Het was krankzinnigheid den vuist te ballen tegen het fatum

Abstract

Abstract The rise of naturalism in the Netherlands and Flanders was accompanied by a growing interest in a motif that had drawn attention to itself on several occasions in earlier literary epochs: fate or fatum. At least up to the mid-20th century, this motif went on playing an important role in Dutch-language literature. It is striking in this connection that two different notions of fatum are to be found there. On the one hand, an ‘external’ fate is identified – thought of as a supernatural, metaphysical power which determines the course of events in advance. On the other hand, though, an ‘internal’ fate is postulated – a conglomerate of psychological dispositions and hereditary character traits that determine a person’s behaviour. In literary texts, it is not always easy to see whether an ‘external’ or an ‘internal’ idea of fatum is predominant. The present article investigates where the reasons for this ambivalence lie. A thematological procedure was chosen for the purpose, with Deirdre en de zonen van Usnach (1920) by Adriaan Roland Holst serving as a reference point – a novel in which the author made an explicit decision in favour of an ‘external’ idea of fate. Furthermore, two other novels are analysed: Noodlot (1890) by Louis Couperus and De waterman (1933) by Arthur van Schendel.