Voiceless Vondel? Conflicting interpretations of Vondel’s "Jephta of de Offerbelofte"
1 Introduction
In 1999, Frans-Willem Korsten published an
article in which he presented a new interpretation of Jephta of de Offerbelofte,[1] a seventeenth-century
play written by Joost van den Vondel (1587 – 1679). Inspired by modern thinkers
like Gilles Deleuze, and working along the lines of modern rhetoric
(explicitly) and more in general post-structuralism[2]
(implicitly), Korsten tries to find new perspectives and unlock new meanings of
the canonical renaissance author. However, in doing so, he was immediately
confronted with counterarguments, most notably from Jan Konst. After all, it is
Konst’s work that is used by the scholar to illustrate some theoretical and
methodological problems in literary research within the Netherlands. Their
debate, however, seems to be a representation of a larger ‘conflict’ of
paradigms. This essay deals with this debate as a case study to focus on these
conflicting approaches to texts from the early-modern period, the field of
research in which New Historicism most clearly manifested itself.[3]
But first an anecdote to illustrate an issue that is crucial in the whole
discussion.
Umberto Eco recalled that in the eighties
Ronald Reagan said at the beginning of a press conference, when testing the
microphone, something like: ‘In a few moments I will give the order to bomb Russia’.
Immediately thereafter he was forced to explicitly state that he was only
joking, but nevertheless got criticized for this utterance. Clearly, the
problem was that the intention of
Reagan (intentio auctoris) did not
coincide with the literal ‘text’ (intentio
operis), so everyone who expected the intention of the speaker and the
intention of the words to be the same, were mistaken (intentio lectoris).[4]
This anecdote shows one of the main
problems that textual interpretation is concerned with. It is the tense
triangular relationship between the author, the text and the recipient (or
reader). Of course, Reagan was on the spot to light up the confusion about his uttered
words, but this cannot be done when scholars deal with ancient texts. Nonetheless
the illustration should not only clarify the tension, but also emphasizes that
even when the intentions of the author are known, the text itself can still
generate other valid meanings. Now, this is basically one of the important
assumptions Korsten has in his article. To him, the text itself may allow
meanings did not intend, but who still have a historical effect or function.
The words of Reagan did have an unintended effect, and the misinterpretation of
those very words could indeed have real consequences (be it concerning reputation
or diplomatic relations). Yet one of the problems with research of old texts is
that the real effects on the audience and the physical consequences cannot
always be reconstructed, due to a lack of evidence.
Although the described tension may
seem trivial to some, it still is a matter of debate to what extent one of the
three elements should overrule the others, and to what extent an interpretation
is still a good and valid one,[5]
even when it seems to contradict the explicit intentions of the author. This
debate is still very much alive in the Netherlands. It is concerning these
issues that Konst and Korsten cross swords. Their argumentation will be used to
illustrate present day hermeneutics in the Netherlands, especially within
Vondel studies. Whereas scholars in other countries have already accepted (post-structuralistic)
New Historicist thinking, many Dutch scholars of early modern literature are
still hesitant.
So what exactly is New Historicism,
and why should Korsten’s research be considered part of it? Jürgen Pieters has
been criticizing Dutch practises in literary research for some time now. He
writes in his introduction of a volume with New Historicism as a leading theme
that this term is used all too frequently, and that its precise definition is
not always that clear.[6]
Yet, initially, he introduces it as an attempt to combine the greatest
achievements of the traditional historical approach with the greatest
achievements of New Criticism.[7] Now, New Criticism itself was a reaction of
what came to be known as (Old) Historicism, which tried to place the text in
its historical context. This process of historicization nevertheless turned
attention away from the poetical potency of the literary work itself. As a ‘reaction’
New Criticism made the text as such the focal point, clearly separated from its
context. What New Historicism tries to accomplish, is respecting the poetical
value and linguistic potency of the text on the one hand, and respecting its
proper historical context with which it interacts on the other hand. In order
to analyse the text (and give it new meaning), scholars who operated within the
ideology of New Historicism could resort to modern (philosophical) approaches
to texts, such as deconstruction (Jacques Derrida), discourse analysis (Michel
Foucault), psychoanalysis (Jacques Lacan) or semiology (Roland Barthes),[8] [9]
to name a few. ‘They all profoundly influenced the ideas of the average
literary scholar about the reading and functioning of texts in an essential
way’, and the study of history as well. This happened mainly in the Anglo-Saxon
world. Furthermore, Jensen mentions that the practise that is propagated within
the movement is representing, meaning
that a text ought not to be separated from its context, since it represents its
context on the one hand, and influences it on the other. There is not a one-on-one
relation, and the text does not necessarily have to reflect the historical
reality, but might just as well seek to oppose that given reality. Culture and
cultural processes are too complex to simply look for a single meaning in a
text that can be connected to facts in a certain time and place. This might mean
that a text can have more than a single and absolute meaning. Willem Korsten is
specialist in modern literature, and therefore he came in contact with Vondel’s
work very well fairly recently. As will be shown in this essay, he used this
background in gender theory and semiotics to connect the text with possible
meanings and/or effects. Pieters clearly sees similarities between his approach
and that of New Historicism, but notes that in the end Korsten pays too few
attention to the historical embedment of the literary work, and this is an
essential difference.[10] A
New Historicist would look for some confirmations in other historical texts.
Konst also remarked that the alternative interpretations are not supported by
secondary contemporary literature, for instance books on humanistic poetics.[11]
This may be due to the fact that Korsten originally is not a historical
scholar. On the other hand he does not go as far as stating that the context
and author are completely irrelevant and should be fully ignored, thus placing
himself outside the New Criticist paradigm. More general his work nonetheless shows
similarities with New Historicism. As a final remark, it should be noted that
Vondel himself and his intentions are of no particular importance to the
present argument, because this discussion is primarily one of interpretations
and theories.
In what follows the exact
theoretical positions of and differences between Korsten and Konst will be
presented. The vision that Frans-Willem Korsten presents in his article, along
with Konst’s critique, will be shown. Korsten’s research will then be placed in
context, where some consequences and responses will be highlighted. Finally, the
debate will be placed in the larger framework of traditional poetics and modern,
that is twentieth century, approaches to literature, to clarify Korsten’s
topicality and the tradition is his indebted to. In all, it is the theoretical
and methodological discussion that is the focus in this article, and not the
precise interpretations that follow from these points of view.
To give a better impression of what we are
dealing with in the debate, some knowledge of the play is desirable first. Jephta of de Offerbelofte runs roughly
as follows. Jephta is the son of Gilead and a whore, making him a bastard,
someone with less honour and respect. After his father’s death he is therefore
expelled by his half-brothers. Later, after living an unlawful life for a
while, he becomes a leader and field commander. After his victory against the
Ammonites he swears an oath to God to sacrifice the first thing that he meets
at his house. Thereafter he also defeats another, related, tribe. However, it
turns out that at his house the first to approach him is not an animal, but his
own daughter, and so a moral dilemma arises. It must be noted that these
developments are not part of the actual play, but are described in the foreword
that Vondel wrote. It is, in other words, absent and indirectly of influence.
Besides, the story also differs from the biblical story as translated in the Statenvertaling (1637).
The hermeneutical discussion surrounding
Jephta of de Offerbelofte consists of
several points. On the one hand, there is a big methodological and theoretical
difference between the scholars Korsten and Konst, that both explicitly discuss
this in their respective articles. On the other hand, when it comes to the
play’s content, these differences lead to distinct interpretations. First Korsten
considers the roles of the women in the play, Ifis and Filopaie, to be far more
important than Konst thinks. To him their influence on the events is large:
Ifis in particular is a valuable moral example for the spectators. Konst,
however, sees both women as nothing but secondary and shallow. Subsequently the
main character Jephta is no longer the one and only main character. Worse, he
is sinful and no example at all, while he was perceived as being the centre of
all events, someone who deserves all attention. Korsten’s different views are
connected to the main hypothesis that is strongly disputed by Konst. It is the
idea that the major theme of the whole tragedy, the sacrifice of Ifis, is not
so much of an unfortunate religious happening, as one would assume, but more of
a means for Jephta to erase his dishonourable bloodline from the surface of the
earth. In the next paragraphs the theoretical discussion will be highlighted
first, followed by a survey of the argumentations and interpretations of Konst
and Korsten.
2 Conflicting Theories
‘[E]ach of us falsifies the other,
which is to say that each of us understands in his own way notions put forward
by the other.’
Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations
For the sake of brevity it will be impossible
to discuss the entire argumentations of both individuals. Instead only the main
issues will be pointed out.
Up until now the dominant paradigm
in Vondel studies within the Netherlands has been traditional hermeneutics and
what came to be known as Old Historicism, which forms the foundation of what
Jürgen Pieters observes. He states that the Dutch academia basically missed
some of the ‘new’ developments in international literary science, since these
new approaches are considered to be unhistorical. At least that is what the
influential scholar Marijke Spies already stated in 1973,[12] and
her vision was representing that Old Historicism. So far, historicizing was a keyword in research, which lead to a focus on
the function a text had in its historical context and through this to find the
best interpretation.[13] Spies
writes:
‘Only when a text is placed in its
context, my bewilderment is turned, not into boredom, but into attention and
excitement. Not about the text as such, but about the world of which it is an
expression.’[14]
This idea, in turn, implies at least partly
that literary research should mainly pay attention to describing the
development of literature or literary phenomena in the course of time, while
interpretations should constantly be verified in a one-on-one relation with the
context. It is exactly the kind of attitude that Pieters describes as one of
the three ‘rules’ in historical literary research:
- The text ought to be connected to the historical context, which gives the text its meaning.
- The author provides the key to knowing the historical determination of the text.
- The literary value of the text is determined by the historical context.[15]
It is not rarely the case, though, that these
rules are turned around in the modern approaches to modern literature, and as a
specialist in modern literature Korsten does indeed analyse Vondel’s text
differently than, say, Spies and Konst. As will become clear, he basically
rejects the three rules, or at least puts them in perspective.
In 1993 Jan Konst wrote an extensive
thesis on seventeenth century tragedies, such as those of Bredero, P.C. Hooft,
Jan Vos, Lucas Rotgans and of course Joost van den Vondel.[16]
What Konst does is in accordance with the credo of historicism, namely
analysing the tragedies within the wide scope of seventeenth century ethics and
rhetoric, along with classical (and therefore authoritative) and humanistic works
written by Aristotle, Scaliger and Heinsius, among others.[17] This
also leads him to treat Vondel as someone who, when writing, is constantly
consciously ‘in conversation’ with the poetical discourse[18]
of his age, and this makes his dramas like mirrors that reflect prevailing ethical
and poetical ideas. The author, then, becomes the genius who moulds those ideas
into a perfect literary shape, while the public is a stable and passive
audience whose (only) task it is to abstract the ideas.
Some years later Korsten enters the Vondelian
arena and brings along quite a different view on the matter. In his 1999
article Waartoe hij zijn dochter slachtte[19] he
mainly responds to Konst’s aforementioned approach, and the latter correctly
notes that Korsten especially resorts to semiotics, deconstruction and gender
theory in his new analysis.[20]
The consequences thereof will be discussed in the next paragraph.
In essence Korsten has some problems
with the traditional historicizing approach in general and traditional poetics
in particular, the second being one of the dominant elements in early-modern research.
He begins his discussion with the explication of a schism within rhetoric.[21] In twentieth century rhetoric we can discern
two branches: one which focusses on the author as being responsible for text
and effect, and one that focusses on the reader as being responsible for text
and effect. In the first approach the creator is of utmost importance, because it
is through the text that a scholar should search for the meanings the creator
put in it. In short, the authorial intention is crucial. Konst endorses this
view in his reply to Korsten’s article:
‘Korsten is right when he states
that the present research on seventeenth-century Dutch drama has an
intentional, traditional-rhetorical character. Most renaissancists aim for an
“ideal” reading of a play, that is, a reading which is based on the intentions
of the author.’[22]
He further argues that this historical approach
contains two basic steps. First the effort to reconstruct the intention of the
author through the main text, notes, letters and so on. It may contain the
answer to the question what the author’s ethical or poetical ideas were.
Second, these intentions and ideas can be linked to the historical context, for
instance to what extent it resembles contemporary books (which the author may
have known). Unfortunately, Konst does not dwell upon the methodological
problem of how to check the validity of the reconstructed intention.
The second and modern rhetorical
approach, on the contrary, is reader based and lets the text speak more for
itself, so that new and even contradictory meanings may be generated. The
division remains essential throughout Korsten’s article. For now it suffices to
say that he thinks of the traditional focus on the author and his intentions as
too restricted. To him the text is simply the text, and a recipient may think
of it as he sees fit, so he writes:
‘Within the modern idea of rhetoric
the language is not exclusively a tool yielded by an intentional actor.
Likewise the audience is no longer nothing but a body upon which the language
is rhetorically aimed and upon which it has its effects. The audience is an
active subject in the rhetorical process.’ [23]
The first rhetorical approach is the one that
is generally accepted. Moreover, Korsten points out that both approaches are
seen as excluding each other, and this is unnecessary. Therefore he accuses
Konst of being trapped inside the paradigm of traditional, classical rhetoric.[24] In
order to motivate this, he tries to formulate a new interpretation of Jephta’s
behaviour in Vondel’s tragedy.
So what about the traditional
poetical view? Since this rhetoric regards the intended rhetorical effects of
the text, and thus the author’s intention, as the most important, Korsten
states that this is a ‘narrow’ vision that leads to a neglect of several
interpretative aspects within the text. The narrower the scope, the smaller the
profit.[25]
He therefore needs to present an alternative that does provide not necessarily
mutually excluding interpretations, but above all móre interpretations. To
justify this endeavour he reasons that the audience itself is always differentiated
in terms of age, gender, faith and social position, and therefore different
interpretations should historically speaking be possible.[26] The
audience therefore becomes important. When, on the contrary, Konst assumes that
the emotional experiences of the audience develop parallel to Jephta’s
psychological development, he leaves it at that. This means the audience is
assumed to experience precisely that what the author wants it to. So, if Vondel
stages a scene wherein the hero Jephta is crying, the spectators should feel
sorry for him. The author controls his language and its meanings, so to speak. That
is what Korsten sees as the reduction of the audience to a passive container.[27]
According to Konst, this kind of
reconstruction is pretty much what a specialist in historical literature should
do. To him any project that focusses on audience reception is from the outset
doomed to fail when one is dealing with the early-modern period, because there
are hardly any documents that show the interpretations and opinions of the
spectators. Korsten recognizes this, but it does not prevent him from some more
detailed explanations of scenes based upon the position of the spectator. For
his main idea that Jephta is actually trying to end his bloodline, it is
interesting to read in footnote 9 of his initial article that the entire moral
discussion about the sacrifice of the daughter would only have sense if the
audience is expected to form an opinion on the matter. Because there is no
evidence about interpretations in writing, Konst considers this hermeneutical
practice as ‘unhistorical’.
Furthermore, the experience of the
audience is abstracted from textual reconstruction, which in turn is based on
classical rhetoric. This means that the rhetorical elements are analysed, but
Korsten considers the text as a whole to be more than simply the sum of its
parts.[28] It
should be emphasized, though, that Korsten also uses explicit statements of the
author, so he never goes to the extreme of echoing Roland Barthes’ claim, that
the author is dead.[29]
There is another theoretical feature
in the new analysis. Early-modern authors usually refer in some way to
classical rhetorical works of Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian, as Konst also
emphasised. Vondel is no exception, but he dealt with a biblical topic, and
when it comes to the Bible, a different poetics may set in. Gerardus Vossius (1577-1649)
formulated three golden rules that were taken to be the biblical poetics. The
first rule is that one should use what the Bible itself states, rarely should
add something, and by no means will ever contradict it. Apparently Vondel knew
Vossius’ work, since he refers to him in his Opdracht in the Gebroeders,
but he does not explicitly refers to the rules in Jephta.[30]
Vossius was an authority, but Vondel does not follow his prescriptions, and to Korsten
that is a sign. He writes that there are more poetical rules prescribed, namely
by the Bible. He mentions for example representativity
and the founding and fulfilment of a
historical mission.[31]
The first means that the type of individual is a ‘condensation of collective
characteristics or tensions’, while that type is exactly a type not because it
is simply selected from a group, but because the historical developments have
proven the concerning type to be typical. So the new question is what the hero
or heroine represents and how he or she manifests or fulfils divine truth in
history. Now, the fact that the rules are not mentioned does not have to mean
that they were not known or active at all. One reason Korsten gives for the
absence of any reference to biblical poetics is the fact that every person in
those days simply grew up with all the biblical stories. The fact that the
rules are not always present gave all the more reasons just to focus on
classical poetics, but in a way the rules could always be present, and this is
where Korsten sees a lead to new meanings within the text, which were
supposedly missed by Konst and others.
Korsten’s different mind-set results to a broad
discussion of his analysis of the play, and here will be, as an illustration,
focussed on the female personae. With the biblical poetics in mind, the whole
‘tone’ of the overall picture changes when Vondel altered the original story.
First he changed the chronology of the story. In the Bible the sacrifice of the
daughter comes first, and the fight with the related tribe later. In Jephta the oath to God comes first, then
the fight with related tribe, and finally the sacrifice. Moreover, the women
are now far more prominent within the play, and they got names. The daughter is
called Ifis and Jephta’s wife Filopaie. Korsten here also suspects that Vondel
based the name Ifis on Iphigeneia, from Euripides’ drama. From a classical
rhetorical perspective it might seem clear that Jephta is the main character,
but it is now claimed that the part of both women in the story is increased in
such a way, that it actually becomes ambiguous who the real main character is.
Konst and others are blamed for making the mistake to identify both the main
character and the (learning) example of biblical truth in one and the same
dramatis persona. In fact, the Bible shows that in the story of Jephta he is
not the example, but ís the main character, whereas Judith and Yael in Judges are examples, but nót the main
characters.[32]
Since the Bible has its own poetics, and these poetics could very well be
present in the mind of the writer, it is not all that strange to undermine the
status of Jephta as the central figure in all respects. Konst nonetheless
considers Ifis and her mother Filopaie to be nothing but secondary personae.
Filopaie has not ‘to do a thing with the central acts even for a moment’, [33]
as if she just stands on the side-line. This poetically traditional and rather
minorizing view is rejected by Korsten, as will become clear. As a further
argument the content of the meta-texts accompanying the play is stressed. After
all it can be read in an introductory letter to Madam Anna van Hooren that
Vondel considers Ifis to be an important character, somebody who is an example
of true character, beauty and courage. Vondel wrote:
‘Maer deze maeght gaet al de mans te boven,/
But this virgin rises
above all the men,
En geeft een kracht aen dees tooneeltrompet./
And gives a strength to this
tragedy.
De sterckste zwicht voor d’allerzwackste kunne./
The strongest sex submits
to the most weak one
Gewis zy hoeft blancketsel noch cieraet./
For sure, she needs
neither make-up nor jewellery.
Schoon ‘t mansbeelt haer den offerpalm misgunne,/
‘Though the man figure
begrudges her sacrifice,
Noch staet het stom voor d’uitspraeck van haer daet./
Nor stands he stupefied
before the pronouncement of her act.
Als zy den eedt des vaders komt te hooren,/
When she learns about
her father’s oath,
Verschricktze niet, maer antwoort offerreedt:/
She does not frighten,
but answers willingly:
Heeft vader dit belooft, en Godt gezworen:/
Did father promise this
and swore to God:
Voltreck, voltreck uw woort, en hoogen eedt,/
Fulfil, fulfil your word
and holy oath,
Dewijl u Godt aen Ammon quam te wreecken./
While God made you
avenge the Ammonites.
Bezegel uw belofte: gunme alleen/
Seal your promise: only
grant me/
Dat ick bedruckt mijn’ maeghdom vier paer weecken/
That I, dejected, weep
with comrades/
Four whole weeks for my
virginity in solitude.[34]
(vss. 15-28)
In all, the question is justified
why Ifis should be seen as mere decoration. She seems to have an active role
and does not remain shallow at all. Korsten gives some details. Now she is
accusing the steward of cunning tricks, then only giving in after long discussions
and lots of pressure. In the play, she really thinks about her situation and
changes her attitude towards the situation twice, so she shifts from calm doubt
to defiance to resting with her fate. This shows personality, but is usually
seen as a feature of main characters, and indeed Jephta has this too, along
with even Filopaie.
Moreover, Korsten dares to state
that the whole piece of theatre would not have been possible without Filopaie.
Even in her absence she makes the narrative developments possible, because as a
protective mother she needs to be disposed off for a while to make the
sacrifice possible. It is precisely this why Ifis gets so recalcitrant. This
implies real social relations within the fictional world; acts have
consequences. Again the idea of the upgrading of secondary to important
personage is founded on meta-text, namely the preface of Vondel. This is why it
was mentioned earlier on that Korsten does not fully ignore the author’s
intentions.
Despite all these nuances and
dynamics within the story, Konst seems to overlook it for the sake of the
traditional poetics, where the notions of agnitio
and peripeteia are important, but
only when it concerns the one main character. Hence he focusses on Jephta and
his ‘inner struggle’.
The discussion as described so far
entails a discussion about Jephta too. In his preface the playwright says:
‘… father’s imprudent drive for sacrifice in a
terrible and an almost to despair leading remorse afterwards: and too soon they
come to know, one here daughter’s fate, the other his blindness, in the godless
fulfilment of the foolish sacrificial promise.’[35]
So it becomes clear that Jephta is not the hero
of the story. He even calls himself ‘dees schelmsche dochterslachter’ (‘this
scoundrelly slayer of daughters’; vs. 1703) Of course he is important, and a
hero does not necessarily have to be an example of wisdom and virtue, but
sómeone has to. That is why it becomes all the more likely that the value of
Ifis and Filopaie should not be underestimated.
Vondel did not necessarily have to
alter the biblical story this much, as was assumed, to maintain the classically
prescribed unity of time and place, but because Vondel wanted to convey new
meaning, to present new examples. Still, even if he did not intended this, the
adaptations along with the biblical poetics do have far reaching consequences
for interpretations of the story. All of this was not recognized by fellow
scholars, says Korsten, and his plain example of this is of course Konst’s
analysis of the aforementioned Golden Age plays.
Then there is Korsten’s second assumption, which
especially becomes clear when one takes a closer look at his later book Vondel belicht, published in 2006. It is
the idea that a scholar may look at the effects and the moment of reading
‘now’, but these effects and experiences may also have existed in earlier
times.[36] Pieters,
however, states that it is a common approach of specialists in older literature
to look only at the reading moment ‘back then’.[37] Furthermore,
he writes that by now also historians are not only looking at historical events
as they were then, but also how they continue to work in the present.[38]
Therefore the writings of an author may have had historical effects the author
did not intended, but in the course of time eventually lead to new ideas and
developments. Hence Korsten’s efforts to read Vondel’s plays in such a way,
that he can connect them to modern ideas about sovereignty. After all, the
language is mightier than the individual who uses it, and the produced texts
are determined by discourses as much as it contributes to them, a New
Historicist notion.
In conclusion, the differences in
ideas about how to interpret a text are about the importance of the author
versus the audience, and thus of traditional rhetorical theory versus modern
rhetorical theory. Moreover, Korsten argues that explicated arguments, theories
and ideas are not the only ones who should be taken into account, because there
is more that operates in the background, as with the biblical poetics. The ‘unity of ideas’, in other words, is set
aside since there are other ‘rules’ (implicitly or subconsciously) working as
well.
3 After the Debate
Now that the debate itself has been explicated,
one would wonder what the effects of the debate were. How did other
renaissancists respond, and is Korsten’s work used as a steppingstone for
further research?
A first observation is that the
discussion did not remain unseen.[39]
In the past decade several articles have been written that refer to in
particular Korsten’s side of the story, but of course this does nót imply
methodological affinity. For example Helmers, in his paper on one of Vondel’s
works, makes it clear that he did not want to use all the aspects that
characterise New Historicism, and mentions two.[40]
The first is the ‘diachronic dialogue’ or ‘speaking with the dead’, here
basically meaning that the centuries old Joost van den Vondel is discussed in
the same phrase as Gilles Deleuze. He blames Korsten for treating and
explaining Vondel in too modern a fashion. The second is ‘thick description’,
that is using an anecdote of later times to explain a given historical text.
Interestingly Helmers also provides an explanation for the quarrel between the
old and modern approach, namely that in the Netherlands there is still a lot of
work to do concerning ‘network research, bibliographical research, synchronic
contextualizing studies’, therefore causing a lack of knowledge to permit the
New Historicist view to work well. Another example is given by I. Leermans, who
theoretically seems to agree with Korsten’s approach of ‘systematic and
historical interpretation’ to answer questions like: ‘what do people in certain
historical, social and cultural circumstances do with literature, and what does
literature do with them?’[41]
Furthermore, the interpretation Korsten offers is explicitly referred to by B.
Noak, who nonetheless does not give a clear opinion. He is aware of the debate
and the interpretation, but focusses on other aspects of Jephta’s actions.[42] Although the hermeneutical disagreement
perhaps is not that interesting to a historian, it should also be noted that P.
Calis mentions Korsten’s vision only once in his Vondel biography, in relation
to a single work of his.[43]
Exmples like these make one conjecture that with respect to the content of the
interpretation there are not that much consequences. At least to Konst there is
no good reason to nuance the views on Jephta and Ifis, because, as Korsten also
points out, he does not make a single reference to the debate in the 2004
edition of three Vondelian plays, among them Jephta, which was edited by Konst himself. Korsten thinks that the
debate apparently did not improve the argumentation or interpretation of Konst
(or any other) of the text.[44]
The scholar rewrote his articles on
Vondel’s Jephta to use them, along
with lots of other material, in Vondel
belicht. Here he broadens the scope of his alternative and new Vondel
research. Yet earlier on it was mentioned that the application of modern
theories in Vondel studies is fairly new and sometimes indeed still perceived
as being a misfit. Reviews of Vondel
belicht were unsurprisingly somewhat sceptical. M. Meijer-Drees notices
pretty much the same about the approach Korsten exhibits as mentioned in §1: he
does not necessarily wish to understand the texts from a historical contextual
point of view, which was the dominant perspective.[45]
She appreciates the endeavour to make the historical texts available for a
modern audience, but his methods are open for discussion (his eclecticism,
selection criteria etc.) Especially his ‘deleuzianism’ is to Meijer-Drees’s
opinion no enrichment to the field: breaking up the traditional discourse,
juxtaposing seemingly unrelated texts, letting them refer to any other point in
the book, without structuring and a central theme, it all expects the reader to
form his own overview and idea.[46]
In combination with a lack of attention to the immediate historical context of
Vondel and his plays it leads to questionable interpretations.
No surprise, then, that another
reviewer, Catania-Peters, wrote that the book is ‘extremely fascinating’, but reading it remains difficult. One of
here critiques is that Korsten
unfortunately tends to forget ‘the demands of the art of theatre’, and instead
eagerly tries to dwell upon an almost Nietzschean perspectivism. As an
illustration the reviewer mentions the mutually clearly distinct characters in
the paradise of Adam in Ballingshap. These emphasized personal
differences seem to be logical in a play, because it creates, among other
things, liveliness, but to Korsten that cannot be the whole story. He seems to
forget that layers of meaning and ambiguity as such are inherent to drama. This
reminds us of Korsten’s own acknowledgement of Vondel’s motive to alter the
biblical story of Jephta in order to make his play in accordance with the
prescriptions of those days. It makes one wonder whether the scholar is looking
for perhaps too much alternative meanings. Eventually, however, Catania-Peters
is positive and clearly appreciates Korsten’s ponderings. Even if his
interpretations are far-fetched, they could have been reality among a certain
elite group of seventeenth-century spectators.[47]
The value
of Korsten’s contribution to Vondel studies is thus disputed, as is his
possible classification as New Historicist. His approach shares features with
that movement, but at the same time he is possibly too philosophical and uses
the historical context too few. Nevertheless the debate between him and Konst
is seen as a confrontation between a new and an old view, and concerning the
new view, most writers tend to make the step to New Historicism right away. To
some, that paradigm is within the Netherlands not even necessary. L. Jensen, for
instance, argues that it is not all that useful, at least not to Dutch
scholarship,[48] while
Geerdink sees that the awareness of the social function of literature and the
impossibility of a monolithic interpretation and context is already there in
Dutch literary research. So far,
however, this view does not seem to apply to the interpretations defended by
Konst.
4 Korsten’s Topicality
‘Die Sprache spricht.’
Martin Heidegger
So far this article focussed on the theoretical
stances the scholars make. But what about their topicality and the tradition
they stand in? In this paragraph a closer look will be taken in particular at
Korsten’s position, precisely because of his controversial and ‘new’ approach. Besides,
Konst’s topicality has already been pointed out in the description of Korsten’s
ideas, and the first does not deny it.
It turned out that Korsten is
familiar with modern literature and theories, and most notably he resorted to
semiotics, deconstruction and gender theory. However, in his articles he hardly
makes any references to all this, let alone to twentieth-century theorists.
Despite that, Jürgen Pieters places him within the framework of New Historicism
and uses the debate as an illustration of the remark that Spies’ ideas on
historical research are still dominant in the Netherlands, which lead to a
somewhat hostile environment for New Historicism, at least in renaissance
studies. This movement tends to focus not only on the historical context, but
also respects the interpretative potentials of the text and does no longer
think it to be necessary to treat textual meanings and the context as something
monolithic and absolute. The author does not have to have one intention, nor
does he have to refer to one specific context. History is not one and fixed.
This ideology is reflected in Korsten’s work, and when one takes a look at his
book Lessen in literatuur (2002), it
immediately becomes clear that the scholar without doubt knows lots of modern
thinkers and notions, as he names quite a few along with their works. Thus the
ideas are there, implicitly.
Let us now consider this ideology as
begin very much in debt with a philosophical tradition, to provide further
ground for an understanding of Korsten’s topicality. Roughly one could use the
linguistic turn as a starting point. René Boomkens, when describing and
explaining the far reaching consequences of the ‘Enlightenment’,[49]
summarizes three major shifts in philosophical and scientific thinking at the
end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.[50]
Those are the historical, anthropological and linguistic turn, the latter being
the most important here. To large extends it manifested itself due to the works
of Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[51]
The idea was that language should no longer be perceived as generated by the
individual per se, that language (the words) reflects reality and that there is
an objective reality outside language, but that it is the other way around too:
language influences the individual and his perspective on reality, while the
language as a sign system is rather arbitrary. As Wittgenstein put it very
concisely: ‘The limits of my language mean the limits of my world’.[52]
From De Saussure’s semiological theory about words and signs follows
structuralism, in literary science utilized by Barthes, among others. Here one
can see the breeding ground for New Criticism, the movement that focusses on
the work itself for all possible meanings, thereby ignoring its historical
context, because language, words and texts are in some way independent from the
language user. The creative person is thence no longer seen as the absolute
source of all meaning for the text,[53] a
notion that opposes the first rule for historical research as mentioned before.
At the same time, the cultural meaning of the work is endless, according to
Barthes.[54]
In his famous essay The death of the
author he writes:
‘[I]t is language which speaks, not
the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality (not at all to be
confused with the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist), to reach
that point where only language acts, “performs”, and not “me”.’
It is the same context in which Michel Foucault
declared the subject to dead as well, determined and structured both by power
and knowledge networks.[55]
In other words, the individual, the knowing and writing subject, becomes less
autonomous and important. The meaning of a text is no longer controlled by the
Author-God, who imposes his will on the reader, while the cultural meanings in
a text may be endless. Derrida would endorse this, but he goes one step
further. To him not only the signifier or the word is a problem, but also the
concept that is attached to it. From that it follows that the knowing subject
can no longer be said to control the meaning of his text, and therefore the
author’s intentions do not have priority in the analysis.[56] However,
this kind of (post-)structuralistic approach focusses less on the ‘sociology of
the reception’, as Eco puts it, but changed since the seventies, when pragmatic
and reader-based theories were being developed.[57]
It is clear that Korsten stands in both traditions.
All this is in contrast with Konst’s
principles. As far as he is concerned an interpretation is solely justified by
a historical foundation, and this foundation should be the author. The
foundation is thought of as something steady and stable, but according to New
Historicism this need not be. The point of view as defended by Spies and Konst
is a looking for one on one relations in a fixed framework, which leads to what
Pieters calls ‘monologizing’, which means to look at what people said and did
who made the calls, and in the case of Konst this is clearly not the audience,
let alone the women among it.[58]
However, to Korsten a text can operate at several levels, while there can be an
area of possible conflict between it and, in this case, classical poetics.
There need not be a one-on-one relation. While it seems that Jephta is in accordance with certain
poetical prescriptions, it can also be read according to biblical poetical
prescriptions. However, even within the framework of biblical poetics, there is
in Korsten’s view a contradiction, because Ifis’ role is indeed analysed on the
biblical idea of the moral example, but at the same time Vondel is seemingly
trespassing the poetical rules as formulated by the influential humanist Vossius,
whom Vondel did know. One of those rules is that one should never alter
anything in what the Bible tells, but the playwright ignores this, and this
must have meaning. These paradoxical relations between the work and its context
mean the end of the postulated unity of a work’s meaning and an author’s
intention. Just as previous thinkers saw history as fragmented, tensed and
differentiated, so does Korsten perceives the audience as differentiated, an
assumption that enables him to look for possible dramatic effects. When the
women in Jephta become increasingly
important and even a moral example, while Jephta himself becomes rather
doubtful in manners, he can ‘connect’ this possible interpretation to the
female spectators. He writes:
‘What traditionally has motivated
rhetoric is not the audience as an eager object of intended effects, but the
audience as opponent; in the sense that it offers resistance against the use of
the technique. As Socrates had to experience, rhetoric is a technique that
sometimes leads to the opposite of what one tried to accomplish. The public is
not only an aim, but also producer, producer of meaning.’[59]
Since this presumed audience is
unknowable in any form (there are no recipient documents), and because he lets
the text speak for itself, Konst assesses Korsten’s approach as unhistorical.
After all his analysis is an effort to trace ‘indirect semantic fields’ to find
new meaning,[60]
but the modern researcher almost carelessly reacts that he simply does not need
the author’s permission for his interpretation. So the traditional researcher
is partly right that to Korsten Vondel’s personal view is not that important.[61]
By now it should be plain that
Frans-Willem Korsten’s approach is certainly in line with ideas formulated by
twentieth-century, (post-)structuralist, theorists in several ways. These ideas
partly contributed to New Criticism, and this movement has left its traces in
New Historicism, but this does not mean that Korsten is a New Historicist in
everything (see §1).
5 Bibliography
Barthes, Roland. ‘The Death of the
Author’. In: Aspen, 5-6 (1967).
Available via:
http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes.
Boomkens, René. Erfenissen
van de Verlichting: basisboek cultuurfilosofie. Amsterdam: Boom, 2011.
Calis,
Pieter Gerrit. Vondel: het verhaal van
zijn leven (1587-1679). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 2008.
Catania-Peters,
M. ‘Vondel belicht: voorstellingen van soevereiniteit, recensie’. In: Historisch Platform, Recensiebank, 2009-03-24. Available via:
http://historischhuis.nl/recensiebank/review/show/451.
Eco, Umberto. De
grenzen van de interpretatie. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1993.
Heath, M. Interpreting Classical Texts. London:
Duckbacks, 2002.
Helmers, H. ‘Dees verwarde tijden. Koning David en koning
Karel hersteld.’ In: Neerlandistiek.nl,
2007; 07.06.
Jensen, L. ‘Het New Historicism: de reddende engel?
Bilderdijk als casus’. Neerlandistiek.nl,
2007; 07.06.
Konst, Jan. ‘De motivatie van het offer van Ifis. Een
reactie op de Jephta-interpretatie
van F.W. Korsten’. In: Tijdschrift voor
Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 116 (2000): 153-167.
Korsten, Frans-Willem. ‘Een reactie op “De motivatie van
het offer van Ifis” van Jan Konst’. In: Tijdschrift
voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 116 (2000): 168-171.
Korsten, Frans-Willem. ‘Twee nieuwe Vondels, of te oude?’
In: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en
Letterkunde, 121 (2005): 349-355.
Korsten, Frans-Willem. Vondel
belicht: voorstellingen van soevereiniteit. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren,
2006.
Korsten, Frans-Willem. ‘Waartoe hij zijn dochter slachtte.
Enargeia in een moderne retorische benadering van Vondels Jephta’. In: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 115 (1999): 315-333.
Kunzman, P. e.a., Sesam
Atlas van de filosofie, Amsterdam: Sesam, 1996.
Leermans, I. ‘Vrouwen en kinderen eerst? Enkele
overdenkingen over de toekomst van de neerlandistiek’. In: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 120 (2004),
309-325.
Leezenberg, M. & G. de Vries, Wetenschapsfilosofie voor geesteswetenschappen, Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
Meijer-Drees, M. ‘Nomadische voorstellingen. Een nieuwe
herlezing van Vondels toneel’. In: Nederlandse
Letterkunde, 2 (2008), 174-184. Available via:
http://letterkunde.letterentijdschriften.nl/document_articles/236.pdf.
Noak, Bettina. Taal
en geweld in enkele bijbelse treurspelen van Joost van den Vondel.
Neerlandistiek.nl, published in october 2007.
Pieters, Jürgen. Historische
letterkunde vandaag en morgen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011.
Pieters, Jürgen. ‘Literatuur als bron: bij wijze van
inleiding.’ In: Neerlandistiek.nl,
2007; 07.06. Available via: http://www.neerlandistiek.nl/07.06/.
Spies, M. ‘Hoewel ik niet van Vondel houd, noch van Van
Hoogstraten.’ In: Herman Pleij & Willem van den Berg (red.), Mooi meegenomen? Over de genietbaarheid van
oudere teksten uit de Nederlandse letterkunde. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 1997.
Sterck, J.F.M. De
werken van Vondel. Deel 8. 1656-1660, Amsterdam: De Maatschappij voor goede
en goedkoope lectuur, 1935.
Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge, 2001.
Zoest, Aart van. Semiotiek.
Over tekens, hoe ze werken en wat we ermee doen. Baarn: Ambo, 1978.
[1] English: Jephta or the sacrificial promise.
[2] The term post-structuralism is a problem, in that it is basically a container
term which may refer to several not directly connected or mutually influencing
theories and authors. The phenomenon will be discussed further on.
[3] According to Pieters 2011, p. 9.
[5] See e.g. Heath 2002.
[8] Of course psychoanalysis and
semiology were not invented by Lacan and Barthes respectively. Rather, they
elaborated older notions and formulated new ideas based on the theories.
[9] The term semiotics
is used the most, these days. There seems to be, however, a nuance, because semiotics is normally used in relation
to the sign theorist, C.S. Peirce, while semiology
is reserved for the sign theory of F. de Saussure. See Van
Zoest 1978, p. 12.
[10] Pieters 2011, 76-77.
[11] Konst 2000, p. 166-167.
[12] Pieters 2011, p. 46.
[13] Idem, p. 49.
[14] Spies 1997, p. 149.
[15] Pieters 2011, p. 21-23.
[16] Konst 1993.
[17] Joseph Justus Scaliger: 1540-1609;
Daniël Heinsius: 1580-1655. Both lived in the Netherlands.
[18] I use the notion of discourse in the Foucauldian sense.
[20] Konst 2000, 155.
[21] Korsten 1999, p. 316.
[22] Konst 2000, p. 164.
[23] Korsten 1999, p. 332
[24] Idem, p. 318.
[25] Idem.
[26] Idem, p. 224.
[27] Idem, p. 330.
[28] Idem, p. 323.
[29] See Barthes 1967.
[30] Idem.
[31] Idem.
[32] Idem, p. 319.
[33] Konst, quoted in Korsten 1999, p. 320.
[34] The original Dutch is taken from
Sterck 1935, p. 772-773. Translated by the author.
[35] Cf. note 17. Original
Dutch: ‘[…]‘s vaders / reuckeloze offeryver in een schrickelijck en bykans
mistroostigh / naberouw: en zy komen beide te spade tot kennis, d’eene van /
haer dochters ongeluck, d'ander van zijne blintheit, in het godeloos /
uitvoeren der dwaze offerbelofte.’
[36] Cf. idem, p. 324.
[37] Pieters 2011, p. 24.
[38] Idem, p. 29.
[39] Searching through the Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse
Letteren (DBNL) makes this clear. www.dbnl.nl.
[40] Helmers 2007, p. 8-9.
[41] Leermans 2004, p. 323.
[42] Noak 2007, p. 5.
[43] Calis 2008.
[44] Korsten 2005, p. 354.
[45] Meijer-Drees 2008.
[46] Ibid, p. 181-182.
[49] I put the term between inverse
commas, since it suggests a clearly defined period in time, which is not really
the case. Boomkens could not describe the rise of ‘modern’ philosophy without
discussing Machiavelli, Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes, to name a few.
[50] Boomkens 2011, p. 280-286.
[51] Idem, p. 216, esp. 214-219.
[52] Wittgenstein 2001, p. 68, 5.6.
[53] Leezenberg & De Vries 2007, p. 172
[54] Idem, p. 174.
[55] Cf. P. Kunzman e.a. 1996, p. 232-233.
[56] Idem, p. 208.
[57] Eco 1993, p. 23.
[58] Pieters 2011, p. 71.
[59] Original Dutch: ‘Wat retorica van oudsher motiveert is niet het
publiek als willig object van geïntendeerde effecten, maar het publiek als
tegenstander; in de zin dat het weerstand biedt aan de inzet van de techniek.
Zoals Socrates moest ervaren is retorica een techniek die soms leidt tot het tegengestelde
van wat men tracht te bereiken. Het publiek is niet enkel doel, maar ook
producent, betekenisproducent.’
[60] Konst 2000, p. 156.
Reacties
Een reactie posten