SOURCE: Schade, Richard Erich. “Das Narren schneyden (1557): The Deadly Sins and the Didactics of Hans Sachs.” In Studies in Early German Comedy, 1500-1650, pp. 73-94. Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1988.

[In the following essay, Schade analyzes the theme of the mortal sins in many of Sachs's plays and considers various critics' comments on this topic.]

Recent research into the gesamtwerk of Hans Sachs (1494-1576)¹ consistently makes reference to the underlying concept informing the Nuremberg² author's didactic stance. Theiß (1968),³ concentrating his analysis on the epilogues to the dramas, states that Sachs knows of no specific catalogue of sins, rather that the playwright enumerates human failings in an order consistent with the given subject matter. ‘Sachs knows of no system such as that of the cardinal sins, whose individual sins are categorized according to mnemonics such as SALIGIA …’ (superbia / pride, Hoffart; avaritia / avarice, Geiz; luxuria / lechery, Wollust; invidia / envy, Neid; gula / gluttony, Völlerei; ira / anger, Zorn; acedia / sloth, Trägheit).⁴

While this may hold true for Sachs's dramatic technique, Moser (1976) maintains that the late-medieval Fastnachtspiel is spiritual drama dealing with the cardinal sins theme and he enumerates those Shrovetide plays of Sachs which deal with each of the Deadly Sins.⁵ Kartschoke and Reins (1978), in an article formulated as a corrective to Moser's theologically based conceptualization of the dramatic form, point out that the Fastnachtspiel advances specific social remedies to those “foolish” human failings which emanate from the prevalence of mortal sinfulness in every individual.⁶ It is the uncontrolled sway of the passionate drives (Triebe) that accounts for the omnipresent Narrheit in both persons and social institutions, a real condition—as Krause (1971), Brunner (1976) and Brandt (1979) point out⁷—which can only be righted by the proper application of human rationality to the malady: “Denn es geht Sachs in erster Linie darum, seine Mitmenschen richtiges Verhalten im religiösen, privaten und öffentlichen Bereich zu lehren und ihnen unrichtiges Verhalten warnend oder satirisch vor Augen zu stellen. Richtschnur für das Verhalten ist die Vernunft …”⁸

In their study, Kartschoke and Reins seek to demonstrate the validity of their theses of the rationally based, social function of Fastnachtspiel by means of an analysis of selected works dealing with that complex of human shortcomings traditionally subsumed under the sin luxuria / lechery. In so doing, they consciously seek to refine Könneker's discussion of marital morality (1976) as expressed in the various Fastnachtspiele.⁹ The intent here is not to discuss the fine points, rather it bears emphasis that the current tendency of Sachs-research has been toward a closer scrutiny of the systemic backgrounds of the author's didactics. Instead of depicting Sachs as some second-rate moralist, scholars recently have sought to understand Sachs's particular historical position with respect to religious (Reformation¹⁰), philosophical (Stoicism¹¹) and social (Holy Roman Empire, Nuremberg¹²) realities. Such an approach does Sachs's creativity justice. The following investigation of the mortal sins theme, initially centered around Das Narren schneyden (1557), seeks to perceive this work and others in a larger context than heretofore, with the result that the creative interplay of thematic background and dramatic function is illuminated.

II

“Ein Faßnacht Spiel mit dreyen Personen: Das Narren schneyden” (G 11),¹³ a relatively late work of Sachs (dated 3 October 1557), opens in the conventional manner of the genre¹⁴ with a greeting (l. 1). This is followed by an introductory statement justifying the presence of the speaker, a doctor, who has been summoned by an unidentified sick person. The doctor's assistant, in a gesture to the audience of the production (likely a group of Shrovetide revelers gathered at an inn), comments on their very apparent vigor and—in the absence of the promised patient—both Arzt and Knecht hasten to depart. Before they are able to leave, a wretched “großpauchet Kranck an zweyen krucken” (l. 29) appears, loudly lamenting his fate—apparently extreme constipation—and searching for the doctor. Within forty-three lines Sachs effectively establishes the basis for the subsequent scenes, the healing of a sick man.

Utilizing a motif favored by the genre, the diagnostic analysis of urine (ll. 45-47),¹⁵ the physician is eventually able to ascertain the precise nature of the ailment:

Knecht, lang mir her das Harm glaß!
Laß mich der Kranckheit baß nach sehen!
          Er schaut den harm vnd spricht:
Sol ichs nit zu eym wunder jehen?
Der Mensch steckt aller voller Narrn.

(ll. 88-91)

It is not without significance that the patient then tells of previously having attempted a cure himself (ll. 80-87), by relying on the emetic qualities of plums. The fruits had had their expected effect (l. 85), yet the malady had remained, an indication that the sickness is more deep-rooted than some minor physical distress. Indeed, the doctor's diagnosis of an overabundance of fools points to a malady of considerable severity in an era when cripples and the sick were often equated with fools: “Zur Kategorie Narr zählten alle, die aufgrund körperlicher Anomalien und Gebrechen, aufgrund geistiger Defekte oder aber auch aufgrund weltanschaulich-religiöser Andersartigkeit nicht dem herrschenden Normensystem des christlichen Abendlandes entsprachen.”¹⁶ Whether the Kranck here is in truth a Narr is questionable at this point, for he actively seeks a cure from his physical malady, a decidedly “unfoolish” desire. This will reflects, of course, a primary thrust of Sachs's didactic intention; it is the first step on the road to moral healing and spiritual well-being. With the diagnosis complete, the cure is prescribed—“So muß man dir die Narren schneyden” (l. 93), an operation¹⁷ against which the sufferer understandably rebels—“Das selbig mag ich gar nit leyden” (l. 94), he rhymes to the doctor's call to action. The subsequent skepticism enunciated by the Kranck with respect to the validity of the diagnosis (ll. 95-97) calls for radical countermeasures: he is directed to quaff his urine sample, which he meekly does, and he then views himself in a mirror—“Der Kranck schawt in spiegel vnnd greifft ihm selb an die Narren ohren …” (l. 109⁺).¹⁸

If there had been any doubt abut the nature of his ailment, that is now laid to rest by means of this theatrically effective representation of nosce-te-ipsum didactics. Although the sick man is now unquestionably a Narr, he is not so completely a fool as not to desire assistance (“Helfft mir, es geschech gleich wies wöll!”—l. 111), although the notion of such a drastic surgical cure continues to instill fear in him. He must play dead (l. 114), something he does not relish (l. 118). It is only the recognition that the internal fools would eventually cause him to burst like some festering boil (ll. 119-121) which causes him to assent to the operation (l. 124). This progression through the stages of positive desire for a cure, diagnosis, doubt, self-recognition as a fool, renewed doubt, final agreement, serves as a paradigm for the process of human self-betterment. Lacking these elements, no cure for the existential malady of foolishness is possible: “Sachsens didaktische Intention, wie sie in den Fastnachtspielen zum Ausdruck kommt, setzt Einsicht, Veränderungswilligkeit und Besserungsfähigkeit des Einzelnen voraus.”¹⁹ Furthermore, that the physician offers his services free of charge—“Ich will dich schneyden gar vmb sunst” (l. 127), points to both the selfless nature of the act as well as to the necessity of interpersonal relationships in the healing process. From the outset, the sick man seeks assistance from another person and the latter offers his skills in charity. Such is the practical ethic acted out before the Fastnacht-revelers in Nuremberg.

Preparation for surgery commences and in short order the extractions are underway:

Der Artzt greifft mit der zangen in Bauch, zeucht den ersten Narren herauß vnnd spricht:

Schaw, mein gsell, wie ein grosser tropff!
Wie hat er so ein gschwollen kopff!
…
Der Narr hat dich hart aufgepleht.
Er übet dich in hoffartt stät.

(ll. 146⁺-48, 151-52)

The operation continues as a “groß vierecket Narr” (l. 170, avarice), a “Narr, so dürr, mager, blaich vnd gelb” (l. 184, envy), a “Narr der vnkeusch” (l. 204, lechery), a “Narr der Fullerey” (l. 221, gluttony), a “zornig Narr” (l. 244, anger), and finally, “der aller fewlest tropff” (l. 260, sloth) are extracted from the writhing patient. It is significant for Sachs's didactic intention that each mortal-sin Narr is identified by the doctor in answer to a query from the sufferer. Although primarily a theatrical technique allowing for the characterization of each sin, the give-and-take also serves to emphasize the social interplay between the informer and the informed. More importantly, it allows for the patient to admit to the presence of each failing in himself. Speaking of envy, he states—“Er hat mich fressen lange Jar” (l. 194). In reference to lechery, the patient alludes to the physician's extrasensory powers in correctly defining the manifestations of this his sin (l. 211), and speaking of gluttony, he admits that it had nourished him (l. 219) and that he is now properly contrite (l. 229). The reactions of the sick man to each of his sins is as different in kind as are the reactions of the sins to their extraction. Combative anger nearly breaks the doctor's instruments (ll. 237-240), while sloth hangs its head drowsily (l. 259). In acts and words, then, differentiated human reactions to the prevalence of the respective sins are represented in the staged confessional process.

As if to reinforce the didactic and theatrical effect of the Fastnachtspiel, Sachs stages the final, most painful extraction of the “Narren nest” (l. 273). The much weakened patient begs that it not be excised, but relents on learning of the insidious quality of the nest. It is vividly described as the placental generator of all folly:

Es ist so groß vnd vngelachsen
Vnd ist im leib dir angewachsen.
Schaw! yetzund kumbt der groß vnfurm
Schaw wie ein wilder wüster wurm!
Schaw, wie thut es vol Narren wimeln,
Oben vnd vnden als von krimmeln!
Die hetst du alle noch geborn

(ll. 290-96)

Up until this point, Sachs has defined folly as rooted in the seven sins and has demonstrated a radical cure for the existential malady, but with the motif of the Narrennest he shifts attention to the social context. In answer to the question as to what would become of the fools generated from the nest (l. 297), the reply is that they would have become:

Allerley gattung, als falsch Juristen,
Schwartzkünstler vnd die Alchamisten,
Finantzer, alifantzer vnd trügner
Schmaichler, spotseler vnd lügner
…
Summa summarum, wie sie nannt
Doctor Sebastianus Brandt,
Inn seinem Narren schiff zu faren.

(ll. 298-301, 312-314)

To prevent the continued generation of such Brantian fools, the Arzt at last has the nest thrown into the Pegnitz (l. 317), the river flowing through the city of Nuremberg. Theatrical illusion is cast aside and the city, like the Kranck, is at the end cleansed of Sebastian Brant's fools. In an analogue to the Narrenschiff, the fools float downstream in their shiplike nest. The healed patient promises to refer other fools in the city to the doctor—

O wie an zal inn diser Stat
Waiß ich armer vnd raicher knaben,
Die auch mein schwere Kranckheit haben
…
Die will ich all zu euch bescheyden,
Das jr in müst den Narren schneyden.

(ll. 345-47, 350-51)

—so that they too, and through them, the city might be cleansed. On the level of literary allusion, then, this Kranck has been and will remain a representative of Nuremberg as much as an individual. The Arzt has been and will remain the wise mentor of those citizens of Nuremberg seeking relief from their sinfulness. The cure is portrayed in a Fastnachtspiel by a writer known to conceive of himself as a selfless wiseman conveying essential moral truths by means of his works: “Das tugend zu nemb, grün vnd wachs / Vnd laster abnemb, wünscht Hans Sachs.”²⁰

III

If, as the cursory analysis of Das Narren schneyden has made apparent, Hans Sachs expressed his conception of the world's and humanity's failings in terms of the mortal sins paradigm, then it stands to reason that the theme as a whole might be central to his literary didactics. The following chronological overview of his writings reveals this to be the case.

In the Narren schneyden, Sachs presents the deadly Sins fools in an order at slight variance to the time-honored SALIGIA-formula of medieval moral theology; Sachs's order reads SAILGIA, i.e., superbia, avaritia, invidia, luxuria, gula, ira, acedia.²¹ While the order within the catalogue is ultimately of little importance, the virtual correspondence of the two implies Sachs's familiarity with the traditional continuum from pride to sloth. Suffice it to say, it is avaritia with which Sachs first deals: “Evangelium von dem geytz …” (1528 / Werke I, pp. 288-290). From the manner of presentation, a rhymed homiletic development of Matthew 6: 18ff. (“JR solt euch nicht Schetze samlen auff Erden …”),²² it is evident that the Evangelium is a work motivated by the author's Reformationserlebnis of the 1520s, an experience which molded his understanding of the Gospels as a call to the truly Christian life:²³

Besser ist weng mit Gottes forcht
Denn grosse schätze vnd viel versorcht.
Weh dem, der samlet alle zeyt
Der böß verfluchten geitzigkeit!

(p. 288, 11. 25-28)

Avarice is here “ein wurtzel aller sünd” (p. 289, l. 11), a sin whose manifestations permeate all social estates (“Der hat die gantzen welt umbringet / In allen stenden hoch und nider”—p. 289, ll. 33-34). The extensive catalogue of human failings subsumed under the sin—“wuchern, triegen und finantzen” etc. (p. 289, ll. 14-29; see also Werke I, pp. 357-58) is evidence, on the one hand, of Sachs's origins in a city dedicated primarily to monetary gain and of times perceived of as generally burdened by the excesses of avarice (“Weyter regirt der geytz gewaltiglich und den kauffherren …”—Werke XXII, p. 55, l. 12). On the other hand, it reflects a position analogous to Brant's Narrenschiff-chapters 3 and 93: “Wer samlet das zergenglich ist / Der grabt sin sel in kott vnd mist.”²⁴ Finally, however, it would seem to have been Luther's sermon “Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher” (1524), with its no-nonsense opening statement, which inspired the spirit, if not the word, of Sachs's literary Evangelium on avarice. Luther writes: “Der geytz ist eyne wurtzel alles vbels. Vnd aber mal / Wilche reych wollen werden / die fallen dem teuffel ynn den strick vnd ynn viel vnnutze schedliche begirde / wilche die leutt versencken yns verderben vnd verdamnis.”²⁵ Such strong convictions could hardly have escaped the attention of Hans Sachs, a Lutheran true-believer more than sensitive to the admonitions of the ‘Wittenberg Nightingale’ Luther:

Denn Sachs … war ein in den Anschauungen des damaligen Kleinbürgertums fest verwurzelter Moralist, den auch Luthers Lehre in erster Linie in ihren Konsequenzen für eine in weltlichem Bereich praktisch zu verwirklichende Ethik interessierte und der sich dementsprechend von der Besserung der einzelnen Menschen und Stände sehr viel, von einer Änderung der sozialen Verhältnisse dagegen wenig oder nichts versprach.²⁶

Sachs's enumeration of the twelve characteristics of invidia in “Das feindtselig laster der neyd …” (Werke III, pp. 333-338) is dated 1533. This work of exemplary allegory (to use a term coined by Theiß) opens with a description of a pondering persona (Sachs himself) troubled by the divisivness among all social estates. He falls asleep and dreams of a repulsive female figure (p. 333, ll. 11-29), later the subject of a woodcut by Sachs's Nuremberg associate Georg Pencz. Her every attribute is interpreted in the text:

Das bild sein lincke hand frist selb.
Und ist von leib mager und gelb;
Deut, das der neyd nit grunen mag.
Er frist sich selber uber tag.

(p. 335, ll. 24-27)

The conclusion warns the reader—and the viewer of the Pencz woodcut—to avoid invidia, for it is the cause of untold misfortune “bey allen stendten hoch und nieder” (p. 337, l. 37), for it drives out the Christian virtue of love (p. 338, l. 8). It is as Ecclesiastes teaches, “ein ayter dem gebein” (p. 337, l. 22; from the figure's left breast flows pus—p. 333, l. 22 and 336, ll. 15-24). Sach's detailed allegorical representation of envy also draws on Brant's Narrenschiff-chapter 53, with its brief description of Neid (ll. 15-18),²⁷ a depiction which in turn is based on Ovid's Metamorphoses II, 775ff. Sachs utilizes the same biblical references as those cited by Brant:

BRANT:
Das wart an Saul mit David schyn
…
Was gyfft hab jn jm / nyd vnd haß
Das spürt man zwyschen brüdern baß
Als Cayn / Esau …

(ll. 19 & 27-29)

SACHS:
Es sey ein kranckheit, die dasquelt.
Des König Saul hat wol entpfunden,
Cain unnd Esaw hat verschlunden

(p. 337, ll. 32-34)

This use of commonplaces points out that Sachs's notion of this and other mortal sins is tradition-bound. Envy (see also Werke I, pp. 358-59, where Sachs paraphrases Brant) is not conceived of as a theological abstraction, but rather as a societally destructive force, a perspective which Sachs shares with Brant: “Vergunst vnd haß / witt vmbhar gat / Man fyndt groß nyd / jn allem stat.” (p. 129, motto)

With the “Kampff-gesprech zwischen der Hoffart und der edlen Demut” (1535 / Werke III, pp. 149-157), a statement as much on superbia as on humility,²⁸ Sachs again applies allegorical literary usages to his representation of the sin. On a “wanderschafft” (p. 149, l. 3) through mountains he sees an unusual mirage, a female figure eventually identified as “verfluchete Hoffart” (p. 150, l. 33).²⁹ In the ensuing altercation with Demut, virtue versus vice,³⁰ pride defends herself to the last, until God blows her from the mountaintop on which she stands (p. 157, ll. 3-8), this, a just fate for one who seeks to rob the Lord of supremacy—“Demut sprach: Du raubst Gott sein ehr.” (p. 152, l. 8) Sachs's literary tactic is to allow pride to demonstrate her unbending and blasphemous arrogance in the course of the disputation and then to cause her demise, proof positive of Ecclesiastes XVI: 18—“Wer zu grund gehen sol / Der wird zuuor Stoltz / Hoffertig vnd stoltzer mut / kompt fur den fall.” Sachs's usage of Ecclesiastes is evidenced by several more references to the book—

Der stoltz teglicher hader macht, / Spricht Salomon

(p. 154, ll. 20f. / Eccl. XVIII: 10)

Hoffart geht vorm verderben her, / Spricht Salomon

(p. 155, ll. 35f. / Eccl. XVI: 18)

Derhalb wol Salomon verkünd,
Hoch Augen, stoltzen mut sy sünd,
Das thut der Herr sich an ihn rechen,
Thut der hochfertig hauß zerbrechen

(p. 157, ll. 14ff. / Eccl. XV: 25 and XXI: 4)

—and Ecclesiastes XI: 2—“Wo stoltz ist / Da ist auch schmach / Aber Weisheit ist bey den Demütigen.” The last reference might be taken as the inspiration for Sachs's literary dialogue between wise Demut and foolish Hoffart. Such rhetorically charged battles between sin and virtue partake of a tradition extending at least back to Prudentius's Psychomachia, in which a full-dress contest between virtues and vices is presented.³¹ Yet it would seem that Sachs's formulation is primarily the result of his understanding of Ecclesiastes, a book for which Luther composed a Vorrede, one playing neatly into the hands of Hans Sachs, a Lutheran true believer:

Das billich ein jglich Mensch / so from zu werden gedenckt / solch Buch wol möcht fur sein teglich Handbuch oder Betbuch halten / unnd offt drinnen lesen / vnd sein Leben drinnen ansehen.

(Biblia, p. 1093)

Solche Narren sind alle Land / alle Stedte / alle Heuser vol / vnd werden in diesem Buch gar fleissig gestrafft … Vnd ist auch keiner Tugent mehr / denn gehorsam sein … Das heissen weise Leute. Die Vngehorsamen heissen Narren …

(Biblia, p. 1094)

Sachs's “Kampff-gespreche zwischen der Hoffart und der edlen Demut” is, then, a literary dialogue based on moral categories prevalent in the Lutheran imagination.

The “gesprech mit dem schnöden Müsigang …” (1535 / Werke III, pp. 486-490), that is, with the personification of acedia,³² is reminisent of the previously discussed allegory of avarice. A fantastic figure approaches mounted on a donkey. In the course of the conversation between sloth and the persona (Sachs), each of the sin's eight attributes is interpreted, as, for example, the beast of burden:

Ich sprach: leg mir klerlich auß
Warumb du auff eym esel reytst.
Er sprach: Das ich mich allmal spreist
Vor aller arbeyt grob und schwer,
Als obs mir schand und schedlich wer.
Zur arbeyt send treg meyne glieder
Und ist mir hart und wieder,
Wann ich an groß arbeyt gedenck.

(p. 487, ll. 6-14)

Sachs ultimately rejects the proferred friendship of the allegory (p. 489, l. 36–p. 490, l. 5) and the latter ambles away, allowing the former to speak his critical mind:

Der müssigang macht böse stück
Und tregt die armut auff dem rück,
Als Salomon uns thut bescheyden:
Die müssig seel muß hunger leyden
Der faulkeit thut armut nach gan
Starck wie ein gewapneter man.

(p. 490, ll. 26-31)

Predictably, it is the reference to Ecclesiastes XXIV: 30-34 which documents Sachs's primal inspiration, although Brant's Narrenschiff-chapter 97, “von tragkeit vnd fulheit,” with its citations from the same biblical book (for example, Brant: “Fulkeyt sich wieder went / vnd für ❙ Glich wie der angel an der thür” = Eccl. XVII: 14: “Ein Fauler wendet sich im bette / Wie die thür in der angel.”), just as surely inspired Sachs's didactic perspective. The allegorical representation of sloth differs from that of Brant (a female fool with distaff in hand before a fire, while a man sews sand; see ll. 3-8) and, as such, the various details—stool as headgear etc.—would seem to be original to Sachs's imagination, although the central image of the donkey is one embedded in iconographic tradition.³³ His Nuremberg contemporary Hans Burgkmair, for example, depicts sloth as a heavy-lidded, drowsy woman with one arm draped over a donkey;³⁴ the Dürerschüler Aldegrever pictures acedia mounting a donkey and Solis's “Flegmaticvs” presents a melancholy woman propped against an ass.³⁵ Both Ladenspelder,³⁶ Callot³⁷ and Brueghel the Elder³⁸ associate the mortal sin with the same animal, and in the didactic narrative Die Siben Hauptlaster (1556) Georg Wickram writes: “Es haben die alten gar fein und wol betrachtet / einem yeden hauptlaster sein eygen thier zů geben / Als namlich … der tragheit einen esel / dieweil alle ding so gar vertrossen umb sie zugath.”³⁹—The iconographic background to Sachs's “Gesprech” on sloth demonstrates his sensitivity to the usages of iconographic representation in the service of his didactic aims,⁴⁰ a truism which is unsurprising, given the moralising intention of early modern emblematics.⁴¹

The interpretive observations forwarded thus far are in general equally applicable to the “Kampff-gesprech zwischen zorn und senffmütigkeit” (1542, ira / Werke III, pp. 142-48; see also Werke I, p. 359 and Brant, chapter 35—“Von luchtlich zyrnen”), to “Ein kampf-gesprech zwischen fraw Wollust und fraw Ehren” (1549, luxuria / Werke III, pp. 158-164; see also Werke I, p. 358 and Brant, chapters 13—“Von buolschafft” and 50 “Von Wollust”), and to “Ein kurtz gesprech von dem zutrincken, dem schendlichen laster” (1555, gula / Werke III, pp. 517-522; see also Werke I, p. 359 and Brant, chapters 16—“Von fullen vnd prassen” and 72 “Von groben narren”). The first initially portrays the fury ira in graphic detail—“Sein blult sach ich in adren wallen” (p. 142, l. 15)—before the remainder of the dispute turns to a Senecan disquisition on the virtues of self-control of the emotions, this is a testimony to Sachs's relationship to the Stoic ethic.⁴² The treatment of luxuria is especially effective, for the argumentation between vice and virtue, between Wollust and Ehre, is played out before a youth. He seems inalterably attracted to the former, only to turn in the epilogue toward the latter. The Gespräch is an incipient drama, imparting to the didactics a singularly convincing dynamic: the reader identifies with the youth's position, he partakes in his quandry. Finally, the gula discussion portrays the blasphemous excesses of wine, a topos (Germania inebriata) encountered in Sachs and others.⁴³ The true gravity of the failing is indicated:

Warum furchst du nit deinen Got,
Der füllerey verbotten hat.
Weil darauß kumpt viel ubelthat,
Unzucht, sünd, schand unnd laster.

(p. 520, ll. 1-4)

In sum, Sachs's concentration on the seven mortal sins supports the validity of the initial contention that this author's concern with the topic per se extends significantly into the center of his own and his century's creative self-understanding. The degree to which this is true is illustrated through reference to further examples from his Gesamtwerk, before attention shifts to the Fastnachtspiel.

IV

In the introductory commentary to his works (Werke I, pp. 3-5), Sachs lists the five headings under which the respective texts are categorized. The last work in the first category (one including “gedicht, so auß heyliger schrifft sind oder der schrifft gemeß, alles zu Gottes ehr unnd anraitzung unnd vermannung zu der buß unnd eynem christenlichen leben”—p. 4, ll. 13-15) is entitled “Der todt ein end aller irrdischen ding” (1542 / Werke I, pp. 460-477). The piece is every inch an Everyman-morality. Death approaches Man and the latter vainly seeks refuge with and assistance from Youth, Beauty, Health, Strength, Bravery, Reason, Art, Passion, Medicine, Fortune, World, Power, Nobility, Glory, Riches, Friendship, Wife, Virtue, and the Seven Deadly Sins. Man turns from the sins in horror, as each levels indictments at him, demanding that he justify his worldly sinfulness to them and to God. Like the others, they too abandon him to his fate:

Uns lastern hiengst umb dich an.
Ietz geb wir dir verdienten lon.
Schröcklich geb wir dir zu der letz
Dem fluch und strengen Gottes gsetz.
Vor dem richtstul gewaltiglich
Da werd wir zeugen wider dich.

(p. 472, ll. 23-28)

The sins do not stand alone as concepts (as they do in “Die sieben haubtlaster …”—Werke I, pp. 357-60), rather they possess their own vindictive morality. They function within a divine plan of retribution directed against every man on his personal Day of Reckoning, unless that person turns in the end, as occurs here, to Christian Contrition, Confession, Hope, Faith and Charity. Here Sachs's literary didacticism is rooted in an evangelical ethic (see also Werke I, p. 360, ll. 15-29, for the Pauline nature of this ethic).

In an earlier work, a Spruch entitled simply “Die lastersucht” (1539 / Werke III, pp. 535-40), the author takes on the persona of a man plagued by fever. He is visited by a sympathetic friend, albeit, by one who has been taken in by “lose gesellschaft” (p. 535, l. 7). In the ensuing bedside conversation, it becomes clear that the physically sick man is not nearly as unhealthy as the spiritual sufferer. From the start, the former voices his intention to heal his friend:

                                                            Darumb endlich
Fiel mir ein, das Plutarchus spricht,
Die leiblich kranckheyt sey mit nicht
So gferlich in flaisch und geblüt,
Als die kranckheit inn dem gemüt,
Wo die laster mit gwalt regieren.
Das thet ich bey mir concludiren,
Meym gsellen artzney mit zu thaylen,
Sein inwendig kranckheyt zu haylen.

(p. 535, 11. 9-16)

The subsequent give-and-take is lively. The spiritual sufferer does not give in to his friend's admonitions that he, the spiritually sick, suffers a malady:

Ich sprach: Es wer dir not und gut,
Zu raynigen dein böß gewissen.
Er sprach: Umb sunst würd ich gebissen.
Ich bin nit kranck, du aber liegest.

(p. 536, ll. 25-28)

The spiritual malady is specified as being the condition of “tötlich, giftig lastersucht” (p. 539, l. 35), in which state the respective deadly sins (described closely p. 539, ll. 7-15) are inextricably interrelated:

Ich sprach: Sie wonen all bey dir.
Ein laster an dem andern henckt,
Gleich kettenweiß zusam geschrenckt,
Ob sie sich gleich nicht alle regen.
Der yedliches sich thut bewegen,
Wens ursach hat zu glegner zeyt.

(p. 539, ll. 22-27)

The friend continues to be singularly unconcerned—“An der kranckheit stirb ich mit nichten” (p. 539, l. 37), an attitude which elicits a strongly worded warning that he, the spiritually sick man, is bound for hell (“Im leben und nach ihren todt / Steht in der hellisch rachen offen”—p. 540, ll. 13-14), while the speaker is sure of eternal salvation. The significance of “Die Lastersucht” resides neither solely in the Christian message, for it is to be expected, nor alone in the application of the catalogue of mortal sins, for it is a salient component of Sachs's moral perspective. It lies, rather, in the realization that the Hans Sachs-persona consciously views himself as an admonisher, as a selfless curer by means of warning words:

Nem ein das scharpf haylmachent tranck
Von mir, der trewen warnung straff,
Und wach auff von der laster schlaff!

(p. 540, ll. 19-21)

Sachs's self-concept as a literatus is here expressed in terms strikingly analogous to Das Narren schneyden (as previously discussed) and it is, then, hardly coincidental that the Meisterlied entitled “Das narrenschneiden” (1548),⁴⁴ composed a decade before the Fastnachtspiel of 1557, speaks of “Ein artzet auserkoren” (l. 2), whose duty it is to heal “die laster sucht” (l. 3). The condition is defined by specific reference to the familiar mortal-sins catalogue (ll. 5-6). Indeed, the Meisterlied's first strophe accurately restates the method employed in the Lastersucht-Spruch, that is, the cure is not advanced by means of a surgical operation, but rather by means of argumentation: “Darzu nimpt er [the doctor] ein lind recept, / Strafft in haimlich mit worten.” (ll. 9-10) If, however, the patient refuses to be (or simply cannot be) cleansed by this method, then the “narren schneiden” (l. 27) must take place (strophe 2), an act to be followed by the binding of the surgical wound:

Als denn der artzet in zu hefft,
Legt im vber ein pflaster
Vnd schmirt in mit der weisheit öl,
Vermischt mit aller tügent

(ll. 43-46)

In short, the Meisterlied illustrates the relationship between the Spruch and the Fastnachtspiel; the former cure, accomplished merely by selfless warning between friends (Spruch, strophe 1), precedes the latter more drastic cure which would later be depicted in the Fastnachtspiel. Sach's total commitment to his own role as a literatus and as a wise, selfless healer “mit worten” is defined in a meaningful progression extending across nearly two decades (from 1539-1557) and expressed in three literary modes of central importance to the sixteenth century.

V

The Shrovetide play Das Narren schneyden may be viewed as key to an understanding of Sachs's literary didactics. By way of conclusion, other works from this comedic genre are examined to observe the tactics used in the furtherance of his intent. Sachs himself defines the literary form as both “kurtzweilig” (entertaining) and “nützlich … weyl fast yedes stück mit einer angehenckten lehr beschlossen ist” (Werke I, p. 4). In other words, no matter how profane the subject matter of a piece may be, its very worldliness is embedded in a didactic intentionality corresponding to that discussed at length above. Attention now turns to an analysis of three plays selected from the period 1539-1557.

“Ein Spil mit dreyen Personen vnd heyst der Fürwitz” (1538 / G 8) immediately confronts the reader / viewer with the conflict between “trew Eckhardt” and “Fürwitz” (vainglory). The former allegorical figure recognizes that he has been all but forgotten in this world, while the latter predominates in all lands. The plot develops along lines familiar from the altercation between Wollust and Ehre (as previously discussed); a youth enters and Treue and Vorwitz scramble for dominance over the innocent:

FüRWITZ:
Hast gelt?
JüNGLING:
Gelts genug.
FüRWITZ:
Das ist gut.
Erstlich must du dich halten Prächtig,
Als seist du Edel, Reych vnd Mechtig
…

(ll. 93-97)

DER trew Eckhart spricht:
O Jüngling, das ist schandt vnd Sünd,
Sich kleiden nach des Fürwitz sitten
…
Nach der Hoffart die Armut erbt,
Wie Salomon gesaget hat.
Kleid dich erbar (das ist mein rhat)
Nach deinem Stand, das zierdt dich baß
…

(ll. 108⁺-110, 113-116)

As the Spiel continues, with advice and counterstatement, superbia clearly gains the upper hand. The youth scorns Treue's calls for moderation and social propriety in all matters (this is a reflection of sixteenth-century attitudes toward clothing and social station). He is taken in by Fürwitz' praises of manly skills, that is, of military exercises, hunting, the dance, drink, womanizing and of the seasonal excesses of Shrovetide. In brief, vainglory, clearly the root of all immorality and evil, wins the youth's favor, while Treue must abandon the scene. On the one hand, Sachs's didactic logic appears to be weak, for virtue does not win out; on the other hand, the give-and-take of the dialogue allows for equal presentation of virtue's message. Ultimately, the Biblically sanctioned authority of virtue remains unaffected, even though its victory is not theatrically portrayed. Indeed, this very lack strengthens the didacticism in the direction of verisimilitude. No pat alternative is offered to superbia's hegemony, and the viewers, therefore, must draw their own conclusions in an act of intellectual participation. The pedagogic value of the unfunny comic piece is thereby—at least theoretically—heightened.

“Die laster Artzney” (1544 / G 17) is similar to the previous in intent, though it differs in theatrical tactics. A doctor has let it be known publically that his services are available to all comers. An “Eyfferer” (invidia) immediately appears and tells of his suspicions that his wife is being unfaithful. The doctor inquires whether there is any proof of this luxuria sin and since there is none, he advises the needlessly jealous husband to speak with his spouse and demand of her a less flamboyant life-style. The next sufferer is “Geitzigkarg” (avaritia), a rich man who complains of his neverending anxieties about money. The wise doctor predictably cites Ecclesiastes (ll. 123-26) and advises the avaricious man to put aside his “kleinmütign sin” (l. 135). Subsequently, “Neidig” (invidia) and “Zornig” (ira) come on stage and receive recommendations similar in kind to those of their predecessors, admonishments legitimized by reference to Ecclesiastes (ll. 182-87 and 253-55). Prior to his departure, the doctor, who now identifies himself as “Meister Hans” (l. 277), turns to the audience of revelers and informs them of his willingness to assist any of them, concluding with the conventional signature formula—“Wer mir volgt, entgeht viel vngemachs. / Ein gute nacht wünscht vns Hans Sachs.” (ll. 279-80) The didactics of this Fastnachtspiel correspond, then, to what had been previously demonstrated. This work and G 8 (“Der Fürwitz”) are little more than dramatizations of the various allegorical disputations. The determination of this fact is not a criticism of Sachs, rather, it explicitly demonstrates the validity of those theses established with respect to the interdependence of the deadly sins category and Sachs's literary didactics. And here, as always, it is Master Hans Sachs, the wise poet-doctor, who asks to be consulted and heeded.

A final example, “Faßnacht spiel mit 5 Personen, der vnersetlich Geitzhunger genandt” (1551 / G 32), makes clear, however, that the poetdoctor Sachs is skilled at developing lively comedic action in support of his didactic intent. Here, the appropriately named Simplicius, who has recently received a thousand Gulden (a very considerable sum of money), decides to deposit it temporarily with the highly respected Lux Reichenburger, an entrepreneur who at the moment is down and out. Reichenburger accepts the money hesitantly, an attitude so becoming to his unsullied, but false reputation. Simplicius departs on a trip and the merchant's wife immediately starts scheming: ‘On Simplicius's return, why not deny having received the money? Especially easy, since the simpleton had been given no receipt of deposit,’ she reasons. Reichenburger is still concerned about his reputation, but consents to his wife's plan. On Simplicius's return he says—“Was tausendt guldn? ich mein, dir träum” (l. 149)—and husband and wife convince the muddled simpleton that he must be mistaken about the exchange. Simplicius is understandably chagrined, he departs and meets up with his wise friend, Sapiens, who castigates his companion for naive stupidity. Reichenburger, Sapiens opines, is clearly possessed—“Der geitz hat in bessessen gar” (l. 230)—and he hatches a plan to play on the merchant's insatiable avarice. An old friend appears at Reichenburger's with a chest, whose contents are allegedly worth 12 thousand Gulden. He requests that Reichenburger retain it for a while. At just this moment, Simplicius happens in again and receives his meager thousand from the merchant. In his greed, the latter assumes the second chest to be far more valuable. The trick works. Reichenburger soon learns that the coffer contains only straw and gravel and Sapiens closes the Fastnachtspiel fittingly:

Du darffst dich gar mit nichte kern
Ahn grossen Reichtumb noch gewalt,
Darinn regiert offt manigfalt
Die vnersedtlich, schnödt geitzsucht,
Welche den Menschen macht verucht,
In schantz schlecht Seel, Leib, trew vnd ehr,
Darmit er nur sein reichtumb mehr.

(ll. 374-80)

“Der vnersetlich Geitzhunger” satirically instructs the viewer as to the manipulative opportunism characteristic of this sin's manifestation in the real world of merchantile practices. This is the satiric wisdom of Sebastian Brant's Narrenschiff-chapters 3 and 93 raised to dramatic perspecuity.⁴⁵ It is Luther's conception of human nature, as expressed in the sermon “Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher,” given a life of its own (“… man soll keynem menschen trawern / noch sich auff yhn verlassen / sondern alleyne auff Gott / Denn menschlich natur ist falsch / eittel / lügenhafftig vnd vngewiss / wie die schrifft sagt / vnd die erfarung teglich leret”).⁴⁶ Furthermore, it is Sach's “Evangelium von dem Geytze” (Werke I, pp. 228-90)—“Der [Geiz] hat die gantzen welt vmbringet / In allen stenden hoch vnd nider”—conveyed in a non-homiletic manner and it is the didacticism of Ecclesiastes paradigmatically illustrated in comedic form: “Der Geitzige verstöret sein eigen Haus” (Eccl. XV: 28), “Wer sich auff sein Reichthum verlesst / Der wird untergehn.” (Eccl. XI: 28) Above all, however, this Fastnachtspiel demonstrates that Sachs's usage of the deadly sins theme is grounded not only in Biblical, theological, and literary conceptuality, but also that it manifests itself in the situational ethics of workaday life, contrived as they may be. Simplicius was too trusting in the reputation of Reichenburger, the merchant and wife too avaricious and manipulative, and the worldly-wise Sapiens educates both friend and adversary in the situational ethics required to exist in this sinful society. Sachs's didactic intent may be grounded in absolute principles, in the time-honored conception of the Deadly Sins, but in this and in other Fastnachtspiele he skillfully oversteps the more narrow limits of moralistic dogmatics. In his wisdom as a poet-doctor he teaches necessary social lessons to his ‘simple’ citizen-friends of sixteenth-century Nuremberg:

Das tugend zu nemb, grün und wachs
Und laster abnemb, wünscht Hans Sachs.(47)

Notes

1. The best introductions to Sachs are B. Könneker, Hans Sachs (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1971) and K. Wedler, Hans Sachs (Leipzig: Reclam, 1976).

2. On sixteenth-century Nuremberg see G. Strauss, Nürnberg in the Sixteenth Century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976) and H. Brunner et al., ed., Hans Sachs und Nürnberg (Nürnberg: Verein für Geschichte, 1976). The latter henceforth cited as Nürnberg.

3. W. Theiß, Exemplarische Allegorik (Munich: Fink, 1968), 147.

4. A complete study of the theme is M. W. Bloomfield, The Seven Deadly Sins (Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1952 and 1967) and H. Fink, Die Sieben Todsünden in der mittelenglischen erbaulichen Literatur (Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter, 1969). See also U. Engelmann, Die Psychomachie des Prudentius (Freiburg: Herder, 1959). Bloomfield henceforth cited as Sins.

5. D.-R. Moser, “Fastnacht und Fastnachtspiel,” Nürnberg, Brunner, ed., 214.

6. E. Kartschoke, C. Reins, “Nächstenliebe-Gattenliebe-Eigenliebe, Bürgerlicher Alltag in den Fastnachtspielen des Hans Sachs,” Hans Sachs, Studien zur Frühbürgerlichen Literatur im 16. Jahrhundert, T. Cramer and E. Kartschoke, ed. (Bern: Lang, 1978), 105-138. Volume henceforth cited as Studien, article as Nächstenliebe.

7. H. Krause, Die Dramen des Hans Sachs (Berlin: Hofgarten, 1979 / M.A. Thesis 1971), 61-72 (henceforth cited as Dramen); H. Brunner, “Hans Sachs—Über die Schwierigkeiten literarischen Schaffens in der Reichsstadt Nürnberg,” Nürnberg, ed. Brunner, 1-13; A. K. Brandt, Die ‘tugentreich fraw Armut,’ Besitz und Armut in der Tugendlehre des Hans Sachs (Göttingen: Gratia, 1979), 29-52.

8. Brunner, Nürnberg, 8. Kartschoke and Reins also emphasize the rational: “Die Reflexion über die Unzulänglichkeit und Unzuträglichkeit tradierter Verhaltensformen für Existenzsicherung und soziale Intergration der städtischen Mittel- und Unterschichten baut auf die Bereitschaft, die eigene Lebenspraxis zu überdenken und neue Wertmaßstäbe anzunehmen.” (Studien, 137).

9. B. Könneker, “Die Ehemoral in den Fastnachtspielen von Hans Sachs,” Nürnberg, Brunner, ed., 219-244.

10. See B. Balzer, Bürgerliche Reformationspropaganda, Die Flugschriften des Hans Sachs in den Jahren 1523-1525 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1972) and Könneker, Reformationszeit (see note 25 in Bibliographical Introduction above), 148-157.

11. On Sachs's neo-stoicism see Krause, Dramen, 71f. and Brandt, Tugendlehre, 43-50.

12. On the Nuremberg context see Strauss, note 2 above, Brunner, note 7 above, and E. Straßner, “Die literarischen Voraussetzungen für das Werk des Hans Sachs,” Nürnberg, Brunner, ed., 55-75, and W. Theiß, “Der Bürger und die Politik,” Nürnberg, Brunner, ed., 76-104. The latter emphasizes the necessity of discussing “die religiös verankerte, auf das mittelalterliche Tugend-Laster-System bezogene Moral in ihrer Bedeutung für die Ausbildung des bürgerlichen Bewußtseins im 16. Jahrhundert …” (77). See also, more generally, S. E. Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).

13. The texts of the Fastnachtspiele are consecutively numbered in E. Goetze, ed., Sämmtliche Fastnachtspiele von Hans Sachs, 7 vols. (Halle: Niemeyer, 1881-87). Henceforth cited in text by Goetze number, line number; starred line-references are to unnumbered stage-directions.

14. The best brief introduction to the genre remains E. Catholy, Fastnachtspiel (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1966); see also the Bibliographical Introduction above.

15. See Moser, Fastnacht (note 5 above), 211-12, and S. Brant, Narrenschiff (note 17 of Bibliographical Introduction above), 133 (chapter 55: “Von narrechter artzny”): the woodcut illustrates and the text speaks of a urinalysis. Sachs's doctor is apparently not a quack/fool, a point made by his presentation of accrediting documents (ll. 17 and 17⁺). See also C. Hammer, “The Doctor in the Late Medieval ‘Artztspiel’,” GLL, 24 (1971), 244-56.

16. W. Mezger, “Bemerkungen zum mittelalterlichen Narrentum,” Narrenfreiheit, Beiträge zur Fastnachtforschung (Tübingen: Vereinigung für Volkskunde, 1980), 50. See also Abbildungen 3-5 and 46-49 for the interrelationship between fools and the sick. Article henceforth cited as Bemerkungen, volume as Narrenfreiheit.

17. The Titelholzschnitt to the work is iconographically related to the woodcut accompanying Brant's Narrenschiff-chapter 67 (“Nit wellen eyn nar syn”), 170 and 324, though much less gruesome than Brant's. One conjectures if the Sachs-woodcut is a reflection of performance practices, i.e., if the Kranck-actor had a paunch filled with deadly-sin dolls.

18. Brant's Narrenschiff-chapter 60, page 147, illustrates a related scenario and chapter 26, page 65, illustrates Narrenohren; see also Mezger, Bemerkungen, 53-54 and Abbildungen 10-14. For a discussion of Sachs and iconography see M. Beare, “Observations on some of the Illustrated Broadsheets of Hans Sachs,” GLL, XVI (1962/63), 174-85; H. Henze, Die Allegorie bei Hans Sachs (Halle: Niemeyer, 1912), and also Die Welt des Hans Sachs (Nuremberg: Carl, 1976), an exhibition catalogue.

19. Kartschoke and Reins, Nächstenliebe, 137.

20. A. von Keller, ed., Hans Sachs Werke, vol. III (Tübingen: SLV, 1870), 540, ll. 30-31. The Keller Gesamtausgabe in the Stuttgarter Literaturverein series, 26 vols. (Tübingen, 1870-1908), will henceforth be referred to parenthetically in the text by vol., page, and line number—K.-S. Kramer, “Zu den Fastnachtspielen von Hans Sachs,” Bayerische Literaturgeschichte in ausgewählten Beispielen. Neuzeit, ed. E. Dünninger et al. (Munich, 1967), 184, writes of Sachs's self-concept: “Man meint nicht zu Unrecht, daß er in seinen Stücken die Rollen der gütigen, freundschaftlichen Ratgeber, der weisen alten, der Einsichten und Überlegenen selbst spielte.” That is, Sachs's use of the closing formula as a signature is seen as his personal identification with the moral and speaker of the epilogue. Krause, Dramen, 121, writes similarly: “… so ist auch die Namensnennung des Autors im Epilog primär von wirkungsdidaktischem … Interesse bestimmt. Sachs läßt, indem er sich selbst nennt, keinen Zweifel daran, daß er es ist, der durch den Mund des Herolds zu seinem Publikum spricht. Die moralische Ausdeutung gewinnt dadurch an Überzeugungskraft, denn die Lehren des Autors konnten jederzeit an seiner bürgerlichen Existenz überprüft werden. … Indem Sachs die persönliche Haftung für die von ihm vertretene Moral übernimmt, überführt er sie in die soziale Wirklichkeit.”

21. Bloomfield, Sins, 86, quotes the ditty allowing the monks to remember the Sins—“Dat septem vicia / dictio saligia.” That Sachs switches the order may indicate that he regards avaritia and invidia as being significantly interrelated (cf. Werke V, 98-100) and/or luxuria and gula, both sins of the flesh, as being kindred spirits. By definition, of course, all sins are inextricably interrelated—as one begets the next—and the formula, therefore, remains an artificial construct.

22. All citations from the Bible follow H. Volz, ed., Martin Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch, 2 vols. (1545 / Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972).

23. The question of Sachs's religiosity is discussed by Krause, Dramen, 24-42, and by Könneker, Hans Sachs, 6-8: “Es war die Bejahung einer zwar im Religiösen verankerten, aber diesseitig orientierten Ethik, die Sachs sowohl am Humanismus wie am Protestantismus anzog, weil er sich durch sie in seinem bürgerlichen Wertbewußtsein bestätigt fühlte …” (8).

24. Brant, Narrenschiff, 12, ll. 33-34.

25. O. Clemen, ed., Luthers Werke in Auswahl, vol. 3 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1959), 1. B. Lohse, Martin Luther (Munich: Beck, 1981), 139, writes of this sermon: “Für Luther ist der Ausgangspunkt entscheidend, daß nämlich das Evangelium, wie es wieder an den Tag gekommen ist, manche Werke der Finsternis straft und anprangert, insbesondere den Geiz.”—Luther's views on sin and sinners make up a significant portion of the Tischreden, fol. 138^r-149^v (“Von der Sunde”); see note 31, chapter 1 above.

26. Könneker, Reformationszeit, 154.

27. Brant, Narrenschiff, 129-130.

28. See W. Hempel, Übermuot Diu Alte … Der Superbia-Gedanke und seine Rolle in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters (Bonn: Bouvier, 1970), 2-37. Sachs, Werke, I, 357, succinctly characterizes pride.

29. Sachs describes her as winged, as wearing a brown dress, golden jewelry, and she is compared to Venus; peacock feathers, a mirror, and dragon's tail round out the characterization. The motifs may be inspired by Brant's Narrenschiff-chapter 13, with its depiction of Buhlschaft and/or the woodcut to chapter 92 (“Vberhebung der Hochfart”). The dragon tail is that of the basilisk, the beast signifying sin. See also Brant-chapter 22 for the angelic figure of “wisheit” (57).

30. Sachs's “Zweyerley belonung, beyde der tugend und laster” (Werke, III, 95-99) depicts the vices as heathen winged women and the virtues as angelic beings.

31. Bloomfield, Sins, 64.

32. See S. Wenzel, The Sin of Sloth: Acedia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967) and R. E. Schade, “The Courasche-Frontispiece: Gypsy, Mule, Acedia,” Simpliciana, III (1981), 73-93. Sachs, Werke, I, 359-60, also characterizes “Die tragkeyt.”

33. See Schade, Frontispiece, 77, 85-89.

34. Burgkmair's work is reproduced in M. Geisberg, The German Single-Leaf Woodcut 1500 to 1550, ed. W. L. Strauss (New York: Hacker, 1974), 460.

35. Aldegrever and Solis are reproduced in Schade, Frontispiece, 86, 88. See also G. Luther, Heinrich Aldegrever, Ein Westfälischer Kupferstecher des 16. Jahrhunderts (Münster: Museum, 1982), 46-49, for the virtues and vices.

36. For Ladenspelder's “The Seven Sins” see Hollstein's Engravings, Etchings and Woodcuts, vol. XX, 177-180.

37. For J. Callot's series see H. Daniel, ed., Callot's Etchings (New York: Dover, 1974), 92.

38. Brueghel's print is reproduced in N. Jockel, Die 7 Todsünden. Sinnbilder des Bösen (Hamburg: Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, 1979), 13.

39. G. Wickram, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 8, ed. H.-G. Roloff (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972), 184.

40. See Könneker, Hans Sachs, 9.

41. Among the numerous discussions of emblematics see P. M. Daly, “The Emblematic Tradition and Baroque Poetry,” German Baroque Literature, ed. Hoffmeister, 52-71; cf. note 67 of Bibliographical Introduction.

42. See note 11 above.

43. The topos of Germania inebriata / drunken Germany is an old one in literature; see note 46 in Chapter 3 below and note 14, Chapter 5.

44. E. Goetze, C. Drescher, ed., Sämtliche Fabeln und Schwänke von Hans Sachs, vol. 4 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1903), 411-413.

45. See C. Bohnert, “Sebastian Brants Narrenshiff. Satire und Wirklichkeit an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit,” Daphnis, 14 (1985), 615-45. Bohnert deals with Brant's work in terms of deadly sins didactics, stating for example: “Beherrschendes Laster der Zeit ist die Avaritia: die Gier nach Geld und Besitz zerstört den [gesellschaftlichen] Ordo.” (639) Bohnert's conclusions support my theses completely, especially important, since Sachs clearly relies on Brant.

46. Luther, 7; cf. note 25 above.

47. Sachs, see note 20 above.