|
| |
| |
| |
Chapter Six
The 17th Century.
It is not without reason that, in the period of New Netherlandic, a special place is assigned to the 17th century language: for quite a long time much attention has been paid to this century, especially the first half of it. Philological interest, in the sense of careful text interpretation and of purely linguistic study, is often accompanied by literary interests: scholars are attracted to texts of literary value, and philological interpretation aims primarily at making the literary production of an earlier period accessible to modern readers. From a political and economic point of view, the 17th century was for the Northern Netherlands - the Republic of the Seven Provinces - and especially for the powerful province of Holland, their Golden Age. Material prosperity encouraged cultural progress, painting and literature flourished, and though the latter may not nearly have soared so high as the former, we are justified in speaking of a literary Golden Age, too. The existence of authors such as Hooft, Vondel, Bredero, Huygens and the popular didactic poet Cats, to mention only those who were born in the 16th century, make the 17th an important period in Netherlandic literature.
| |
1. Text editions and lexicology
Several dramas by Vondel and Hooft, especially those that are suitable to be read in secondary schools, have appeared in handy editions with more or less extensive annotations. They cannot all be enumerated here. We shall restrict ourselves to mentioning the standard edition of De werken van Vondel (10 vols, Amsterdam, 1927-37), the commentary to which was written by J.D. Meerwaldt, L.C. Michels, B.H. Molkenboer, H.W.E. Moller, A.A. Verdenius and C.G.N. de Vooys.
De werken van G.A. Bredero were edited with commentary by J. ten Brink, G. Kalff, R.A. Kollewijn, H.E. Moltzer, J.H.W. Unger and J. te Winkel (3 vols, Amsterdam, 1890), and later by J.A.N. Knuttel (3 vols, Amsterdam and Leyden, 1921-1929),
| |
| |
with brief annotations. The latter edition was no improvement on the former, which itself was not first-rate.
The standard edition of De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens by J.A. Worp (9 vols, 1st vol. Arnhem, n.d., other vols Groningen, 1893-99) is not annotated.
Cats' works, often reprinted, most recently in the very luxurious edition by J. van Vloten (Zwolle, 1862), has not aroused sufficient literary interest in the 20th century to justify a new complete edition.
Some editions of separate texts deserve mention here for their good commentaries. There are those of Hooft's Granida, edited by J.H. van den Bosch (5th edition, Zwolle, 1931), and by A. Zijderveld and A.A. Verdenius (Zutfen, 1940; 2nd revised edition by C.A. Zaalberg, Zutfen, n.d. [1957]). F.A. Stoett produced a carefully edited and fully annotated edition of Bredero's Moortje (Zutfen, 1931) and, on a smaller scale, of Coster's Boere-klucht van Teeuwis de Boer (Zutfen, 1935). Of the same high standard is A.A. van Rijnbach's De kluchten van Gerbrand Adriaensz. Bredero (Amsterdam, 1926). Th.H. d'Angremond edited P.C. Hooft's Achilles en Polyxena (Assen, 1943).
H.J. Eymael brought out an edition of Huygens' Hofwyck (2nd impression, Zutfen, 1920) and Trijntje Cornelisdr. klucht (Zutfen, n.d. [1912]). Supplementary and critical remarks on Eymael's Hofwyck were made by F. Baur in Leuv. Bijdr. XIX, 99 ff, to which Eymael responded in Leuv. Bijdr. XX, 138 ff. As a result of further criticism, Eymael supplied some supplements and corrections to his Hofwyck-edition in Ts. XLII, 72 ff. In an earlier publication, Huygens-studiën (Kuilenburg, 1886), Eymael had provided a series of ‘nalezingen met critische aantekeningen op uitgaven van C. Huygens' werken’. Similar notes by Eymael to more recent editions, such as Costelick Mal and Cluys-werck, are to be found in Ts. XXXIII, 40 ff and ibid., 191 ff resp. Further, Eymael took care of the 2nd edition of the anthology Koren-bloemen I and II, revised and more copiously annotated by J. Heinsius (Zutfen, 1925). Heinsius also edited parts III and IV of Koren-bloemen (4th edition, Zutfen, 1924). Shorter contributions on Huygens, not all of them strictly philological, appear in Michels' Filologische Opstellen II (Zwolle, 1958).
In the series Zwolse Drukken en Herdrukken, which we mentioned in Ch. IV, 2, the 17th century is represented by, among others, Hooft's Baeto, in a very fine edition by F. Veenstra (Zwolle,
| |
| |
1954), and Poësy van Six van Chandelier, edited by G.A. van Es (1953); a ‘nader commentaar’ to it was written by L.C. Michels, Ts. LXXIV, 263 ff.
Also worthy of mention is the separate edition of Vondel's Leeuwendalers by Anton van Duinkerken, pseudonym of W.J.M.A. Asselbergs, (Utrecht-Brussels, 1948).
The biography of Joannes Stalpart van der Wielen, written by G.J. Hoogewerff, with an anthology of his lyrical poems (Bussum, 1920), has led L.C. Michels to publish several studies on the poet and his work, which have now been collected, in a somewhat revised form, in Michels' Filologische Opstellen II, 173 ff.
The handsome edition of the song-book Den Bloemhof van de Nederlantsche Ieught (1608 and 1610) by L.M. van Dis and Jac. Smit (Amsterdam-Antwerp, 1955), which is of interest especially for the literary historian, has short notes at the foot of the page. In the series Zwolse Drukken en Herdrukken O. Dambre edited Justus de Harduyn's De Weerliicke Liefden tot Roosemond (Zwolle, 1956).
No complete, or even nearly complete, discussion of the vocabulary of any of the above-mentioned 17th century authors has appeared in the last few decades. Their works have been extensively excerpted for the W.N.T., where, especially in the earlier volumes, numerous quotations are to be found. A systematic description of the usage of Hooft and Huygens, however, would be rewarding, both authors having, each in his own way, consciously constructed and improved their language. The Uitlegkundig Woordenboek op de werken van Pieter Korneliszoon Hooft (4 vols, Amsterdam, 1825-1838), compiled by ‘de tweede klasse van het Koninklijk-Nederlandsche Instituut voor Wetenschappen, Letterkunde en Schoone Kunsten’, each of the twelve members taking care of one or more letters, is antiquated and inadequate. Nor does its supplement, A.C. Oudemans' Taalkundig Woordenboek op de werken van P.C. Hooft (Leyden, 1868), useful as it is in some respects, come up to our present-day expectations of such a special dictionary. The same must be said of Oudemans' Woordenboek op de gedichten van G. Az. Bredero (Leyden, 1857).
A.A. Verdenius has written many enlightening articles on 17th century usage, especially that of Bredero, most of which were collected in the volume Studies over Zeventiende Eeuws (Amsterdam, 1946), presented to him on his 70th birthday. The excellent doctoral
| |
| |
thesis by L.C. Michels, Bijdrage tot het onderzoek van Vondel's werken (Nimeguen-Utrecht, 1941), also contains several chapters on questions of lexicological interpretation.
Lydia De Pauw-De Veen has devoted a study to one special part of the vocabulary, painters' jargon: Bijdrage tot de studie van de woordenschat in verband met de schilderkunst in de 17e eeuw (Ghent, 1957).
| |
2. Grammatical studies
A useful general introduction to 17th century Netherlandic grammar is A. Weijnen's Zeventiende-eeuwse Taal (2nd edition, Zutfen, 1956), which is chiefly intended to serve the didactical aims of text-interpretation, and is for that purpose prefaced by a survey of 17th century grammar and idiom, where special attention is paid to points of difference between old and modern usage.
Purely grammatical descriptions of the usage of 17th century authors are mostly of earlier date. A useful book, giving solid and reliable material, is W.L. van Helten's Vondel's taal (2 vols, Rotterdam, 1881), dealing chiefly with morphology and syntax. The grammatical standards adhered to by Vondel in his later works are dealt with in the book by J.L. Walch, De varianten van Vondel's Palamedes (The Hague, 1906), where the author discusses, in the ‘eerste Hoofdafdeling’ (pp. 17-98), ‘veranderingen om eene reden van taalkundigen aard.’ F. Kossmann devoted a similar study to De varianten van Hoofts Granida, Ts. XXXVI, 97 ff, analysing the results of two subsequent revisions of Granida undertaken by the author. Inferior to van Helten's book are that by G.A. Nauta on the phonology and morphology of Bredero, Taalkundige aanteekeningen naar aanleiding van de Werken van G.A. Bredero (Groningen, 1893), and that on his syntax by J.O.S. van der Veen, Het taaleigen van Bredero (Amsterdam, 1905), because these two writers were dealing with a rather special problem: that of Bredero's attempts both to imitate sophisticated speech and to render genuine popular speech. A short characterization of Bredero's usage is to be found in C.G.N. de Vooys' introduction to his edition of Bredero's Spaenschen Brabander (Groningen-The Hague, 1920).
H. Smout, Het Antwerpsch Dialect (Ghent, 1905), discusses the rendering of the 17th century Antwerp dialect by Huygens in Trijntje Cornelisdr. J. te Winkel has studied De tongval van Delf- | |
| |
land (the region round The Hague) bij Huygens, Ts. XVIII, 161 ff, using the passages where Huygens obviously tried to render that dialect.
B. van den Berg, N.Tg. XXXVII, 242 ff, traces the relationship between Boers en Beschaafd in het begin der 17e eeuw as it emerges from the works of such authors as Huygens and Bredero. In his article Naar aanleiding van de o's by P.C. Hooft, Ts. LXXV, 181 ff, he examines the phonetic value of Hooft's distinction between o, oo and ó, óó.
The language of Cats has so far elicited as little commentary as the interpretation of his poetry, both being fairly easy to understand. The only contribution is that by A. Opprel, De zachte en scherpe e en o bij Cats, Ts. XIV, 154 ff.
The very complicated usage of Hendrik Laurenszoon Spiegel has been made more accessible by A.C. de Jong, Spiegels Hertspiegel I (Amsterdam, 1930), who also gives a phonology. Spiegel's Lieden op 't Vader Ons has been edited by G. Degroote in the series Zwolse Drukken en Herdrukken (Zwolle, 1956), with notes and a complete facsimile of the author's manuscript.
A considerable part of Roemer Visscher's poetry was edited by N. van der Laan, Uit Roemer Visscher's Brabbeling (2 vols, Utrecht, 1918-23).
W.A.P. Smit edited and annotated Jacobus Revius' Overysselsche Sangen en Dichten (2 vols, Amsterdam, 1930-35). Several passages of these poems are discussed by Chr. Stapelkamp,Reviusstudiën (Assen, 1954).
P.E. Muller rightly gave his doctoral thesis on De dichtwerken van Philibert van Borsselen (Groningen-Batavia, 1937) the subtitle ‘een bijdrage tot de studie van zijn (Van Borsselen's) taal en stijl’.
A.C. Crena de Iongh, in his edition of G.C. van Santen's Lichte Wigger en snappende Siitgen (Assen, 1958), has examined Van Santen's two farces as specimens of the 17th century dialect of Delft; he gives an extensive phonology and a concise grammar, with good notes in the text, and a glossary.
For the usage of the popular Brabant poet Poirters we have A. Weijnen's Opmerkingen over de taal van Pater Poirters, published in the periodical Vondelkroniek 1939, 324 ff.
The Zeventiende-eeuwse Syntaxis by G.S. Overdiep (3 parts,
| |
| |
Groningen-The Hague-Batavia, 1931-35) is based on twelve 17th century fragments of about 1000 lines each, representing different types of usage. Overdiep tries, by way of an inductive inquiry, to demonstrate the personal and general elements in these specimens of 17th century Netherlandic. The work has both the typical attractions and drawbacks of Overdiep's so-called ‘stylistic’ methods. His stressing of the individual traits in each separate author and context in a way brings his material to life, but on the other hand this sometimes obstructs the view of the main lines and the grammatical limits which each author is bound to accept.
An earlier syntactic study by Overdiep, solely concerned with 17th century Netherlandic, is De zinsvormen in Vondels Pascha en Lucifer (in Stilistische Studiën I, Leyden, 1926); in his article Over het Nederlandsche participium praesentis, Ts. XLIV, 119 ff, on the other hand, he uses both modern and 17th century data. This article has been reprinted in Verzamelde opstellen over taal- en letterkunde II (Antwerp, 1948), 183 ff.
A specimen of the style of 17th century officials has been examined by J.A. Verhage, in 'n Sintakties-stilistiese studie van die Dagregister van Jan van Riebeeck (Amsterdam and Cape Town, 1952); in general, though not throughout, its method is rather like Overdiep's in his 17th century syntax.
L. Koelmans is investigating the usage of Admiral Michiel de Ruyter in the latter's handwritten logbooks and letters. The first part, Teken en klank bij Michiel de Ruyter, has already appeared (Assen, 1959); the morphology is to follow shortly, and the syntax is also to be reviewed.
A work that attained great authority on matters of usage was the translation of the Bible undertaken by order of the ‘Staten-Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden’, the States-General of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, as a result of a resolution passed by the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-19). Twenty-four prominent scholars contributed to this great work, conscientiously aiming to forge a generally acceptable, supra-dialectal language. Many of the collaborators came from the Southern Netherlands, and they exercised their influence in the case of many disputed points, and through the so-called ‘Statenbijbel’ introduced some Southern Netherlandic peculiarities that are still found in the written language of the Northern Netherlands. The phonology and morphology of this Bible-translation
| |
| |
(which appeared in 1637), a work of the utmost importance for the linguistic history of the Netherlands, have been accurately described by J. Heinsius, Klank- en buigingsleer van de taal des Statenbijbels (Groningen, 1897). A history of Bible-translations in the Netherlands, terminating with the ‘Statenbijbel’, is to be found in C.C. de Bruin's De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers (Leyden, 1937). The decisions taken by the translators in matters of usage were incorporated in the Resolutiën. These ‘resolutions’, together with other documents concerning the language of the ‘Statenbijbel’, were edited by F.L. Zwaan: Uit de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche spraakkunst (Groningen-Batavia, 1939), 195 ff. A discussion of these documents appears in the same work, 40 ff. An earlier separate edition is that by J. Heinsius, De ‘resolutiën’ betreffende de taal van de Statenbijbel (Groningen-The Hague, 1919).
| |
3. 17th century philology
Interest in the national language, and attempts at correctness in using it, originating in the 16th century (see Ch. V), were continued on a larger scale in the 17th. The poets Hooft and Vondel held discussions with Anthonis de Hubert and Laurens Reael on spelling, flexions and other aspects of the written language, see Zwaan, Uit de gesch. der Nederl. spraakkunst, 3 ff. De Hubert prefaced his translation of De Psalmen des Propheeten Davids (Leyden, 1624) by a ‘Noodige Waarschouwinge’, discussed in Zwaan, op. cit., 13 ff and reprinted ibid., 121 ff with annotations 257 ff. Later on, Hooft himself, in the spirit of the ‘Letterkundig Besluit’ drafted in the discussions mentioned above and intended as a supplement to it, composed his Waernemingen op de Hollandsche Tael, reproduced in Zwaan's book, 235 ff, discussed and annotated 107 ff and 360 ff.
Christiaen van Heule wrote a Nederduytsche Grammatica ofte Spraeckonst (Leyden, 1625), discussed by C.G.N. de Vooys, N.Tg. XI, 273 ff, which article was reprinted, with additions and corrections, in his Verz. Taalk. Opst. I, 293 ff. A new edition of Van Heule's grammar appeared in the series Trivium Nr. I, Part 1 (Groningen-Djakarta, 1953), edited, introduced and annotated by W.J.H. Caron. The same scholar undertook the new edition of Van Heule's De Nederduytsche Spraec-konst ofte Tael-beschrijvinghe (Leyden, 1633), which appeared in Trivium Nr. I, Part 2 (Groningen-Djakarta, 1953). The series Trivium aims at making early
| |
| |
grammatical works available, it was founded by J. Wille, who stimulated the study of 16th and 17th century grammar among his pupils. One of these pupils, F.L. Zwaan, edited Jacob van der Schuere's Nederduydsche Spellinge (1612) as number II of Trivium (Groningen-Djakarta, 1957). Number IV is the edition of Petrus Leupenius' Aanmerkingen op de Nederduitsche Taale (1653) and Naaberecht (1654) by W.J.H. Caron (Groningen, 1958).
The Beschrijvinge ende Lof der Stad Haerlem (Haarlem, 1628) by Samuel Ampzing is prefaced by a Nederlandsch Tael-bericht. There is an article on this publication by C.G.N. de Vooys inN.Tg. XI, 276 ff (reprinted Verz. Taalk. Opst. I, 299 ff). F.L. Zwaan reedited it in Uit de gesch. der Nederl. Spraakk., 133 ff, with discussion 21 ff and notes 273 ff.
Other grammatical writings of the 17th century are dealt with, rather disparagingly, by C.G.N. de Vooys in his articles Uit en over oude spraakkunsten for N.Tg. XIV, 44 ff, 142 ff, and XV, 94 ff. These articles have also been reprinted in Verz. Taalk. Opst. I.
In his articles de Vooys mentions, briefly but with admiration, the Spreeckonst by Petrus Montanus (Delft, 1635). This book was later discussed at greater length but with equal admiration by L.P.H. Eijkman, in N.Tg. XVII, 231 ff; his article forms part of the series Geschiedkundig overzicht van de klankleer in Nederland, N.Tg. XVII and XVIII. In Eijkman's terminology ‘klankleer’ means ‘phonetics’, and Montanus' book is, indeed, a handbook of phonetics. In his analyses of the formation of speech-sounds, Montanus was far ahead of his time, as was shown in the monograph devoted to his remarkable book by A. Verschuur, Een Nederlandsche uitspraakleer der 17e eeuw (Amsterdam, 1924). A new edition of the Spreeckonst, prepared by W.J.H. Caron, is to appear in the series Trivium.
The great mathematician Simon Stevin (born in Bruges, ca. 1548) was not a philologist, but his name deserves to be mentioned here because of his serious puristic attempts, the results of which are still to be seen in modern Netherlandic mathematical terminology. ‘Het purisme van Simon Stevin’ is discussed by K.W. de Groot in N.Tg. XIII, 161 ff.
A good deal of work has yet to be done on this important period of the linguistic history of the Netherlands. Very little attention has so far been paid to the usage of scholars and scientists, who were numerous in the young and prosperous Republic. There is some lite- | |
| |
rature on the usage of the biologist Antonivan Leeuwenhoek. Miss S. Jongejan treated Van Leeuwenhoek's brieven en de Nederlandse schrijftaal in de zeventiende eeuw in N.Tg. XXXIV, 300 ff. She was encouraged to undertake this study by C.G.N. de Vooys, who, in his article Wensen en wenken voor een ‘Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal’ (N.Tg. VII, 65 ff and 113 ff), had pointed out the importance of the language used by scientific authors. In answer to questions raised by G. van Rijnberk in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde LXXVII, 209 ff, Miss Judy Mendels treated Van Leeuwenhoek's language and style: Over de stijl van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, N.Tg. XL, 27 ff; Leeuwenhoek's taal, N.Tg. XLI, 123 ff. Van Rijnsberk's questions were also answered, somewhat more critically, by G.S. Overdiep in O.Tt. II, 247 ff.
We have some publications dealing with non-literary language as used in correspondence. J.H. Kern wrote an article Over de taal van de brieven van Huygens' zusters en Dorothea van Dorp, for Ts. XLVIII, 49 ff, and J.J. Borger described, in Ts. LXIX, 49 ff, Haags uit de tweede helft van de 17e eeuw, basing his conclusions on some deviations and peculiarities in the Briefwisseling tussen de Gebroeders Van der Goes (edited by C.J. Gonnet), a correspondence carried on during the years 1659-1673.
As may be gathered from the preceding pages, the interest of linguists has so far been focused chiefly on the first half of the 17th century, the period when some of our best-known authors were active. The remarkable dissimilarity, however, between the linguistic usage at the beginning of the century and the comparatively ‘modern’ usage found by the end of it, would lead one to suppose that a radical change had taken place, but although this has been pointed out by some scholars, it has not yet been explained or even studied in detail. What might be done here is indicated in the article by C.G.N. de Vooys, Omgangstaal in het begin en tegen het einde van de zeventiende eeuw, N.Tg. XLIII, 129 ff, regarded by the author as a ‘reconnoitring expedition’.
A valuable lexicographical work from the second half of the 17th century is W. à Winschooten, Seeman (Leyden, 1681), which gives, as the title implies, especially maritime words, but also mentions curious dialectal traits of Southern Hollandic. These traits have been listed and discussed by F.A. Stoett, N.Tg. XIII, 97 ff. |
|
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd