Vatterstreich

Benedetto Montagna (1481–1558), Sacrificio di Abramo

Vatterstreich / Father's Strike =

Zornhau(w) (Zornhut) / Toornige Houw - Wrath Cut - Wrath Hew - Guard of Wrath - Rage Guard =

Streithau(w) / Strife Cut

"an emotion, strike without thinking about the motion like a peasant using his axe."
(Jens P. Kleinau, Hans Talhoffer, A Historical Martial Arts blog)

"a vulnerable posture but one that allows the most instinctive and powerful blow."
(John Clements, Medieval swordsmanship : illustrated methods and techniques, 1998)

illustratie van (vermoedelijk) een Vatterstreich, Joachim Meyer, Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens, Stasbourg (Thiebolt Berger), 1570, illustrated by Tobias Stimmer’s workshop (inc. Hans Christoffel Stimmer)

"Der Zornhauw ist ein Schlimmer Hauw von deiner rechten Achsel / gegen deines widerparts Lincken ohrs / oder durch sein Gesicht und Brust / Schlims durch wie die zwo Linien / so durch die auffrecht Linien kreutzweiß uber einander sich schrencken anzeigen. Diß ist der sterckest under allen andern / als darinnen alle krafft unnd manligkeit des des Mans gegen seinem feindt im Kempffen unnd Fechten gelegen / darumb er auch von den Alten Streithauw oder Vatterstreich genant unnd geheissen wirt. Von gedachten Lini findestuhernach / rc."
(Joachim Meyer, Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens, Strasbourg, 1570)

“The Wrath Cut is a diagonal cut from your right shoulder at your opponent’s left ear or through his face and chest, diagonally through as shown by the two crossed lines that pass through the vertical line. This is the strongest of all cuts, and embodies all the might and virility of the combatant against his opponent in duelling and combat; therefore it is also called the Strife Cut [Streithauw] or Father Stroke by the combat masters of old. Concerning these lines you will find hereafter, etc.”
(english translation by Jeffrey L. Forgeng, in his book Joachim Meyer, The art of combat : a German martial arts treatise of 1570, London New York (Greenhill Palgrave Macmillan), 2006.

Joachim Meyer, Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens, Stasbourg (Thiebolt Berger), 1570, illustrated by Tobias Stimmer’s workshop (inc. Hans Christoffel Stimmer)

A Foundational Description of the Art of Fencing: A Thorough Description of the Free, Knightly and Noble Art of Fencing, Showing Various Customary Defenses, Affected and Put Forth with Many Handsome and Useful Drawings, is a German fencing manual that was published in 1570. Its author was Joachim Meyer. The manual was made for and was dedicated to Meyer's patron Count Palatine Johann Casimir. This fechtbuch builds on his earlier work, a manuscript written in 1560 - the MS A.4°.2, and presents a complex, multi-weapon treatise. (Wikipedia dd. 30/09/2016)

Germain Hoyau & Mathurin Nicolas, Histoire d'Abraham, 1574 (detail). Bibliothèque National de France (RES. FOL-ED-5 (G))

→

"So what’s that Vatterstreich, exactly translated as the Father’s Strike?

If someone receives a Vatterstreich it means a child, a son gets a birching with a rod. This is based on the biblical story of Abraham and his son Isaac pictured often with Abraham holding the sword ready for mighty hew to kill his son as a sacrifice to God. Despite the fact, that Abraham used a knife in the book Genesis 22:1-13, the expression “Vaterstreich” was a synonym for a father hitting his son on one hand, and for a devastating killing stroke on the other.

Somebody who may have known what the Vatterstreich is about in fencing is Johann Fischart, who added a interesting Fechtschul passage to the work of Francois Rabelais (see 'A Fechtschule in the works of Francois Rabelais?'). In his Aller Praktik Grossmutter (first pub. 1572) he named the Vatterstreich again:

Des Nili siben gemünd und mund

Fallen mir jetz wohl ein zur stund

Gleich wie dem Predicanten gleich

Die Fechtschul, kreuz und Vatterstreich:

Die sibend zahl ist mächtig gräftig

Wie solchs die Naß beweiset hefftig

Hett er die sieben Mönch bewisen

So wer der Teuffel auch geprisen"

The Vatterstreich and the Creutzhaw are something very special. We get the hint of the meaning by citing the other mentioning of the Vatterstreich “ze. ohn den Vatterstreich/ welchen der Schmidlin in seinen Fechtschulpredigten weißt/ und deß Bawren Speichelhaw.” Adding on the list of a lot of fencing terms are hints to the Lutheran theology. 'Schmidlin' is the nickname of Jakob Andreae (March 25, 1528 – January 7, 1590) an outstanding German theologian of his period. Andreae was the author of so called “Fechtschulpredigten” as Fischart called them. But these Fechtschulpredigten where nothing else than the sermons in which Andrea calls out to battle for their believe and fight against the devil (Sechs Predigten von etlichen der Augsburgischen Confession zugethanen Theologen, 1572, 1580) He calls out to the illiterate laymen Lay to fight, to learn the „Vatterstreich” and that „einer creutzweiß drein hawe und wider den Teuffei nicht vil Fechterbößlein gebraucht” (one should strike firmly crosswise and should not use a lot of fencers charades against the devil).

To make the sign of a cross is called 'Kreuz schlagen' ('becreutzen' modern 'sich bekreuzigen') signing the cross against the devil is one of the meanings of 'creutzhaw' (Kreuzhaw, Cross-strike). Interesting to note, that we find the 'Creutzhaw' in Paulus Hector Mair’s Work as a piece of fencing. 'so tritt mit deinem rechten fuoss zurugk, und haw dich in den Creutzhaw zuo seinem rechten or.' (so step back with your right foot, and strike in the Cross strike at his right ear). But we should look again at Joachim Meyer:

"Kreutzhauw.
Kreutzhauw seind an jhm selber zwen Zornhäuw von beiden seitten / werden volbracht durch die zwo
Schlimm und hangenden Lini / so von beiden seitten schlims durch den Mann streichen"
(Joachim Meyer, Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens, Strasbourg, 1570)


Conclusion

So the Kreutzhau is a doubled Vatterstreich from both sides. And seeing this brings us back to the assumption that Johann Fischart is not only a follower of Luther but a fencer who is common with the terms Joachim Meyer is using, and both living in Straßbourg at the same time. The fencing terms are placed in at least three meanings. The first is the biblical reference, second the Lutheran, third the fencing. Like in many aspects of the late medieval and renaissance times, we see that religious believes touched nearly ever part of life.


Addendum

Using fencing terms in the theological dispute is found often. Another example is the dispute between Hyronymous Emser and Martin Luther where Emser states:

"Vnd demnach ich mit eym szo vormerten vnd geübten fechtmeyster
auff den plan treten, vnnd vnsern heyligen glauben mit der hülff gotes
wider yn vortedigen, Will, ich vor den rechten treffen, vnd ehe dann ich
wort mit wort vorsetz ader sein reformation buch von blat tzu blat
vorlege, vorhin durch disze vorred eyn vngeferlich frey auffheben oder
schulrecht thun, vnd gleich wie man auff der fechtschul nit allwegen
ym schwert sonder auch mitt langen spiessen vnd kurtzen degen tzu samen gehet.

Alszo will ich mich erstlich auff disze dreierley monier auch vorsuchen,
Ob ich Lutern der seyne schirmschleg vnd spiegelfechten alleyn auff list geferlich
vnnd nawe griff, ader tzu letzt auch auff die flucht gestalt hat yndert darnach ein
vorteyl ablauffen möcht."

(Hyronymus Emser, Wider das vnchristeliche buch Martini Luters Augustiners, an den Teutschen Adel aufgangen, 1521)"

(Jens P. Kleinau, Hans Talhoffer, A Historical Martial Arts blog)


Addendum 2

"Wanneer hij slaat van omhoog, houw toornig naar zijn oog.
Wordt hij dat gewaar, Neem boven af zonder gevaar."
(Johannes Liechtenauer (° ca 1320), geciteerd in Bert Gevaert, Te Wapen - Europa's vergeten krijgskunsten, Antwerpen (AUP/Davidsfonds), 2016, p. 82)

"Wanneer je tegenstander van zijn rechterkant slaat naar jou, tref hem dan krachtig met een Toornige Houw vanaf je rechterschouder. Als hij zacht bindt, richt dan je punt voorwaarts naar zijn gezicht en dreig om hem te steken. Wanneer je naar zijn gezicht dreigt te steken vanuit de Toornige Houw en hij merkt dit en verplaatst de steek met kracht, trek dan je zwaard omhoog, weg van het zijne. Houw vervolgens naar zijn hoofd van de andere kant, langs zijn blad."
(Sigmund Ringeck (begin 16de eeuw), geciteerd in Bert Gevaert, Te Wapen - Europa's vergeten krijgskunsten, Antwerpen (AUP/Davidsfonds), 2016, p. 82)

"De Toornige Houw breekt met de punt alle hoge houwen en is toch niets meer dan een simpele boerenslag. Voer hem als volgt uit: wanneer je in het naderen naar hem komt, en hij van zijn rechterzijde boven naar je hoofd slaat, sla jij ook van je rechterzijde van boven zonder enige parering gelijktijdig heftig op zijn zwaard. Is hij dan zwak aan het zwaard, stoot naar hem met je punt rechtstreeks lang en steek hem naar het gezicht of naar de borst. Tref hem zo. [...]
Wanneer je met de Toornige Houw naar hem slaat, stoot hem de punt lang naar het gezicht of naar de borst, zoals boven beschreven. Wordt hij de punt gewaar en pareert hij krachtig, doordat hij je zwaard opzij drukt, ga met je zwaard langs de kling van zijn zwaard hoog en boven weg van zijn zwaard. Sla hem langs de andere zijde wederom langs zijn zwaardkling op zijn hoofd. Dit noemt men 'boven afnemen'.
Breek dit als volgt: wanneer hij boven afneemt, bind met de lange snede krachtig tegen zijn zwaard in de richting van zijn hoofd."
(Peter von Danzig (15de eeuw), geciteerd in Bert Gevaert, Te Wapen - Europa's vergeten krijgskunsten, Antwerpen (AUP/Davidsfonds), 2016, p. 82)


→
More about the technique:

The Zornhau

PEAMHE (Pôle d’étude d’Arts Martiaux

Historiques Européens)(Paris, France)

The Zornhau

Dreynschlag - HEMA

(Historical European Martial Arts)

The Zornhau

MEMAG (The Medieval

European Martial Arts Guild)

Zornhau, oben abnehmen, duplieren, mutieren

Fencing guild of Trnava

→
"The “Zornhau-Ort” is one of the essential pieces of fencing from the Liechtenauer system 
[Johannes Liechtenauer (also Lichtnauer, Hans Lichtenawer) was a 14th-century German fencing master who had a great level of influence on the German fencing tradition, Wikipedia dd. 30/09/2016].
It is based on the premise that a fencer hits the other enemy to the head or the opponent’s right shoulder from the right shoulder of the attacker called 'rechter Oberhau' (right strike from above) . The adversary generates a 'Vor' (ahead, before) taking a tactical advantage by being the first who attacks a lethal point. It is in the act itself that the attacked must react in the 'Nach' (after, behind), if he does not want to be seriously injured or killed.

To stop the enemy, he will fight with the same means. That is that the strike from above is answered by a strike from above. And this is done with a great show of force and vigor. Thus this strike is called 'Zornhau'. Joachim Meyer describes in his 1570 book in the chapters on the fencing rapier and Dussak this action as 'Wehrstreich' (armed strike) and gives the 'Zornhau' a slightly different meaning. The principle to answer with same means is included in each book of fencing.


The mechanics of the Zufechten with the Oberhau

The opponent presents a right strike from above against the head or the shoulders. He hopes to hit by chance and luck in the first strike. There are only three way of doing this strike:

1. It is a testing strike to get in contact

Restricted to vision only based reactions for defense is pure horror compared to the contact based reactions. If you are in a binding situation where the blades touch, you always know where the blade of the opponent is. For this a lot of the fencers try to 'catch' the opponents blade in their first strike, making it long and straight. This strike ends in a Langort (long point) position where – if no blade is met – a stirring movement occurs or the fencer is jumping back irritated. The opponent is forced to nothing he can stand there and look amused at the 'sword catcher' because in most cases these strikes are short of distance, or if the measure is correct has a lot of opportunities to answer this flimsy attack.

2. It is a killing strike to be the first to hit heavily

The fencer has the same fear as the one who tries to fetch the opponents blade but uses a very different answer to overcome this fear. He jumps forward and strikes first with a lot of power. He hopes that he hits or the other one will defend himself by just parrying. The opponent is forced to react to this kind of berserk attack, but has a lot of options for it: evade, block, answer with the same etc. He can answer with a variety of actions, but he must change.

3. It is a tactical strike to occupy the territory

Being the first who occupies the middle line while getting into measure is a tactic you find in a lot of fighting systems. From this line you can thrust without any problems and block some actions of the opponent to your body. The opponent is forced to create a matching opposition or will be hit in the following action without having a chance to present a proper answer. He cannot evade, because there is nothing to evade. He cannot hit you on the head or stab you in the chest, because the way is blocked. He cannot stand there amused, because without any recognizable change of the attacker’s posture the strike will mutate into a hit by changing the distance using simple body movement.

There are a variety of striking movements from above the right shoulder. But only few who really aim at the head or body of the opponent. Doing a feint or trick or any other likewise movement is nothing that matters here.

A experienced fencer chooses the tactical strike, he aims ad the opponent’s body without forgetting his own, having his own protection always as priority number one. The simple offensive rule of the tactical strike is: if you do not meet anything get forward and you meet something (“Haw dreyn vnd hurt dar / rawsche hin trif ader la var ” GMN 3227a). If the opponent do not stop your blade, you got the ticket to continue. In the fight-books from the 14th century GMN 3227a to Joachim Meyer we find the recommendation to repeat these kind of strikes for several times until we hit or meet the opponent’s blade (“vnd vmermer eyns noch dem andern treiben / ab ym das erste vele / dacz daz ander das dritte ader daz vierde treffe” GMN 3227a).

As the Zornhau is the first lesson for the fencers, it is aimed to be an answer for all these kind of fencers.

1. Versus a testing strike

The 'sword catcher' will get more that he asked for. The Zornhau is a powerful strike that will destroy every feeling while smashing the blade out of the way.

2. Versus a killing strike

The Zornhau blocks the way by sheer force while it brings the own weapons point into the position for a thrust.

3. Versus a tactical strike

The Zornhau presents a opposition by changing position of the body and bringing the sword between the fencers in a thrusting position (Pflug) or a hanging position (Wechsel, Ochs) depending on the change during the end of the striking movement. Usually the Zornhau creates a hard contact and displaces the other strike by force thus occupying the middle line itself ready for a thrusting movement.

So the Zornhau is the swiss army knife for fencing-beginners even if the Twerhau presents more options and is the better strike (“Hie merke vnd wisse / das of dem ganczen / swerte / keyn haw / als redlich / zo heftik zo vertik vnd zo gut ist als der twerhaw” GMN 3227a). But the Zornhau is the fastest to bring (“zo ist im keyn haw als bereit / als der selbe aberhaw” GMN 3227a) and thus is the best to change from the role of the defender to the role of the attacker. This change is done by the the strike itself using sheer force and by the point.

To become the attacker the defender must bring an immediate threat into the game. Using a great show of force is always a threat and because he is aiming to the head and the shoulders of his attacker, the Zornhau brings the point nearer to the opponents body. If the point is not showing to the opponent at the end of the Zornhau, the Zornhau is parried effectively or not done properly. Ignoring the latter we must know that by parrying the Zornhau effectively the formerly attacker has changed into the role of the defender already and we won this part of the game.

Having the point looking eager to the body of the opponent we should not hesitate to use it. And on this the opponent has to change himself or he will be stabbed. And by using this chain of attacks (strike and thrust) we changed from being the defender to the role of the attacker.

There is a signal that is given us by the authors of the fight-books, so we can recognize if we have successfully become the attacker. It is the lateral pressure of the defending blade simply called 'wert her dir' in the GMN 3227a. In the 44a8 we find 'wirt er denn orts gewar | vnd vor setzt starck | vnd druckt dir dein swert auf die seittñ'. The reason for this explicit naming of a strong displacement and a heavy pressure to the side is the use of the training equipment modernly named 'Federschwert'. In the Messer Master Lecküchner reduced it to 'wirtt er des ortz gewar' again but he uses the Zornhau in combination with a thrust in a different way high above.

But regardless which equipment used, it is the small or big pressure to the side that signals: you just won the tactical game, now make the best out of it. (It can also mean that the opponent just fooled you but this is sophisticated fencing and thus rarely to find). To feel any pressure of the defender there must be a resistance presented by the attacker. This 'resistance' is the pressure done by the attacker. And this must always be directed to the head and body of the opponent ('czu koppe ader czu leibe / vnd mit nichte czum swerte' GMN 3227a). The movement of the Zornhau is supporting this kind of pressure in an excellent way.

Because of the lateral movement of the becoming defenders hand and blade and the crossbar of the weapons handle, the most obvious answer to that movement is moving the own blade upwards until it can switch to the other side of the opponent’s blade and do some harm.


Conclusion

The Zornhau is a tactical move to change from the role of the defender of a strike from above to the one of the attacker with the same strike and a thrust. To be the attacker gives us the advantage that we can hit with a greater chance of success the one who defends and tries to hit while defending.

To become the attacker we have two tools on our side: the show of force in the Zornhau and the point of the Zornhau. So training the Zornhau cannot be done without the show and using of force.

We are told how to recognize if we succeed in this role change by a lateral pressure of the opponents blade we should train to feel. All action followed by this signal is only there to keep this role until we successfully hit the opponent."

(Jens P. Kleinau, Hans Talhoffer, A Historical Martial Arts blog)

SaveSaveSaveSave

The Binding of Isaac

"The Binding of Isaac (Hebrew: ,(עֲקֵידַת יצִחְַק) also known as 'The Binding' ( הָעֲקֵידָה ) and the Akedah or Aqedah, is a story from the Hebrew Bible in which God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Moriah. The account states that Abraham "bound Isaac, his son" before placing him on the altar.

Adriaen Collaert (prent) naar Maerten de Vos, uitgever  Gerard de Jode, Offer van Isaak,
Geschiedenis van Abraham (serietitel), 1585,  plaatrand: h 201 mm × b 260 mm

According to the Hebrew Bible, God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice [Gen 22:2-8]. After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God." At this point, Abraham sees a ram caught in some nearby bushes and sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac.
The Book of Genesis does not tell the age of Isaac at the time. The Talmudic sages teach that Isaac was thirty-seven, likely based on the next biblical story, which is of Sarah's death at 127 [Genesis 23:1], being 90 when Isaac was born [Genesis 17:17, 21].
Genesis 22:14 states that the event occurred at 'the mount of the LORD'. The Books of Chronicles 3:1; Psalms 24:3; Book of Isaiah 2:3 & 30:29; and Book of Zechariah 8:3, identify the location of this event as the hill on which Solomon was said to later build the Temple, now believed to be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. [...]

Jewish views

Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's "imagination" led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. [...]
In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so.
Rabbi Ari Kahn (on the Orthodox Union website) elaborates this view as follows: Isaac's death was never a possibility — not as far as Abraham was concerned, and not as far as God was concerned. God’s commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be "raised up as an offering", and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable. This is precisely how the sages of the Talmud (Taanit 4a) understood the Akeida. Citing the Prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation against child sacrifice (Chapter 19), they state unequivocally that such behavior "never crossed God’s mind", referring specifically to the sacrificial slaughter of Isaac. Though readers of this parashah throughout the generations have been disturbed, even horrified, by the Akeida, there was no miscommunication between God and Abraham. The thought of actually killing Isaac never crossed their minds. [...]
Others suggest that Abraham's apparent complicity with the sacrifice was actually his way of testing God. Abraham had previously argued with God to save lives in Sodom and Gomorrah. By silently complying with God's instructions to kill Isaac, Abraham was putting pressure on God to act in a moral way to preserve life. More evidence that Abraham thought that he would not actually sacrifice Isaac comes from Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you." By saying we (as opposed to I), he meant that both he and Isaac would return. Thus, he did not believe that Isaac would be sacrificed in the end. [...]
In The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides argues that the story of the Binding of Isaac contains two "great notions". First, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac demonstrates the limit of humanity's capability to both love and fear God. Second, because Abraham acted on a prophetic vision of what God had asked him to do, the story exemplifies how prophetic revelation has the same truth value as philosophical argument and thus carries equal certainty, notwithstanding the fact that it comes in a dream or vision. [...]
In Glory and Agony: Isaac's Sacrifice and National Narrative, Yael S. Feldman argues that the story of Isaac's Binding, in both its biblical and post-biblical versions (the New Testament included) has had a great impact on the ethos of altruist heroism and self-sacrifice in modern Hebrew national culture. As her study demonstrates, over the last century the "Binding of Isaac" has morphed into the "Sacrifice of Isaac", connoting both the glory and agony of heroic death on the battlefield. [...]

Anon., Het Offer van Abraham, 1501-1600, olieverf op paneel,
118 cm x 87,5 cm, Antwerpen, Maagdenhuismuseum

Christian views

Abraham's faith in God is such that he felt God would be able to resurrect the slain Isaac, in order that his prophecy (Genesis 21:12) might be fulfilled. Early Christian preaching sometimes accepted Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac without elaborating. For example, Hippolytus of Rome says in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, "The blessed Isaac became desirous of the anointing and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world" (On the Song 2:15).
Other Christians from the period saw Isaac as a type of the "Word of God" who prefigured Christ. The majority of Christian Biblical commentators view this episode as prefiguring God's plan to have his own Son, Jesus, die on the cross as a substitute for humanity, much like the ram God provided for Abraham. This fulfilled Abraham's reply to Isaac's question of where was the animal that would be used for the sacrifice; Abraham's affirmation that "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" is seen as a prophetic foreshadow of the promise of the Lamb of God. Abraham's willingness to give up his own son Isaac is seen, in this view, as foreshadowing the willingness of God the Father to sacrifice his Son; also contrasted is Isaac's submission in the whole ordeal with Christ's, the two choosing to lay down their own lives in order for the will of God to be accomplished, as no struggle is mentioned in the Genesis account. Indeed, both stories portray the participants carrying the wood for their own sacrifice up a mountain. [...]
An alternate interpretation proposes that Calvary was on a section of Mount Moriah, the temple mount, which has subsequently been divided from the main part for the purpose of defending Jerusalem. As such the crucifixion would occur on the same mountain.

Muslim views

In Islamic sources, when Abraham tells his son about the vision, his son accepted to be sacrificed for the fulfillment of God's command, and no binding to the altar occurred. [...]
Abraham saw a vision about sacrificing his son. When he told his son about it, his son agreed to fulfill the command of God in the vision. When they both had submitted their will to God and were ready for the sacrifice, God told Abraham he had fulfilled the vision, and provided him with a ram to sacrifice instead.

Modern research

In the original E version of the Binding Abraham disobeys God’s command, sacrificing the ram "instead of his son" (v.13) on his own responsibility and without being stopped by an angel: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son; but Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked and beheld, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went, and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son" (v. 10,13)
Abraham's ethical rebellion against God in Sodom [cfr the story of Sodom (Genesis 18), in which Abraham protests against God's unethical plan to destroy the city, without distinguishing between the righteous and the wicked: "Far be it from you to do such a thing.. Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just?"] culminates in his disobedience to God, refusing to sacrifice Isaac.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou has speculated that it is possible that the story "contains traces of a tradition in which Abraham does sacrifice Isaac.
["It may be that the biblical story contains traces of a tradition in which Abraham does sacrifice Isaac, for in Gen.22:19 Abraham appears to return from the mountain without Isaac".  Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and child sacrifice: biblical distortions of historical realities, 2004, pp. 193–194.]
Richard Elliott Friedman has argued that in the original E story Abraham may have carried out the sacrifice of Isaac, but that later repugnance at the idea of a human sacrifice led the redactor of JE to add the lines in which a ram is substituted for Isaac.
[Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible With Sources Revealed, 2003 , p. 65.]
Some scholars also point at the genealogical snippet (verses 20-24) as containing a hint to the question whether Abraham sacrificed Isaac or not. First of all, the description of a rash of newborns placed right after the main story suggests the existence of some direct cause-effect connection between the two. [...]  v. 24 begins with an interpretational invitation and continues with the names [Re’umah (ראומה) – "see what"; Tevah (טבח) – "slaughtering" or "slaughtered"; Gaham (גחם) – "flame" or "burning"; Tahash (תחש) – "skin" often used to cover the tabernacle; Ma‘akah (מעכה) – "blown" or "crushed"] which seem to explain the cause of the rash of newborns present at the conclusion of the pericope: somebody had been blown, slaughtered, put on the tabernacle and burned.
[Kosior, Wojciech, ""You Have Not Withheld Your Son, Your Only One from Me". Some Arguments for the Consummated Sacrifice of Abraham", 2013, The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. 8 (5/2013): 73–75. Retrieved 16 June 2014.]"
(Wikipedia dd. 29/09/2016)

Een seer wonderlijck Teeken

"Op Vrijdag, 19 Februari 1552 (o. s.), tusschen drie en vier uren 's narniddags werd er, gansch Brabant door, een wonder luchtverschijnsel waargenomen, dat nergens zoo goed werd gezien als te Deurne op Exterlaer. Hiervan gaf Frans Liefrink, "figuersnyder", eene "prynte" in 't licht welker opschrift hieronder voorkomt.

Anon., Een seer wonderlijck Teeken, 1552 of 1553, met sjabloon ingekleurde houtsnede met
typografische tekst, 341 x 257 mm (blad), 184 x 252 mm (prent), Hans Liefrinck (ed.),
Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotneek van België, Prentenkabinet, S.11.143325
 (overgenomen uit Padmos 2000, afb.174, p. 281)

"Een seer wonderlijck Teeken dwelck ghezien is gheweest inder

locht, Boven Antwerpen Van seer Velle duversche Personen

Int Jaer. M. D. LJJ den XIX. dach Februarius.

Anno M. D. LJJ den XIX. dach Februarii tsvrijdachs nader noene tusschen drij en vieren, is int hertochdom van Brabant, ende principalick boven de stadt van Antwerpen gesien geweest een wonderlick teecken in de locht : Dit teecken is te sien geweest niet alleen van binnen de stadt, van ontallijcken veel volcks edel ende onedel, groet ende cleene, maer oock van veel landtlieden, schippers ende ander volck buyten de stadt. Ende hoe wel dat dit teeckcn hem so volcomelick niet en verthoonde boven de stadt (midts dat sommighe dinghen daer af vergaen mochten wesen) so ist nochtans perfectelick gesien geweest op een plaetse een half mijle buyten Antwerpen, geheeten Dexter laer. Aldaer zijn geweest sommighe fijn borghers van Antwerpen, ende noch veel landtlieden van daer ontrent, de welcke dit wonderlick teecken wel een half ure lanck wel sterckelick doorsien hebben : also dat dbescheedt van desen ter stont gesonden is geweest aen de Key : Ma : Ende is gesien geweest in sulcker voeghen so als hier na volght.
Inden eersten de Sonne schijnende wt den Suydtwesten, soo sijn daer gesien geweest twee reghenboghen rugge teghen rugge, bijcans hebbende tfaetsoen van een muelenijser of Bourgoens cruys, ende waren seer sterck van verwe, staende Noordwaert. De Sonne hadde ront om haer seker ronden al de selve coleuren hebbendc, maer niet so sterck van verwe. Item hadde oock twee oft drij manieren van cleyn sonnen, waeraf dat de ghene die Oostwaert stont, een strepe hadde gelijck eenen steert, ende was seer lanck ende claer witachtich. Tcleyn licht dat westwaert stont, had oock eenen steert, maer niet so lanck als den anderen. De principael Sonne ten onderganck gaende, so zijn de drij cleyn sonnen neffens een gaen staen, ende waeren gelijck vierighe clooten. En daer is een veranderinge gevolght, welcke wel doorsien is gheweest van sommighe edellieden die welcke wt Hollant quuamen ende hebben gheimagineert alle daer te sienen eenen arent oft voghel hebbende een proye onder zijn clauwen, ende dat daer oock hem verthoonde een viervoetighe beeste als eenen hase oft desgelijcke, leggende zijn ooren inden neck.
Veel lieden wouden hier wt coniectureren de victorie van den eenen Prince tegen den anderen in dese aenstaende oorloghe. Maer de sekerheyt van dien is allene bekent God onsen Vader almachtich, den welcken wij bidden door Jesum Christum onsen versoender ende salichmaker gebenedijt, dat hij sijn roede sachtelick late over ons gaen.Want aengesien de groote boosheyt die nv in de weerelt overhandt neempt in alle staten van menschen, ende oock de diversche quade opinien in onsen heylighen Christe geloove (de welcke procederen eensdeels wt listicheyt des vijants, so can men wel bevroeden dat den slach geheven is. God de heere wil ons niet slaen als in wreetheyt, maer wil ons castijen als kinderkens tot onser salicheyt ende tot zijnre eere ende glorie

AMEN.

Gheprint Tantwerpen op die Lombaerde veste

inden witten hasewint by my Hans

Liefrinck figuersnijder."

(transcriptie tekst bij de houtsnede en inleidend citaat: Stockmans 1975, deel 1, pp. 255-256)

Een "Bourgoens cruys" of Bourgondisch kruis is in de heraldiek een schuingeplaatst kruis van twee knoestige stokken, soms laurierstokken genoemd, vaak eindigend in breed uitlopend omkrullend loofwerk. (Wikipedia, dd 27/09/2016)

Een heraldisch correct Bourgondisch kruis,
(door Robert Prummel uit nl, CC BY-SA 3.0)

De vlag der Spaanse Nederlanden (1482-1579) was een variatie daarop. (Wikipedia, dd 27/09/2016)

De vlag der Spaanse Nederlanden (publiek domein)

Die 'aenstaende oorloghe' zou kunnen verwijzen naar de oorlog tussen keizer Karel en Hendrik II van Frankrijk, die laatste had de strijd tegen het keizerrijk hervat. Door het verdrag van Chambord uit 1552 stond Maurits van Saksen Toul, Verdun en Metz af aan Hendrik II , die zo de geallieerde werd van de Duitse protestanten. Wanneer die laatsten de keizer uit Innsbrück verjagen, palmde hij ook Lotharingen , de Elzas en Piëmont in. En hij wou meer. Maria van Hongarije organiseerde het verzet in de Nederlanden tot haar broer Karel terugkeerde. Die sloot datzelfde jaar het Verdrag van Passau af met de Duitse vorsten, waarin hij de godsdienstvrijheid van de lutheranen waarborgt. Hij ronselt vervolgens een leger, trok de Nederlanden door en viel Frankrijk aan. Enkele edellieden uit de Nederlanden, zoals Egmont en Boussu, voegden hun troepen bij die van de hertog van Alva en heroverden Toul en Verdun. Het beleg van Metz was er echter te veel aan en Karel blies de aftocht, geveld door het noodweer en krom van het jicht, en keerde terug naar Brussel. Tijdens zijn ziekte gaf Maria van Hongarije de generaals het bevel om aan te vallen. Ze veroverden Terwaan en Hesdin, de oude residentie van de Bourgondische hertogen. Tussen Bergen en Kamerijk voegde de keizer zich weer bij zijn leger dat zijn zegetocht voortzette. In augustus 1553 wordt het door het leger van Hendrik II bedreigde Brussel, gered door een uitval van de Spaanse troepen en keurtroepen onder het bevel van keizer Karel zelf. [naar Lieven Struye, Kroniek van België, Antwerpen/Zaventem (Standaard Uitgeverij en Elsevier Librico), 1987, p. 338 én Wikipedia dd. 29/09/2016)]

"De prent toont een zeldzaam meteorologisch verschijnsel dat op 19 februari 1552 (misschien was het in 1553) te zien was in Brabant en meer in het bijzonder boven Antwerpen. Op dat ogenblik verscheen er rond de zon een halo met een volledige kleine lichtkrans, een bijna volledige grote lichtkring en twee nevenzonnen. De prent is een synthese van het fenomeen, maar in de tekst
wordt gezegd dat niet alles overal even duidelijk was te zien.
De uitgever, Hans Liefrinck verzamelde naar eigen zeggen verscheidene getuigenissen in verband met het gebeuren en geeft in de tekst een opsomming en een beschrijving van zijn bronnen. Hij voegt eraan toe dat de keizer zelf onmiddellijk werd geïnformeerd over het gebeuren. Het volgende deel
geeft een gedetailleerde beschrijving en tenslotte wordt er dieper ingegaan op de betekenis van de halo. Volgens Liefrinck dachten vele getuigen dat het een voorteken was met betrekking tot de overwinning van een prins in een nakende oorlog, maar, zo voegt hij er kritisch aan toe, enkel God kent de betekenis van het verschijnsel.
Prenten als deze kenden vanaf het midden van de zestiende eeuw een ruime verspreiding. De beeldverslaggeving over allerhande spectaculaire natuurverschijnselen en rampen speelde handig in op de vraag van een steeds groeiende markt. De houtsnijder en prentenuitgever Hans Liefrinck was een van de eersten die zich specialiseerde in dergelijke gelegenheidsgrafiek. Zeker is wel dat dit soort prenten niet bedoeld was om te worden verzameld. Ze werden niet veilig opgeborgen in kostbare prentencollecties, maar weggegooid of gerecupereerd nadat de actualiteitswaarde was verdwenen.
(Padmos 2000, pp. 333-334)

Het verschijnsel toont gelijkenissen met een prent uit de 17de eeuw:

prent uit de 17de eeuw, overgenomen uit Jean-Pierre Verdet, Le ciel, ordre et désordre,
Découvertes Gallimard, 1987, p. 125 naar een oorspronkelijke prent uit de Bibliothèque Nationale

"Les dedoublements du soleil, !es parhélies, et ceux de la lune, !es 'parasélènes', comme les a appelees Conrad Lycosthène, sont des phénomènes optiques du à la refraction de la lumière dans les petits cristaux de glace qui peuvent flotter dans la haute atmosphère. Ils s'accompagnent d'arcs qui, en se croisant, peuvent effectivement produire des figures impressionnantes. Cet illustrateur du xviie siècle y voit des torches, des flammèches et des épées. [...] Le soleil [...] peut s'entourer d'un halo ou d'une couronne, on le vit même cerné d'épis et de cercles de couleurs [...] Et, si le temps d'une éclipse, il peut disparaître, il arrive aussi que trois soleils se lèvent: l'habituel que deux chiens accompagnent. Il est même des cas, prodige exceptionnel, où les chiens du soleil le suivent du petit matin jusqu'au soir." (Jean-Pierre Verdet, Le ciel, ordre et désordre, Découvertes Gallimard, 1987, pp. 125-126)

Very bright sun dogs in Fargo, North Dakota. Also visible are parts of the 22° halo (the arcs passing through each sundog), a sun pillar (the vertical line) and the parhelic circle (the horizontal line)

"Sun dogs (or sundogs), mock suns, or phantom suns, scientific name parhelia (singular parhelion), are an atmospheric phenomenon that consists of a pair of bright spots on either horizontal side on the Sun, often co-occurring with a luminous ring known as a 22° halo [a ring with a radius of approximately 22° around the Sun]
Sun dogs are a member of a large family of halos, created by light interacting with ice crystals in the atmosphere. Sun dogs typically appear as two subtly colored patches of light to the left and right of the Sun, approximately 22° distant and at the same elevation above the horizon as the Sun. They can be seen anywhere in the world during any season, but they are not always obvious or bright. Sun dogs are best seen and are most conspicuous when the Sun is close to the horizon.
Sun dogs are commonly caused by the refraction of light from plate-shaped hexagonal ice crystals either in high and cold cirrus or cirrostratus clouds or, during very cold weather, drifting in the air at low levels, in which case they are called diamond dust. The crystals act as prisms, bending the light rays passing through them with a minimum deflection of 22°. As the crystals gently float downwards with their large hexagonal faces almost horizontal, sunlight is refracted horizontally, and sun dogs are seen to the left and right of the Sun. Larger plates wobble more, and thus produce taller sundogs.

schema van een 'sundog formation' (atoptics dd 29/06/2016)

Sun dogs are red-colored at the side nearest the Sun; farther out the colors grade through oranges to blue. However, the colors overlap considerably and so are muted, never pure or saturated. The colors of the sun dog finally merge into the white of the parhelic circle (if the latter is visible).

Right-hand sun dog in Salem, Massachusetts, Oct 27, 2012.
Also visible are a Parry arc, an upper tangent arc, a 22° halo and part of the parhelic circle.

The same plate shaped ice crystals that cause sun dogs are also responsible for the colorful circumzenithal arc, meaning that these two types of halo tend to co-occur. The latter is often missed by viewers, however, since it is located more or less directly overhead. Another halo variety often seen together with sun dogs is the 22° halo, which forms a ring at roughly the same angular distance from the sun as the sun dogs, thus appearing to interconnect them. As the Sun rises higher, however, the rays passing through the plate crystals are increasingly skewed from the horizontal plane, causing their angle of deviation to increase and the sun dogs to move farther from the 22° halo, while staying at the same elevation.
[...]
The term 'sun dog' (singular) specifically refers to either of the two bright spots to the left and right of the Sun: each of them is a separate sun dog. Since they typically appear in pairs, it would be more accurate, therefore, to use the plural 'sun dogs'.
[...]
The prelude to the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in Herefordshire, England in 1461 is supposed to have involved the appearance of a halo display with three 'suns'. The Yorkist commander, later Edward IV of England, convinced his initially frightened troops that it represented the three sons of the Duke of York, and Edward's troops won a decisive victory. The event was dramatized by William Shakespeare in King Henry VI, Part 3, [more on this event] and by Sharon Kay Penman in The Sunne In Splendour.

Possibly the earliest clear description of sun dogs is by Jacob Hutter, who wrote in his Brotherly Faithfulness: Epistles from a Time of Persecution:
My beloved children, I want to tell you that on the day after the departure of our brothers Kuntz and Michel, on a Friday, we saw three suns in the sky for a good long time, about an hour, as well as two rainbows. These had their backs turned toward each other, almost touching in the middle, and their ends pointed away from each other. And this I, Jakob, saw with my own eyes, and many brothers and sisters saw it with me. After a while the two suns and rainbows disappeared, and only the one sun remained. Even though the other two suns were not as bright as the one, they were clearly visible. I feel this was no small miracle…
The observation most likely occurred in Auspitz (Hustopeče), Moravia on October 31, 1533. [...] It is likely that the 'two rainbows with their backs turned toward each other, almost touching' involved two further halo phenomena, possibly a circumzenithal arc (prone to co-occur with sun dogs) together with a partial 46° halo or supralateral arc.

Urban målare, Jacob Elbfas (copy), 1535, 1636 (copy),
Oil-on-panel, 163 cm × 110 cm, Storkyrkan, Stockholm

The oldest color depiction of the city of Stockholm [is known as] Vädersolstavlan (Swedish; "The Sundog Painting", literally "The Weather Sun Painting")
For two hours in the morning of April 20, 1535, the skies over the city were filled with white circles and arcs crossing the sky, while additional suns (i.e., sun dogs) appeared around the sun. The phenomenon quickly resulted in rumours of an omen of God's forthcoming revenge on King Gustav Vasa (1496–1560) for having introduced Protestantism during the 1520s and for being heavy-handed with his enemies allied with the Danish king.
Hoping to end speculations, the Chancellor and Lutheran scholar Olaus Petri (1493–1552) ordered a painting to be produced documenting the event. When confronted with the painting, the king, however, interpreted it as a conspiracy - the real sun of course being himself threatened by competing fake suns, one being Olaus Petri and the other the clergyman and scholar Laurentius Andreae (1470–1552), both thus accused of treachery, but eventually escaping capital punishment. The original painting is lost, but a copy from the 1630s survives and can still be seen in the church Storkyrkan in central Stockholm."

(Wikipedia dd 29/09/2016)


Nota:
"Het verschijnsel staat in een aantal Antwerpsche kronijken aangeteekend."
(Stockmans 1975, deel 1, pp. 255-256)[hij specifieert niet welke, misschien is daar nog meer informatie te vinden]

SaveSave

Bread of Dreams - Digest: '9. Ritual Battles and Popular Frenzies'

"With unintentional but certainly bitter irony, many went on saying and repeating that the one and only treasure of the poor - the thesaurus pauperum - consisted in the maintenance of their health. None the less, many of the poor preferred sickness and death to a state of health which forced them to live an insufferable life and bear the intolerable torment of hunger. [...]
The medicina pauperum (medicine of the poor) attempted to apply inexpensive therapies which made use of preventive and curative remedies, the composition of which did not require rare and costly ingredients. On the one hand, the two-way medicinal path led to the complicated
and very expensive triaca (theriac) for the rich, believed to be a powerful remedy for almost all sicknesses, a universal panacea; and, on the other hand, to the 'theriac of the poor', composed only of herbs. For those with 'strong stomachs and used to hard work', like peasants and porters, the great preserver of health was garlic, the 'theriac of the rustic', suited to rough and work-weary people, those selected in reverse, from whom - according to the science of the time - could only be born rustic and obtuse offspring, since 'no son is born who does not obtain his quality and  temperament from the food which his father ate before he was conceived.' From this  presupposition, which seems to have been widely shared, it was deduced that

'the meat of the cow, steer and pig, the bread of red wheat, beans,

cheese, red wine and other heavy foods cause strong semen and bad

temperament: the son that is conceived will have great strength,

but will be wild and of animal wits. From this results that

among men of the countryside it would be a miracle if one turned

out to be of acute intelligence and prone to study, especially

where such coarse foods are eaten. The opposite occurs among citydwellers,

whose sons we see have more intelligence and ability. '

[Giuseppe Rosaccio, Fabrica universale dell'huomo sotto titolo di Microcosmo dichiarata 

(...) (Venice: G. Imberti, 1627), pp. 45-46]"

[Giuseppe Rosaccio (1530-1620), Italian geographer and physician (Wikimedia Commons, dd. 11/07/2016)]

"Fortunately for the peasants of the plain and the cacamarroni (literally, 'chestnut-shitters') of the mountains, popular medicine was less poisonous and probably more effective than the medicine of the rich. [...] The poor of the city, in fact, were very often forced to devour foods that were 'fetid, putrid and verminous ... [filled] even with mice, worms, snakes or other most disgusting and abominable animals'. " [Giulio Cesare Luigi Canali, La carità del prossimo celebrata, spiegata e promossa in più ragionamenti [...], Bologna: Gaspare de Franceschi, 1763, (ch. 5, n. 3), II, p. 32]

"'Plenty' was the great absentee; rare were the days when songs could be sung to praise its return and the defeat of 'Famine' (a literary exercise as well, modelled on the very popular theme of the struggle between Carnival and Lent in which, as in all the forms deriving from folk rituals, archaic apotropaic virtues were obscurely presented). In 1597, Giulio Cesare Croce 

Giulio Cesare Croce 

[Giulio Cesare Croce (1550–1609) was an Italian writer, actor/producer of cantastoria [a theatrical form where a performer tells or sings a story while gesturing to a series of images: these images can be painted, printed or drawn on any sort of material] and enigma writer. He wrote more than 400 works in Italian and Bolognese dialect. To be a literary man in his period meant living at court, having patrons, or else being left to one's own devices for financial purposes. Croce was never a true literary man in the strictest sense of the word since he preferred laymen audiences to the court. In fact, he was principally a story teller and a blacksmith and most likely wrote for his own personal satisfaction. As such, his stories and inspiration come from the lower class, from the audiences at the market, who, if able to read, bought his works. This is in stark opposition to many contemporary authors who were inspired by the whims of their patrons. (Wikipedia, dd. 11/07/2016)]

- after the good summer harvest which seemed to spell an end to the seven years of tribulations during which he himself had been heavily hit [...] - exalted the return of plenty to Bologna, praising the vice-legate Orazio Spinola for his decisive and victorious intervention during the years of dearth. In the excited dialogue between Plenty and Famine, Spinola's intervention is described as fundamental to the safety of the community for which Croce presented himself as intermediary and spokesman: a bard assigned to the expression of the city's collective conscience. Victor at last, Plenty can let its ringing voice be heard:

A baker in front of his oven. From a 15th-16th century Book of Hours, attributed to Jean Bourdichon © Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon (Ms 5141, f. 11v-12).

'The bread has grown in size, just as your insolence

Had so lowered and diminished,

That with difficulty its presence was seen;

And if it was black, badly cooked and, worse, dense,

Now all the bakers have the order

To make it good, white, large and with care;

And all the granaries are wide open

And what was worth sixteen is now worth eight,

So that misers hang themselves from the pain;

Bread is no longer seen on display

Already spoiled, as it used to be,

But bright as snow, and well-baked;

The bean, which sat on the throne,

And which seemed like sugar to the artisans,

Is now little appreciated or valued;

Now, in these plains, thanks to God,

Goods abound, and all the countryside

Produces abundant grains in great plenty;

Such that Bologna will once again

Be glorious and great, and neither

Will there ever be heard laments and complaints:

Never more will there be seen atop the dung-heap

So many wretched, afflicted and lifeless people,

Wrapped up in the straw and refuse;

In the future, they will be strong men,

Proud and robust, they will gather vigour,

Not weak and half-dead like before;

A healthy colour will return to their faces,

Strength will be put back where it belongs,

And natural warmth to its rightful state... '

(Il solennissimo trionfo dell'Abbondanza, per la sua fertilissima entrata nella Città di Bologna; il di primo d'Agosto 1597. Con l'amaro pianto, che fà la Carestia, nella dolorosa sua partita, in Dialogo (Bologna: Gio. Battista Bellagamba, 1597), fols. 5r.-6v.)[e-book]

This portrait painted by Plenty corresponds to the octaves of Girolamo Accolti, the 'Allegrezza de' poveri sopra il crescimento del pane' (published in Rome and republished in Bologna: Vittorio Benacci, 1597) (Cheerfulness of the poor over the growth of the bread', in which is written 'Of wheat we have great plenty', octave 1,5), and 'Il gran lamento fatto da Nicolotto Fornar da Pesaro. Per non poter fare il pane piccolo e nero come prima. Con il grandissimo pianto della Carestia nell'uscir di Bologna' (Bologna: Vittorio Benacci, 1603) ('The great lament made by Nicolotto Baker of Pesaro. Of not being able to make the bread small and black as before. With the very great weeping of Famine on leaving Bologna'. Newly composed by Alessandro de' Monti),

'Since the bread has increased in size,
White and beautiful and even well-baked,
Fancy breads, twice baked,
And no one can be satisfied.
We poor bakers.
Scottish-style and side-table breads,
With the finest flour,
From evening to morning
We are forced to make... (fol. 1 v.)
Even the husk and the pollard
Are not sold, but are thrown away... (fol. 2r.)'

The bakers, much hated by the poverelli ('little poor') and singled out by everyone as profiteers and creators of hunger, frequently saw their shops attacked and plundered by the mob. Together with the usurers and tax collectors they were the first to face the popular fury, as in the attack on the oven of the Gasse district of Bologna in August, 1677.

[...]

The popular furore had entered some time ago into the 'museums' of realistic literature, whether it examined the immense reservoir of human activities and appearances with regard to trades and professions, or specialized in the typological analysis of the various faces of famine. In this excited atmosphere of social tensions, uprisings and looting, it is not surprising that G. B. Segni rifled a page by Garzoni  [Giovanni Garzoni (1419–1506) was an Italian humanist and physician from Bologna, where he was professor of medicine and teacher of rhetoric  (Wikipedia, dd. 11/07/2016)] (even more sensational plagiarism was committed with casual frequency during a century when copyright was an unknown expression), replacing it in a real-life scenario of social disorder and disintegration, even though it remains essentially an exemplum: a rhetorical model of the abstract theme of human frenzy.

Whoever would like to see the misery of this present famine and starvation in its most wretched form should go to certain cities and lands that are tyrannized, where the taxes could not be higher, and see bread put in the warehouses and storerooms which is as black as coal or as grey as a donkey's hide, and of such a mixture that even hearty eaters could not stand it, and so small it seems like the balls of zarabottana, and so expensive that those responsible are wished a thousand evils, and sold with such an appearance that it seems to come from the executioner's hand, and so often contested that clubs, daggers and pikes are necessary in order to possess it, and brought out in such low quantities that many poor families die from hardship and hunger, cursing the traitorous usurers, the villainous rich and the murderous tax-collectors who are to blame for such a wicked and cruel famine. He would then hear all the people scream; he would see the common people rioting, with good reason; the poor crying into the wind; the peasants from outside claiming greater power; the hospitals filling up; the doors of the rich echoing with miserable voices; the square full of acts of rage; the warehouses and storerooms surrounded by calamitous and unhappy people; the earth crying out and the air sighing, the sky weeping for so much dearth and such an unbearable famine. He would witness many thefts, much stealing, much plundering of granaries, many virgins raped for a piece of bread; many husbands become voluntary scoundrels for a penny, that he would recognize as true the saying of Regnicolo Foretano, 'In times of famine due to lack of bread, there is no better foodstuff than human flesh.' What Quintilian also meant when he said 'Non habitant simul pudor et fames' ['Shame and hunger do not dwell together']. He would see many rich people murdered, so much clashing of arms that everything would exhaust itself. The customs-houses would be ransacked, the warehouses emptied, the banks broken into, the bakers beaten or pilloried, or forced to walk the rope in public, or hanged by the neck, for behaving like gluttons and scoundrels. 

[Giovan Battista Segni, Trattato sopra la carestia e fame, sue cause, accidenti, provisioni e reggimenti, varie moltiplicazioni, e sorte di pane. Discorsi filosofici, (Bologna: Gio. Rossi, 1602)]
(Camporesi 1996, '9. Ritual Battles and Popular Frenzies', pp. 103-107)

Bruegels Land van Kokanje

Bruegel, Het Land van Kokanje (Luilekkerland), 1567, olieverf op paneel, 52 x 78 cm, München, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 8940

"Duidelijk geïnspireerd door een ets uit circa 1560 van Pieter Balten, met wie hij in 1551 als jonge kunstenaar had samengewerkt en die op menig gebied zijn artistieke ontwikkeling heeft beïnvloed, werkt Bruegel het populaire thema van het Luilekkerland verder uit."

Pieter Baltens, Het Land van Kokanje, ca. 1560, gravure, 22,3 x 30,5 cm

"Het 1567 gedateerde paneel is, in samenhang met de verzen onder Baltens ets en onder de gravure die Pieter van der Heyden naar Bruegels schilderij maakte [zie verder], tamelijk eenvoudig en eenduidig te begrijpen.

Vertegenwoordigers van drie verschillende standen hebben zich in Luilekkerland neergevleid onder een boom: de krijgsman, de landarbeider en een geleerde, allen makkelijk te herkennen aan hun attributen [op het schilderij wordt nog de ridderstand toegevoegd, met de gehelmde figuur die onder het taartendak ligt (...) 'De figuren zijn opgesteld rond de boom, zoals de spaken van een wiel, zodat het lijkt of een geheim mechanisme hen een draaiende beweging oplegt' (Roberts-Jones 1997, p. 238-239)]. Om voedsel en drank te bemachtigen hoeven zij niets te doen, het is allemaal in overvloed aanwezig: [varkens lopen met een mes rond, klaar om gesneden te worden, gebraden vogels vliegen je letterlijk de mond in, een gekookt ei op pootjes loopt met mes en al etensklaar rond en overal is eten: vlaaien als dakpannen en worsten als schutting (Sellink 2012)] en de liggende schrijver hoeft maar zijn mond open te doen om drank uit de kruik boven hem op te vangen. Achteraan rechts is

trouwens te zien wat, volgens de legende, de enige manier is om dit begerenswaardige land te bereiken: men moet zich een weg eten door een berg van boekweitbrij. Dat bewijst het komische detail van een man die met de lepel nog in zijn hand uit zijn zelf gegeten gang tuimelt. [Het dynamische element blijft beperkt tot een paar details, zoals het varken dat met een mes in zijn rug rondloopt. Het dier benadrukt een van links naar rechts lopende beweging die verdergezet wordt in de lijn van de gebogen boom en de cactus vol koeken. Dezelfde gebogen lijn wordt hernomen, maar dan van rechts naar links, in de jas van de geestelijke, de rug van de boer en het lichaam van de soldaat. Tegengesteld aan de algemene sfeer van luiheid, is er dus een onderliggende aanzet tot beweging,

gecombineerd met de inspanning van het kleine mannetje, dat uit het deeg kruipt. (...) 

Een tekst uit 1546 luidt: 'massa's varkens lopen in dit land, lekker geroosterd, met een mes in hun rug. Als iemand trek heeft, kan hij er meteen een stuk uitsnijden en nadien het mes terugsteken'. (Roberts-Jones 1997, p. 239-242)] ["Die daer luij en lacker sijt boer crijsman oft clercken / die gheraeckt daer en smaekt claer van als sonder wercken / Die tuijnen sijn worsten die huijsen met vlaijen / cappuijnen en kieckens tvliechter al ghebraijen."]: de verzen onder de gravure, net als die onder de prent van Balten, beschrijven dit alles in positieve, ja zelfs stimulerende woorden. Maar waarschijnlijk kan dit tafereel, naast de humor en het appelleren aan het diep gewortelde menselijk verlangen naar een land van melk en honing, ook nu weer niet helemaal los gezien worden van een moraliserende context. Vraatzucht en luiheid waren hoofdzonden, en dat bleven ze ook in het Land van Kokanje.

Dat blijkt althans uit een anonieme Vlaamse tekst over Luilekkerland uit 1546, die vanwege de vele overeenkomsten met Baltens ets en Bruegels paneel vaak als bron wordt gezien (zie L. Lebeer, '"Le Pays de Cocagne (Het Luilekkerland)'", Musées des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Bulletin 4 (1955), pp. 199-214). ["Van 't Luye-leckerlandt / twelcke is een seer wonderlijck / over schoon ende costelijck Landt vol van alder gheneuchten / ende wellustichheeden. Ende is nu eerst ghevonden int jaer doemen schreef duysendt Suycker koecken / vijfhondert Eyer-vladen / ende ses en veertich

gebraden Hoenderen / in de Wijn maent / doe de Pastyen wel smaeckten. Ende is seer ghenoechlijck om te lesen." Zo zijn vermeld 'de seer hooghen ende langhen Berch van Boecwytenbry' waardoorheen degenen die in Luilekkerland willen komen, zich 'voor eerst moeten door-eeten', de huizen met leckere Panne-koecken / ende Vladen ghedeckt'; de 'tuyn' dit is de afsluiting van 'ghebraden Lever-worsten / ende sommighe van Met-worsten / ofte andere t'samen gevlochten'; verder nog de rivier 'van enckel soete Melck', het gebraden gevogelte enz. (...) Luilekkerland werd, volgens de tekst, ontdekt door 'Deugh-nieten'. Dit oord is wel bekend en vermaard 'sonderlinghe byden Onverlaten / ende den gheenen die alle deugt ende eerbaerheyt te rugghe ghestelt hebben'. Er is in dit land 'gheen meerder schanden dan dat hem yemant deuchdelijck / redelijck / eerbaar / ende manierlijc hout / ende met sijn handen geerne zijn cost winnet / wandt die hem alsoo deughdelijc / ende eerlijck aenstelt / die wort van alle man gehaet / ende ten lesten uyt den landen gebannen'.(Marijnissen 1988, pp. 333-334)] Er wordt expliciet gewaarschuwd: 'Luy en lecker en veel te meughen, dat zijn drie dinghen die niet en deughen ... Dit landt is tot noch toe niemant bekend geweest, dan alleene den Deugh-nieten, diet alder eerst gevonden hebben, ende het is gheleghen ... na by die Galghe.' Vooral met die laatste verwijzing onderstreept de schrijver dat wie zich al te zeer overgeeft aan luieren en lekker eten, uiteindelijk een zware rekening zal moeten betalen.

[Zover men weet is deze tekst pas in 1600 in druk verschenen, namelijk in de Veelderhande Geneuchlycke Dichten, Tafelspelen ende Refereynen. Toch ligt het nagenoeg voor de hand dat Bruegel hem rechtstreeks of onrechtstreeks als literaire bron heeft gebruikt, maar uiteindelijk hoeft men aan deze vraag geen al te groot gewicht hechten. Het thema zelf is veel ouder. De betrokken Nederlandse tekst gaat terug op Hans Sachs' l530 gedateerd Vom Schlauraffenland.

In 1538 verscheen een Franse versie, toegeschreven aan Denis Johannot: Le voyage et navigation que fist Panvrge disciple de pantagruel aux isles incongnues & estranges de plusieurs choses merveilleuses & difficiles a croire, qu'il dict auoir veues, dont il faict narration en ce present volume & plusieurs aultres ioyeusetez, pour inciter les lecteurs & auditeurs a rire. De tekst werd als vergelijkingsmateriaal opgenomen in de Rabelais-uitgave van Marcel Guilbaud (1957, pp. 240-282). Via een Engels Land of Cokaygne en de l3de-eeuwse Li fabliaus de Coquaigne kan men opklimmen

tot Loukianos. En na Bruegel is het tot aan de 'mannekensbladen' meegegaan.

Het onderwerp was dus in 1567 geenszins nieuw want behorend tot het patrimonium van  eeuwenoude wensdromen over een kommerloos bestaan. De herhaalde jammerklachten over de woekerprijzen van het koren laten vermoeden hoe scherp de gevolgen van een mislukte oogst werden gevoeld in een ekonomie die vooral op de plaatselijke produktie was gebaseerd. De wensdroom over een land waar elkeen kan eten buik-sta-bij, lijkt historisch dermate normaal dat men de inhoud van het schilderij zonneklaar zou willen noemen. (Marijnissen 1988, p. 334)]

De combinatie van een komische en verleidelijke wereld waar alles anders is en het besef van de zondigheid van dat verlangen, is typerend voor de beeldtaal van Bruegels tijd, met name

in de prentkunst. Met regelmaat is geprobeerd Het Land van Kokanje - zoals alle werken van

Bruegel uit de woelige jaren 1565-68 - in een specifieke politieke context te plaatsen, het meest recent en het minst overtuigend door Ross Frank. Nog minder dan in andere werken is hier enige concrete aanleiding of enig historisch bewijs voor te vinden.

Pieter van der Heyden, naar Bruegel, Het Land van Kokanje, na 1570?, gravure, 20,9 x 27,7 cm, Antwerpen, Stedelijk Prentenkabinet, Museum Plantin-Moretus, inv. 13800

De gravure zonder signatuur of datering roept veel vragen op, des te meer omdat ook het adres van de uitgever ontbreekt. Stilistisch sluit het werk goed aan bij de techniek van Pieter van der Heyden, die in nauwe samenwerking met Bruegel de meeste gravures naar diens ontwerp heeft gesneden. Na de

dood van Hieronymus Cock in 1570 ontstond er gedurende korte tijd een leemte op de Antwerpse uitgeversmarkt voor dergelijke grafiek, en misschien heeft Van der Heyden daarvan willen profiteren door zelf prenten uit te geven. Het lag voor de hand dat hij in dat geval een compositie van Bruegel zou kopiëren, wiens werk hij immers heel goed kende. Maar omdat de gravure rechtstreeks van het schilderij lijkt te zijn gekopieerd, kan toch ook niet worden uitgesloten dat de - helaas onbekende -

eerste eigenaar van het schilderij Van der Heyden opdracht heeft gegeven om zijn trotse bezit in prent te brengen, zoals ook Ortelius deed met Het sterfbed van Maria."

(Sellink 2011, pp. 242-243)