INTERPRETATIONS OF EVERYMAN
Bruegel's engraving Everyman is universally regarded as an especially complex allegory. A s the drawing for it is signed and dated "[BJrueghel 1558," that date serves as a terminus post quern for the undated engraving.1 T h e composition takes its name from its chief figure, identified by the word Elck (Everyman) inscribed on the hem of his coat. T h e entire composition is built up around this Everyman, who stands bent over in the very center, staring at an open lantern with a burning candle inside it and apparently engaged in some sort o f search.
T h e left half o f the composition is presented against the backdrop of a wall. In a shadowy niche in that wall, in the center o f the picture, we see an unlighted candle. To the left o f the niche hangs the portrait of a man identified by his clothing as a fool. T h e inscription under the portrait reads: NIEMA[N]T. EN. KENT. HEfMJ. SELVEfN] (Nobody
knows himself). T h e right half of the picture provides a glimpse of an army camp in its background: tents, a small group of officers, standard-bearers, and a host of mercenaries whose upright lances block out the horizon. W e also see a church and a leafless tree standing forlorn against the sky. In this part o f the landscape there are two more Everymen, recognizable as such from their poses and lanterns. They too are bent forward, staring intently at their lanterns as they go about their own searches.
Ar t historians have taken the print to be an allegory of selfishness, pointing to the full purse o f the Everyman in the foreground as an indication that he is as miserly as he is greedy.2 T h e inscription beneath the picture seems to support such a view, declaring "No one does not seek his own advantage everywhere, no one does not seek himself in all that he does, no one does not look everywhere for
168
Originalveröffentlichung in: Orenstein, Nadine M. (Hrsg.): Pieter Bruegel the Elder : drawings and prints, New Haven, Conn. 2001, S. 168-170
pr ivate gain. T h i s one pulls , that one pulls , all have the same
love o f possess ion." Y e t the attr ibute o f the l ighted lantern
i m m e d i a t e l y br ings to m i n d D i o g e n e s and his searching
w i t h a lantern in broad day l ight for an hones t m a n . S u p
p o r t i n g this idea is the s imi lar imagery o f e m b l e m 31 i n
the Morosophie o f G u i l l a u m e de L a Perriere f r o m 1553, w h i c h
s h o w s the anc ient ph i l o sopher in his search as ev idence
o f h i s sagacity.3 Bruegel 's por t raya l o f ano ther E v e r y m a n
w h o has crawled i n to a barrel at the lower left edge o f the
p icture m a y also be a l i nk to D i o g e n e s , w h o is said to have
been so frugal that he l ived in a tub. I n the context o f this
in terpretat ion , i t w o u l d a lmos t seem that w e are to cons ider
the Elck in a posi t ive way, assuming that the E v e r y m a n is as
m o d e s t in his needs as D i o g e n e s . Franzsepp W i i r t e n b e r g e r
has referred us to another i conograph ic t rad i t ion o f i m p o r
tance to an unders tand ing o f Everyman: the n u m e r o u s
N o b o d y dep ic t i ons . 4 H e of fers a G e o r g P e n c z w o o d c u t
f r o m 1535, Nobody (DerNiemand), as a specif ic precedent .
B u t Pencz's N o b o d y is surrounded b y th ings that are b r o
ken or have fa l len apart, whereas the objects in Bruegel 's
i m a g e are all intact .
T h e central f igure in Bruegel 's c o m p o s i t i o n prov ides an
i m p o r t a n t c lue to the interpretat ion o f the scene, for E v e r y
m a n is clearly g a z i n g at his l i gh ted lantern in day l ight .
A p p a r e n t l y the lantern is n o t mere ly an aid in his search
bu t the actual ob ject o f it. H i s spectacles are another key
detai l ; he doubt less wears t h e m in order to see his l igh t
clearly. B u t they m u s t have add i t iona l s igni f icance, for
glasses can have a negative m e a n i n g , supposed ly s y m b o l i z
i n g de lus ion , ignorance , or se l f -decept ion , as the l iterature
o n Bruegel 's engrav ing r e m i n d s us. I n this connec t i on w e
t h i n k o f the w e l l - k n o w n w o o d c u t f o r m e r l y attr ibuted to
E r h a r d S c h o e n , The OwlHates Light f r o m 1540, a scene in
s o m e respects comparab le to Bruegel 's allegory. T h e r e an
owl , conspicuously brandishing a pair o f spectacles, is perched
next t o a b u r n i n g candle , and so that the v iewer can see that
the candle is b u r n i n g in broad dayl ight, Schoen has inc luded
a sun in the upper left corner. T h e ow l also refers to the sun
in the inscr ip t ion : Was hilfft mich sun(n) / licht oderprill,
weyl ich doch selbs nicht sehen will ( W h a t he lp are sun l ight
or glasses i f I don' t choose to see).3 A related image also
appears as the i l lustrat ion for chapter 28 of Sebast ian
Brant 's Narrenschiff ( S h i p o f Foo ls ) f r o m 1494. T i t l e d Vom
Wider-Gott-Reden ( O n B l a s p h e m y ) , this w o o d c u t portrays
a f o o l w h o has lit a fire in b road day l ight , a day t ime fire that
is m e a n t to s h o w the obduracy o f the m a n attached to the
th ings o f this w o r l d and h o w incapable he is o f be ing saved.
Fur ther clues to Bruegel's m e a n i n g emerge f r o m the j u m
ble o f objects at the b o t t o m o f his c o m p o s i t i o n representing
a w i d e var iety o f occupat ions , for the m o r e w e study it, the
m o r e suggestive it becomes . O n the left w e see an ax, a
trowel , and a scale, and at the feet o f the central E v e r y m a n
a shoemaker 's l a s t — a l l e v o k i n g specif ic trades. T h e r e are
also barrels, baskets, and t ied sacks. I n the r ight h a l f o f the
picture, i n add i t i on to still m o r e objects that m a y refer to
t r a d e s — a pot , shears and c lo th , a b o o k , and m o r e tied
boxes and b u n d l e s — a r e th ings used in var ious games :
a checkerboard , dice, and p lay ing cards. A n d at the very
b o t t o m edge o f the i m a g e lie a mirror and a roll o f paper.
M a r k i n g s o n the sacks and boxes i den t i f y the t rad ing c o m
panies to w h i c h the wares be long. Interest ingly, s o m e o f
the bund les have several d i f ferent mark ings , w h i c h cou ld
m e a n that m o r e than o n e person or c o m p a n y lays c la im to
t h e m . Bruege l has i nc luded an ins ide j o k e in all o f the d i s
order: on one o f the v is ibly e m p t y boxes in the left ha l f o f
the c o m p o s i t i o n is the f i rm m a r k o f H i e r o n y m u s C o c k , the
publ i sher o f his prints .6
A l l the f igures in Bruege l ' s engrav ing are so d e e p l y
absorbed in their mater ia l i s t ic searching, so shor t s igh ted
in the intel lectual sense, that eyeglasses w o u l d be o f n o
use to t h e m . W h a t can h a p p e n w h e n one E v e r y m a n e n
counters another is ev ident f r o m the tussle t w o o f t h e m are
engaged in over a l ength o f c loth . E a c h is so de te rmined
tha t the o t h e r shal l n o t have the c l o t h tha t he tugs o n it
w i t h all his strength. I f either o f t h e m were to give w a y
they w o u l d b o t h fall o n their beh inds .
T h a t Bruegel 's E v e r y m e n rule the w o r l d , even o w n it, is
ind icated b y the presence of the orb be tween the central
figure's legs. A t first g lance w e register this s y m b o l o f the
w o r l d as j u s t another t ied sack, for it is easily over looked
because o f the w a y Bruege l has pos i t i oned it. O n c e w e spot
the cross, p ro jec t ing ou tward b e h i n d the figure's r ight leg,
w e see that it corresponds to the traders' marks ; it is as i f
the w o r l d i tsel f had b e c o m e a mere c o m m o d i t y .
H e r e it is i m p o r t a n t to emphas i ze h o w m u c h Bruegel 's
w a y o f b u i l d i n g u p m e a n i n g in a c o m p o s i t i o n differs f r o m
tradi t ional i conograph ic practice, h o w m u c h he relies o n
the viewer's abi l i ty to m a k e the necessary connect ions . I n
the case o f Everyman w e m u s t recognize the bibl ical images
he alludes to. See ing the bushe l measure in f ront o f E v e r y
man's left f oo t and n o t i n g the d iscrepancy be tween the
l ighted candle and the un l i t one in the wa l l n iche , w e can
o n l y recall the N e w T e s t a m e n t a d m o n i t i o n that w e no t
h ide our l ight beneath a bushe l basket ( L u k e 11:33-35): " N o
m a n , w h e n he ha th l ighted a candle , pu t te th it in a secret
place, ne i ther under a bushe l , bu t o n a candlest ick , that
they w h i c h c o m e in m a y see the l ight . T h e l ight o f the b o d y
is the eye: therefore w h e n th ine eye is single, thy w h o l e
169
body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness."
Elck has misunderstood this image by taking it literally. He carries his lantern about with him, mistaking external light for the light within. He fails to comprehend that light is only a metaphor for Christian virtue. We, Bruegel's viewers, in turn, are required to fully appreciate the image in order to recognize how it has been misunderstood, that this is an ironic perversion of the biblical metaphor for the search for God. In the Psalms, especially, we read of men searching for God with all their hearts. In the Gospel of Mark (1:37), Christ's disciples find him and tell him: "All men seek for thee," or "Every man is looking for you." Linked to the problem of man's search for God is the theological issue of grace, for just as we cannot raise ourselves up into heaven alone, we cannot search for God and find him if he does not choose to be found.7 Finding God is always tantamount to being found by God.8 Bruegel's Everyman commits the error of trusting that he can find God on his own. J M
r. M i i n z 1961, n o . 138.
2. See Lebeer ' s br ie f r e v i e w o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s u p t o 1969 i n Brusse l s 1969,
p p . 7 7 - 8 1 .
3. F o r t h e D i o g e n e s i c o n o g r a p h y i n genera l a n d L a Perriere's Morosophie i n p a r
t icular, see S c h m i t t 1993, p. 72.
4. W i i r t e n b e r g e r 1957, p . 80 . F o r t h e m o s t recent s t u d y o f the N o b o d y i c o n o g r a
phy , see S c h u s t e r 1981, p p . 28—43.
5. H o l l s t e i n 1 9 5 4 - , v o l . 48, no . 209 . T h e e x p l a n a t o r y text b y H a n s S a c h s
e m p h a s i z e s men ' s s t u b b o r n n e s s . H e r e w e read tha t the g o s p e l has b e c o m e a
s ign o f l a c k o f b e l i e f rather t h a n of fa i th : " D o c h w e n i g B e i s r u n g k u m p t d a r -
v o n , D e r h a l b d a s E v a n g e l i o n w i r d t v o r d e m e n d t / w i e chr i s tus m e l d t
G e p r e d i g t d u r c h d i e g a n t z e n w e l t N u r z u [ m ] z e u g n u s das w i r n i c h t g l aube t
h a b e n / s o n d e r b l i n d u n d b e t a u b e t B l e y b e n / i n schwerer s i i n d e n s c h l a f f "
( Y e t l i t t le g o o d c o m e s o f it. B e f o r e the e n d , t h e g o s p e l a n d C h r i s t ' s t each ings
w i l l be p r e a c h e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d , i f o n l y to s h o w tha t w e h a v e n o t
b e l i e v e d b u t r e m a i n b h n d a n d d e a f i n t h e d e e p s leep o f o u r s ins) . T h i s p e s
s im i s t i c v i e w i s b a s e d o n J o h n 3:19, " l i g h t is c o m e i n t o t h e w o r l d ,
a n d m e n l o v e d d a r k n e s s ra ther t h a n l i g h t . "
6. See t h e e n g r a v i n g b y P i e t e r v a n der H e y d e n o f C o c k ' s three d i f f e r e n t dev ices ,
r e p r o d u c e d in R o t t e r d a m 1988, p . 82, ill. p p . 67—68. O n the s u b j e c t o f C o c k ' s
firm m a r k , see R i g g s 1979, p p . 1 6 6 - 6 7 .
7. J o h n 6 :44 , a passage tha t E r a s m u s discusses i n h i s d e b a t e w i t h L u t h e r over
free w i l l . See E r a s m u s (1524) 1967, p . 141.
8. S e e K r o t k e 1989, p p . 517—32.
170
