Logo DBNL
Queeste. Tijdschrift over middeleeuwse letterkunde in de Nederlanden. Jaargang 2009 (2009)

Queeste. Tijdschrift over middeleeuwse letterkunde in de Nederlanden. Jaargang 2009

(2009)– [tijdschrift] Queeste–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

Naar aanleiding van...

A New History of Late Medieval Dutch Literature
Wim Hüsken

With regard to: Herman Pleij, Het gevleugelde woord. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse literatuur, 1400-1560. Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 2007, 863 pp. isbn 9789035130906. Price: € 49,95.

Forty years ago, in 1970, Gerard Knuvelder published the first volume, dedicated to the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance period, in a thoroughly revised fifth edition of his literary history of the Low Countries. Knuvelder, only shortly before retired as headmaster of a high school and lecturer at a college of teacher education, compiled the then available information on Dutch literary texts written between 1170 and 1567.1 Further volumes dedicated to texts, movements and authors prior to the emergence of ‘modern’ Dutch literature, assumed to have occurred around 1916, followed between 1971 and 1976.2

Soon after Knuvelder had completed his four volume edition, an enterprise such as the one undertaken by him was deemed to be impossible to execute by one single individual. Before him W.J.A. Jonckbloet, G. Kalff and J. Te Winkel had succeeded in bringing out similar comprehensive studies.3 The field of historical Dutch literature had meanwhile become so highly specialized that no-one could any longer claim to have full knowledge of the scholarly debates on the many topics under discussion. Limitation to a certain period, and collaboration by a group of scholars, eventually resulting in a full-scope survey of the literary history of the Low Countries, was the only possible solution. This conclusion had already been drawn some decades earlier: in 1939, Dutch and Flemish university professors had embarked on a project aimed at the publication of a multivolume history of Dutch literature, an initiative that was never completed.4

Herman Pleij's Het gevleugelde woord is the third volume in the most recent history of Dutch literature, the first two volumes of which came out in 2006.5 When comparing this book with its predecessor, Knuvelder's above-mentioned first volume of his Handboek, we notice that scholarly research between 1970 and 2007 has led to many new editions, monographs and essays, revising our under-

standing of Dutch literature between 1400 and 1560. Expressed in numbers, only just over 200 titles in the extensive bibliography of some 840 items, in other words barely a quarter, predate the publication of Knuvelder's Handboek. In this respect, Pleij's book presents a ‘new’ view of Dutch late medieval and early Renaissance literature incorporating the results of recent research.

Knuvelder's approach was entirely based on the study of texts, with context seldom brought to bear. In fact, the strength of his literary history was his ability to compile the results of previous scholarship. Pleij, in contrast, presents his own personal interpretation of literature and its surrounding environment - its historical setting, sociological and religious background, etc. - thus writing a monograph rather than summarizing previous research. Aesthetic judgement, whether by way of appraisal or disapproving of a text's literary quality, seems almost completely absent from his observations. Where in the past literary historians would not hesitate to attach their personal taste, based on a social or religious point of view, to a positive or negative value judgement of a particular text, Pleij's aesthetic views - he does have his preferences! - are mainly implicit. His appreciation of the refrains written by Anna Bijns (1493-1575) in the first half of the sixteenth century may illustrate this point.

Themes and literary forms found in the works of Bijns' predecessors all resurface in her refrains as well, Pleij begins his lengthy observations (p. 370-381) on her works, but this in a supreme way (‘in overtreffende trap’). During her long life she grew into a living legend. Her first publication was an instant hit (‘meteen raak’). The refrains she published in 1528 drew attention for more than one reason, being the first collection of poems ever printed in the Low Countries; perhaps even more surprisingly (‘verrassend’), her name is given on the title page. Pleij continues this highly positive tone over the next pages. One must admit, however, that not only Pleij's personal value judgement is reflected in these words: the fact that this first collection was reprinted a number of times during the century and translated into Latin (already in 1529!), that new collections were published in 1548 and 1567, and numerous manuscripts contain her refrains, speaks volumes. Knuvelder, too, praised her, but this in the first place because she voiced an increasing Roman-Catholic opposition against Lutheranism.

The way in which Pleij combines his admiration for what Anna Bijns achieved in her poetry with the sober realisation that she was limited in her acquaintance with the theological discussions of her days, as well as showing a distinct deficiency in her knowledge of classical antiquity - in the latter case it is mostly hearsay in her refrains - makes his positive approach acceptable, even quite sympathetic. Pleij is not a blind admirer of Bijns' poetry but he recognizes her extraordinary talent, keeping himself free of any prior ethical, social or religious bias.

As far as the writings of the rhetoricians are concerned, many literary historians have had great problems with their texts. Anna Bijns, too, is associated with this type of literature (even though, as a woman, she was never a full member of any chamber of rhetoric) but she was regarded as a kind of exception to the rule. Other, mostly anonymous, authors did not receive half the appreciation she did. The language of the rhetoricians was replete with frenchified words and expressions. It was only by the beginning of the seventeenth century that their jargon was severely criticised and eventually replaced by a language showing the impact of a classical Latin sentence structure by authors who would consequently turn their backs on the chambers of rhetoric. In this sense, these literary historians were themselves influenced by what would follow in the 1600s, one of the greatest eras in Dutch literature. Pleij, on the other hand, remains focussed on the period of his subject. Unlike the others, he views the works that emerged during the 1500s as genuine expressions of the time, allowing us to study what people were thinking and doing during a period of great distress.

This observation being true mostly for the sixteenth century, also fifteenth-century literature never received much attention. In Pleij's monograph this deficiency is amended but a certain lack of highlights makes it difficult for him to find anchormen or major texts capable of illustrating what fifteenth-century literature in the Low Countries was all about. This, on the other hand, allows him to introduce authors who never received any attention in comprehensive literary histories, thus sketching a much more ‘complete’ story. Who, for example, would expect to read anything about the Ghent scribe Pieter Wicken who, in 1447 and 1448, composed two songs written down in the margins of a

financial register from a local hospice? Or, for that matter, about Pieter den Brant, Adriaan Pauwels, Symoen de Bake, and Dries van Wetteren, all active as playwrights in the first half of the century in the Flemish town of Geraardsbergen? The two surviving plays on the Joys of the Virgin Mary, the first and the seventh Bliscap, are the first texts receiving wider attention. Only a handful of texts and authors prior to the development of the Bliscapen around the middle of the century receive more than one page in this book. The only exception here is the collection of four abele spelen with their accompanying sotternien from the Van Hulthem manuscript, dating back to the first decade of the fifteenth century. Indeed, as far as this century is concerned Pleij's attention is, compared to the work of his predecessors, clearly directed towards the evolving theatre tradition.

What do we learn from him in this respect? Late medieval society was a festive society. Whether town inhabitants enjoyed their festivities on a weekly basis, as Pleij suggests (p. 19), can be doubted but archival records do not, of course, depict a full image of what happened within a town. We do know that during the fifteenth century theatre in the Low Countries was very much an urban affair. How it precisely developed is difficult to assess because the sources available run thin. We know, however, that various groups of people were involved in organising theatrical activities, whether connected to a certain church or a confraternity, to a professional company such as an archers' guild, or to a particular neighbourhood. It is this last-mentioned seeding-ground which draws Pleij's attention, in particular by its youths (p. 37-42). According to Pleij we recognize in this arrangement a deliberate policy by civic authorities to control any possible problems caused by young people. It is an attractive theory that cannot be corroborated by archival research. To substantiate his argument, Pleij's notes at the back of his book (p. 776) refer, among other publications, to Anne-Laure Van Bruaene's recent study of the contribution chambers of rhetoric made to the development of civic culture in the Southern Low Countries. However, Van Bruaene is much more cautious, stating that it is virtually impossible to prove that companies of rhetoricians embedded in neighbourhoods depended for a large degree on youngsters.6

Chambers of rhetoric mainly emerged from ‘the middling sort of people’ - the expression refers to the social class between the aristocracy and the low classes of have-nots - but this is not to say that there are no towns where different conditions were found. The city of Bruges serves as a good example here. The case is discussed by Pleij in a short section entitled ‘Brugse chic’ (Bruges' smart set; p. 43-47). Special attention is paid to a certain Jan van Hulst. He is mentioned, according to Pleij, as the leader of a company providing entertainment for Margareta van Male, wife of the Burgundian duke, Philip the Bold, on her visit to this town in 1394. Two years later the same Jan van Hulst stages a scene in the annual procession of the Holy Blood. In the same year he acts as town poet directing the company of ‘Our Lady of the Dry Tree’. He is also mentioned as a singer of polyphonic masses. But his name is best known, still according to Pleij, as co-author of a number of songs in the famous Gruuthuse manuscript, a book recently acquired by the Royal Library at The Hague from a private collection. Jan van Hulst must have been someone belonging to the higher circles, thus Pleij's conclusion. But do we know for certain that in all cases mentioned this ‘Jan van Hulst’ is one and the same person? Music historian Reinhard Strohm has serious doubts here, having encountered the name ‘Jan van Hulst’ at least a dozen times in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century entries in the Bruges civic accounts.7 Perhaps a certain degree of wishful thinking has crept into Pleij's well-phrased observations here. Be this as it may, this question leaves untouched the fact that Bruges was, more likely than not, indeed a different case as far as the development of chambers of rhetoric is concerned. Or should we rather say, that archival research has not yet given us all the information we need to draw solid conclusions on how in the Southern Low Countries chambers of rhetoric came into existence?

Once one starts to analyse Pleij's observations from the closest possible point of view, criticizing his discourse is easy because more often than not the author presents his readers with personal views rather than fact or general consensus. Let us have a look at one text in particular, the famous Mariken van Nieumeghen. This is not a random choice. After all, research is still struggling with a number of unresolved issues related to this ‘play’. The last-mentioned word already presents a first, much discussed problem: assuming that the Dutch edition from c. 1515 is based on an earlier version of the story, was this version then, genetically speaking, a fully-fledged play? Initially, Pleij cleverly avoids addressing this question by labelling it, on p. 19, ‘een gedramatiseerde (voor)leestekst’, a dramatised text either to be read or to be read out loud. Exactly the same phrase is repeated on p. 129. Further down Pleij compares Mariken van Nieumeghen with similar texts, calling them ‘gedrukte vertelteksten’ (printed narrative texts) showing the typical structure of puppet theatre (p. 173). Next, he classifies the text as a chapbook (‘prozaroman’), enlivened with extensive dialogues in verse (p. 282).The genre issue fully emerges when a comparison with the English Mary of Nemmegen is made, a text entirely in prose. The mere existence of this chapbook leads Pleij to conclude that in all likelihood (‘heel waarschijnlijk’) an earlier Dutch prose version of the story, of which no copy survives, was translated into English and used as a basis for the Dutch chapbook version with dialogues in verse (p. 528). Without entering into a debate with those holding other views, Pleij thus presents his theory as being the most likely one.

The importance of this discussion can be questioned. For some, and I count myself amongst them, other questions are more interesting. Why was this literary text printed in the first place? And what lesson did readers (or spectators) draw from the story? Unfortunately Pleij does not address these questions. And yet, in relation to the wagon play of Masscheroen, an insert in the text known in other, mainly earlier, European literary sources as well, he does observe a remarkably hesitating God, wavering between Masscheroen's plea to condemn mankind for its sinful life and Mary's appeal on His mercy by having His own Son save man by dying on the Cross. Without explicitly saying this, Pleij perhaps thinks that this hesitating God could have made this text appealing to an audience broader than just the spectators of a play. At a time when nothing seemed to be certain anymore - Luther's revolt was just a few years away and signs of things to happen shortly were already clearly visible - even God hesitated! Could this have been the reason why Mariken van Nieumeghen came out in print? No answers are given here.

What about the other text English readers became acquainted with around the same time? Even though there is no reason anymore to regard the English play of Everyman as an older version of the Dutch Elckerlyc - the priority of the latter over the former has sufficiently been proven - the same question we put in relation to Mariken van Nieumeghen can be put here too. How does Pleij deal with the reasons for the publication of this text? To start with, he discusses this play in the context of a specific dramatic genre, the spel van sinne, a type of morality drama comparable to English plays containing the dramatic character of the ‘Vice’. And yet, the Elckerlyc does not contain any sinnekens as would be expected in spelen van sinne. But since the borders between genres and subgenres at the end of the fifteenth century are not as fixed as they would become later during the sixteenth century, this matter is obviously less important. Perhaps even more than Mariken van Nieumeghen this text appealed to a broader audience, including academic scholars as we know from Latin translations and adaptations. Is it the unknown author's criticism aiming at rich merchants who seem to have forgotten God while splashing around in a wealthy world which made this play such a popular text during the first half of the sixteenth century? This is, according to Pleij, one of the central messages of Elckerlyc. For certain circles this may indeed have been an interesting topic for discussion but I wonder whether this holds true also for the world of sixteenth-century academics. Discussions among them included those related to the Renaissance concept of free will and the use of good deeds in man's hour of death. It is on these issues that both Mariken and Elkerlyc take a clear position.

It is Mariken herself, out of her own free will and thus openly resisting the devil, who decides to abandon her sinful life. Her story exemplifies Lorenzo Valla's theory on this issue as laid down in his treatise De libero arbitrio, at the same time serving as a prelude to Luther's and Erasmus's dispute of

1524-1525 where the former arrives at an opposite conclusion, denying man's free will, in De servo arbitrio. In this book Luther ‘speaks of the human will as a donkey that must go as the rider directs, whether the rider be God or the devil’.8 The play is published exactly during the decades when scholars were attacking one another in this discussion. Similarly, the use of good deeds to man, one of the central elements in Roman-Catholic theology regarding his ultimate salvation, would soon be seriously doubted in Lutheran doctrine. In the four English editions of Everyman, published between 1508 and 1537, the epilogue explicitly stresses the importance of good deeds but even these do not help us when, in the end, we face God:

 
... remembre beaute .v. wyttes strength & discrecion
 
They all at last do euery man forsake
 
Saue his good dedes there do he take
 
But beware for and they be small
 
Befor god he hathe no help at all

It is, of course, impossible for authors of a literary history to research their topics in such a way that all works receive their own in-depth treatment, with new perspectives shed on every single text. They have to rely on the results of decades of research carried out by large numbers of previous scholars. But adding one's own views to these results and, to a limited degree, presenting new insights, is the prerogative of modern-day literary historians. No longer are they to be seen as chroniclers who merely summarize prior research. In his book Pleij has given his own personal answer to the question of what Dutch literature offered between 1400 and 1560 and he has done so in a most admirable way, stimulating generations of researchers to add to our knowledge. Knuvelder's Handboek lasted for forty years; it will perhaps take as many years for Pleij's book to become outdated but even then his Gevleugelde woord will remain worth reading and consulting.

 

Address of the author: Winketkaai 17/202, b-2800 Mechelen; wim.husken@telenet.be


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs