Tussen twee werelden. Rhijnvis Feith als dichter van 'Het graf'

[p. 305]

Summary

The Dutch poet Rhijnvis Feith (1753-1824) has long had the reputation of being a poor imitator of foreign models whose names were now Goethe and d'Arnaud, then again Klopstock and Young. Because on the surface his life passed quite uneventfully, many critics have had their doubts as to the authenticity of his melancholy poetry. When in addition to this, a rather superficial kind of comparative criticism pounced upon Feith's work, a criticism that looked for - and found - parallels everywhere, his artistic individuality was almost torn to pieces.

It is true that at first Feith could devote himself to his literary work in comparative peace. But very soon his vulnerable nature brought him into conflict with the outside world. His craving for sensuous delight found no ultimate satisfaction in the fleeting pleasures of this earth. From the beginning, therefore, Feith turned his thoughts towards the eternal, metaphysical reality beyond the grave, which promised lasting happiness.

To an ever-increasing degree Feith's poems and novels give expression to this feeling of discontent with the here and now. At the same time, however, the poet knew himself to be completely bound up with society. His worldly ambitions were not entirely in keeping with his unworldly verse.

About 1787 there is a change. Feith's quiet happiness has been rudely disturbed by then. Since two years he has been the object of the criticism of the sentimental tendency in Dutch literature. Some critics have their doubts about his orthodoxy. Then, in September 1787, he is removed from his post as burgomaster of Zwolle for political reasons.

The result was that, repenting of his former halfheartedness, Feith now turned resolutely away from wordly vanities. The long didactic poem Het Graf of 1792 is the immediate outcome of this changed attitude. There Feith settles the score with the age of the Enlightenment and with his own past. This makes Het Graf his most personal poem and gives it a central place in Feith's oeuvre.

[p. 306]

By this it is already intimated in what respect this poem differs from the work of earlier Dutch poets: Het Graf is above all confessional poetry as such it paved the way for the romantic literature of a later period; the more so because Feith consciously broke away from the strictly logical thought-structure in poetry. Thus he renewed the classical didactic poem in the Netherlands by giving it a highly lyrical character. Another important aspect is that he consistently refrained from the use of the disputed Greek and Roman mythology.

On the other hand Feith's poem still shows many links with the classicalrhetorical tradition. He handles the ‘old-fashioned’ alexandrine, though in a very lively manner. He still employs the stereotyped poetic diction, although he takes the liberty to introduce many new coinages modelled on German examples. Because of this combination of unmistakably classical and romantic formal elements Rhijnvis Feith may be called a transitional figure on the dividing-line between two literary periods.

Turning our attention to the ideological development in Feith's didactic poem we find a strong eschatological tendency which manifests itself on various levels. As a convinced Christian and follower of Leibniz the poet has a logical explanation for the evil in this world ready to hand in the latter's theodicy, but this does not in the least reconcile him to reality. On the contrary, the knowledge that once, after death, the mystery of our existence will be solved, makes him look forward all the more eagerly to the great moment when all the sufferings inflicted upon the virtuous man in this world will be replaced by eternal happiness in the company of his friends and beloved. Literally everything in Het Graf: diction, imagery, poetic motifs, illustrations, and thematic development - is now aimed at carrying away the poet's ego from the earth and breaking through the boundary line between time and eternity. At times the poet even imagines himself to be in cosmic ecstasy, released from his earthly bonds. But the ascent to the eternal abode is checked again and again, for on account of man's tragic constitution of spiritual and material being in one person, he can never completely break loose from the pull of the earth. Not at home in this world, not yet ready for the next, he is constantly hovering between earthly and heavenly reality. Because of this tragic conflict Feith may be called a transitional figure in a deeper sense: he is above all a poet between two worlds. It is especially this essential duality, that has set its stamp upon Het Graf with its numerous antitheses and contrasting moods. Feith's transcendental aspiration is ultimately nothing else but the desire to be freed from this inner duality.

[p. 307]

When we view Het Graf in the wider perspective of European preromanticism, all sorts of incidental similarities of form and content present themselves. Feith's mental range was extensive and he was receptive enough to assimilate the most widely divergent influences. But he did this, at least in Het Graf, in a rather independent way, so that within the smaller frame of Dutch literature he made a personal and valuable contribution to the new literature of imaginative sensibility.