodward indicates that in another meeting that month, Bush wanted Saudi Prince Bandar “to know that this is for real. That we’re really doing it” (Woodward 2004). A separate leaked British memorandum detailed that later in January 2003, Bush even gave British Prime Minister Blair a specific date (10 March 2003) when he should expect war against Iraq to commence (Regan 2003; see also Sands 2005).

Bearing in mind the tension between speech acts arrayed on the top portion of the timeline in Figure 2 and the speech acts falling in the bottom portion of the timeline, it becomes apparent that Bush’s (2003) statement on 6 March 2003 that “I’ve not made up our mind about military action” was a strategic maneuver, one designed to improve rhetorically his position in the unfolding public argument. The political windfall from such a statement is clear, given the political and military necessity that the decision to invade Iraq be justified on the basis of democratically sound procedures (see Payne 2006). But this returns us to the question that percolated out of the first section of this paper – how should Bush’s strategic maneuvering be classified? Was it a legitimate argumentative move, or a fallacious derailment of a critical discussion, or something else altogether? Considering each possibility in turn provides an opportunity to apply and develop the theoretical concepts regarding the role of standpoint commitment in argumentation.

A charitable interpretation of Bush’s prewar rhetoric would explain the tension between his professed commitments to the process of critical discussion and his early private decision to invade Iraq as the product of legitimate strategic maneuvering, undertaken to enhance the persuasiveness of his standpoint in a critical discussion. In this reading, one might interpret Bush’s private comments to Rice, Bandar and Blair as mere instances of contingency planning designed to prepare the groundwork for execution of a future official decision to attack Iraq. Similarly, Bush’s 6 March 2003 statement that, “I’ve not made up our mind about military action” could be seen as a subtle strategic maneuver designed to add purchase to his rhetorical appeals for war by projecting a generous deliberative posture. The soundness of this line of argumentative reconstruction would hinge on the degree to which it could be established that Bush’s maneuvering stopped short of actually transgressing dialectical rules governing conduct of a critical discussion.

Alternately, it is possible to reconstruct the episode by interpreting Bush’s rhetoric as a fallacious derailment of a critical discussion. In this reading, Bush’s 2002 statements regarding the desirability of debate, discussion and dialogue would be seen as speech acts that set into motion a cooperative process of critical discussion and concomitantly signaled a public commitment by Bush to adhere to certain dialectical rules governing conduct of the public argument (see Payne 2006). As we have seen, one of the key responsibilities of an interlocutor in such a context is to maintain a stance of restrained partisanship vis-à-vis standpoints offered in the course of the critical discussion. However, it is plausible to conclude that such a “middle ground” stance would be impossible for a protagonist such as Bush to maintain in a situation where he had already decided to act on his standpoint (Iraq should be invaded), while simultaneously continuing the critical discussion. On this reading, the excesses of Bush’s rhetoric overwhelmed his commitment to dialectical norms of argumentation, resulting in a fallacious derailment of the critical discussion.

A third possible reconstruction of the episode would proceed from the premise that Bush never actually performed a speech act that signaled commitment to norms of critical discussion. This interpretation would frame Bush’s September 2002 statements regarding the need for “dialogue” and “debate” on Iraq as announcements that a peculiar form of argumentation was about to commence, one perhaps consistent with Ehninger’s (1970, p. 101) model of “corrective coercion.” According to Ehninger, protagonists in this mode operate unilaterally: “Not only does the corrector initiate the exchange and direct it throughout its history, but he also dictates the conditions under which it will terminate.” Furthermore, in corrective coercion, unlike the “person-risking” enterprise of cooperative argumentation, standpoints are not contingent, since failure to persuade interlocutors is an outcome that indicates deficiency in the passive audience, not the standpoint being advocated: “If, in spite of the corrector’s best efforts, the correctee stubbornly continues to resist, the corrector may attribute his failure to a breakdown in communication or an inability to summon the necessary degree of authority; or he may write the correctee off as ignorant or incorrigible” (Ehninger 1970, p. 102). This perspective on the prewar argument reconfigures the relationship between Bush’s public and private statements from one of tension to one of consistency. Arguers engaging in coercive correction need not worry about fine-tuning their degrees of standpoint commitment, since the purpose of the argument is not to test or refine their positions. Here, Bush’s statements to Rice, Bandar and Blair indicating that he had already decided the outcome of the dispute regarding the proper course of U.S. policy toward Iraq can be squared with his public arguments designed to coerce audiences to accept the same view.

The aim of the preceding analysis is not to argue that one particular reconstruction of the argumentative episode is necessarily correct. Rather, the point is to show how argumentation theory generates several possible descriptions of an ambiguous deliberative exchange. Similarly, a robust treatment of the normative implications flowing from each reconstruction falls beyond the scope of this limited paper, whose more modest theoretical contributions are explored in the final section.

3. Conclusion
The relationship between rhetoric and dialectic is moving up the research agenda in argumentation studies (Blair 2002). In pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, the concept of strategic maneuvering is emerging as a bridging concept to elucidate the rhetoric-dialectic interplay. Strategic maneuvering’s value in this regard hinges in part on the degree to which theorists can elucidate perspicacious distinctions between legitimate acts of strategic maneuvering and fallacious derailments of critical discussions. This paper has considered how a focus on standpoint commitment offers a means of generating such distinctions, and how Ehninger’s (1970) notions of “restrained partisanship” and the “argument violin” help to peg the appropriate degree of standpoint commitment in any given argument. Ehninger suggests that for cooperative argumentation to proceed constructively, it is incumbent on interlocutors to seek a “consciously induced state of intellectual and moral tension” that fine-tunes, like violin strings, their rhetorical aims and dialectical obligations (p. 104; see also Ehninger & Brockriede 1966).

Application of these theoretical concepts to a case study concerning public argument prior to the 2003 Iraq War yielded several insights. Most basically, the attempt to reconstruct the prewar public argument highlighted the salience of Gerald Graff’s (2003, p. 88) observation: “Which mode we are in – debate or dialogue? – is not always self-evident.” External cues apparently signaling an interlocutor’s commitment to the process of critical discussion may take on different meanings when viewed in the context of subsequent strategic maneuvering. For example, one possible reconstruction of George W. Bush’s contributions to the prewar public argument on Iraq reveals that his utterances expressing commitment to processes of “debate” and “discussion” signal something very different from the sorts of speech acts that in pragma-dialectical argumentation theory indicate an interlocutor’s implied acceptance of critical discussion norms. This possibility serves as a reminder that in generating argumentative reconstructions, critics should be keenly aware of the possibility that they are dealing with mixed disputes, where parties approach the argument from incommensurate normative assumptions regarding proper conduct of the dispute. The lucid exchange between James Klumpp and Kathryn Olson following Klumpp’s keynote address at the 2005 Alta Argumentation Conference illustrates the value of this critical approach.

Finally, my paper provides an occasion for scholars of argumentation to take note of the trend that the argumentation is growing in prominence as a category of analysis in the field of international relations. Consider Douglas Hart and Steven Simon’s proposition that one major cause of the intelligence community’s misjudgments on Iraq was “poor argumentation and analysis within the intelligence directorate.” As a remedy, Hart and Simon recommend that intelligence agencies encourage analysts to engage in “structured arguments and dialogues” designed to facilitate “sharing and expression of multiple points of view” and cultivate “critical thinking skills.” This suggestion comes on the heels of political scientist Thomas Risse’s (2000, p. 21) call for international relations scholars to focus more on “arguing in the international public sphere.” These comments, coupled with the finding of this paper regarding the need to “rhetoricize” the technical concept of “intelligence failure,” suggest promising paths of future research that fuse parallel tracks of argumentation theory and international relations scholarship.

References
Blair, J.A. (2002). The relationships among logic, dialectic and rhetoric. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & F.S. Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 125-131). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Bush, G.W. (2002a). Bush letter: ‘America intends to lead.’ CNN, 4 September. <http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/bush.letter/>.
Bush, G.W. (2002b). Remarks at a luncheon for representative Anne M. Northup in Louisville, September 6, 2002. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 38, 1498.
Bush, G.W. (2003). President George W. Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference. 6 March. <http://www.whitehouse.gov>.
Crosswhite, J. (1996). Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van & R. Grootendorst. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F.H. van & R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van & R. Grootendorst. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst & F. Snoeck Henkemans. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F.H. van & P. Houtlosser. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 13-28), Amsterdam: SicSat.
Ehninger, D. (1959). Decision by debate: A re-examination. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45, 282-287.
Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations and its uses. Speech Monographs 37, 101-10.
Ehninger, D., & W. Brockriede. (1966). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co.
Foss, S. & C.L. Griffin. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62, 2-18.
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hart, D. & S. Simon. (2006). Thinking straight and talking straight: Problems of intelligence analysis. Survival 48, 35-60.
Kaufman, C. (2004). Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The selling of the Iraq War. International Security 29, 5-48.
Keller, W.W. & G.R. Mitchell (2006). Preventive force: Untangling the discourse. In W.W. Keller and G.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Hitting First: Preventive Force in U.S. Security Strategy (pp. 239-263). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14, 251-254.
Makau, J.M. & D.L. Marty. (2001). Cooperative Argumentation: A Model for Deliberative Community. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Matthias, W.C. (1991). America’s Strategic Blunders. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Meiland, J. (1989). Argument as inquiry and argument as persuasion. Argumentation 3, 185-96.
Mitchell, G.R. (2006). Team B intelligence coups. Quarterly Journal of Speech 92, 144-173.
Neumann, P.R. & M.L.R. Smith (2005). Missing the Plot? Intelligence and discourse failure. Orbis 49, 95-107.
Payne, R. (2006). Deliberate before striking first? In W.W. Keller and G.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Hitting First: Preventive Force in U.S. Security Strategy (pp. 115-136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Prados, J. (2005). Iraq: When was the die cast? Tom Paine Commentary, 3 May. <http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iraq_when_was_the_die_cast.php>.
Regan. T. (2003). Report: Bush, Blair decided to go to war months before UN meetings. Christian Science Monitor. February 3.
Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue! Communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54, 1-39.
Sands, P. (2005). Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules from FDR’s Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush’s Illegal War. New York: Viking.
Sunday Times (Britain). (2005). The secret Downing Street memos. 1 May. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html>.
Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House.
Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. New York: Random House.
United States Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2005). Report to the President. <http://www.wmd.gov/report/>.
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2004). Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. <www.intelligence.senate.gov/ iraqreport.pdf>.
Wenzel. D. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In J. Schuetz and R. Trapp (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9-26), Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Woodward, B. (2004). Woodward shares war secrets. 60 Minutes Transcript. 18 April. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes>.