De veelzinnige muze van E. Douwes Dekker
Francken, A.A.P.
Citation
Francken, A. A. P. (1990, November 22). De veelzinnige muze van E. Douwes Dekker. Van
Oorschot, Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/82753
Version:
Publisher's Version
License:
Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the
Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden
Downloaded from:
https://hdl.handle.net/1887/82753
Cover Page
The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/82753 holds various files of this Leiden University
dissertation.
Author: Francken, A.A.P.
COLOFON
De ve~lzinnige muze van E. Douwes Dekker van Eep Francken werd m opdracht van Uitgeverij G. A. van Oorschot te Amster-dam gezet uit de l3embo en gedrukt door Koninklijke drukkerij G.J. Th1eme te N1Jmegen, op papie: van Bührmann-Ubbens te Zutphen. Het werd gebonden door Boekbinderij Delcour te
Hilversum. Het omslagontwerp is van Gerrit Noordzij. Deze uitgave is mede dankzij steun van het Ministerie van
Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur tot stand gekomen.
'
SUMMARY*
The subject of tlus thesis is Eduard Douwes Dekker (Multatuli, 1820-1887), Holland's most famous 19th century writer, greatly admired now-adays by a large number of readers, in particular for bis stylc. But also interesting is Multatuli's idealism. Ina period when Dutch literature was overrun by good-natured idealist novelists, all expressing the same wcak clichés, Multatuli's more radical idealism, mixed with irony and sarcasm, focused on the extreme idealization ofhis own person, and in so doing surpassed by far the common fashion ofhis times. He was more thanjust a follower of fashion; to !urn idealism was of the essence - the key to life. The thesis comprises three separate sections. Section one, 'Schools and schoclmasters', biographical; section two, 'Renewal and tradition', a critica] discussion of Sötemann's Structure of 'Max Havelaar', the most influential work of criticism on Multatuli's first navel. The tbird and final section, 'The many-sided muse', deals with a major theme in Multatuli's oeuvre: his conception of the character Fancy.
Schools and schoolmasters
This part of the thesis is a supplement to the rather small amount of data already available on Dekker's youth in Amsterdam. lt concerns two of his schools, the so-called French School run by master H.R. Meskendorff (1805-1865), which Dekker attended for uncertain periods of time du-ring the years 1829-1832, and Jus secondary school, the Amsterdam Grammar School, which he attended from 1832 to probably 1835, with-out taking his final exams. Finally it deals with a third, though highly unofficial, educational institute which Dekker attended, the Waterland Department ofche Society for Public Welfare. Dekker was a member of this (in the Netherlands quite famous) organization for some months before he left Holland for the Netherlands East Indies in 1838; but far more important than his forma] membership was his attendance of the Department meetings in Buiksloot for a much langer period of time (1836-1838). The aim of the treatise is to portray the three institutions, gather old and new facts about Dekker's experiences as a young man and contrast the results witb Multatuli's later comments on the same subjects.
Meskendorff, head of the first school, tums out to have been an out-standing teacher, an active head-master and educational business mana-ger. His school was regarded as being one of Amsterdam's leading schools. This confirms the view ofDekker's social origins as being supe-rior to the lower class background (which he sometimes claimed to have come from). Dekker's comments as an adult suggest that his initia1 appre-ciation of Meskendorff declined over the years.
The Gram mar School was the traditional way of preparing for univer-sity entrance, hut after prospering during the 17th century, this form of education lagged behind only to become an out-dated institution. Little or no attention was given to mathematics or to modem languages; only the classics were all-important. The problems with this type of schooling were generally acknowledged, hut at that time attempts to improve the situation were only halfhearted. However, Dekker's Amsterdam Gram-mar School seems to have been one of the best there was, as its teachers, though averse to profound modernization, were, on the whole, serious scholars. Multatuli does not comment on his school, hut disapproves of Dutch classica! education in genera!.
The Society for Public Welfare, founded in 1784, was (and is) striving to abolish class-differences, to impart knowledge to the people and to promote a spirit of genera! (in the 19th century Christian) tolerance. By the 183o's it had grown into a national organization, comprising nearly 200 local and regional branches. Publishing hooks for the lower classes was one of their main concerns, hut besides that, this charitable Society founded schools, people's libraries and savings banks. Semi-scientific lectures were organized by the various branches. Poetry was recited by the famous poets of the day, touring around the country to the different branches, or by the members themselves.
Young Eduard Dekker accompanied his eider brother to the meetings of the Waterland Department, far more aften than once supposed. Mi-nutes of the meetings have been kept at the Amsterdam City Archives. Parts have been printed in the appendices.Judging by the occupations of the members, the Department does indeed seem to have been a bridge between the classes, although the minutes still suggest that some differen-ces were not smoothed over. The higher class professions dominated the meetings.
The minutes hold ample information on the poetry recited. This poe-try represents the popular verse of the day, commending God, virtue, domesticity and the Dutch nation. Generally the poets pay tribute to the very same positive attitude to socia1 consciousness promoted by the Society for Public Welfare itself. Some youthful works by Dekker are in the same fashionable style.
The later Multatuli comments on both the Society and on Dutch poetry of the early 19th century. From his mature view point the Society
is characterized by silliness: his mockery borders on derision. His com-ments on Dutch poetry are also derogatory. They bear reference to the once beioved poets recited during the Department's meetings, which were afterwards looked upon as nothing better than humourless imita-tors. His attitude to the Society for Public Welfare and its poetry appears to have changed completely, hut why?
Multatuli, along with his old friends, may have pretended to educate the nation through literature, as well as sharing with them strong honds with 18th century libera1 progressiveness, hut his approach was far more radical than theirs, as he rejected prevailing Christianity in favour of humanist convictions and unlike them demanded from literature that more than anything else it should show complete novelty. His work confirms and strengthens the social pretension of his youth, hut also combines this pretension with the romantic requirement of, above all, originality.
Renewal and tradition
The investigation in this section, the title of which is a reference to the tnbute paid to Professor A.L. Sötemann on the occasion of his leaving office (1985), is a critica! analysis of Sötemann's influential book The Slructure oj'Max Havelaar' (1966).
What does Sötemann mean when he uses the word 'structure'? Two concepts of structure seem to play apart in the discussion, namely struc-ture 111 the sense of composition or construction, and at the sàme time the ~oncept of structure as specified by W ellek and Warren, when they state: Structure" is a concept including both content and form so far as they are organized for aesthetic purposes. The work of art is, then, considered as a whole system of signs, serving a specific aesthetic purpose.'
There's a difference between these two concepts, in as much _as Wellek and Warren's fails to select subjects of study. Anything could be 'orga-lUzed for aesthetic purposes'. In Sötemann's usage, the clearer concept of st
ructure as 'construction' is predominant. Nonetheless, Wellek a11d War ren ' s c aracterization h of the work of art as 'a whole system o stgns f · ' leads toa certain confusion in Sötemann's approach. The conclusion he arnves at, namely that Multatuli's navel shows total coherence is, strictly speaking, a restatement ofhis initia! somewhat obscure basic assumption, rather th an a true conclus10n . extracted from the stu yd .
The narrator Ernest Stern has been discussed in many studies on Max Havelaar, because Stern as a narrator knows a lot more than would be
consistent with the characteristics of the figure Stern. Sötemann supports
Oversteegen's solution to this problem. They both believe that Stern
should be seen as a mock writer using in his turn an omniscient narrator.
This view requires the rather improbable supposition that Multatuli
created Stern in order to create a narrator who knew more than Stern
himself <lid. Neither Oversteegen's nor any other solution can <lispel the
fact chat Max Havelaar, 'as far as composition goes, [ ... ] is the greatest
mess possible' (D.H. Lawrence), at least as long as the reader judges the
book's composition on the basis of realistic standards. But according to
other standards, which this treatise presents as being more appropriate,
the compository irregularities appear to be effective suggestions of
Mul-tatuli's con tempt for artistic perfection. He is stressing his sincerity above his artistic skill, demonstrating his skill by using it inversely.
An interesting reaction to Sötemann's thesis was put forward by
Wil-lem]. van der Paardt, a theorist whose views incorporate the possibility
of something approaching an objective science of literature. On this
basis, Van der Paardt discussed the scientific character of the judgments
about the literary value of the work. His two main questions are the
disputable objectivity of these judgments and the importance of
structu-ral standards in the process of evaluation.
Since, as he quite rightly claims, objective judgments in literature are
irnpossible, he considers the evaluation ofliterature by literary scholars to be undesirable. His view demands that scholarship and criticism be kept apart. In contrast to Van der Paardt's theories, in this treatise literary scholarship is not characterized by objectivity, but rather by a readiness to
consider all opinions critically, especially chose of the scholar himself.
Therefore criticism is seen as a necessity for scholarship. Van der Paardt's
assumption chat Sötemann would have supposed his own judgments to
be objective, is mainly untenablc.
Van der Paardt challenges the special status of the structural standards
as being the most important standards for the evaluation of literature.
This treatise supports the challenge itself, but not the resulting view that
Sötemann would have claimed this status. He is indeed using structural
standards. But ultimately bis thesis does not present these criteria as tools
for objective research. Instead, they serve him as material for the account
ofhis final evaluation.
All in all, Sötemann's thesis appears to be incomplete and debatable, as is the case with any literary criticism. Nevertheless his book, which was
considered to be avant-garde in 1966, should nowadays be seen as apart
of the tradition ofDutch literary scholarship, and as a valid account of a
fine scholar's evaluation of a great novel.
\
{
The rnany-sided muse
In quite a number of Multatuli's books, an unusual figure of uncertain identity appears, who bears the name of Fancy. This section is a comment on places in Multatuli's work where the Fancy-figure is presented and on
the Fancy-figure itself. Biographical information is included, because of
the close link between this particular author's life and work, shown by
the fact that Eduard Douwes Dekker also used his Fancy-figure in private
letters and personal relations. Our starting-point will be the view that
Fancy was one of Multatuli's means of giving expression to ideas about
his position as a writer.
The first chapter supplies an introduction to the problem of fancy in
English literature, especially in Coleridge's use ofimagination and fancy.
The second deals with the meaning of the word fancy in 19th century
Dutch, where it seems to have been a rather unfamiliar loan-word,
carrying the same semantic content as in English.
Discussion ofMultatuli's Fancy starts proper in 1860, with the plans for the novel ofthat name, which was never published except partially in the Walter Peters story in Multatuli's Ideas. As Dekker's letters show, Fancy
was associated with everyday struggles, the problem ofhow to uphold
one's ideals in the face of chose all too common commitments like
fee-ding one's children. Another problem with his writing was Dekker's strong predisposition to adopt the role of the social reformer, far more than that of the writer. But in fact he had hopes of combining the two: making a contribution to the changes he wanted to see come about
through his writing.
In 'Max Havelaar to Multatuli' (1860), disappointment about
Dek-ker's thwarted ambition leads toa disillusionment with writing. 'Multa
-tuli' who is Dekker the writer, is attacked by 'Havelaar', who is Dekker
the reformer. One recognizes typical Multatulian paradox because this disillusionment is expressed in a piece of writing.
Besides, Multatuli complains that as a writer one has to strain oneselfin an unnatural way to get the effect needed. Not only does the hack writer face this 'dilemma ofMultatuli's', but also the sincere writer of principle is obliged to use lies and tricks to get his readers interested. Fancy, in 'Max Havelaar to Multatuli' appearing as an idealizing name for Havelaar's beloved Fanny, is associated with a solution for this rationally insoluble problem, because the only way to produce really sincere writing appears to be the method used in Havelaar's (unpublishable) letters to Fancy. If the writer is able to face 'the mundane', to rescue his ideals and to idealize
his own situation, here indeed is an opportunity for him to write really
well. This method is: writing as if writing love-letters, which are by nature extremely personal and confidential.
Letters (r86r). It is an extrapolation of the main themes of'Max Havelaar
to Multatuli', Max Havelaar again being the centra] figure. In it are
indeed Havelaar's very persona] 'letters to Fancy' which according to
'Max Havelaar to Multatuli' could not be published at all. Fancy in Love Letters has grown into a many-sided muse, a partly symbolic figure in
which idealistic values such as love and imagination are presented as essential far Multatuli as an author. The book intimates (and on the basis
of the historie records appears) to give an idealized version of Dekker's
life, especially ofhis marriage, his love far his mistress and his struggle as a writer and revolutionary leader in their mutual relationship.
The book gives new expression to the view that writing far Multatuli
is just possib]e only when he is able to see himself and his environment idealized. Moreover Love Letters is a representation of Max Havelaar's
development from faint idealism, through a stage of narrow minded
realism and disillusionment with writing to an idealism directly linked to
reality. The farces that threaten his work as an author (and as a refarmer)
are defeated after all but part of the impression of Love Letters is indebted
to the lively presentation ofHavelaar's strugg]e which implies that those
farces are strong enough to remain a permanent danger.
In the remaining work here under discussion (Ideas, Studies of Millions,
the posthumous fragments Uncompleted sheets and Dekker's private
]et-ters to Mimi Hamrninck Schepel), Fancy is used once again to accentuate aspects of the ties between Multatuli's authorship and idealism (concei
-ved as a faith in the reality and fulfiJability of ethica] ideals). Multatuli
continu es his cult of persona] idealization, whilst at the same time
ideali-zing the typicaJ human qualities, which he identifies with 'the natura!'
and the good, but at the same time showing disapproval far 'the
unnatu-ral' which he identifies with the bad and the inhuman.
His hooks are representations of a struggle to stick to these beliefs.
Fancy stands for an expanding complex of concepts in their mutual
relation, all supporting the main characters in chat same struggle: feeling
in genera!, love, the loved one or other inspiring persons, fantasy,
imagi-nation and even necessity. Sometimes Fancy is identified with belief
itself.
The Walter Peters story presents the same motifs scaled down to the
world of a growing boy. His everyday struggle, the threats to his idea
-lism, are implied in his narrow-minded education. He is inspired by
Fancy as his fantasy, and by his friend Femke, who reminds him ofFancy. Among his fantasies is the plan to become a king or emperor to better the
world ('Walter's dream'), corresponding to simi]ar plans ofMultatuli's. In the Walter story, the possible dangers of these fantasies are amp]y demonstrated.
In the last chapter, similarities and differences between Multatuli and some other writers are glanced at: Coleridge, who appears to have had no
direct influence on Multatuli, the German writer Jean Paul (r763-r825),
who rnight very well have influenced him, and the Dutch poets Willem
Bilderdijk (r756-r83 r) and Is. da Costa (r798-r860). Finally, the treatise
deals with Multatuli's comp]icated relation to cu]tura] movements like
rationalist neoclassicism, emotionalism and romanticism.
In short: this section of the thesis demonstrates the many references to
the Fancy figure, and shows how all these references are Jinked with
