Schertsen, schimpen en schateren. Geschiedenis van het lachen in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, zestiende en zeventiende eeuw.

Schertsen, schimpen en schateren. Geschiedenis van het lachen in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, zestiende en zeventiende eeuw. By Johan Verberckmoes (Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Uitgeverij Sun Memoria, 1998. 287pp.) and Lachen in de Gouden Eeuw. Een geschiedenis van Nederlandse humor. By Rudolf Dekker (Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek 1997. l9lpp.).

Anyone who has ever watched the slapstick comedy, The Three Stooges, must have concluded that America of the 1930's had a child-like sense of humor. Within the perimeters of the twentieth century what Americans find humorous and laugh at has evolved considerably. With that in mind, how far extracted is the humor of the 16th and 17th century in the Northern and Southern Netherlands? These two invigorating studies allow us to view humor of the early modern period from the outside world (as portrayed in jest-books) and the inside world (as depicted in personal documents). Besides crossing four centuries there are cultural, religious, political, social, and gender factors that play an important role in laughter of earlier times. Johan Verberckmoes' Schertsen, schimpen en schateren. Geschiedenis van het lachen in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden, zestiende en zeventiende eeuw which has been recently translated into English (Laughter, Jest-books and Society in the Spanish Netherlands, St. Martins' Press 1999) is an unique study addressing laughter during the religious-political volatile era of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the Southern Netherlands. Verberckmoes' sources are jest-books and their Latin forerunners, "Facetiae" which were compilations of anecdotes, usually stories orally passed down from generation, to generation, and memoirs, diaries, chronicles, published data from various sources in which the political importance of telling jokes and laughter is attributed during the reform and Dutch Revolt. These sources are examined before the Reformation and the Dutch Revolt, and then re-examined in the context of the Counter-Reformation.

According to the medievalist Mikhail Bakhtin, humor in the Middle Ages was polarized by the official culture of the church, state, and feudal lords who condemned laughter, and the comical culture of the populace. During the sixteenth and seventeenth century the history of humor underwent a significant shift which is Verberckmoes' starting point. Besides the abundance of banal piss, poop, and sex jokes which prevailed in the Middles Ages and up to the 16th century, the comical culture of the folk in the Southern Netherlands culminated in its puns towards the political situation and Catholic religion. For one, the Catholic Church and its hypocrisy had become the brunt of humor. Whereas humor is often a human means of tolerating and accepting certain situations, the political and religious (sacrilegious) humor of the sixteenth century hit too close to home. It had become a radical method of expressing criticism towards the church. Reformers pushed the limits of the Catholic Church's tolerance by mocking the essence of the Catholic religion and theology, and ridiculing the Eucharist, Mother Mary, the saints, relics, the clergy, the ceremonies, and purgatory. Jest-books such as Een nyeuwe clucht boeck made fun of priests by portraying them as being moronic, as having a shaky knowledge of Latin and the scriptures, as being unchaste, and only being career-minded. They were characterized as sots, bon vivants, and losers. During the Counter-Reformation such jest-books were censored and re-written to the likings of the Catholic church. In new jest-books anecdotes pertaining to religious affairs, witchcraft, spells, scenarios w ith nudity, and immoral love stories were omitted. According to Verberckmoes this development did not occur at the height of the Counter-Reformation in the Southern Netherlands but was a slow shift, and the change was clearly evident by 1700.

Whereas Verberckmoes' dissertation lets us observe the humor of early modern society from the cultural, political, and religious world, Dekker's Lachen in de Gouden Eeuw (Laughter in the Golden Age) allows us to view humor and laughter from the personal one. Some years ago while in the Dutch national archives Dekker stumbled upon a book of anecdotes written by Aernout van Overbeke (1632--1674). In his book of anecdotes, the Lutheran lawyer recorded some 2440 jokes and anecdotes throughout his lifetime. The diversity of jokes and anecdotes ranged from physical handicaps, women, permissive parenting, capital punishment, the piss, poop, sex joke genre, to the malicious The Three Stooges-slapstick type. For example, in one anecdote the Standholder-King, William III (1650--1702), and his secretary, Constantijn Huygens Jr. (1628--1697) are portrayed. While Huygens was hunched over in agony after bumping his head on a low doorway, the Stadholder replied, "you don't have to curtsy that low".

One of the intriguing questions Dekker poses in this study is how the image of foreigners of the droll Dutchman of the 17th century transformed into the dour Dutchman of the 19th century. The Dutch of the 19th century were portrayed as gloomy and sullen preachers and educators. According to Dekker the seeds of this trend of restraining laughter were planted already in Van Overbeke's time. During the Dutch Golden Age theologians, dogmatic Calvinists, and the writers of conduct books condemned laughter, especially the kind that resembled an uncontrolled howl, and laughing at physical impairments. By the 18th century this trend in the codes of laughter had become visible in social behavior of the urban elite, and trickled down to the rest of Dutch society. Although this more civilized and controlled laugh is apparent in jest-books of the 17th and 18th century, Van Overbeke's anecdotes leaves much to be desired. One of the reasons Dekker uses to explain how the anecdotes deviate from the conduct books and theolo gians is Van Overbeke bohemianism. Besides being a solicitor (and a lousy one at that), Van Overbeke was unconventional, and mingled with artists and writers as well as politicians. He was a regular social butterfly, and what better way to be the light of the party then to tell jokes and anecdotes? Another reason for Van Overbeke's book of anecdotes not complying with the (controlled) humor reflected in jest-books is that in everyday life the man on the street continued to laugh at the same banalities. Whereas jest-books indicate change and discontinuity in what was laughed at, personal documents betoken slower mutations caused by societal changes. Perhaps, change in humor is slower than we think; after all, The Three Stooges anno 2000 is still sometimes funny.