‘Dead as a Doornail?’

Allegory in the Plays of Cornelis Everaert

Wim Hüsken

(University of Auckland, New Zealand)

§ 1

As are the works of most of his contemporaries, the plays of Cornelis Everaert (c. 1480-1556) are seen as highly allegorical. The frequent appearance on stage of characters conceived as personifications of abstract concepts seems an obvious indication of it, but on closer inspection it is not. Why shouldn’t one, for example, call a certain character "The Bold" and another "The Unashamed" rather than John or Mary, as was done in the "Farce of The Bold and the Unashamed" (Esbatement van Stout ende Onbescaemt), written in 1527? The comical anecdote staged in this play presents the audience with an implicit warning against hypocrisy but the names of the pair after which the play took its title have no relationship with it. Moreover, the two other characters in this play are referred to as Coster (Verger) and Wyf (Woman). Totally different are those plays in which a metaphor is kept alive throughout the text, adding various details intended to elaborate on the once adopted comparison. This is the case in the "Play of Lofty Wind and Sweet Rain" (Tspel van den Hooghen Wynt ende den Zoeten Reyn) from 1525. In it a victory by Emperor Charles V over the French king, Francois I, is cast in a meteorological metaphor, the German emperor being depicted as the sweet rain taming the windbag that is the French king. It is in plays like this in particular that we find a different type of allegory compared to simple personifications and abstractions that function independent of an overarching metaphor. Both categories of allegory abound in Everaert’s plays. The aim of this paper is to show how allegory functions in Everaert’s plays and what types of allegory the author used. But let us start with a general introduction to the concept and its theoretical background.

§ 2

Some researchers categorically deny the link between biblical and literary allegory. Friedrich Ohly in particular, author of a pioneering and frequently quoted article on the sensus spiritualis of the Bible, is unrelenting: ‘Was die Literaturgeschichte vor allem des späteren Mittelalters als allegorische Dichtung bezeichnet wie den französischen Rosenroman und die Minneallegorien, hat mit dem, was wir hier unter Allegorie zu verstehen haben, nichts zu tun. Beides schließt einander aus.’ That Ohly employs a very limited concept of literary allegory here may become evident from the way he thinks to be able identify it. In his opinion ‘handelt es sich um Allegorien nach Art der Personifikationen: Der Sinn ist das Gegebene und das zu seiner Verkš rperung taugliche Ding wird durch dichterische Setzung gesucht und gefunden.’ In other words: a certain abstract concept is found first after which it is matched with its fitting personification. That medieval literary allegory more often than not makes the impression to boil down to just that cannot be denied. However, about the degree in which biblical allegory differs from literary allegory one may still differ in opinion with Ohly. The German specialist of medieval French drama, Werner Helmich, for example, describes the difference between the two in much more moderate terms: ‘Während die antike Allegorese den Literalsinn eines poetischen Textes für falsch erklärt, um ihn durch den allegorischen Sinn zu ersetzen, stellt die christliche allegorische Exegese den Wahrheitsgehalt des biblischen Literalsinns nicht in Frage, sondern fügt ihm nur noch weitere geistliche Bedeutungen hinzu.’ Rhetorical practice aims at replacing the literal meaning of a text by its allegorical interpretation whereas biblical allegory is an addition to the original wording of a text.

In our view the two types of allegory have one essential characteristic in common, namely the fact that both establish a comparison between two different objects by way of a tertium comparationis, a third element shared by the two objects in the comparison. The stories of Joseph’s imprisonment in the well and Christ’s Body lying dead in the sepulchre are both exemplary for their patience, thus referring to one of the most important qualities in mankind medieval audiences were constantly reminded of, the virtue of patientia. This is still the way people would interpret the story of Joseph in early modern times witness Joost van den Vondel’s (1587-1679) tragedy Joseph in Dothan. In a rejoicing voice the Choir of Angels (‘Rey der Engelen’) sings:

In literary allegory similar comparisons abound. The violets and rose petals, "weapons" with which Luxuria tries to conquer her virtuous opponents in the Roman de la Rose, are not just there to spread a pleasant scent. They merely represent the character’s foolishness reflecting her pathetic lifestyle. (An allegorical interpretation of the Bible too can avail itself of images which can be explained either in a positive or in a negative sense, in bonam partem or in malam partem, as was shown by Ohly in his treatment of the different symbolic meanings attached to various biblical lions.) It is possible to interpret the rose petals in yet another way, namely as a symbol of arrogance which is characteristic of a personage such as Luxuria. The fact that the author also uses personification by casting Luxuria in a human image (after all, an abstract concept needs to be made concrete one way or another) does not alter the idea of the concept (arrogance) being expressed by means of a symbol (fighting with rose petals). In conclusion, the symbolic is yet another essential ingredient to all types of allegory.

In literature, the allegorical is expressed in various ways. One particular type, allegory as a system, has been accepted as an exemplary model thanks to Prudence’s Psychomachia and Guillaume de Lorris’ Roman de la Rose, whereas the other type is characterised by a lesser degree of systematisation. The latter can be found in those works which do not aim at elaborating a certain metaphor into an all-embracing vision but merely apply a symbolic interpretation to a given word or phrase, mostly making use of personifications. More often than not their authors do not aim at attaching deeper meanings to specific qualities of characters or objects through establishing links with a certain (abstract, moral) concept. The many examples in medieval drama of characters named "Everyman" or "Mankind", for instance, may be seen as attempts to de-individualise a person instead of highlighting one particular aspect of this person’s character as we find, for example, in "The Bold" or "The Unashamed". Hence, compared to what we could call ‘systematic allegory’, where we find links at a deeper (abstract or moral) level than the mere literal sense, ‘non systematic allegory’ exclusively functions at the level of sensus litteralis. Spectators and readers will readily accept the need for introducing more symbolism in allegorical texts belonging to the first type (‘systematic allegory’). Once again: why does Everaert give the two tramps in his farce of The Bold and The Unashamed symbolic names and identifies the woman and the verger with their respective social function? He could have used realistic names for all four of them but instead he decided to use two different types of personification, only one of which can be termed allegorical. In some cases authors were very inventive in this area. Just take, for example, Unequal Coinage (dOnghelycke Munte) in Everaert’s play named after this stage character and the way she her dress is described, a reflection of the concept she represents in this play: attached to her gown are numerous coins and to show the audience that coinage is very unequal in different towns and provinces she walks with a distinct limp. Whether it was the popularity of this relatively simple type of allegory in Dutch Rhetoricians’ drama or the more complicated ‘systematic allegory’ that lead to it being eventually discarded is difficult to assess. Fact is, however, that 16th-century audiences loved both types and that they certainly would not agree with 19th-century scholars who would regard allegory as dead as a doornail. Everaert contributed largely to the development of allegory in Dutch Rhetoricians’ drama and it would be impossible to give an account of it in a relatively short paper as the current one. Instead it will be much more interesting to study one of his plays in which he makes use of different types of allegory. His Spel van Een Sanders Welvaren ("Play of Other People’s Prosperity") is a very suitable one for our purpose.

§ 3

Tspel van Een Sanders Welvaren (The Play of Other People’s Prosperity) was meant to be performed, as Everaert notes in the index preceding his collection of plays, on a wagon. The occasion for which it was composed is unknown but we do know that it was written shortly before Easter in 1511, hence on our modern calendar in 1512.

Central character in the play is Meest Elc (Most People), representing mankind in general. In his opening speech he readily reveals to us what ails him: he is in love with Dommenacie van Goede (Dominance of Goods), a woman who has managed to completely unbalance him. Aware of the fact that sense and reason have departed from him as a result of which he now badly suffers of ‘fantasye’, a severe stroke of melancholy, he only craves for one thing: ‘gheacht zyn binnen uwen hove’ (vs 15), being respected in your court. But instead of directing himself toward more traditional remedies to cure his melancholic mood, such as music, literature, excellent food and drinks, etc., Meest Elc decides to gather advice from Practyckeghe List, personification of Cunning Deception. The name of this character in itself already incorporates a serious warning in the direction of the audience. For a possible connotation of the word ‘practyckegh’ is also: "horrible, heinous". In other words, one should never put one’s trust in a character like Practyckeghe List, Everaert explicitly tells the spectators of this play.

Even though the name of the main character, Meest Elc, is not mentioned in this play until line 139 when a mate of Practyckeghe List, named Subtyl Bedroch (Subtle Fraud), notes his arrival at their residence, the audience will probably have been aware of it because of the widespread custom in performances of Rhetoricians’ drama to attach a slip of paper containing the name of the character to the sleeve of the actor’s costume. Further allusions to this person are found in the dialogue of the two tricksters prior to their first meeting with him, when they refer to the influence they have on "most people". Moreover, it is obvious from their conversation that they are ruthless schemers who do not care about poor people or those who loose all their money by listening to their advice. The two tell Meest Elc to turn to Eyghen Wasdom (Increase of Personal Wealth); he will be able to help him. At this point in the play the audience witnesses the unfolding of a systematic allegory. Until now the author had merely applied symbolic names to relatively realistic characters in a history which basically consisted of an amorous tale. Within this context the presence of a pair of matchmakers – so far Practyckeghe List and Subtyl Bedroch could be seen as fulfilling that particular role in the play – is not exceptional. But after some two-hundred lines it has become obvious to the spectators that they watch a play on financial exploitation rather than a love story. The extended metaphor, typical for a systematic allegory, is now gradually being revealed and supplemented with various other symbolic concepts. "Where does Eyghen Wasdom live?", is Most People’s next question. "In the House of Diligence", is Subtle Fraud’s answer and the couple precedes with giving additional tips as to how to attain a decent Increase of Personal Wealth. "But this is very much against Other People’s Prosperity", Most People retorts. That is what you have to accept, Subtle Fraud says, if one wants "to sit in wealth". This expression, sitting in wealth, may be taken figurally as referring to someone’s personal prosperity or literally as a name of a reference to a chair, named "Wealth". Audiences in Everaert’s days would have picked up this ambiguity without any problems. The interesting thing is here that in the latter case the reference to the chair is not only literal but as a result of a fact that it would also function as part of the wider metaphor of the play and hence it would serve an allegorical role as well. Further down the play Most People indeed sits down in a chair and once more it is described as "this chair of comfort and wealth" (‘desen stoel van ghemack en weilde’; l. 363). However, what is lacking here is some sort of question normally preceding an activity like sitting down in a chair such as, "What is its name?" Shortly after this exchange this question is in fact asked when the Most People’s advisers tell their companion that he will have to follow a certain road which opens up in front of their eyes. Here its name is explicitly given as "Money-grubbers Lane" (‘Rapen en Scrapen’; l. 289). This suggests, in other words, that it seems unlikely that the chair is meant to have an allegorical name.

Increase of Personal Wealth enquires about the purpose of Most People’s visit. The exchange following this question is, similar to the way the play opened, "realistic" in the sense that the topic of their conversation is Most People’s infatuation with Dominance of Goods, the woman who has been his object of veneration for such a long time. It is this skillful pendular going backwards and forwards between allegory and a more "realistic" setting which makes it so enjoyable for audiences to watch plays like this. One almost forgets that the names of the characters are not John and Bill. Anyhow, Most People has arrived at the correct address and, so it seems, Eyghen Wasdom opens a curtain behind which we see Dominance of Goods, the woman Most People is so much in love with. She advises Increase of Personal Wealth to have Most People change his clothes, taking off "Anxiety" (‘zoorghe’; l. 353) and replacing it by a different dress, named "Temporary Fame" (‘tydelicke eere’; l. 347). After a short break during which Most People will do as he is told he returns on stage, welcomed by his two comrades as a true man of fame, while Dominance of Goods invites him to sit down in her chair of comfort and wealth. At this stage in the play we would expect Subtle Fraud and Cunning Deception to make preparations to a banquet for the amorous couple or perhaps even guide them to her bedroom but the manuscript keeps silent about what exactly happens during the longer break which now follows.

Next Other People’s Prosperity enters the stage, a woman decently dressed, hence not representing the poor but rather the formerly well-to-do classes. She complains about the fact that Most People are neglecting her where she used to have such a good rapport with them in the past. In her monologue she uses all allegorical names so far introduced, thus referring to real persons and, at the same time, to current social events. She does not really blame Meest Elc of pursuing Increase of Personal Wealth and wanting to start a relationship with Dominance of Goods but she is concerned about the influence of Subtle Fraud and Cunning Deception on his behaviour. The result, she says, is that he blocks off her access to the bridge of Prosperous Course. It is acceptable for him to like Increase of Personal Wealth as long as he has an eye for Other People’s Prosperity as well.

Other People’s Prosperity tries to convince Most People of his stupidity by comparing his deed to the history of Cain and Abel, a comparison which is not without problems for the editors of the play. It is an attempt on Everaert’s behalf to introduce another type of allegory to his text based on a biblical source and made applicable to modern day usage by attaching a moral sense to it. For it is Cain’s jealousy (the tertium comparationis which we spoke about above) rather than his murdering his brother which establishes the parallel, thus enabling the author to turn an Old Testament story into an allegory for his own audience. Moreover, according to Hebrew (i.e. Jewish?) tradition God did not judge this deed as being as grave as the fact that by it Abel was deprived of procreating his own offspring, Everaert claims. Similarly, Most People’s friendship with Increase of Personal Wealth and Dominance of Goods is acceptable but it is wrong to try and get access to them with the help of Subtle Fraud and Cunning Deception:

Whether the comparison may be regarded as successful or not – of course, Most People protests by exclaiming that he never killed anyone – it is yet another attempt by the author to show his audience that the Old Testament does have relevance to his contemporaries. But Most People does not want to listen and together with his friends he chases Other People’s Prosperity off the stage. Not willing to relent she decides to turn to Witness of Truth. Meanwhile Subtle Fraud and Cunning Deception rejoice in their victory in very much the same way as fellow-sinnekens would do in other spelen van sinne.

Ghetughe der Waerheyt (Witness of Truth) appears on stage dressed as Moses holding the tables of the law in his hands. Other People’s Prosperity puts her case in his care, stressing the fact that Most People has not only forsaken her but he is downright preventing her from doing her charitable things. Witness of Truth promises that he will take action immediately and he will use "The Word of the Judge" to protect him in this battle. With any further ado he approaches Most People and starts lecturing him. It does not take long before the man takes heed to the advice given by Witness of Truth, and after having read aloud two of the ten commandments, ‘Bemindt bouen al uwen Godt’ (Love your God above anything else) and ‘Bemindt hu heuen als hu seluen’ (Love thy neighbour as thyself), Most People starts repenting. He is afraid, though, that he has to give up Dominance of Goods, but Witness of Truth tells him that he may keep her as long as he will use her in moderation. However, he should no longer love her but only God instead. In addition, he will have to renounce Subtle Fraud and Cunning Deception for they obstruct Other People’s Prosperity. On hearing that, the couple depart but not without predicting that they expect to be back within a fortnight after Easter, hence soon after Most People will have made their annual confession. Finally, Christ is shown on the Cross in a tableau vivant.

§ 4

After having established a parallel between the story of Cain and Abel and the contents of this play, the introduction of Moses functions as a second reference to the Old Testament expressly elaborated upon in this play. Of the ten commandments the two explicitly dealing with love and charity, love of God and charity of one’s neighbour, are highlighted in this play. In very much the same way as the story of Cain and Abel was used, Moses presence is meant to present the audience with a moral lesson useful in contemporary life. In other words, a moral interpretation is attached to Old Testament evidence thus giving it relevance for a later stage in the history of mankind. Even though these references may not be seen as foreboding New Testament events in the strictest possible sense, their use can still be called allegorical in that they aim at creating a link between "then" and "now". From a theological point of view modern day life in the early 16th century was still seen as a continuation of the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament has not yet come to end and it will only do so in the Last Judgement. Authors such as Cornelis Everaert will have been well aware of this and hence it is not impossible to see the Old Testament as prefiguring the New Testament including the times we live in ourselves. This accounts for the relevance of references to Old Testament events for someone like Everaert.

Other types of allegory are used in his plays, the "Play of Other People’s Prosperity" in particular, as well. We saw how the author added symbolic meanings to the names of certain characters at the beginning of the play, only later moving towards a systematic approach of the topic he wanted to discuss: nowadays most people are after an increase of personal wealth and strive for dominance of goods but in their attempts to achieve that goal they avail themselves of subtle fraud and cunning deception. At home they like sitting in a comfortable chair that gives them a feeling of wealth and when they pay a visit to their girlfriend they take money-grubbers’ lane. Most people have forgotten about other people’s prosperity, even obstructing their personal wealth. The only way to teach them to change their ways is by showing them the truth whose witness will bring them back to a virtuous life. It is this moral lesson which is repeatedly told in Rhetoricians’ plays and for which allegory and symbolism is such an appropriate tool. Audiences would be able to enjoy the double layers in these plays which would presented them, on the one hand, with a pleasant love story and, on the other, with a lesson to be taken home. It is precisely because of this delectable combination that allegory was anything except dead as a doornail.