Reflections on the Eucharistic Theology of Book Ii of Joost Van Den Vondel’S Didactic Poem, Mysteries of the Altar

REFLECTIONS ON THE EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY OF BOOK II OF JOOST VAN DEN VONDEL’S DIDACTIC POEM, MYSTERIES OF THE ALTAR

1. Introduction

One of the most extraordinary poems written by the Dutch poet and playwright, Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679), was an extensive didactic poem, Mysteries of the Altar (Altaer-geheimenissen). Vondel converted to Catholicism at some point in the middle of 1639, and published this poem, which is a defence of Catholic Eucharistic theology, in 1645. Re- cently, I wrote an article on the first of the three books, which constitute this poem, “Sacrificial Food” (Offerspijze).1 In the present article, I turn my attention to the second of these books, entitled “Worship of the Sacri- fice” (Offereere).2 As the title suggests, what Vondel attempts to do in this book is to justify the Catholic practice of adoring or worshipping the consecrated Eucharistic host. He does this by using a variety of arguments, some of which echo the arguments employed in the first book of the poem, whilst others are particular to this second book. What I want to do in this article is to consider the strength of each of these arguments in turn, in order to evaluate how successful Vondel is in achieving his main aim, which is to convince the reader of the correctness, and indeed necessity, of the worship of the consecrated Eucharistic host. As in the first book of the poem, one of Vondel’s approaches is to use the typological exegesis of the Old Testament. He does this by arguing that certain practices in the Jewish religion as well as figures from the

1. Christopher Joby, “Reflections on the Eucharistic Theology of Book I of Joost van den Vondel’s Didactic Poem, Mysteries of the Altar,” in Questions Liturgiques 91 (2010) 180-200. Amongst other things, I give a short introduction to Vondel’s life in this article and suggested further reading on his life and works. 2. For the text and my translation of this section of the poem, visit http://www.hum2. leidenuniv.nl/Dutch/Renaissance/VondelAltaergeheimenissen.html. I thank Dr. Ton Harmsen and Mr. Dick van der Mark for their generous assistance in helping me to revise and correct this translation. 196 Christopher Joby

Old Testament, such as Melchizedek and Joseph, foreshadow the New Testament, embodied above all in the life, passion and resurrection of Christ. However, whereas in the first book Vondel only sees precursors of Christ and the Christian religion in the Old Testament, in the second book, he also sees them in a Heathen religion: the Persian cult of Mithras. Indeed, on several occasions, Vondel places Heathen religions in general side by side with the Jewish religion; something which seems alien to modern sensibilities.3 Another argument that Vondel puts forward begins with the assertion that Christ should be worshipped. He argues that if this is so, then it follows that the consecrated host should also be worshipped. However, this argument depends on the belief that when the host is consecrated it un- dergoes transubstantiation, and takes on the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ. Vondel may believe that he has made the case for transubstantiation in Book I of the poem, Sacrificial Food, although I question whether this is so in my article on Book I. For those who assent to the doctrine of transubstantiation, then it follows naturally that if one be- lieves it is right to worship Christ, one should also worship the consecrated host. However, if one does not assent to this doctrine, then arguments in favour of the worship of Christ, for Christians at least, seem somewhat superfluous. Vondel employs other arguments in this book, too, in order to support the view that the consecrated host should be worshipped. One of these is that the sacrament has caused a number of miracles to occur in the history of Christianity and so it must be far more than mere bread. Another argument is that history shows that white is the colour of God, and that because the Eucharistic host is white, the host itself must have something of the divine about it, and therefore be worthy of being worshipped. But the aspect of Catholic Eucharistic practice, with which Vondel concerns himself above all in this book, is the procession of the Eucharistic host, particularly that associated with the feast of Corpus Christi, officially sanctioned by a bull issued by Pope Urban IV in 1264. I shall consider the arguments, which Vondel employs to support this practice, and evaluate whether they help to support his central thesis. In a moment, I shall begin to examine Vondel’s arguments in detail, but first I want to consider some other important aspects of this book. First, whereas in Book I, Vondel chooses the Gospel writer, John the Evangelist, as his guide, in Book II, he chooses a fictitious figure, the

3. Whilst B. H. Molkenboer is certainly right to reject the charge of anti-Semitism leveled against Vondel (Molkenboer, “Was Vondel Antisemiet?,” in Vondelkroniek 10 [1939] 85-104), from a reading of this poem at least one is nevertheless left with the sense that he considered the Jewish religion to be inferior to the Christian religion. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 197

Archangel Piety (Godvruchtigheid), as his guide. Jac. Zeij suggests that Vondel chose an Archangel with this name, because the principal subject of the book is the worship of the host, which, he tells us, is the highest act of piety that can be performed.4 B. H. Molkenboer offers a different explanation. He suggests that the choice of the figure of the Archangel Piety may have been inspired by Vondel’s friend, Maria Tesselschade Visscher. She, like Vondel, had converted to Catholicism several years earlier, and a short time before Vondel wrote Mysteries of the Altar, he had dedicated a play, Peter and Paul (Peter en Pauwels), to Tesselschade as Eusebia, which is the Greek word for piety.5 Of course, these explana- tions are not mutually exclusive and it may be that each played a part in Vondel’s choice of guide in this book. Another feature of Book II is the manner in which Vondel character- izes, indeed satirizes, his opponents. In Book I, he refers to those who oppose his views, principally the Calvinists, as “ghouls and ghosts,” and to Calvin himself as Goliath (line 1151). In Book II, however, he chooses the daughter of Saul, and first wife of David, Michal, as the figure who alludes to those who reject Catholic Eucharistic theology. In 2 Samuel 6:16, Michal sees David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant and she “despised him in her heart” (NRSV). As we shall see, the figure of Michal is well chosen, but what I want to do below is to look beyond the appropriateness of this choice and evaluate the cogency of the arguments, which Vondel uses to attack his opponents, and of the arguments, which he uses to defend Catholic Eucharistic theology against these opponents. In relation to sources, I see no reason to challenge Molkenboer’s assertion that, as with Book I, in Book II, a number of the arguments, which Vondel employs, are drawn from the defence of Catholic Eucharis- tic theology, Controversia de Sacramento Eucharistiae sex libris explicata, written by the Italian Counter-Reformation theologian, Cardi- nal Robert Bellarmine.6 Vondel does draw arguments from other sources,

4. Jac. Zeij, Vondel’s Altaargeheimenissen in Dertien Lezingen Uitgelegd (Den Bosch: Teulings, 1924), 91. 5. See Molkenboer’s commentary on Altaer-geheimenissen, Book II, in: Joost van den Vondel, De Werken van Vondel, ed. J. F. M. Sterck, et al., 10 vols. (Amsterdam: Maatschappĳ voor goede en goedkope lectuur, 1927-1940), vol. 4, 652 ff. See p. 711, note to lines 30-31, for the link between Tesselschade and Eusebia. For a discussion of Tesselschade’s conversion to Catholicism, see my edition, Poems on the Lord’s Supper by the Dutch Calvinist Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687): A Facing Dutch-English Translation with Annotations and an Introduction by Christopher Joby (Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2008), 11 ff. 6. Especially Robert Bellarmine, Controversia de Sacramento Eucharistiae sex libris explicata (Cologne, 1619), vol. III, 373-964. 198 Christopher Joby too, such as the work of Augustine of Hippo, and I shall indicate which sources he uses at the appropriate points in the article. A final aspect of Book II of Mysteries of the Altar, which I want to consider, is language. Although my concerns in this article are primarily theological, it is important to remember that this work is above all a poem, albeit a didactic one, and one can only marvel at the linguistic virtu- osity, which is a prominent feature of this and other works by Vondel. I shall be quoting from my own translation of this book, and recognize that some of the power of Vondel’s language will be lost as a result of translation. To give but one example here, in lines 1310-11, Vondel brilliantly captures the sound of bells ringing in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome by re- peating the sound om in these lines:

Het grof gebrom der domklocke, uit den Dom Van ’t om end om befaemde en roemrijck Rome...

I translate these lines as follows,

The harsh sound of the bell of the Basilica, Of the ding and dong of famed and renowned Rome...

I recognize that I have had to sacrifice the repeated om of the Dutch in order to retain the core of the meaning of the original, but have tried to replace this with instances of alliteration, such as “ding and dong.” As we shall see, there are other instances where the power of Vondel’s language, supported by the constant rhythm of the rhyming pentameter couplets in which the whole poem is written, almost seems to become an argument in itself for the correctness of his position. However, the use of language, particularly within the context of a poem, can also present risks. For example, in the first book of this poem, Vondel attacks the Calvinists for seeing the elements of the Eucharist as mere signs (tekens), which have no intrinsic value per se, but which merely point beyond themselves to another reality, i.e. Christ.7 However, he uses this very same term at several points in the second book in order to refer to the consecrated host, as it is understood in Catholic Eucharistic theology. So, for example, he refers to it as “o blessed sign!” (o zaligh teeken!) in line 1351, and as an “Altar-sign” (Outerteken) in line 1575. I explore this and other matters concerning language below, but now it is time to turn to the first aspect of Book II of Mysteries of the Altar, which I want to consider in detail; namely Vondel’s employment of typological exegesis in order

7. For example, he refers to the Calvinists’ conception of the Eucharist and Eucharis- tic elements as “sign-crumb” (tekenkruim) (l. 964), “empty sign-feasts” (lege schilderdissen) (l. 989), and “body likenesses” (lijfgelijckenissen) (l. 990). Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 199 to argue that practices and figures from the Old Testament, and indeed from Heathen religion, are precursors of what, for Vondel and his fellow Catholics, is the Eucharistic reality of the substance of the consecrated host being the flesh and blood of Christ, and of the practices associated with the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist.

2. Precursors of the Consecrated Eucharistic Host and Catholic Eu- charistic Practices

For Vondel, an important aspect of the celebration of the Eucharist is preparing oneself for it, although of course he would surely recognize that it is not only the Catholic tradition which considers this to be important.8 Beginning at line 49, with reference to a number of examples from the Old Testament, Vondel tells the reader that if preparation was considered important in this period, then it should be considered that much more important with the institution of the Eucharist. In lines 75-90, Vondel takes the Manna of the Book of Exodus, to which he refers frequently in Book I of Mysteries of the Altar, as his example. He writes (lines 75-81),

The Manna, an image of the Manna enjoyed most recently, Lay in the vessel, cast in pure gold. Each morning, before the Manna fell on the multitude, Ground and air were purified, as if with the breath of a soul, Exhaled by God’s Spirits, To feed the crowd purely, With heavenly food …

Vondel goes on to ask, rhetorically, if the Christian would have any less concern for purity than that associated with the Manna of the Old Testament. He then creates an image, which has something in common with the verse at the start of The Song of Solomon, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!”9 Vondel writes (lines 91-92),

Is sharing in God’s Body kissing the Bridegroom With lip and mouth?

8. Constantijn Huygens was one of a number of members of the Reformed Church in the seventeenth century, who wrote poems in preparation for the Lord’s Supper. See my Poems on The Lord’s Supper by Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687). 9. NRSV: The Song of Solomon 1:2. All quotations from the bible in this article are from the NRSV, unless otherwise stated. Where appropriate, I also give the corresponding reference in the Vulgate. 200 Christopher Joby

Here, though, as well as drawing on this Old Testament image, Vondel is working with the idea of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as his bride. Indeed, he pushes this further by creating a picture of the partaking of the Eucharistic host as the bride, the Church, kissing the bridegroom, Christ, into whose substance, Vondel and his fellow Catho- lics would argue, the host has been changed. In lines 96-100, Vondel continues with the theme of bride and bridegroom, and again uses a reference to the Old Testament to make a point in relation to Christ and his Church. Here, he begins with a reference to the Old Testament figure of Esther, and her prospective bridegroom, the Persian King, Artaxerxes. He writes (lines 96-98),

Let her adorn herself and come not unwashed To the wedding of great Artaxerxes: Let her throw herself down, adorned, before the King’s feet.

Mention of “the King’s feet” opens up a space for the reader to see a reference both to Artaxerxes and to Christ, and indeed, in the very next line, reference to “she” (zy) seems to point back to the Church, as Vondel also makes mention of “the crucified Heart,” i.e. the heart of the crucified Christ. He writes (lines 99-100),

If she is eager to win the crucified Heart, Let her adorn herself less on the outside, more on the inside.

In the second of these lines, Vondel makes the point that preparation on the inside is more important than adorning oneself on the outside. Critics of Catholic Eucharistic practice might suggest that it seems to be more concerned with what is external than with what is internal, and it may be this criticism that Vondel is addressing here. He continues to address this theme in the next section, lines 101-110. Here, he draws on Psalm 45:13, in which the Psalmist, traditionally seen as King David, writes that the royal bride, 10 who is preparing for her marriage to a king, is “glorious within.” Vondel turns to David again later in the poem, beginning at line 411, in order to make another point to support his argument that the Old Tes- tament contains a number of precursors and prophecies of the Eucharist. In Psalm 22:29,11 the Psalmist writes, “They ate and worshipped.” Vondel argues that this did not refer to previous episodes from the Old Testament, such as those concerning the Manna and the Shewbread, so it must refer to something which would still have been in the future for the

10. This is the reference in the NRSV. In the Vulgate, this is Psalm 44:14. Jac. Zeij argues that the princess referred to in this verse symbolizes the human soul. Zeij, Vondel’s Altaargeheimenissen, 44. 11. Vulgate: Psalm 21:30. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 201

Psalmist, namely the institution of the Eucharist, which requires both eat- ing and worshipping. And lest anyone think that to worship the consecrated Eucharistic host should be forbidden on the grounds that it is material, in lines 474-475, he also adduces Psalm 99:6. Vondel records this as “Worship his footstool” (Aenbidt zijn voetschabel),12 and for further explanation quotes the words from Isaiah 66:1, “the earth is my footstool.” This, for Vondel, indicates that it is appropriate for believers to worship Christ in the consecrated Eucharistic host, for (lines 498-511),

…he took earth from earth, Because his flesh came from earth, And JESUS, God and man, took His flesh and blood from the flesh of the Mother Maiden, MARY herself, whose humility pleases God: And also because he passed his days here In flesh, and gave his table companions to eat His own flesh, for salvation, his innermost desire; So now no guest may eat of this flesh, Unless they first of all worship it in their souls. Now it is clear, how you can kneel before God’s Footstool, And pour out your prayers before his Footrest: An act, that does not goad God, o no; But rather earns God’s holy grace.

One might expect Vondel to believe that this argument would stand on its own. However, he goes on to point out that it was not his argument, but rather that of Augustine of Hippo. This reminds us that appeals to tradition and to the authority of the early Church Fathers, such as Augus- tine of Hippo, play an important role in Vondel’s defence of Catholic Eucharistic theology.13 Another episode from the Old Testament, which Vondel sees as a precursor of the Eucharist, comes from the Book of Genesis. In Genesis 37:5 ff., Joseph has a dream in which the sheaves of his brothers gathered around his own sheaf and bowed down to it. In one of the most lyrical passages of Book II of Mysteries of the Altar, Vondel appropriates this imagery and likens Christ to a sheaf of wheat. He writes (lines 321-324),

As soon as the season of greatest grace came, And a Virgin took unto herself the Sun of suns, The fruit, swelling day by day, reached the fullness Of its maturity, pith and nutritious value;

12. Vulgate: Psalm 98:5. 13. For more on Vondel’s debt to Augustine, see B. H. Molkenboer, “Augustinus en Vondel,” in Vondelkroniek 1 (1930) 49-58. 202 Christopher Joby

Vondel continues with this imagery in lines 325-329, and here moves seamlessly to Christ’s Passion,

And bowing its head to earth, feared Neither rod, nor snare, nor instant lash of the whip from Loathers and armoured soldiers, But was given over completely to the will of the Creator, Who prepared it, through slander and calamity and pain and affliction …

He concludes in the next line (330) by saying that Christ then becomes “a living altar-bread.” Clearly, the image of the sheaves of Jo- seph’s brothers bowing down to Joseph’s own sheaf is well chosen as a precursor to the requirement of Catholics to worship what they consider to be the living bread that is Christ, in the consecrated Eucharistic host. However, this view is of course predicated on the belief that the substance of the host does in fact change into that of Christ’s flesh and blood when it is consecrated. Indeed, much of what Vondel says in this Book is predicated on that belief and I discuss this aspect of Book II of Mysteries of the Altar in more detail in section 3 below. As I mentioned in the introduction to this section, Vondel not only sees precursors to the Eucharist in the Jewish religion of the Old Testa- ment, but also in Heathen religion, particularly the Mithraic religion of Persia. Indeed, he begins this Book with a reference to that religion. He writes (lines 1-10),

As soon as the sun, fleeing from shadow and twilight, Raised her head from earth’s horizon, Swathed in the splendour of fire and rays, The Persians were wont to greet this visible radiance, As if awaking, surprised, from a dream, And burning with zeal, without restraint, To rush into its temples, to the altars, To keep up the vain worship of Mithras, With gold, alabaster, jewels, sacrificial splendour And incense, each of the best kind.

There seems to be a question mark over whether the close association between the god Mithras and the sun, which Vondel refers to in this passage, did in fact form part of the Mithraic religion. However, mention of the sun does allow Vondel to cast this as another precursor to the worship of the Sun of righteousness, i.e. Christ, a trope drawn from Malachi 4:2. Of the Persian worshippers of Mithras, Vondel writes (line 11), “Their intention was good, but the object not,” and he continues (lines 12-15), Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 203

The almighty is worthy of the highest honour. If this was the custom with such idolatry, Then what adoration will be required of my Altar-feast, To be suitable for my Sun of righteousness?

Elsewhere, Vondel seems directly to equate Jewish practices of the Old Testament with those of Heathen religions. Although we should keep in mind that his central argument is that everything that went before, be it Jewish or Heathen, was a mere shadow or precursor of the reality of the Eucharist, it might lead some to think that Vondel had a more negative view of Judaism than one would expect.14 In this book, we see a number of examples of the close relationship between Judaism and Heathenism in Vondel’s mind. To give but two examples here, first, he entitles a section on this relationship (lines 1495-1504), “Heathendom mimicked Judaism, to the honour of its Idols.” Secondly, in a section entitled “The Roman Church honours no Idol, nor does it circumcise any children,” Vondel writes (lines 1713-1718),

[The Church] does not allow to be removed the boundary marker, Which separates Christianity from the Pagan and God’s Law, From Isis and mother Ceres’ dazzled horde, Which, celebrating, eyes a Godless goal; From the Talmudist,15 who marks the wailing child With circumcision, from which the only Child (i.e. Christ) frees you.16

However, Vondel does not reject Jewish or Heathen religious practice outright. Rather, he recognizes that each has something to offer Christi- anity and that it is appropriate to adopt what is acceptable from these religions and to reject what is not. For example, he writes (lines 1728- 1729),

The Pagan has his sacrifice and altar, The Christian too his sacrifice and altar; but a little later notes (lines 1733-1736),

14. See note 3 above. 15. The word “Talmudist” points to the Jewish religion after the advent of Christiani- ty. However, I wonder whether Vondel is using the term here in such a narrow sense, as other references to the Jewish religion refer back to pre-Christian times. 16. Another example comes in line 1156, where Vondel yokes Jews and Heathens together with Arch-heretics to refer to those who reject Catholic Eucharistic theology and practice. He also places Jews and Heathens together twice in Book I of this poem, in line 921, where he also refers to Heretics, and in line 1071, where he yokes them with the “Turk.” 204 Christopher Joby

The Passover feast was celebrated from tribe to tribe, Made so red by the bloody sacrificial lamb. The Christian celebrates the Passover feast in his way, With the bloodless Lamb, the sacrificial soul-food.

In order to support his argument, he draws a comparison between this process and that which the goldsmith uses (line 1727), “The goldsmith divides in like manner the dross from the pure.” Vondel recognizes, though, that some will see the borrowing of even some customs and practices from other religions as grounds for questioning Catholic practices. However, he rejects such claims in lines 1741-1762, saying in line 1741 that the Catholic Church “does not build on soft ground.” But, clearly this is rhetorical flourish, rather than decisive argument, and it is but one example of how the reader is only likely to accept Vondel’s view if they are already well disposed to it. This then brings us to the end of our discussion on Vondel’s use of Jewish and Heathen figures and practices in Book II of Mysteries of the Altar. What we have seen is that the poet argues that these were mere shadows or precursors of the Eucharist, instituted at the Last Supper. However, for this to be so, it is necessary to believe that the Eucharist offers something more than that which was offered by these precursors: for Catholics, such as Vondel, this is nothing less than the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, into which the Eucharistic elements are transformed on consecration, and it is to his references to this subject in Book II of Mysteries of the Altar that I now turn.

3. The Worship of the Consecrated Eucharistic Host Predicated on Transubstantiation

In Book I of this poem, Sacrificial Food, Vondel adduced a number of arguments to support the doctrine of transubstantiation. I now want to consider the arguments that he uses in Book II of this poem in order to support the view that the substance of the consecrated Eucharistic elements is Christ’s flesh and blood and that they are therefore worthy of being worshipped.

3.1. Christ Is Worthy of Being Worshipped

An important part of Vondel’s strategy in trying to convince the reader of the necessity of worshipping the consecrated Eucharistic elements is the assertion that Christ himself is worthy of worship. In lines 553-567, he argues that Christ should be worshipped like God the Father. He then goes on to make reference to a number of instances in the New Testa- Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 205 ment, where Christ is worshipped. In lines 568-577, he refers to the episode recounted in Luke 1:41, in which Christ’s cousin, John the Baptist, not yet born, jumped in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, when she met Mary, who was carrying Christ in her womb. In lines 578-596, he argues that Elizabeth herself worshipped Christ, although he seems to qualify this saying that it was through her own son, John the Baptist, that she did this. In lines 597-602, Vondel reminds the reader that Christ’s mother, Mary, worshipped her son. In lines 603-614, it is the Magi, or, as Vondel calls them, following ancient Christian tradition, the three Kings, who worship Christ, bringing him gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matt. 2:7). Finally, in this section, Vondel adduces episodes from Christ’s Passion to support his argument. First, he refers to one of the criminals, crucified along with Christ, who rebuked his fellow criminal and showed faith, which led Christ to say, “Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Vondel refers to this criminal as a “murderer,”17 and writes (lines 615-623),

The Murderer, who heard the death cry of life: ‘My God, my God! Why have You forsaken Me,’ And saw heaven’s tongue taste gall and vinegar, Whilst God looked not like a man, but like a worm, - And saw through faith, as if through a telescope, God’s Son, God himself, hanging on the nails, And resting on three iron nails, naked and exposed, The one who turns the axes of heaven’s round sphere, And he saw Paradise, his Northstar, his heart’s desire.

Although it does not add much to his argument, the reference to the telescope in line 619, which at this time was a fairly recent invention, is an interesting and unexpected image. The second episode from Christ’s Passion, which Vondel adduces, concerns the Roman centurion, who said at Christ’s crucifixion (Matt. 27:54) “Truly this man was God’s Son!” Vondel writes (lines 639-641),

Truly! This is God’s Chosen One, The true Offspring, born of God’s tribe, A man accused of much, yet a completely righteous man!

It is reasonable to ask whether in each of these episodes worship is taking place, or simply the recognition that the person with whom the various figures are confronted is Christ. However, perhaps more impor- tantly, we might ask whether adducing this evidence adds anything to Vondel’s central argument, which is that the consecrated host is worthy

17. Luke 23:39 in the Vulgate has latro[], which is a bandit, rather than a murderer. 206 Christopher Joby of worship. Of course, Vondel is making the point that as Christ is worthy of worship, so the host itself is worthy of worship. However, Von- del’s opponents, such as the Calvinists, might respond in two ways to this. First, they might point out that they would have no problem with the worship of Christ, and would indeed see this as a central tenet of their faith. The second point Vondel’s opponents might make is that this argument only has value to the extent that we believe that the host does, in fact, undergo transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ on consecration. If we do not believe this, then the question of whether or not Christ should be worshipped becomes a Christological one, rather than a Eucharistic one. However, this is not the only argument that Vondel uses in order to convince the reader that the host is worthy of worship.

3.2. Miracles Associated with the Consecrated Host

One of the other arguments that Vondel adduces in this regard is that throughout the history of Christianity, certain miracles have been associated with the consecrated host. Vondel begins this argument by addressing an objection often levelled at Catholics by their opponents, which is that their celebration of the Eucharist amounts to the worship of bread.18 He rejects this charge by asserting that the miracles associated with the consecrated host prove that it is not merely bread, for of course bread on its own could not have caused these miracles to occur, before going on to describe some of these miracles. Let us now look at some of those, which Vondel adduces, and then evaluate the extent to which they help to support his argument that the consecrated host is worthy of worship. One of the miracles that Vondel refers to has a particular resonance for the poet, as it took place in Amsterdam, where he spent much of his life. One day in 1345, we are told, the consecrated host was brought by a priest to the house in Amsterdam of a sick man. The man consumed the host, but later vomited food from his stomach, including bits of the host. His wife threw all of the vomit onto the fire, and the fire burnt through the night. The following morning, the wife stoked the fire and saw, in the middle of the flames, a whole, white host. A number of other miraculous events occurred in relation to this host, but the one that Vondel chooses to recount here occurred one hundred and seven years later, in 1452. A chapel had been built on the site of the sick man’s house, but on Saint Urban’s day in that year, there was a huge fire in Amsterdam. The chapel

18. For example, the Calvinist, Constantijn Huygens, wrote an epigram in 1642, entitled Ἀρτολατρεία, or “bread worship,” in which he makes this very point. See De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens, ed. J. A. Worp, 9 vols. (Groningen: Wolters, 1892- 1899), vol. 3, 216. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 207 and the tabernacle in which the host was kept, went up in flames, but the monstrance together with the host remained intact.19 Vondel writes (lines 1019-1025),

The all-consuming fire trumpetted, o Amsterdammers! To the Amstel, how God is worshipped In the Altar Lambs, where the sharpest element Neither singes nor harms the most Holy Sacrament of the Church; Whether it is left in the heart of the hearth; Or the flame turns your merchant-town into coal With God’s chapel and holy pavilion…

The miracle, Vondel implies, would of course not have happened if the host had merely been bread. One other point to mention in this regard is that Vondel published his great poem, Mysteries of the Altar, exactly 300 years after the initial miracle occurred in Amsterdam. This is by no means a coincidence. One of the sources that he used for his poem was the work by the Amsterdam Catholic priest, Leonardus Marius, Amster- dam’s Glory and Ascent (Amstelredams Eer ende Opcomen),20 which recounts the 1345 Miracle of Amsterdam. Furthermore, Vondel will doubtless have discussed the miracle and its aftermath with Marius, who probably played an important role in Vondel’s conversion to Catholicism, and who no doubt gave Vondel a good deal of help in his development of this poem. Finally, in this regard, Vondel also marked the three hun- dredth anniversary of the Miracle of Amsterdam, by writing a shorter poem, consisting of just over one hundred lines, entitled Eeuwgety der Heilige Stede t’Amsterdam (The Centennial Anniversary of the Holy Place in Amsterdam).21 After recounting this miracle, Vondel turns to another miracle associated with a consecrated host, again with the intention of showing that the host is far more than mere bread. In lines 1031-1046, he recounts a tale from the Dialogus miraculorum by Cesarius van Heisterbach (c. 1180-c. 1240) of how some bees built a wax church around a consecrated host, which had been lost by a priest, who was, we are told, taking it to the sick.22 Thankfully even Vondel’s most ardent supporters, such as Jac. Zeij, do not suggest that Vondel included this story in his poem because

19. I have relied in large part for this account on Zeij, Vondel’s Altaargeheimenissen, 141-142. 20. Leonardus Marius, Amstelredams Eer ende Opcomen (Antwerp: Hendrick Aertssens, 1639). 21. For the text of this poem, visit http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/vond001dewe05_01/ vond001dewe05_01_ 0008.php. 22. Zeij, Vondel’s Altaargeheimenissen, 142-143, and Vondel, De Werken van Von- del, vol. 4, 744-745. 208 Christopher Joby they believed in its historical veracity. However, what the story does do is to allow Vondel to engage with some of his favourite themes, which we also find elsewhere in this poem. One of these themes is the trope of bees. In Book I of Mysteries of the Altar (lines 681-697), Vondel uses the fact that bees formed part of the family emblem of Maffeo Barberini, Pope Urban VIII, as the basis for a wonderful series of images, which involve bees, honey and the Eucharist, and he does something similar in lines 1031-1046 of Book II. Here, he begins by referring to the bees, which built the wax church. He writes (lines 1031-1035),

The bees, which decorate URBAN’S coat of arms, Celebrate the reverence due to this Mystery, And mould, at God’s prompting, around God’s Mark (i.e. the host) In their hive, a small wax church, With windows, choir, altar and ambulatories.

We should remember at this point that it is the Archangel Piety who is speaking and in the next few lines he refers to “my Bees,” which may be seen as the Catholic faithful, or more specifically, Catholic priests. The Archangel says (lines 1036-1040),

It is then reasonable that my Bees, endowed with reason, Continually swarming around the Beehive of URBAN, Build no wax walls around the Holy Sacrament, But ones of diamond, carbuncles and metals, On which the sun blinds herself with her rays.

The reference in lines 1039-1040 is to the monstrance, in which the consecrated host is displayed, and requires no further explanation. In the final lines of this section, Vondel creates a wonderful image of the bees flying to Golgotha to drink the “heavenly cross-dew” of Christ’s blood. He writes (lines 1041-1046),

It was reasonable that the Swarm of Bees, sooner or later, Would fly to Golgotha, from which it would take With it the heavenly pick of cross-dew, sap and scents, Made from the colours of roses and altar-lilies; All food for wax and honey, for the hive Of the soul, for which God’s flower withered and died.

Another miracle involving the host, which Vondel recounts in the following section of the poem (lines 1047-1124), concerns the sister of the early Church Father, Gregory of Nazianzus, whose name was Gorgonia. On one occasion, she became very ill, and went to the altar of a church Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 209 and refused to leave until she had been cured. She had received the consecrated host, but a few bits of it remained on her hands. She wept bit- terly, and her tears mixed with these bits of the host. She then touched the parts of her body, which were afflicted, with her hands, and she was cured. Vondel does recount other miracles associated with the consecrated host, which the reader may find in my translation of the poem,23 but now I want to evaluate the extent to which these accounts provide support for the central argument of this book, i.e. that the consecrated host is worthy of being worshipped. Clearly, what Vondel is arguing here is that on consecration, the host ceases to be merely bread, and assumes the substance of Christ’s body and blood. For him, if these miracles may be attributed to the host, then it is reasonable to conclude that transubstantiation has taken place, and therefore the host is worthy of being worshipped, for to worship it is in effect to worship Christ. However, here the question arises as to whether we believe these miracles did occur, for clearly anyone who does not believe in them will not be able to accept this line of argument. It might be tempting to argue that Vondel is a product of his time and that it would have been easier to believe in miracles in the seventeenth century than it is today. However, I would reply that on the one hand, there were certainly those who were sceptical about miracles, or at least certain miracles, at this time, whilst on the other hand, the Catholic Church, along with other Christian traditions, continues to affirm miracles today. As I note above, Vondel himself may not have believed in all the purported miracles that he refers to, in particular that of the bees building a wax church around a consecrated host. However, perhaps Vondel’s argument does not turn, or at least does not turn solely, on whether or not particular episodes that he recounts did or did not occur. Rather, it turns on creating an effect whereby the reader is so overwhelmed by the build up of story upon story that they are almost forced to assent to the central truth which binds them together, which, for Vondel, is that the consecrated host can effect miracles. This build up of story upon story is very much part of the Baroque aesthetic of this poem, something which has received insuffi- cient academic attention in the past, and we see it at work in two other lines of argument which Vondel uses in order to convince the reader that the consecrated host is worthy of being worshipped.

23. See note 2 above. 210 Christopher Joby

4. Other Arguments Employed by Vondel to Support the Worship of the Consecrated Host

I shall consider the more extensive of these arguments, which concerns the role of procession in Catholic Eucharistic celebration, shortly, but first I want to consider one of the more unexpected arguments that Von- del adduces in this Poem, which is that white is the colour most closely associated with God, and that because the host is white, it is therefore in some sense divine.

4.1. The Whiteness of the Host

White, Vondel tells us in line 753, is “God’s livery.” He goes onto describe how white was the colour associated with those close to God in the Old Testament: it was the colour of the vestments of Old Testament priests (ll. 755-762), the colour that adorns Angels (ll. 763 ff.), and the colour in which Joseph rode on Pharaoh’s chariot in Egypt (ll. 778-784). Finally, he recalls the visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon’s court in Jerusalem. For Vondel, white is associated with Solomon, for, he tells us, the king had an “ivory court” (l. 791).24 But this is not the end of the matter, for we are then reminded in lines 805-807 of the passage in Luke 12:27, in which Jesus says to his disciples that “even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like [a lily].” Vondel builds on this comparison between Solomon and a lily to say that all the splendour of Solomon was as nothing compared to that of an “altar lily.” This is of course a reference to the host, and, if we assent to the doctrine of transubstantiation, then it is also a reference to Christ, and so a broader point Vondel is making is that Solomon is a shadow, or precursor, of Christ. But, the poet does not simply appeal to Old Testament precursors in order to make his point that because the host is white, it is in some sense divine. In lines 763-772, he recounts three episodes from the New Testament in which white is associated with the divine: Acts 1:10, in which Christ ascends to heaven (l. 763), Matt. 28:3, in which an angel of the Lord, whose cloth- ing was as “white as snow,” appeared to the two Marys (l. 764), and the transfiguration (Matt. 17:2-5) (ll. 765-772). He writes,

The Mount of Olives can witness to the garb of Angels, Like the grave, before which Archangels bow; And in olden times, Mt. Tabor saw the Anointed Head, The sun of Angels, in white, that puts snow in the shade. Saint Peter’s heart began to burn with joy;

24. There is reference to “ivory palaces” in Psalm 45:8. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 211

He cried, “Oh, let us make three tents here!” From the cloud, the Father burst out with these words: “This is my Son, my heart, so listen to Him, Who changes on my mountain before your eyes, And is covered with this snow and chalk.”

The point he is making again is that white is the colour of divinity and so the host is in some sense divine. However, one has to ask whether it is reasonable to argue that just because the host is white, that is sufficient reason to associate it with the divine. One could easily point to a number of things or beings, which are white, but which have little or no association with the divine. It is tempting to argue that Vondel is employing analogia entis here, as he does extensively in Book I of this poem. But I do not think that this is the case here, for he is not making an analogy between something in the created order and the divine based on their pos- sessing different degrees of whiteness.25 What we seem to have here, though, is something more akin to analogia gratiae,26 for Vondel might argue that God has revealed that white is his colour, and that it is on the basis of that revelation that a relationship can be established between the white host and those instances of whiteness already associated with the divine, to which he refers. But, it is not only this which Vondel relies on to make his point, for I would argue that he also uses the cumulative effect of building up example upon example, in a manner which I describe above as Baroque, in order to convince the reader of the validity of his argument. We see this again in the other line of argument that I want to consider in this section, namely Vondel’s account of the role of procession in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, and it is to this that I now turn.

25. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, Part 1, question 13, article 5, in which he describes the relationship between human and divine wisdom. Here, he explicates analogy as pointing to a certain proportion between Creator and created, although, taking his lead from Alan Torrance, Gary Deddo argues that Aquinas does recognize that his account of analogy is not entirely adequate. See Gary W. Deddo, Karl Barth’s Theology of Relations (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 94-95, n. 16. 26. As the reader will be aware, I borrow this term from Karl Barth. It is not, though, without its problems. Wolfhart Pannenberg, for example (Duk Hyung Hwang, Barths Verstaendnis der “Analogia fidei: Der Weg zur Andersheit Gottes im Diesseits der Welt”. (Inauguraldissertation) (Bochum, 1996), 126-127), questions whether Barth is right to use the term analogy/analogia as he does. John McIntyre (“Analogy,” in Scottish Journal of Theology 12 [1959] 1-20, p. 15) concerns himself with the second term in the phrase and defines analogia gratiae as an analogy, or correspondence, established by divine grace. In relation to the current discussion, I would argue that Vondel attempts to estab- lish a correspondence between the host and divine entities based on the shared quality of whiteness, which has been revealed as the colour of divinity by divine grace. 212 Christopher Joby

4.2. The Role of Procession in the Catholic Celebration of the Eucharist

In this book, Vondel argues both that procession has a valid role in the celebration of the Eucharist, something which his opponents, such as the Calvinists, of course reject, and that procession of the host in particular indicates that it is special and therefore worthy of being worshipped. The book culminates in a florid description of the procession of the host at the feast of Corpus Christi and indeed for the final 500 lines or so of the book, Vondel leads the reader, almost as if re-creating a procession, towards this climax, focussed as it is on the Catholic Church’s pre-eminent feast associated with the sacrament of the Eucharist. Although, as I note, it is towards the end of this book that Vondel fo- cuses on the theme of the procession of the host, he in some sense heralds it towards the start of the book in the section on preparation, some of which I discussed above. Beginning at line 155, Vondel, through the figure of the Archangel Piety, details five activities or qualities that need to be involved in the process of preparing to celebrate the Eucharist. He names each of these in turn as if they are figures processing towards the altar. First, comes Faith (ll. 155-170), then Penance (ll. 171-182), although, as Vondel notes, this must come through “the glowing fire of Confession.” After Penance comes Humility (ll. 183-194), followed by Love (ll. 195-212). These four activities or qualities come together in the fifth, which is worship. Vondel writes (ll. 211-213),

As Humility, Faith, Confession And Love lead you thus to the table, Throw yourself down, and worship God…

These lines are themselves in some sense a preparation for the much more extensive treatment of procession which comes towards the end of this book, and which I now consider. Vondel himself never visited Rome, but in the opening lines to this section, he manages to evoke the sights and sounds of that city as it celebrates the yearly feast of Corpus Christi. For Vondel, it is felicitous that the feast was officially sanctioned by a bull issued in 1264 by an earlier Pope, Urban the Fourth, who is the namesake of Urban the Eighth, whom Vondel refers to as “my Urban.” He writes (ll. 1273-1281),

Urban the Fourth, a forefather and namesake Of my URBAN, who now, in the wide expanse Of the Vatican and its vaulted ceilings, Irradiates and blesses all the people with his eyes; The Fourth Urban, anointed with God’s salve, And from his seat, seeing, five centuries Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 213

And a half ago, so many arch heresies By which God’s body was continually attacked, Honoured it with a happy day, The saddest, that hell ever saw rise, With a more beautiful fire, to see the Chief of Sacraments In its triumph scintillate with glory.

In lines 1305-1360, Vondel continues to evoke the splendour of the celebration of the feast of Corpus Christi in Rome, and describes the various ecclesiastical and lay groups, which process before the host. “In the end,” he writes (ll. 1333-1343),

… his Holiness URBAN approaches, And carries this Sun; then they see the flickering Of so many wax lights go out, As the high feast was lit up, to lift up the eye; Then God’s light makes jewels and pearls dull, And convinces the gnawing unbelief. A baldachin, richly vaulted and brightly arrayed, And carried by the pick of the Cardinals, Covers the Head of the Church, white and grey, Now lugging the monstrance, laden with value, Whose art and material balance each other ...

However, Vondel is aware that there are those who do not think that procession should form part of the Eucharistic celebration, and so in lines 1361-1384, he lists some of their objections, in order then to be able to reject them. He begins by likening these opponents to Saul’s daughter and David’s first wife, Michal. She despised David as he danced before the Ark of the Covenant, and the parallels between her and the opponents of the Catholics, who despised the movement, music and celebration of procession behind the host, are clear. Having established this link, Von- del then goes onto repeat the standard objections of those who oppose Catholic processions, such as (ll. 1373-1374),

The Priests walk, tarted up like lovers, The Young Girl looks like an adulteress, who scintillates the heart.

However, from line 1385 onwards, Vondel, through the figure of the Archangel Piety, begins to respond to the opponents, though he does so by affirming the practice of processions, rather than by challenging these opponents on a point-by-point basis. He begins by talking in general terms about the origins of procession and then goes on to list examples from the Old Testament, New Testament and post-biblical period in which procession played an important role. To give but a number of ex- 214 Christopher Joby amples here, in lines 1449-1452, he recounts the episode of the Ark of the Covenant being processed around the walls of Jericho for six days, before the walls fell to the ground; in lines 1505-1525, he recounts the events of Palm Sunday, when Christ entered Jerusalem; and in lines 1531-1542, he recalls how the Emperor Constantine processed around Rome once a day for seven days to give thanks to the Christian God for his victory over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge in the year 312. Again, as the reader will no doubt appreciate, Vondel is building his argument by piling example upon example, in the hope and indeed ex- pectation that his audience will succumb to the sheer number of examples and will almost be forced to admit that he is right. However, I would argue that in making the case for including procession in the celebration of the Eucharist, he includes examples, which do not seem to be about procession as such. In lines 1581-1592, he refers to the practice in the first centuries of Christianity, recorded by Justin Martyr, of sending the consecrated elements of the Eucharist to those who were unable to celebrate the sacrament because Christianity was still proscribed in the Roman Empire.27 In lines 1593-1600, he recounts how it was the practice amongst early Church leaders to send the consecrated bread of the Eucharist along with the letters they wrote to each other. However, to my mind, both of these examples merely point to the fact that the Eucharistic elements, particularly the consecrated bread, underwent movement and were exchanged in the early church, rather than being part of a procession. Vondel and his supporters might respond that procession was difficult in the early church because Christianity was a proscribed religion in the Roman Empire, but even so, these examples do not seem to provide much support for the argument that procession is an important, even intrinsic, part of Eucharistic celebration. That said, Vondel clearly feels that procession is an essential part of the celebration of the sacrament. He begins his defence of procession with reference to the feast of Corpus Christi, and he returns to this feast at the end of this defence, which also marks the end of Book II of Mysteries of the Altar. In lines 1777-1796, he captures both the splendour and the mystery of the Eucharistic procession, when he writes,

The happy Bride shows the holiest of pledges Of her Bridegroom, of gold and diamond And the shimmer of the baldachin, rich in jewels, As gloriously lit up as it was pious.

27. Justin Martyr, ‘Apologia I’, para. 67, l. 16, S. Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera, ed. L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena: Frider. Mauke, 1842), 270. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 215

She praises him, who, ascending With honour and majesty, although his presence Is clouded, never robbed her of love, As his mouth promised at the last. She happily unlocks for the greatest grace, The gate, so that he may go in and out, Whose name therefore glistens on hip and clothes: The Prince of Princes, the Lord of all Lords. That greatest one appears here small before everyone’s eyes. That source of light veils her own light here. Omnipotence covers her omnipotence.28 Faith alone gazes with open eyes Upon his greatness, splendour and light and might and power, And the Angels, his Knights and guard, Attached to him, in order to celebrate under God’s banners, And Priesthood, his body-feast.

The final word from this extract, “body-feast” (Lichaams-Feest), is of course a translation of the Latin, Festum Corporis [Christi], and neatly rounds off this extended celebration of the feast by Vondel. Shortly, I shall draw together this and the other strands of Vondel’s argument in this book, in order to evaluate how successfully he has been able to convince the reader of the necessity of worshipping the consecrated host. However, before I do this, I want to consider a number of aspects of the language, which Vondel uses in this book.

5. Vondel’s Use of Language in Book II of Mysteries of the Altar

Although much of this article has been concerned with an evaluation of the merits of the arguments, which Vondel adduces, in order to affirm the need to worship the consecrated host, we should not lose sight of the fact that Mysteries of the Altar is a poem, albeit a didactic one. Clearly, something is lost when one works with a translation of the poem, rather than the original, and one of the features of this poem that is lost in using the translation is the fact that it is constructed entirely in rhyming pentameter couplets. The constant beat of these verses and the rhymes in the poem are somewhat mesmeric and coupled with the piling up of example upon example already discussed, these aspects of the poem can in some sense lull the reader, almost unconsciously, into accepting the poet’s argument. Another aspect of language, which merits our attention, is Vondel’s use of epithets to refer to certain figures in the Christian tradition. For exam-

28. The words “source” (bron) and “omnipotence” (almogentheit) are both feminine in gender in Dutch, hence the use of the possessive adjective “her” on each occasion. 216 Christopher Joby ple, in lines 520-521, he refers to Arius, the Alexandrian, who famously denied the divinity of Christ, as “the Dragon, that foams with seven mouths // Of the Nile.” As with other epithets, which I shall discuss here, one does not lose too much in translation, the Dutch original being den Draeck, die bruist, met zeven monden // Des Nijls, so this is a particularly appropriate subject to discuss in an article of this nature written in Eng- lish. A little later, in line 529, he refers to Ambrose, the fourth-century bishop of Milan, as “The Milanese Light” (’t Milaensche Licht), and in a similar vein, in line 1051, Vondel refers to the Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nazianzus, as “That Eastern Light” (Dat Oostersch licht). In line 592, he addresses Mary, the mother of Jesus, with the words “O simple dove” (O simple duif). In line 715, he uses another epithet inspired by a bird in referring to John the Evangelist. In Book I, John was Vondel’s guide to understanding the Mysteries of the Altar, and he arrived, we are told, on the back of his traditional symbol, an eagle. Here, Vondel refers to John as “My eagle’s eye” (Mijn arentsoogh), for just as it was traditionally believed that the eagle was the only creature, which could look directly at the sun, John, Vondel suggests, is able to look into Jesus’ breast and discern God’s mysteries. Vondel also uses a number of epithets for Christ, and to give but one example here, he refers to him in line 893 as the “the Heart-knower” ([de] Hartekenner[]), which is inspired by Revelation 2:23, in which the Son of God says “I am the one who searches minds and hearts.”29 The notion of using one word or phrase instead of another to refer to a particular person or thing is of course very common in poetry. We see this idea at work again in this poem in references to the consecrated host. Despite the fact that I have been using the term “host” throughout this article, Vondel never uses it (Dutch: hostie) in the main text of the poem, nor indeed does he use the word “sacrament” (sacrament). Rather, he uses a range of other words and phrases to refer to this, each of which points to some aspect of the host. On a number of occasions, he refers to the host as “the Secret Mark” (’t Geheimmerck), and elsewhere he refers to it as “God’s Mark” (Godts Merck) (l. 1032), and the “Head of what is Holy” (’t Hooft der Heilighdommen) (l. 1283). However, perhaps the most intriguing and lyrical epithet for the host in this book comes in line 978, where Vondel refers to it as the “Rainbow of the Church” (Regenboogh der Kercke). In his commentary on the book, Molkenboer explicates this phrase by suggesting it alludes to the triumphal, all- encompassing nature of the (Catholic) doctrine of the Eucharist, although

29. In his note to this epithet, Molkenboer says that it refers to God. Based on the fact that it is the Son of God speaking in the passage from the Book of Revelation, I think it is more specifically the person of Jesus Christ, to whom the epithet is applied. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 217 any attempt to reduce such a phrase to its semantic components is bound to diminish its poetic force in some way. Elsewhere in the book, Vondel refers to the host as a teken, which is usually translated as “sign,” or he refers to it using a compound word, of which one element is teken. In line 228, he uses the compound word, ’t Altaergeheimnisteken (the Sign of the Mystery of the Altar); in line 1351, he addresses the host with the words “O blessed sign!” (o zaligh teken!); and in line 1575, he refers to the host as “the nourishing Altar-sign” (’t voedtzame Outerteken). However, in Book I in particular, Vondel uses the word teken and compound words, which include teken, as terms of abuse, directed particularly at the Calvinists, who, according to Vondel, see no intrinsic value in the Eucharistic elements. In Book I, line 964, he accuses the Calvinists of seeing the Eucharistic bread as a mere “sign- crumb” (tekenkruim). In line 826, he has the Calvinists denying transubstantiation with the words, “…for no-one partakes of that body, but rather its sign,” and in line 1093 he rejects the Calvinist understanding of the Eucharistic elements, particularly the bread, referring to it as a “fickle sign” (waelbaer teken). So, what are we to make of the fact that Vondel uses the same word, teken, to refer to the Eucharistic elements, particularly the consecrated host, as understood in the Catholic tradition, whilst also using it as a term of abuse to attack what he sees as the erroneous understanding of the elements in Calvinist theology? One way of approaching this question is to recognize that Vondel is writing poetry here and not a theological treatise consisting entirely of logical propositions. This may lead us to think that he need not be so pre- cise, or careful in his choice of words, as someone writing a theological treatise, and we might even appeal to that nebulous concept “poetic li- cence” in making this claim. However, in response I would say that far from being loose in their choice of words, good poets are extremely deliberate in this regard, arguably more so than writers of prose, and they take into consideration a number of factors such as the denotation and connotation of the word and its appropriateness in relation to other words before they decide whether or not to use it. Vondel himself shows that he is extremely deliberate in his choice of words, in deciding not to use the words “host” (hostie) and “sacrament” (sacrament) throughout the text of the poem. So, I would argue that in each case I refer to above, Vondel is making a deliberate choice to use the word teken. Another approach to this question is to consider the context in which instances of the word appear in the poem. Most of the cases in which the word teken is used in a derogatory manner occur in Book I, in which Vondel devotes much effort to attacking the Calvinist understanding of the Eucharistic elements, whilst associations of the word with the Catho- 218 Christopher Joby lic understanding of the elements occur primarily in Book II, in which Vondel is arguing for the correctness of the worship of the host. How- ever, there are occasions in Book I, where this term is not used to attack Calvinist Eucharistic theology, such as in line 1554 (“We who are many are united by one and the same sign”), and so this approach is not alto- gether successful. A third approach, based on the work of Stanley Fish, is to consider how the “interpretative community” might understand the various instances of the term teken.30 Here, of course, the question arises as to who constitutes the “interpretative community.”31 If it is members of the Catholic Church, then when they read words such as tekenkruim, they will no doubt be reminded of the use of the word teken in Catholic po- lemics of Vondel’s time, directed against the Calvinist understanding of the Eucharistic elements.32 Furthermore, this interpretative community would doubtless have no trouble in interpreting a phrase such as “the Sign of the Mystery of the Altar” (’t Altaergeheimnisteken), mentioned above, as referring to the consecrated host, as opposed to a mere empty sign. A Calvinist interpretative community would, naturally, see things differently. First, it would reject the idea that for its members the elements are merely empty signs,33 evacuated of all intrinsic meaning, as suggested by a term such as tekenkruim. Secondly, members of this community might ask whether the consecrated host of the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist can really be referred as a sign, for they might argue that transubstantiation necessitates a collapsing of signum and res,34 to borrow Augustine’s terminology, a view which Catholic Eucha- ristic theologians would no doubt reject.

30. See, for example, Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of In- terpretative Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 31. As well the two interpretative communities I describe, one could also add a tem- poral dimension to these communities and distinguish between modern day and seventeenth-century interpretative communities for both Catholics and Calvinists. However, for the sake of simplicity, I limit myself to two communities. 32. See my commentary on Book I of this poem at http://www.hum2.leidenuniv.nl/ Dutch/Renaissance/JobyVondel1645.pdf under entries for teken. 33. As I note in my article on Book I of this poem (see note 1 above), this understanding is closer, though not equivalent, to the Zwinglian position on the Eucharistic elements. That said, this does not discount the fact that some Calvinists may well have understood the nature of the elements in these terms. 34. Huldrych Zwingli makes a similar point in his work “On Baptism.” He writes “so I ask these quibblers, to allow sacraments to be sacraments, and not to say that sacraments are signs, which are identical to what they point to. For if they are what they point to, then they would not be signs; for signs and that which is signified cannot be the same thing,” although, of course, Zwingli would understand something different by the word sacrament than would either Calvinists or Catholics. See Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, vol. 4 (Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 91) (Leipzig: M. Heinsius, 1927), 218.13–218.17. Joost van den Vondel, Mysteries of the Altar, Book II 219

This discussion raises at least two further points for our consideration. First, it leads us to ask who Vondel’s intended audience for this poem was. Given that he seems to be asking us to interpret the term teken in a manner consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, it seems that in this case at least, he is addressing an audience, which is at least sympathetic to the Catholic position, rather than, for example, primarily attempting to convince Calvinists of what he sees as the error of their ways. Secondly, it reminds us of the difficulties of using particular words in discussing a subject as contentious as Eucharistic theology. Nei- ther Catholics nor Calvinists would object to the use of the term “sign” (teken, signum etc.) to describe their understanding of the Eucharistic elements. However, it is in their interpretation of this word, and, furthermore, their accounts of each other’s interpretation of the word, where differences arise. There are other themes, which Book II of Mysteries of the Altar addresses, such as paradox,35 to which I shall return in later studies. But, now it is time to draw the various strands of this discussion together into a conclusion.

6. Conclusion

What we have seen in this article is that Joost van den Vondel employs a number of arguments in order to try and convince the reader that it is appropriate to worship the consecrated Eucharistic host. He uses typological exegesis, analogy, including, arguably, analogia gratiae, and an appeal to tradition, such as to the work of Augustine of Hippo and other Church Fathers, in order to try and convince the reader of the correctness of his argument. But, perhaps what is most striking about Vondel’s approach is that it relies at least in part on overwhelming the reader to such an extent that he or she is almost forced into assenting to his argument. We see this most clearly in the final 500 lines or so of this book in which, somewhat like a procession, Vondel piles up example upon example, in order to defend this practice in Catholic Eucharistic celebration and to argue that the honour accorded to the host in Catholic processions, above all those of the feast of Corpus Christi, is evidence that the consecrated host should be worshipped. One approach to argumentation which I have not mentioned here is reason. In lines 155-170, Vondel points to the limits of reason, but it is clear that he is referring to human reason. Divine reason, on the other

35. See, for example, lines 1569-1570, “(Christ), the mark of shame, that was loathed on Calvary, // Leads Choirs to and from the high altar.” 220 Christopher Joby hand, has by definition no limits, and in lines 1255-1256, Vondel argues that divine reason “overwhelms” (verbijstert) “Nimrod’s rot,” which is the reasoning of opponents of Catholic Eucharistic theology, such as Berengar of Tours. Vondel, I suggest, would assert that the arguments he uses, such as typological exegesis, are based on divine reason, rather than its human counterpart. Ultimately, then, in the context of this poem, whether one accepts Vondel’s central thesis, that the consecrated Eucha- ristic host is worthy of worship, depends to a large extent on whether one accepts what one might call the metaphysical basis for Vondel’s line of argument. To put it another way, if one accepts that divine reason is greater than human reason and that the arguments that Vondel employs are the product of divine reason, then one is likely to accept his central thesis: if one does not accept these two propositions, then one is unlikely to accept it. I shall continue to explore this and other questions in an article on the third and final book of Mysteries of the Altar, “Sacrifice,” in due course.

Leeds Metropolitan University Dr. Christopher JOBY Leslie Silver International Faculty Lecturer in Dutch Macaulay Hall Headingley Campus Leeds LS6 3QS UK [email protected]