Notes Three Anthems, a Flag and a Tenor: Introduction 1. For a discussion of the ‘romantic’ history of the Belgian revolution, see e.g. Peter Rietbergen and Tom Verschaffel, Broedertwist: België en Nederland en de erfenis van 1830, Zwolle: Waanders, 2005 and Jeroen Janssens, De helden van 1830: alle feiten en mythes, Antwerpen: Meulenhoff, 2005. For an overview of early histories of the Belgian nation, see Jo Tollebeek, ‘Historical Representa- tion and the Nation State in Romantic Belgium’, The Journal of the History of Ideas, 59, 2 (1998), 329–353. On Auber’s opera and its relation to the Belgian revolution, see Sonia Slatin, ‘Opera and Revolution: La Muette de Portici and the Belgian Revolution of 1830 Revisited’, The Journal of Musicological Research, 3 (1979), 45–62 and Maribeth Clark, ‘The Body and the Voice in La Muette de Portici’, 19th Century Music, 27, 2 (2003), 116–131. 2. Both referred to a woman that personified the revolution through a liber- ating or liberated city and simultaneously represented the whole nation. Moreover, both songs shared the revolutionary language of bloody bat- tle against the tyrant enemy. Jenneval’s real name was Hippolyte Louis Alexandre Dechet (1801–1830). The actor joined the revolutionary forces and died in a fight with the Dutch in Lier in October 1830. 3. Two recent histories of Belgium are Els Witte, Jan Craeybeckx and Alain Meynen, Political History of Belgium from 1830 Onwards, Brussels: Brussels University Press, 2001 and Michel Dumoulin, Vincent Dujardin, Emmanuel Gerard and Mark van den Wijngaert (eds.), Nouvelle histoire de la Belgique. 1: 1830–1905, Brussels: Complexe, 2005. On the Belgian revolution, see Els Witte, De constructie van België 1828–1847, Leuven: Lannoo, 2006. 4. In the Dutch version of the adaptations made in 1860 (ascribed to Prime Minister Charles Rogier): ‘een man’lijk volk moet man’lijk durven zingen’. In the French version, the text links the masculinity of the nation to godly intervention:‘Dieu, qui protège la Belgique, sourit à tes mâles succes’. 5. See also Bruno Benvindo, ‘La masculinité au XXième siècle en Belgique’, Sextant. Revue du Groupe interdisciplinaire d’études sur les femmes, 19 (2003), 169–176 and Thomas Buerman, ‘Maten, makkers, masculiniteit! Historisch onderzoek naar mannelijkheid’, Mededelingenblad. Belgische vereniging voor nieuwste geschiedenis, 29, 1 (2007), 21–26. 6. Bruno Benvindo, Des hommes en guerre. Les soldats belges entre ténacité et désil- lusion 1914–1918, Brussels: Archives générales du Royaume, 2005; Benvindo, ‘La “normalité” hétérosexuelle et l’armée. Belgique 1900–1960’, in Catherine Deschamps, Laurent Gaissad and Christelle Taraud (eds.), Hétéros. Discours, Lieux, Pratiques, Paris: Epel, 2009, 169–180. 7. The concept of ‘differentiation’ is most clearly developed in Tine Van Osselaer, ‘ “Un oeuvre essentiellement virile”. De “masculinisering” van de Heilig Hart Devotie in België’, Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 3 (2008), 33–45 172 Notes 173 and in Van Osselaer, The Pious Sex. Catholic Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity in Belgium c. 1800–1940, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2013. 8. Thomas Buerman, ‘Lions and lambs at the same time! Belgian Zouaves as examples of religious masculinity’, paper at Christian Feminisation and Masculinisation in Europe: Comparative Perspectives: ‘Dieu changea de sexe?’ international workshop at Ghent University, 4–5 January 2008. See also Tine Van Osselaer and Thomas Buerman, ‘Feminization Thesis: A Survey of Inter- national Historiography and a Probing of Belgian Grounds’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 103, 2 (2008), 497–544. 9. Wannes Dupont, ‘Les trous de Bruxelles: les lieux de rencontres homo- sexuelles au 19e siècle’, Les cahiers de la fonderie: revue d’histoire sociale et industrielle de la région bruxelloise, 44 (2011), 47–53; Dupont, ‘Pederasten op de Place royale: een fragment uit het vergeten verleden van Brussel’, Leidschrift: historisch tijdschrift, 26, 1 (2011), 79–91 and Dupont, ‘Modernités et homosexualités belges’, Cahiers d’histoire, 119 (2012), 19–34. 10. Henk de Smaele, ‘ “Excellents morceaux de nu”. Mannelijkheid, heterosek- sualiteit en het vrouwelijk naakt (1800–1970)’, in Kaat Wils (ed.), Het lichaam m/v, Leuven: Universitaire Pers, 2001, 165–182; de Smaele, ‘De onmachtigen. Mannelijkheid en de idealen van de literaire avant-garde in Vlaanderen’, in Hans Vandevoorde, Raf De Bont and Geraldine Reymenants (eds.), Niet onder één dak. Van Nu en Straks en de paradoxen van het fin de siècle, Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 2005, 183–196; de Smaele, ‘Een beeld van een man. Mosse en het moderne mannelijke stereotype’, Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 9, 3 (2006), 5–18. 11. George L. Mosse, The Image of Man. The Creation of Modern Masculinity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; Joanna Bourke, ‘Review: The Image of Man’, History in Focus, 8 (1997), http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Gender/ bourke.html. 12. Though not necessarily with national politics. The engagement with poli- tics, the most ‘traditional’ elitist area of the historical discipline in the field of masculinity, remains rather limited. Stefan Dudink, Karen Hagemann and John Tosh (eds.), Representing Masculinity: Male Citizenship in Modern Western Culture, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007; Matthew McCormack (ed.), Public Men. Masculinity and Politics in Modern Britain, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. 13. Martin Francis, ‘The Domestication of the Male? Recent Research on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century British Masculinity’, The Historical Journal, 45, 3 (2002), 637–652; Bryce Traister, ‘Academic Viagra: The Rise of American Masculinity Studies’, American Quarterly, 52, 2 (2000), 274–304; Karen Harvey and Alexandra Shepard, ‘What Have Historians Done with Masculinity? Reflections on Five Centuries of British History, ca.1500–1950’, Journal of British Studies, 44, 2 (2005), 274–280. 14. John Tosh, A Man’s Place. Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. 15. André Rauch, Le premier sexe. Mutations et crise de l’identité masculine,Paris: Hachette, 2000. 16. Ute Frevert, Ehrenmänner. Das Duell in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft,München: C.H. Beck, 1991 [Men of Honour: A Social and Political History of the Duel,Polity Press, 1995]. 174 Notes 17. Stefan Dudink, ‘The Unheroic Men of a Moral Nation: Masculinity and Nation in Modern Dutch History’, in Cynthia Cockburn and Dubravka Zarkov (eds.), The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and Interna- tional Peacekeeping, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 146–161; Ernst Hanisch, Männlichkeiten. Eine andere Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Vienna: Böhlau, 2005; David Tjeder, Power of Character. Middle Class Masculinities 1800–1900, Stockholm: Stockholm Universitet, 2003. 18. R.W. Connell, Masculinities, Berkely & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995. For an appraisal of Connell’s concepts of masculinity and hege- mony in historical research, see John Tosh, ‘What Should Historians Do with Masculinity? Reflections on Nineteenth-Century Britain’, History Workshop Journal, 38, 1 (1994), 179–202. See also Christopher E. Fort, Masculinity in the Modern West: Gender, Civilization and the Body, London: MacMillan, 2008, 5: ‘developments central to modernity at once reinforce and destabilize the representation of masculinity as an unproblematic quality of male anatomy’. 19. Although the model of hegemonic masculinity is used outside the ‘West’, it does not always seem to be very adaptable to other contexts; e.g. Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity. The ‘manly’ Englishman and the ‘effemi- nate’ Bengali, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995 and Kam Louie, Theorizing Chinese Masculinities: Society and Gender in China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 20. For the meaning and use of the terms manliness and masculinity in historical and scholarly discourse in Britain and America, see John Tosh, ‘Masculinities in an Industrializing Society: Britain, 1800–1914’, Journal of British Studies,44 (2005), 330–342, Michael Roper, ‘Between Manliness and Masculinity: The “War Generation” and the Psychology of Fear in Britain, 1914–1950’, Jour- nal of British Studies, 44 (2005), 343–362 and Gail Bederman, Manliness & Civilization. A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917, London and Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995, 16–19. 21. See, e.g., Alexandra Shepard, Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006; Christopher Fletcher, Richard II: Man- hood, Youth and Politics, 1377–99, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008; Alan Bray, ‘A History of Manliness?’ History Workshop Journal, 45 (1998), 301–312. 22. Martin Dinges (ed.), Männer, Macht, Körper. Hegemoniale Männlichkeit vom Mittelater bis heute, Frankfurt: Campus, 2005; Wolfgang Schmale, Geschichte der Männlichkeit in Europa (1450–2000), Vienna: Böhlau, 2003. 23. Rauch, Le premier sexe. and Alain Corbin (ed.), Histoire de la virilité XIXe siècle/Première guerre mondiale, tome 2, Paris: Le Seuil, 2009 and Jean Jacques Courtine (ed.), Histoire de la virilité XXe/XXIe siècles,tome3,Paris:Le Seuil, 2009; Robert Nye, Masculinity and Male Codes of Honour in Modern France, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993; Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Male Trouble. A Crisis in Representation, New York: Thames & Hudson, 1997. 24. See, e.g., Stefan Dudink, ‘Mannelijkheid en natie: Notities over hegemoniale mannelijkheid en geschiedenis’, Tijdschrift