ISSN 1750-4953


Marginalia

Home
About Marginalia
Current Issue
Archived Issues
Notes to Contributors
Links to Other Online Journals

Marginalia -- The Website of the MRG

---

Abstract

I shall investigate the representation of physical blindness as spiritual blindness and of acquiring the capacity to see light as spiritual rebirth in three sixteenth-century plays of the Low Countries: Tspel van Maria ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt (The Play of Mary Compared to Clarity, 1511 or 1512) by Cornelis Everaert, De Geboren Blinde by Lauris Jansz. (The Man Born Blind, 1579), and De Blinde van Jericho by D.V. Coornhert (The Blind Man of Jericho, c.1582).¹

1. Allegorical Interpretation of Blindness

The link between blindness and moral ignorance, on the one hand, and between light and truth and salvation, on the other, goes back to the Bible, e.g. Isaiah 42.7, Ephesians 4.17-19, John 1.5, 9, 8.12, 9.5, 2 Corinthians 6.14, and 1 John 2.8-11, as well as to classical sources, e.g. the metaphor of the sun and the allegory of the cave respectively at the end of the sixth and at the beginning of the seventh book of Plato’s Republic. There is a connection between light and spiritual enlightenment in medieval literature, for instance, Anima in Wisdom claims that ‘in Wysdam [i.e. Christ] I was made alle bewte bright!’ (l. 24) and Jesus says to Mary Magdalen in the eponymous Digby play that ‘from therknesse hast porchasyd lyth. | Thy feyth hath savyd þe, and made þe bryth!’ (ll. 689-690).² Blindness is often considered in terms of the absence of light, as in a Perugia laude where the blind Longinus says that he is ‘deprived of light’.³ Similarly, there is a link between blindness and moral ignorance and sin, for example, at the end of Troilus and Criseyde we read:



Malus Angelus in The Castle of Perseverance boasts of his power over sinful Humanum Genus in terms of blinding: ‘for syn he was born I have hym blent’ (l. 531).⁵ The connection between blindness and sinfulness is especially marked in some French moralités where the human protagonist is blindfolded by the personifications of sin once he is fully in their power.⁶

The link between blindness and sinfulness is also present in the sixteenth-century drama of the Low Countries given that many evil characters are in some way represented as blind, for instance, Blijnde Begeerte (Blind Desire) and Ziende Blende (Seeing Blind). These characters are not necessarily physically blind; the blind adjective in their names is merely indicative of their negative spiritual status (for personifications) or state (for types of sinners).⁷ Thus, there is no indication that Blijnde Begeerte cannot see in Die Mensch veracht die Redelickheijt by Lauris Jansz. (Man Despises Reason).

Despite the proliferation of allegorically blind characters, there are few genuinely blind characters in these allegorical sixteenth-century plays. Most of the genuinely blind appear in plays that are based on biblical sources, as in De Blinde van Jericho, based on Mark 10. 48-52, and De Geboren Blinde, based on John 9. There is, as far as I am aware, only one genuinely blind character in a non-biblical play, namely Ymagineirlic Gheest (Pensive Spirit) in Tspel van Maria ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt. The allegorical interpretation of physical blindness in these three plays is, however, not as straightforward as one might expect.

2. De Geboren Blinde

De Geboren Blinde closely follows John 9 and in doing so places no emphasis on a link between physical blindness and sin, either of the blind man himself or of his parents (ll. 309-310). Rather, he is blind ‘so that God’s work […] may be revealed through him’ (‘op dat goodts werck […] in hem souden werden geopenbaert’, ll. 311-12).

In the portrayal of the blind man there is no interest in his spiritual state, instead the practical misery that accompanies blindness is highlighted: he needs a guide to take him to and fro and survives by begging, since he is unable to work (e.g. ll. 221-228). And once he is cured by Jesus, the reaction of the Pharisees to Jesus’ miracles, and to this one in particular, is given more attention than the effect the miracle has on Die Geboren Blinde. His version of the events is succinct:





The dramatist does not seem to imply that the physical cure in any way affects the man's spiritual state. Yet the appreciation for the cure leads him to believe in Jesus. In the first investigation by the Pharisees, he calls him a 'proheet' (l. 830). In the second investigation, he insists that the miracle could only have been performed through Jesus’ association with God: ‘if he were not from God, how might he do it?’ (‘waer dees dan van godt niet hoe souden hijt doen?’, l. 1207). And finally, when the Pharisees throw him out, Die Geboren Blinde praises the truth which is





This belief in Jesus, though significant, still does not represent a spiritual rebirth, or even a true recognition of Jesus as Son of God. It is only later on in the play, after Jesus has told him that he is the Son of God, that Die Geboren Blinde mentions any ‘weakness of faith’: ‘Lord, I believe. And if I ever lacked [faith] through the weakness of faith, forgive me’ (‘Heer ick gelooff en heb ick oijt gemist | door cranckheijt des geloofs mijn dat vergeeft’, ll. 1346-47). However, the ‘cranckheijt des geloofs’ seems to refer more to his inability to recognise Jesus in this scene than to his previous physical blindness.

In fact, in this play, acknowledged blindness indicates a sinless state and, conversely, an acknowledged capacity to see implies a sinful state:In fact, in this play, acknowledged blindness indicates a sinless state and, conversely, an acknowledged capacity to see implies a sinful state:⁸





Given this somewhat unorthodox link between sinlessness and blindness in this Gospel narrative, it is not surprising that blindness is not taken to represent a sinful state in this play or that there is no spiritual rebirth accompanying the gaining of sight, even though the miracle will indirectly lead Die Geboren Blinde to acknowledge the Son of God.

3. De Blinde van Jericho

3.1 Blindness and Sinfulness
From the very beginning, a different approach is noticeable in Coornhert’s play De Blinde van Jericho. The subtitle of the play goes as follows:





The protagonist, Bartimeus die Blinde, is shown to follow false guides such as Meritum, or Een Pharizeus Verdienste (A Pharisaic Merit, i.e. Roman-Catholic teaching), and Justitia Imputativa, or Toereeckentlijcke Rechtvaerdicheyt (Imputed Justice, i.e. Reformist teaching). He follows these false guides despite his own awareness that he often chooses blind guides (e.g. ll. 117-128), and despite the frequent admonitions of his daughter Observatio Sui, or Waerneminghe Zijns Selfs (His Own Observation), not to follow blind guides foolishly (e.g. ll. 140-42, ll. 170-71). Whereas De Blinde uses his blindness as an excuse for being misguided, Observatio Sui squarely places the burden of sin on her father’s shoulders:





And indeed, De Blinde is accompanied by Perversum Iudicium, or Verkeerdt Oordeel (Mistaken Judgement), until De Blinde’s conversion is initiated by Poenitentia, Fides, and Sermo Propheticus. The victory over his mistaken judgments is enacted on stage by Poenitentia drawing her sword and pursuing Iudicium Perversum off stage. Sermo Propheticus reports in some detail what happens next:





It is important to note that De Blinde’s conversion starts before he acquires sight, although he is still stained by sin and unable to do good: ‘but that I have evil and don’t have good is the very source of my bitter mourning’ (‘maer dat ick tquaedt hebbe en tgoede niet, | is die grondt oorsake mijns bitteren rouwen’, ll. 898-99). The link between physical blindness and sin is most emphatic here, e.g. ‘his dark soul does not see; it is tied up with cords, strong habits of sin’ (‘zijn duystere ziel siet niet; die zit gebonden | aen coorden vast, stercke gewoonten tot sonden’, ll. 907-908) and





3.2 Light, Sight and Knowledge

Because De Blinde is unable to cure his blindness himself, he is told to sit and wait until Jesus comes (ll. 962-65). The eventual request that Jesus might give De Blinde the use of his eyes links sight with knowledge:





De Blinde’s very first reaction after the miracle is concerned with the physical aspect of seeing: ‘I see with open eyes above and below!’ (‘ic sie met open ogen boven en ondere!’, l. 1207). But almost immediately his emphasis shifts to his previous ignorance and blindness: ‘I thought I knew something, but what can a blind man know?’ (‘my docht ic wist wat. Wat mach een blindt doch weten?’, l. 1213). The link between visual sight and spiritual knowledge is stressed, for instance, the equation of light with truth, and of seeing with knowing is clearly highlighted by the parallel structure of ‘what can one see without transparent light?’ (‘wat machmen sien sonder doorschijnige claerheyt?’, l. 1214) and ‘what can one know without shining truth?’ (‘wat machmen kennen sonder blijckende waerheyt?’, l. 1215).

3.3 Conclusion

Somewhat surprisingly, the humanist Coornhert adhered to the common medieval connection between blindness and sin, whereas there is no sense that physical blindness is a metaphor for sin in De Geboren Blinde by the more traditional rederijker Lauris Jansz.¹⁰. In Coornhert’s De Blinde van Jericho there is also more emphasis on the link between sight and knowledge.

4. Tspel van Maria ghecomapareirt by de Claerheyt

Cornelis Everaert’s play, Tspel van Maria ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt is very different from the New Testament plays. This is not merely because the story is not based on the gospels, but primarily because there is not much of a story. The play consists of an attempt by Exsperientich Bethooch (Investigational Discourse) and Soetzinneghe Eloquencie (Sweet Eloquence) to compare the Virgin to clarity.¹¹ They are assisted in this by Ghefondeirde Schriftuere (Foundational Scripture) and spurred on by the questions of the blind Ymagineirlic Gheest (Pensive Spirit). Another important difference is that Ymagineirlic Gheest does not acquire sight whereas the two blind protagonists in the New Testament plays do.

4.1 Lack of Sight and Lack of Knowledge

Ymagineirlic Gheest is standing amongst the audience when the play commences and interrupts Exsperientich Bethooch and Soetzinneghe Eloquencie’s introduction of their daunting mission with a little song and a prayer to Mary. In this prayer the connection between blindness and absence of knowledge is stressed:





It is this ignorance that will allow Ymagineirlic Gheest to ask the questions that will further the comparison between Mary and clarity.

At first, Ymagineirlic Gheest mistakenly takes ‘claerheyt’ to refer to a trumpet which he heard and touched in Bruges (ll. 45-51a). When told that this is not quite the ‘claerheyt’ Exsperientich Bethooch and Soetzinneghe Eloquencie have in mind, Ymagineirlic Gheest remembers another ‘claerheyt’ he has experienced in Bruges: ‘the best wine, without lying, which one can drink through the throat’ (‘den beste wyn, zonder helen, | die men dryncken mochte duer kelen’, ll. 58-59), i.e. claret (ll. 55b-66). He still cherishes the memory of that occasion: ‘and when I put the bowl […] under my nose then I sensed such a smell’ (‘ende alssic myn scuetel […] stelde onder myn nuese, | so ghevoeldic een roke’, ll. 62-64). These mistakes allow for entertainment, but they serve to underline a fundamental point as all five senses are touched upon in this passage. The four which Ymagineirlic Gheest possesses are hearing and touch (the trumpet), and taste and smell (the wine). The fifth sense, seeing, is touched on by Soetzinneghe Eloquencie’s rather unfeeling question whether Ymagineirlic Gheest has also seen the trumpet, to which his reaction is understandably piqued: ‘I am clearly blind! I think you’re laughing at me’ (‘bedys bem ic blent! My dyncke, ghy state om met my te loelene’, ll. 51c-52). Ymagineirlic Gheest’s blindness is then treated as an absence of the best of the five senses and as an impediment to understanding: because he lacks ‘the most excellent sense of the five […] therefore it is not possible, in any way, to understand the true concept of light’ (‘den uppersten zin van vyven […] dus en eist niet mueghelic, by eenich bedryven, | van de claerheyt te begryppene trechte verstant’, ll. 81d-84).

However, the knowledge Ymagineirlic Gheest lacks is secular rather than spiritual. His blindness may prevent him from truly understanding the phenomenon of light, but it evidently does not prevent him from understanding Mary’s grace, as he is full of praise for Mary from beginning to end. His questions to Exsperientich Betooch, Soetzinneghe Eloquencie, and Ghefondeirde Scriftuere are mostly about the physical aspect of light: are there various sources of light? (ll. 121-25), is light stronger in some places than others? (ll. 317-19a), is light an independent being or does it derive from another being? (ll. 633-36) and so forth. Yet his reactions to the answers are not concerned with the acquired knowledge about physical light, but consists of praise of Mary, e.g. ‘O Mary, who will justly honour, praise, thank and extol your light?’ (‘O Maria, wye zal hu clarheyt naer weerden | vuleeren, vulprysen, vuldancken, vulloven?’ ll. 403-404). Despite his blindness and ignorance of physical light, Ymagineirlic Gheest is shown to be in no way hampered in his spiritual insight and there is no link between blindness and sin in this play.

4.2 Physical Light and Spiritual Light

Light is not merely a physical phenomenon in this play. Mary, described in terms of light, is said to bring grace and enlightenment:





This position of Mary between mankind and God is also shown visually in a toog or tableau vivant, with Mary standing between heaven and earth. The Trinity sits on a throne above Mary, with rays going from their mouths to Mary’s head, and another ray going from Mary’s mouth to the earth. Light here is seen almost as a network of mediation and grace, but there is in this passage a hint of the link between light and knowledge as well. The connection between light and knowledge is highlighted in a complicated passage immediately before Soetzinneghe Eloquencie’s eulogy on Mary as mediatrix, in which Exsperientich Bethooch connects light, fire, the sun, and knowledge:¹²



In fact, at the beginning of the actual play (after a prologue of 214 lines!), the answer to Ymagineirlic Gheest’s question ‘what is light?’ (‘wat es de claerheyt?’, l. 218a) is very much concerned with knowledge: ‘a clear shining, perfect knowledge, giving understanding’ (‘een scynsels blynckenden, | vulmaecte kennesse, verstant scynckende’, ll. 218b-219).

Light is therefore both a physical and a spiritual phenomenon. As a blind man Ymagineirlic Gheest is not aware of the physical properties of light, but, as a man, he is affected by the knowledge and grace of spiritual light.

4.3 Blindness and Spiritual Knowledge

In Cornelis Everaert’s play there is no link between blindness and sin: Ymagineirlic Gheest is not represented as a sinner nor is there any sense that he is unable to distinguish between good and evil. Blindness is accompanied by a certain lack of understanding, but only of the physical properties of light. Nevertheless, even though physical blindness is not presented as a spiritual blindness, light is taken as a metaphor for knowledge and understanding, and especially so of things divine.

5. Conclusion

Despite a tradition of interpreting blindness allegorically as spiritual blindness or as sinfulness, the allegorical meaning of genuine blindness and of physical illumination is remarkably varied in these three sixteenth-century plays. In the Tspel van Maria Ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt, where there the interest in light and its uplifting qualities is more prominent, there is no corresponding notion that the inability to perceive light is the equivalent of spiritual blindness. In fact, although light is linked to spiritual knowledge, the lack of perception of light is not really linked with an absence of spiritual knowledge in any of the three plays – even the blind man from Jericho seems to be aware of his own sinful state. Moreover, seeing the light does not necessarily mean spiritual illumination, as De Blinde’s cure does not affect his spiritual state in Die Geboren Blinde, and spiritual enlightenment need not be accompanied by the ability to see light, as Ymagineirlic Gheest never acquires sight in Tspel van Maria Ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt. There is only one play where blindness is linked to a sinful state, namely De Blinde van Jericho. But even here De Blinde’s cure is initiated before he gains sight; even here the correspondence between blindness and sin on the one hand, and between sight and virtue on the other hand, is not perfect.

Charlotte Steenbrugge, U. of Cambridge

Previous

Next

NOTES

1. I have used the following editions: De Blinde van Jericho in Het roerspel en de comedies van Coornhert, ed. by P. Van der Meulen (Leyden: Brill, 1955), pp. 537-86; De Geboren Blinde in Trou Moet Blijcken, Deel 4: Boek D, bronnenuitgave van de boeken der Haarlemse rederijkerskamer ‘de Pellicanisten’, ed. by W.N.M. Hüsken, B.A.M. Ramakers, and F.A.M. Schaars (Assen: Quarto, 1994), fol. 51r-65r; Tspel van Maria ghecompareirt by de Claerheyt in De Spelen van Cornelis Everaert, ed. by W.N.M. Hüsken (Hilversum: Verlooren, 2005), pp. 747-784. All translations are mine.

2. The Late Medieval Religious Plays of Bodleian Mss Digby 133 and E Museo 160, ed. by Donald C. Baker, John L. Murphy, and Louis B. Hall Jr., EETS, 183 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 47 and 117.

3. William Tydeman, ed., The Medieval European Stage 500-1500, Theatre in Europe: a documentary history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 147.

4. The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson (gen. ed.), 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 584.

5. The Macro Plays, ed. by Mark Eccles, EETS, 262 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 19.

6. W. Helmich, Die Allegorie im französischen Theater des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1976), pp. 198-200.

7. The distinction here is that personifications are de facto unchanging and types changeable.

8. This is also the case in the New Testament story: ‘Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.’ (John 9. 41).

9. Coornhert plays with near-homophones kerck ‘church’ and kercker ‘prison’, and cluuster ‘chain’ and clooster ‘cloister’.

10. Dirck Volkertsz Coornhert (1522-90) was ‘a Dutch notary, artist, poet, playwright, translator, and controversialist who defended the freedom of conscience and toleration’ (Gerrit Voogt, Constraint of Trial: Dirck Volkertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2000), p. 1). Lauris Jansz. was factor of a Haarlem rederijkerskamer; his works are incidentally also notable for their religious tolerance.

11. There are several of these comparison plays in Everaert’s œuvre, for example, Tspel van Sinte Pieter ghecompareirt by der Duve (The Play of Saint Peter Compared to the Dove), Tspel van Maria gheleken by den Throon van Salomon (The Play of Mary Compared to Solomon’s Throne), and Tspel van Maria ghecompareirt by den Scepe (The Play of Mary Compared to a Ship).

12. This passage is complicated by the fact that lucht can mean both ‘air’ and ‘light’, that claerheyt can mean ‘light’, ‘clarity’ and ‘sun’, and vier both ‘fire’ and ‘four’ (as in the four elements). Furthermore, kennesse seems to be used with different shades of meaning as well.

---