Fraternalis Amor

Amber Souleymane

At the beginning of the fifteenth century, literature lovers in the Low Countries started to unite in chambers of rhetoric. The rhetoricians, mainly men, focused on writing, reciting and performing poetry and drama in the mother tongue. They also exchanged their texts with each other for comments. The chambers were competitive, both inside and outside the walls of their towns. Trials of strength between members, national competitions and even festivals lasting several days were popular entertainment.[1] For that reason, the motto of the chamber De Distelbloem (The Thistle Flower) from Dendermonde, ‘Fraternalis Amor’ (Brotherly Love), perfectly describes the rhetoricians of the Low Countries.

In this virtual exhibition you become acquainted with the greatest literary movement in Dutch history.[2] Using old prints from Special Collections, this exhibition will shed light upon influential rhetoricians and popular genres in four slide shows.

Ars poetica

The organization of the chambers of rhetoric was similar to that of guilds. The dean or headman was the leader of the group. The prince (sometimes emperor) was seen as the head of the chamber. He provided capital and handed out prizes. The factor led the literary activities. His tasks included writing texts, directing plays and sometimes even composing music. The confreers were the ordinary members who paid for their membership and sometimes also had to make financial contributions to certain festivities. Finally, there were the personagiën – the members who paid in kind. They worked, for example, as actors or extras in plays, or helped to set up the stage.

One well-known factor was Matthijs de Castelein. As the literary leader of two chambers, Pax Vobis (Peace to You) and De Kersauwe (The Daisy), he wrote De Const van Rhetoriken (The Art of Rhetoric) (1555), the first (and only) manual for rhetoricians.[3] In 239 stanzas De Castelein explains the ‘art of rhetoric’ to ‘all beginners and enthusiasts’ and writes about the practicable forms of poetry and drama, providing examples, instructions and possible subjects that poets can use. His book is based on Jean Molinet’s L’art de rhétorique, the Flemish rhetorician tradition and the classical authors, in particular Quintilian, Cicero and Horace.[4]

Matthijs de Castelein (Pamele bij Oudenaarde, 1485/1486 – Pamele, 1550) was een rederijker, priester en notaris. Zijn devies was: ‘Wacht wel tslot, Castelein’.[5] (foto: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)Matthijs de Castelein (Pamele bij Oudenaarde, 1485/1486 – Pamele, 1550) was a rhetorician, priest and notary. His motto was: ‘Wacht wel 'tslot, Castelein' (Guard the castle, Castle Keeper).[5] (photo: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Matthijs de Castelein (Pamele bij Oudenaarde, 1485/1486 – Pamele, 1550) was a rhetorician, priest and notary. His motto was: ‘Wacht wel 'tslot, Castelein' (Guard the castle, Castle Keeper).[5] (photo: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

"De Const van Rhetoriken" is misschien wel zijn belangrijkste werk. Het biedt niet alleen inzicht in de (regels van de) rederijkerspoëzie, maar ook in het verloren werk van De Castelein."De Const van Rhetoriken" is perhaps his most important work. Not only does it provide insight into the nature of the poetry of the rhetoricians, but also into the lost work of De Castelein.

"De Const van Rhetoriken" is perhaps his most important work. Not only does it provide insight into the nature of the poetry of the rhetoricians, but also into the lost work of De Castelein.

In het voorwoord roept de drukker zijn vakgenoten op om (meer) rederijkerswerk uit te geven. Daarnaast richt hij zich tot dichters en houdt hij een pleidooi voor het navolgen van een aantal Franse humanistische auteurs. In the preface the publisher calls upon his colleagues to print (more) work of the rhetoricians. In addition, he addresses poets and makes a case for following several French humanist authors.

In the preface the publisher calls upon his colleagues to print (more) work of the rhetoricians. In addition, he addresses poets and makes a case for following several French humanist authors.

Het boek behandelt veel genres; dit blijkt alleen al uit de negen pagina’s tellende inhoudsopgave.The book covers many genres; as the nine-page table of contents merely makes clear.

The book covers many genres; as the nine-page table of contents merely makes clear.

‘Hiernaer volghen diueersche soorten ende sneden van Refereinen/ende eerst van thien regulen.’‘Hiernaer volghen diueersche soorten ende sneden van Refereinen/ende eerstvan thien regulen.’ (Hereafter, various kinds and types of refrains will follow/ and first of ten lines.)

‘Hiernaer volghen diueersche soorten ende sneden van Refereinen/ende eerstvan thien regulen.’ (Hereafter, various kinds and types of refrains will follow/ and first of ten lines.)

Het rederijkershandboek wordt afgesloten met een korte conclusie op rijm waarin De Castelein stelt dat hij met dit werk begon om ‘dees edel const’ te verklaren.The book ends with a short rhyming conclusion in which De Castelein states that he began this book in order to explain ‘this noble art’.

The book ends with a short rhyming conclusion in which De Castelein states that he began this book in order to explain ‘this noble art’.

The refrain

A popular genre among the rhetoricians was the refrain: a poem consisting of four or more stanzas, all of which end with one or two identical lines, referred to as the stok or refrain. The last verse was usually dedicated to the prince of the chamber and was therefore also known as the prince stanza. A special writer of refrains was the Antwerp teacher Anna Bijns. The South Netherlandish poet founded her own school, Het Roosterken, where she taught until 1573. Bijns wrote poetry in the style of the rhetoricians, but because she was a woman she could not become a member of a chamber. However, she is regarded as a rhetorician.

Bijns was against the Reformation and supported the Catholic church. Her refrains were printed thanks to her contacts with Antwerp Franciscans and her views on the Reformation – in other words, thanks to the approval of Divine authorities.[6] Anna Biins Konstighe Refereynen (Anna Biins's Artistic Refrains) (1646), a volume of refrains published posthumously, can be consulted in the Special Collections’ reading room. The book does not only provide a picture of her extensive oeuvre, but also of female authorship and the religious war of the sixteenth century.

Anna Bijns (Antwerpen, 1493 – Antwerpen, 1575) groeide op in de directe omgeving van het oude stadhuis van Antwerpen (zie hierboven) en werkte er als schoolmeesteres. Bijns’ devies was: ‘Meer suers dan soets’.[7][8] (foto: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) Anna Bijns (Antwerp, 1493 – Antwerp, 1575) grew up near the old town hall of Antwerp (see above) and worked there as a schoolteacher. Bijns’s motto was ‘Meer suers dan soets’ (More sour than sweet).[7][8] (photo: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Anna Bijns (Antwerp, 1493 – Antwerp, 1575) grew up near the old town hall of Antwerp (see above) and worked there as a schoolteacher. Bijns’s motto was ‘Meer suers dan soets’ (More sour than sweet).[7][8] (photo: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Het voorwerk van deze zeventiende-eeuwse druk is veelzeggend. Bijns wordt op de titelpagina geïntroduceerd als ‘Maeght ende School-meestersse’ en dus niet als dichteres.[9] Ter vergelijking: De Castelein werd in "De Const van Rhetoriken" geïntroduceerd als ‘excellent Poëte moderne’.The preface of this seventeenth-century book is considerable. On the title page, Bijns is introduced as ‘Maiden and Schoolmistress’ – not as a poet.[9] In comparison, in "De Const van Rhetoriken" De Castelein is introduced as an ‘excellent modern poet’.

The preface of this seventeenth-century book is considerable. On the title page, Bijns is introduced as ‘Maiden and Schoolmistress’ – not as a poet.[9] In comparison, in "De Const van Rhetoriken" De Castelein is introduced as an ‘excellent modern poet’.

Aubertus le Mire prijst Bijns niet alleen vanwege ‘haere uytnemende gheleertheyd’, die immers ‘boven ’t vrouwelijck geslacht gae[t]’, maar ook vanwege ‘haere Goddelijcken iever in’t voorstaen ende beschermen des Oude-Gheloofs’.Aubertus le Mire does not only praise Bijns for ‘her outstanding knowledge’, which after all ‘surpasses the female gender’, but also for ‘her Divine diligence in supporting and protecting the Old Faith’.

Aubertus le Mire does not only praise Bijns for ‘her outstanding knowledge’, which after all ‘surpasses the female gender’, but also for ‘her Divine diligence in supporting and protecting the Old Faith’.

De schrijver van dit lied benadrukt dat Bijns zich niet schuldig maakt aan ‘vrouwelijke onbenulligheden’ en dat de refreinen in het licht van het ‘niet-zieke geloof’ (het katholicisme) zijn geschreven. Met deze metafoor impliceert hij dat het protestantisme ‘ziek’ is en dus verkeerd of verwerpelijk is.The writer of this song points out that Bijns does not indulge in ‘female trivialities’ and that the refrains have been written in the light of the ‘non-sick faith’ (Catholicism). This metaphor implies that Protestantism is ‘sick’ and therefore wrong or objectionable.

The writer of this song points out that Bijns does not indulge in ‘female trivialities’ and that the refrains have been written in the light of the ‘non-sick faith’ (Catholicism). This metaphor implies that Protestantism is ‘sick’ and therefore wrong or objectionable.

Het voorwerk eindigt met de ‘Prologe oft Voor-reden tot den Goedtwillighen Leser’, die de lezer aanspoort tot het ‘oprecht Catholijck Gheloove’. The preface is concluded with the ‘Prologue to the Gracious Reader’, which urges the reader to uphold the ‘true Catholic Faith’.

The preface is concluded with the ‘Prologue to the Gracious Reader’, which urges the reader to uphold the ‘true Catholic Faith’.

De Reformatie leeft in Bijns’ refreinenbundel: de katholieke kerk en haar heiligen worden geprezen, terwijl de Lutheranen worden veracht. Hier begint een refrein dat in het licht van het eerste staat. Zo wordt er direct verwezen naar Jeruzalem (‘Sion’), de bakermat van het christendom.The Reformation lives in Bijns’s refrains: The Catholic Church and its saints are praised, whereas the Lutherans are despised. Here, a refrain starts which relates to the former, instantly referring to Jerusalem (‘Sion’), the birthplace of Christianity.

The Reformation lives in Bijns’s refrains: The Catholic Church and its saints are praised, whereas the Lutherans are despised. Here, a refrain starts which relates to the former, instantly referring to Jerusalem (‘Sion’), the birthplace of Christianity.

Verder in het refrein komen we meer Bijbelse verwijzingen tegen, zoals:‘De Dooven hooren /de creupelen recht staen: / Den blinden werden d’ooghen open ghedaen’.Later in the refrain there are other biblical references, such as ‘the deaf hear/ the lame stand upright / the eyes of the blind are opened’.

Later in the refrain there are other biblical references, such as ‘the deaf hear/ the lame stand upright / the eyes of the blind are opened’.

In de prince-strofe roept de 'ik' van het refrein de lezer op om God te loven: ‘Looft den Heere met blijden gheeste / Met herpen, trompetten, basoenen claer’.In the prince stanza, the ‘I’ of the refrain urges the reader to praise God: ‘Praise the Lord with joyful spirit / With harps, trumpets and horns’.

In the prince stanza, the ‘I’ of the refrain urges the reader to praise God: ‘Praise the Lord with joyful spirit / With harps, trumpets and horns’.

A burly farce

Quick, comical and caricaturing. The farce was a very popular genre among the rhetoricians. A farce is a short play with a simple plot. The characters are usually caricatures and the play is often about excess or deceit. The farces of the rhetoricians regularly criticized society and were consequently crammed with satirical elements.[10] A farce was written to make people laugh and in the seventeenth century it was the most commonly performed kind of comic theatre in the Dutch Republic.[11] In the Klucht van Buchelioen ’t Kaboutermannetge (Farce of Buchelioen the Gnome) (1655), coarse dialogues and cunning events alternate seamlessly. Deceit plays a major role: daughter Annetje misleads her unsuspecting father and his naive servant. Ultimately all three fall victim to her tricks. An extensive overview of the content of the farce can be found in the slide show below.

De “Klucht van Buchelioen ’t Kaboutermannetge” is geschreven door Jan Barentsz.[12] Barentsz. was vermoedelijk lid van de Amsterdamsche Kamer. Het titelblad bevat namelijk het blazoen van de Eerste Nederduytsche Academie en het devies van De Eglentier, de twee kamers waaruit de Amsterdamsche Kamer is ontstaan.[13]The “Klucht van Buchelioen ’t Kaboutermannetge” was written by Jan Barentsz.[12] Barentsz. was probably a member of the Amsterdamsche Kamer (Amsterdam Chamber), since the title page shows the arms of the Eerste Nederduytsche Academie (First Dutch Academy) and the motto of De Eglentier (The Sweet Briar), the two chambers from which the Amsterdamsche Kamer arose.[13]

The “Klucht van Buchelioen ’t Kaboutermannetge” was written by Jan Barentsz.[12] Barentsz. was probably a member of the Amsterdamsche Kamer (Amsterdam Chamber), since the title page shows the arms of the Eerste Nederduytsche Academie (First Dutch Academy) and the motto of De Eglentier (The Sweet Briar), the two chambers from which the Amsterdamsche Kamer arose.[13]

Het kluchtspel begint met vader Meelis en knecht Jilles op het toneel. Meelis beveelt zijn knecht om niemand binnen te laten terwijl hij van huis is. Omdat Jilles ‘zo wat kort van Meemory’ is zal Meelis het voor hem op een briefje schrijven.The farce begins with father Meelis and servant Jilles on the stage. Meelis orders his servant not to let anyone in while he is away from home. Because Jilles is ‘so forgetful’, Meelis will write it down on a note for him.

The farce begins with father Meelis and servant Jilles on the stage. Meelis orders his servant not to let anyone in while he is away from home. Because Jilles is ‘so forgetful’, Meelis will write it down on a note for him.

Annetje, de dochter van Meelis, voelt zich verschrikkelijk ziek en kan daarom niet met haar vader mee. Jilles zal haar dus moeten bewaken. Snel daarna komt de vrijster van Annetje het toneel op. Samen met zijn liefje bedenkt Karel een sluw plan om toegang tot Meelis’ huis te krijgen.Annetje, Meelis’s daughter, feels terribly ill and can therefore not go with her father, so Jilles will have to guard her. Quickly after, Annetje’s lover appears on stage. Together with his sweetheart Karel devises a cunning plan to gain access to Meelis’s house.

Annetje, Meelis’s daughter, feels terribly ill and can therefore not go with her father, so Jilles will have to guard her. Quickly after, Annetje’s lover appears on stage. Together with his sweetheart Karel devises a cunning plan to gain access to Meelis’s house.

Annetje voert Jilles dronken waarna ze hem beveelt een dokter te halen. Ze geeft hem instructies die hem naar het huis van Karel zullen leiden.Annetje gets Jilles drunk and then orders him to fetch a doctor. She gives him instructions, which will lead him to Karel’s house.

Annetje gets Jilles drunk and then orders him to fetch a doctor. She gives him instructions, which will lead him to Karel’s house.

Karel overtuigt de achterdochtige Jilles ervan de beste arts te zijn en wordt door de knecht meegenomen naar Annetje. Jilles heeft echter niet door dat Karel zijn knecht Buchelioen stiekem meeneemt.Karel convinces the suspicious Jilles that he is the best doctor, after which the servant takes him to Annetje. However, Jilles does not realize that Karel is secretly taking his servant Buchelioen with him.

Karel convinces the suspicious Jilles that he is the best doctor, after which the servant takes him to Annetje. However, Jilles does not realize that Karel is secretly taking his servant Buchelioen with him.

Na Karels ‘diagnose’ stuurt Annetje Jilles weg om een kannetje wijn voor de ‘dokter’ te halen. Wanneer Jilles terugkomt, ligt Karel verstopt onder de dekens en maakt Annetje hem wijs dat de dokter allang weg is. Jilles besluit om zelf de wijn op te drinken.After Karel’s ‘diagnosis’, Annetje sends Jilles away to fetch a jug of wine for the ‘doctor’. When Jilles comes back, Karel is hiding under the blankets and Annetje tells him the doctor is long gone. Jilles decides to drink the wine himself.

After Karel’s ‘diagnosis’, Annetje sends Jilles away to fetch a jug of wine for the ‘doctor’. When Jilles comes back, Karel is hiding under the blankets and Annetje tells him the doctor is long gone. Jilles decides to drink the wine himself.

De als kabouter verklede Buchelioen laat de beschonken Jilles schrikken. In een worsteling met Buchelioen (in het donker) komt de arme knecht bij Annetjes kamer uit. Hij voelt een extra hoofd in het bed en denkt dat het de kabouter is. Hierna stelt hij snel zijn meester op de hoogte.Buchelioen, disguised as a gnome, gives the drunken Jilles a fright. In a struggle with Buchelioen (in the dark), the poor servant ends up in Annetje’s room. He feels an extra head in the bed and thinks it is the gnome. After this, he quickly notifies his master.

Buchelioen, disguised as a gnome, gives the drunken Jilles a fright. In a struggle with Buchelioen (in the dark), the poor servant ends up in Annetje’s room. He feels an extra head in the bed and thinks it is the gnome. After this, he quickly notifies his master.

Eenmaal thuis aangekomen is Meelis verschrikkelijk boos. Hij bedreigt Karel, maar Annetje neemt het voor hem op en beweert dat ze zó bang was geworden van alle geluiden die Jilles maakte, dat ze Karel om hulp vroeg. Meelis keert zich nu tegen Jilles, maar ook hij verantwoordt zijn daden: hij probeerde immers op het huis te passen. Uiteindelijk ziet Meelis alleen zichzelf nog als schuldige.When he arrives home, Meelis is extremely angry. He threatens Karel, but Annetje stands up for him, claiming that she had been so frightened by all the noises Jilles made that she had asked Karel for help. Now Meelis turns against Jilles, but he too justifies his actions: after all, he was trying to take care of the house. Ultimately, Meelis only blames himself.

When he arrives home, Meelis is extremely angry. He threatens Karel, but Annetje stands up for him, claiming that she had been so frightened by all the noises Jilles made that she had asked Karel for help. Now Meelis turns against Jilles, but he too justifies his actions: after all, he was trying to take care of the house. Ultimately, Meelis only blames himself.

Karel is inmiddels weggegaan. Omdat Meelis zijn bestek niet kan vinden, gaat hij samen met Jilles op zoek. Buiten lopen ze Karel tegen het lijf, die zich geen moment bedenkt en terugkeert naar Annetje.In the meantime, Karel has left. Because Meelis cannot find his cutlery, he and Jilles go looking for it. Outside they run into Karel, who does not waste any time and returns to Annetje.

In the meantime, Karel has left. Because Meelis cannot find his cutlery, he and Jilles go looking for it. Outside they run into Karel, who does not waste any time and returns to Annetje.

Als Meelis en Jilles later aankomen, krijgen ze de deur van het huis niet open. Karel doet net alsof hij de eigenaar is en wil de twee niet binnenlaten. Meelis verklaart dat hij zichzelf zal gaan ophangen in de deurpost, Jilles onderhandelt over mogelijke erfstukken en Annetje, die alles aanhoorde, rent inmiddels naar beneden om haar vader binnen te laten.When Meelis and Jilles arrive later, they cannot open the door to the house. Karel pretends to be the owner and will not let the two of them in. Meelis says he is going to hang himself from the doorpost, Jilles negotiates about possible heirlooms and Annetje, who has heard everything, rushes downstairs to let her father in.

When Meelis and Jilles arrive later, they cannot open the door to the house. Karel pretends to be the owner and will not let the two of them in. Meelis says he is going to hang himself from the doorpost, Jilles negotiates about possible heirlooms and Annetje, who has heard everything, rushes downstairs to let her father in.

Nu zijn de rollen omgedraaid: Meelis en Jilles zitten binnen en Annetje en Karel staan buiten. Karel heeft er genoeg van, maar Annetje smeekt haar vader om haar binnen te laten. Na zijn dochters smeekbeden laat hij haar binnen. Hier eindigt het verhaal voor Annetje, Meelis en Jilles.Now the roles are reversed: Meelis and Jilles are inside and Annetje and Karel are standing outside. Karel has had enough, but Annetje begs her father to let her in. After hearing his daughter’s pleas, he lets her in. This is where the story ends for Annetje, Meelis and Jilles.

Now the roles are reversed: Meelis and Jilles are inside and Annetje and Karel are standing outside. Karel has had enough, but Annetje begs her father to let her in. After hearing his daughter’s pleas, he lets her in. This is where the story ends for Annetje, Meelis and Jilles.

The closing song about the ‘Sloerie-moer’ (‘slattern’) Annetje.

Morality

Like the refrain and the farce, the morality play was a favourite among the rhetoricians. The moralistic message (zin) of this didactic genre summarizes the idea of the play as a whole. The morality play is an allegorical drama in which qualities or attributes are personified. In the sixteenth century, concepts such as ‘Faith’, ‘virtue’, ‘truth’ and ‘light’ usually appeared as characters on the stage. The most popular personifications were those known as sinnekens: devilish figures which try to mislead the protagonist. Many morality plays were written for and performed during competitions. Most of these were held between chambers from one region or province.

The most famous example of such a competition is the Antwerp Landjuweel of 1561, in which fourteen chambers of rhetoric from Brabant competed. This competition was organised by the local chamber De Violieren (The Gillyflowers). The festivities lasted no less than a fortnight, had an estimated 5,000 participants and took place mainly outdoors. This Antwerp Landjuweel is known as the biggest competition ever held by the rhetoricians. Spelen van sinne vol scoone moralisacien vvtleggingen ende bediedenissen op alle loeflijcke consten (Morality plays filled with morals, explanations and meanings) (1562) contains the poems recited and plays performed at the Landjuweel of Antwerp. Competition volumes of this kind provide a unique insight into the world of the sixteenth-century rhetoricians.

De Antwerpse rederijkerskamer De Violieren werd waarschijnlijk rond 1400 opgericht als onderdeel van het machtige Sint-Lucasgilde (het ambachtsgilde van de schilders). Hun devies was: ‘Wt Jonsten Versaemt’ (uit genegenheid bijeengekomen).[14]The Antwerp chamber of rhetoric De Violieren was probably founded around 1400 as part of the powerful Guild of St Luke (the painters' guild). Their motto was ‘Wt Jonsten Versaemt’ (United in Friendship).[14]

The Antwerp chamber of rhetoric De Violieren was probably founded around 1400 as part of the powerful Guild of St Luke (the painters' guild). Their motto was ‘Wt Jonsten Versaemt’ (United in Friendship).[14]

Deelname aan een landjuweel vond doorgaans plaats op basis van een chaerte (uitnodiging) die vooraf aan alle rederijkerskamers werd toegestuurd. Hierin vond men het reglement van de wedstrijd met daarin het onderwerp van het zinnespel: ‘Dwelck den mensch aldermeest tot consten verwect’ (wat de mens het meest tot kennis aanzet).[15]Participation in a landjuweel was in response to a chaerte (invitation), which was sent to all the chambers in advance. This invitation included the rules of the competition as well as the subject of the morality play: ‘what most drives people towards knowledge’.[15]

Participation in a landjuweel was in response to a chaerte (invitation), which was sent to all the chambers in advance. This invitation included the rules of the competition as well as the subject of the morality play: ‘what most drives people towards knowledge’.[15]

Hierboven ziet u de antwoorden van de deelnemende kamers. Zo antwoordde bijvoorbeeld De Goudbloeme dat ‘loflijcke fame midts eerlijck gewin’ (het vooruitzicht van faam, mits eerlijk verkregen) de mens zal aansporen tot het verkrijgen van kennis.Above you see the answers of the participating chambers. For example, the chamber De Goudbloeme (The Marigolds) concluded that ‘the prospect of fame, provided it is obtained honestly’, urges people to acquire knowledge.

Above you see the answers of the participating chambers. For example, the chamber De Goudbloeme (The Marigolds) concluded that ‘the prospect of fame, provided it is obtained honestly’, urges people to acquire knowledge.

Het speeltoneel (links) met centraal op de basis van het toneel het wapen van het Sint-Lucasgilde en een gravure (rechts) die destijds deel uitmaakte van de chaerte.[16] The stage (left) with the coat of arms of the Guild of St Luke on the base and the engraving (right) that was part of the chaerte at the time.[16]

The stage (left) with the coat of arms of the Guild of St Luke on the base and the engraving (right) that was part of the chaerte at the time.[16]

Hierboven ziet u de lijst met toegekende prijzen. Zo wint bijvoorbeeld de rederijkerskamer De Roose ‘den oppersten prijs vant spel van sinne’.Above you see the list of prizes awarded – for instance, the chamber De Roose (The Rose) won ‘the highest prize for a morality play’.

Above you see the list of prizes awarded – for instance, the chamber De Roose (The Rose) won ‘the highest prize for a morality play’.

Alle deelnemende rederijkerskamers hebben in dit boek een soort eigen hoofdstukje gekregen dat begint met hun blazoen en zinspreuk, gevolgd door de voorgedragen of opgevoerde teksten en een gravure.In this book, all participating chambers have been given a chapter of their own, which starts with their coat of arms and motto, followed by the recited or performed texts and an engraving.

In this book, all participating chambers have been given a chapter of their own, which starts with their coat of arms and motto, followed by the recited or performed texts and an engraving.

De dramatis personae (personagelijst) van het zinnespel van De Roose. Let op de namen van de personificaties: Tverlanghende hertte, Den gheest der wijsheyt, Natuerlijcke inclinatie, Die Mensche, Aerbeyt, Hope tot hoocheyt, Sorghe voor schande en Eere.The dramatis personae (list of characters) of De Roose's morality play. Notice the names of the personifications: the Yearning Heart, the Spirit of Wisdom, Natural Inclination, Mankind, Labour, Hope of Greatness, Fear of Disgrace and Honour.

The dramatis personae (list of characters) of De Roose's morality play. Notice the names of the personifications: the Yearning Heart, the Spirit of Wisdom, Natural Inclination, Mankind, Labour, Hope of Greatness, Fear of Disgrace and Honour.

Thanks to their own hard work and good record keeping, the rhetoricians have left us a magnificent and extensive oeuvre. The products of the rhetoricians are of priceless value. Their literature offers us not only an understanding of the literary world but also of personal, religious, social and political life between the middle ages and the modern era. Would you like to see more of their repertoire? Take a look at the list of the rhetoricians’ collection of Special Collections.

Literature

[1] Herman Pleij. Het gevleugelde woord. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse literatuur 1400-1560. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2007.
[2] Bart Ramakers, red. Confirmisten en rebellen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003.
[3] Dirk Coigneau. “Matthijs de Castelein: ‘excellent poëte moderne.’” In Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde (1985): 451-475.
[4] Matthijs de Castelein. De Konst van Rhetoriken. Rotterdam: Felix van Sambir, 1612. uklu 'EP'EP E 242. Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.
[5] G.J. van Bork en P.J. Verkruijsse. “Castelein, Matthijs de.” In De Nederlandse en Vlaamse auteurs. Van middeleeuwen tot heden. Weesp: De Haan, 1985.
[6] Orlanda S.H. Lie. “Middelnederlandse literatuur vanuit genderperspectief. Een verkenning.” In Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal en Letterkunde 117 (2001): 246-267.
[7] G.J. van Bork en P.J. Verkruijsse. “Bijns, Anna.” In De Nederlandse en Vlaamse auteurs. Van middeleeuwen tot heden. Weesp: De Haan, 1985.
[8] Herman Pleij. Anna Bijns van Antwerpen. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2011.
[9] Anna Biins Konstighe Refereynen. Antwerpen: Hieronymus Verdussen den Jonghere, 1646. uklu A 6558. Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.
[10] Karel Porteman & Mieke B. Smits-Veldt. Een nieuw vaderland voor de muzen. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse literatuur 1560-1700. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2008.
[11] W.A. Ornée. “Het kluchtspel in de Nederlanden, 1600-1760.” In Scenaríum 5 (1981):107-120.
[12] Jan Barentsz. Klucht van Buchelioen ’t Kaboutermannetge. Amsterdam: Dirck Cornelisz. Houthaak, 1655. uklu 'EP'EP E 198. Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.
[13] Arjan van Dixhoorn. Repertorium van rederijkerskamers in de Noordelijke Nederlanden 1400-1650. DBNL, 2004. https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/dixh002repe01_01/.
[14] Jeroen Vandommele. Als in een spiegel. Vrede, kennis en gemeenschap op het Antwerpse Landjuweel van 1561. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2011.
[15] Spelen van Sinne. Antwerpen: M. Willem Silvius, 1562. uklu 'EP'EP E 244. Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.
[16] Ruud Ryckaert. De Antwerpse spelen van 1561. Naar de editie Silvius (Antwerpen 1562) uitgegeven met inleiding, annotaties en registers. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 2011.

Last modified:

04 January 2021 10.29 a.m.

View this page in: Nederlands