Censorship, Satire and Religion. a Seventeenth

1 Jo Spaans CENSORSHIP, SATIRE AND R ELIGION. A SEVENTEENTH- CENTURY SATIRICAL PRINT ON THE C ONDEMNATION OF BALTHASAR BEKKER’S THE ENCHANTED WORLD (J.A.C. van Ophem and C.H.E. Verhaar (red.), On the Mysteries of Research. Essays in Various Fields of Humaniora, Leeuwarden/ Ljouwert, Fryske Akademy, 2007, 273-287) [The print discussed in this article is to be found here] A late seventeenth-century Dutch satirical print featuring the defeat of the Devil may hardly be supposed to refer to anything other than the Bekker affair. Between 1691 and 1693, Balthasar Bekker, minister of the Reformed Church in Amsterdam, published the four volumes of his The Enchanted World, in which he argued that1 the Devil had no power over humanity. The book earned Bekker undying fame. Eighteenth-century ‘spectatorial’ writings, and in their wake the whole of nineteenth- century historiography, revered him as the epitome of enlightened modernity and a key figure in the banishment of superstitious fears and the demise of the European witch-hunt.2 His contemporaries disagreed. The Reformed Church condemned his position as unorthodox, removed him from office and denied him access to the sacrament of communion. Bekker forcefully defended himself but was eventually defeated, despite support in high places. The conflict between Bekker and the ecclesiastical authorities caused uproar throughout the Republic. At the same time, his fame spread far and wide across Europe. His book became a bestseller and was published in several translations. Bekker, however, was never reconciled with the Dutch Reformed Church, which long continued to view him as an arch-heretic.3 This cause célèbre produced an avalanche of pamphlets. Although the subject matter of the controversy lent itself to representation in images, such depictions were in fact very few. In this article I will discuss an example of these representations and argue that the production and sale of popular pamphlets on religious topics was a hazardous venture. Censorship limited freedom of expression, even in the relatively tolerant Republic, and criticism of ecclesiastical authorities in popular print was possible only if the artist published anonymously and shrouded his message in thick layers of allegory. Censorship was even stricter elsewhere. England, in the eighteenth century to become the cradle of the popular cartoon, in the seventeenth century produced but few satirical prints. Among those that did appear religion was a recurrent theme. All, however, supported the then current religious establishment and further used convoluted, learned allegory as language of expression.4 1 2 Bekkeriana, pp 36-41; Waardt, Toverij, p 258. 3 Knuttel, Bekker; Scheltema, Geschiedenis, pp 286-304; Bekkeriana, pp 13-14, 29-41; Fix, Fallen Angels. 2 convoluted, learned allegory as language of expression.4 Diabolic Battle The later seventeenth century was a period of considerable tension within the Dutch Reformed Church but, in contrast to events that unfolded in connection with introduction of the Reformation in the later sixteenth century or the Arminian controversy at the beginning of the seventeenth, we find hardly any satirical- moralistic prints. In the period under review there were a handful only, all anonymous and highly mysterious. In shared pictorial language they comment on the internal state of the Dutch Church in the latter years of the reign of Stadholder/King William III. It may safely be assumed that these prints stemmed from ‘radical Enlightenment’ circles. Our print is just such a learned allegory, hiding its critical message from all but the well initiated. It bears the caption ‘Diabolic BATTLE, between a SHEPHERD, a 5 CATHOLIC Devil and a POPISH Angel. Engaged outside Isenborg, near Halverstadt’. For the sake of brevity I will confine myself to the interpretation of this one print.6 4 Miller, Religion in the Popular Prints, pp 15-30. 5 In Dutch: ‘Duvels BATALJE geholden tusschen eenen SCHAEPHEERDER, een CATOLISCHEN Duvel, en eenen PAAPSEN Engel. Voorgevallen buten Isenborg bij Halverstadt’. Collection Rijksprentenkabinet Amsterdam, Cat. No. FM2597 [version 1676]; Museum Schielandhuis, Rotterdam, Collection Atlas van Stolk, Cat. No. 2916 and 2637 [versions dated 1676 and 1693]. 6 These prints are the subject of my current research. For a preliminary result concerning another of these, see Spaans, ‘The Alphen Pig War’. 7 Waals, Prenten, pp 12, 104-123; Klinkert, Nassau in het nieuws, pp 47-49. 8 Muller, Nederlandsche geschiedenis, inv. No. 2597, Vol. 1, p 394. 9 Visscher, Verstooringe des Satans Ryck. 10 Sevensma, ‘Een tweetal preeken’, pp 19-24; Loosjes, Geschiedenis, p 142, cf. Waardt, Toverij, p 255. 11 Waardt, Toverij, pp 121-126 and passim; Knuttel, Balthasar Bekker, p 195-196, mentions foreign trials as a source of inspiration for Bekker. 12 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, pp 375-405. 13 Fix, Fallen Angels, pp 35-57. 14 Schilling, ‘Confessional Europe’; Hsia, Social discipline. 15 Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp 399-477, Spijker and others, De Synode van Dordrecht. 16 Bruin, ‘Invoering en ontvangst’; Weekhout, Boekencensuur, p 142; cf. ‘Niets kan haar glans verdoven’. 17 Dutch title: De vaste spyze der volmaakten, Franeker 1670. 18 About these factions and Bekker’s position in relation to them, see Kalma, ‘It rampjier’. 19 Knuttel, Balthasar Bekker, p 340. 20 [Hilarides], Eer en deugd van de duivel. 21 Fix, Fallen angels, pp 107-124. 22 Verscheyde gedichten; Vervolg van verscheyde gedigten; Tweede vervolg der gedigten. Cf. Weekhout, Boekencensuur, pp 216-218 for a lively impression of the production and dissemination of this kind of propaganda. 23 Knuttel, Balthasar Bekker, pp 268, 302-303. 24 Loon, Beschryving der Nederlandsche historipenningen, Vol. IV, pp 224-227. 25 Palingh, ‘t Afgerukt mom-aansight. 26 Dutch title: De Friesche Godgeleerdheid, Amsterdam 1693, cf. Bekkeriana, p 22. 27 Bunge, ‘Eric Walten’; cf. for similar types Cools, Keblusek and Noldus, Your Humble Servant. 28 The Hague, National Archives, Archief Hof van Holland, inv. No. 5366/14. 29 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, pp 28-29, 30 Bijl, ‘De tweedracht’ and Sluis, ‘Het omzwaaien’. 31 Bekkeriana, pp 22-23. 32 Cf. Vermij, Secularisering en natuurwetenschap, pp 89-96. 3 It shows a rustic scene, a field containing a sheepfold, far from human habitation. On the horizon may be seen roofs and steeples. It is night. A full moon illuminates a somewhat bizarre spectacle. The central figure is a shepherd, recognisable by his staff, his dog and the flock at his feet. With his staff he has just slain a demon. On closer inspection, however, the fearsome appearance of the demon is misleading. The horns, claws and wings are part of a costume disguising an ordinary man. His human ear shows from behind the mask, and instead of cloven hooves he has at least one ordinary foot clad in a rather prosaic sandal. This does not render him harmless. In his fall he has dropped a powder horn and a cartridge from their hiding place beneath his outfit, suggesting a firearm is concealed there as well. Meanwhile, the sheepdog can be seen to be chasing an angel that seems indeed to be ‘real’, in the sense that it is not obviously a human in disguise. With outstretched arms and wings unfolded, the angel flees the scene of battle while the dog hangs on by his teeth to the hem of its robe. Behind the shepherd we see a covered cart with harnessed horse. The horse follows the goings-on with interest. The flock is equally unperturbed by the violence; the animals doze, one pisses copiously, while another nibbles a green leaf. The caption presents the print as newsprint. ‘Batailles’, depictions of sieges and battles by land or by sea, were popular in the seventeenth-century Republic. They offered a wide audience an impression of campaigns engaged in by State armies and fleets during the incessant armed conflicts of the time, and were widely used as decoration in the home.7 Like newsprint, this picture gives a precise location for the action shown: ‘outside Isenborg, near Halverstadt’. The caption in combination with references to Lutheranism and the use of mock German in the printed dialogue beneath the illustration suggest its reference to an incident having taken place somewhere in the German Empire. Taken literally, the dialogue printed underneath the print suggests that what is shown is an attempt by a (real) angel, assisted by a monk dressed up as a demon, to convert the Lutheran shepherd Johan to Catholicism. The shepherd has forcefully resisted, even killed the monk. Just as the shepherd wants to bury the corpse, a sheriff happens by in the company of some monks who recognise the dead man as a member of their community. The sheriff praises the shepherd for his valiant self-defence. He orders the monks, in very anti-Catholic formulations, to remain behind the walls of their monastery, pursue their philosophical studies and indulge in drink and women rather than trying to further the hopeless cause of their faith with the dangerous help of the Devil. This somewhat ridiculous ‘foreign news’ forms the outermost shell of deception hiding the real meaning of the print. All interpretations so far suggested for the print assume that it is a cartoon addressing some Dutch ecclesiastical affair. For this very reason it is included in the collections of ‘historical prints’ belonging to Frederik Muller and Abraham van Stolk. Previous commentators were however somewhat uncertain as to which affair might be involved here. The fact that the print comes in two versions, mirror images bearing two different dates, presents an extra complication. The version dated 1676 shows the angel fleeing to the right; the version dated 1693 has him fleeing to the left. The first date of 1676 has led to the suggestion that ecclesiastical troubles in Middelburg of that year were the subject of the print, but this idea is hard to sustain.

Load more