The Literature of The Arminian Controversy: Religion, Politics and the Stage in the Dutch Republic [1 ed.] 0198749732, 9780198749738

Table of contents :
Cover
The Literature of the Arminian Controversy: Religion, Politics, and the Stage in the Dutch Republic
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Illustrations
Introduction
1: Church at the Crossroads: The Reformed in the Dutch Republic
1.1 THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
1.2 THE DEBATE ON LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
1.3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARMINIANISM
2: Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers during the Arminian Controversy
2.1 THE ADVENT OF CONTROVERSY: FROM THE REMONSTRANCE TO THE ORDINUM PIETAS (1613)
2.2 GROTIUS’S ORDINUM HOLLANDIAE AC WESTFRISIAE PIETAS
2.3 APPROPRIATING ERASMUS: THE POLARIZATION OF ‘CONSENSUS
2.4 THE ACADEMY AND THE ALEHOUSE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-CALVINIST SATIRE
3: Poets on the Offensive: Coster’s Academy and the Staging of Iphigenia
3.1 RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY AND CULTURAL INNOVATION: COSTER AND THE FOUNDING OF THE NEDERDUYTSCHE ACADEMY
3.2 IPHIGENIA AND ANTI-CALVINIST POLEMICS
3.3 IPHIGENIA AND REMONSTRANT ECCLESIOLOGY: THE EXAMPLE OF THE RESPUBLICA HEBRAEORUM
3.4 NATURAL LAW OR NATURAL THEOLOGY?
3.5 IPHIGENIA AND URBAN POLITICS: 1617
4: The Spectre of Civil War: Literary Reactions to the Death of Oldenbarnevelt
4.1 PUBLIC OPINION IN THE ‘YEAR OF VIOLENCE’
4.2 THE TRAGEDY OF JOHAN VAN OLDENBARNEVELT: TRIAL AND EXECUTION
4.3 ‘THE LORD IS AN AVENGER OVER THOSE WHO OPPRESS THEIR BRETHREN’: THE ARMINIAN EXILES AND THE RHETORIC OF PERSECUTION
4.4 BRUTUS TO HOLLAND: VENGEANCE AND TYRANNICIDE
5: Victim Tragedy and Vengeance: Vondel’s Palamedes (1625)
5.1 SILENCE AND CENSORSHIP
5.2 ‘VENGEANCE, POLITICAL FACTIONS, AND SANGUINARIA CONSILIA’
5.3 MASKING AND UNMASKING: MACHIAVELLIAN PLOTTING AND THE LIBERTIES OF THE LAND
5.4 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE: THE SYNOD OF DORT AND THE DEATH OF OLDENBARNEVELT
5.5 PALAMEDES SEEKS REVENGE: THE POET AND THE PERSECUTORY IMAGINATION
6: The Academy and the Arminian Controversy in the First Years of Frederik Hendrik’s Stadtholderate
6.1 CONTROVERSY AND THE POPULAR PRESS AT AMSTERDAM, 1626–30
6.2 HAEC LIBERTATIS ERGO: LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE REVISITED
6.3 BABEL: THE ACADEMY’S RHYMED PRIZE CONTEST
Conclusion
Bibliography
MODERN EDITIONS
SECONDARY SOURCES
Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

T h e L i t e r at u r e O f T h e A r m i n i a n C o n t rov e r s y

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

The Literature of the Arminian Controversy Religion, Politics, and the Stage in the Dutch Republic Freya Sierhuis

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Freya Sierhuis 2015 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2015 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015935927 ISBN 978–0–19–874973–8 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

Thy will such a strange distance is As that to it East and West touch, the poles do kiss And parallels meet (George Herbert, The Search)

Fratres, mera est abyssus amor Dei (Daniel Heinsius, Homilia in locum Iohannes cap XVII versus ix)

In thinking about the works of God, human reason is blind and prone to disputation. But it is no wonder if the counsels of God, which the angels look into from the height of heaven are little congruous with the flesh (John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

Acknowledgements In writing this book I have incurred many debts, intellectual and otherwise. Thanks are due first of all to Martin van Gelderen, for his confidence and support. I am grateful to Diogo Ramada Curto for his perceptive comments on an earlier version of this text, and to Harald Braun, Peter Lake, Russ Leo, Nigel Smith, René van Stipriaan, Elsa Strietman, and Christopher Tilmouth for encouragement and valuable advice. Kevin Sharpe followed this project with the intellectual acumen and generosity that characterized him. His kindness and humour are very much missed. I am thankful to the European University Institute for providing the intellectual conditions in which this project could come to fruition, and to my colleagues and friends: Lidia P. Blanc, Holger Nemeth Berg, Eleni Braat, Thomas Fetzer, Jaska Kainulainen, Henk Looijesteijn, Jan-Henrik Meyer, Lucy Turner Voakes, and Gerben Zaagsma. Parts of this book were presented at the conference ‘Calvin and his ­Influence’, Geneva, 24–27 May 2009, and at the Renaissance Society of America Annual Conference, Venice, 8–10 April 2010. I am grateful to Ian Hazlett and the editors of Reformation and Renaissance Review for allowing me to reprint parts of my article ‘The Rhetoric of Religious Dissent: Anti-Calvinism, Satire and the Arminian Controversy in the Dutch Republic’, Renaissance and Reformation ­Review, 12/2–3 (2011) in Chapter 3. During the past three years the Department für Anglistik and Amerikanistik of the LMU Munich has become a new home, as well as a stimulating and collegial working environment. A Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Exzellenzinitiative Fellowship enabled me to embark on a new research project. Andreas Höfele generously allowed me to take time off to revise the manuscript, and has been a steady source of encouragement throughout. Thanks are also due to my colleagues, ­Suzanne Bayerlipp, Suzanne Friedrich, Hans Walter Gabler, Daniella Jancsó, Isabel Karremann, Stephan Laqué, Iris Oberth, Enno Rüge, Björn Quiring, Gabriela Schmidt, and Renate Schruff for friendship and genuine intellectual exchange. Sonja Asal, Caroline Krüger, and Susanne Schaffrath of the LMU’s Centre for ­Advanced Studies offered advice and help, as well as the use of the Centre’s extraordinary research and conference facilities. I am thankful to the library staff of the rare books collection of the University of Amsterdam for expert advice, and the good cheer with which they provided what at times seemed ever-growing piles of pamphlets and plays. Special thanks are due finally to Brian Cummings, to Isabel for days in the mountains, to Daniella and Hannah for Saturday afternoons in the park, to Tamara van Kessel, César Lucas-Nuñez, Davide Sala, Karin Tilmans, and Wyger Velema. This book is dedicated to my mother, Anna Sierhuis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

Contents List of Illustrations

xi

Introduction

1

1. Church at the Crossroads: The Reformed in the Dutch Republic 1.1 The Dutch Reformed Church in the Sixteenth Century 1.2 The Debate on Liberty of Conscience 1.3 The Development of Arminianism

18 18 27 36

2. Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers during the Arminian Controversy 2.1 The Advent of Controversy: From the Remonstrance to the Ordinum pietas (1613) 2.2 Grotius’s Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas 2.3 Appropriating Erasmus: The Polarization of ‘Consensus’ 2.4 The Academy and the Alehouse: The Development of Anti-Calvinist Satire

53

3. Poets on the Offensive: Coster’s Academy and the Staging of Iphigenia 3.1 Religious Controversy and Cultural Innovation: Coster and the Founding of the Nederduytsche Academy 3.2 Iphigenia and Anti-Calvinist Polemics 3.3 Iphigenia and Remonstrant Ecclesiology: The Example of the Respublica Hebraeorum 3.4 Natural Law or Natural Theology? 3.5 Iphigenia and Urban Politics: 1617 4. The Spectre of Civil War: Literary Reactions to the Death of Oldenbarnevelt 4.1 Public Opinion in the ‘Year of Violence’ 4.2 The Tragedy of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt: Trial and Execution 4.3 ‘The Lord is an Avenger over those Who Oppress their Brethren’: The Arminian Exiles and the Rhetoric of Persecution 4.4 Brutus to Holland: Vengeance and Tyrannicide 5. Victim Tragedy and Vengeance: Vondel’s Palamedes (1625) 5.1 Silence and Censorship 5.2 ‘Vengeance, Political Factions, and Sanguinaria Consilia’ 5.3 Masking and Unmasking: Machiavellian Plotting and the Liberties of the Land 5.4 The Destruction of the Temple: The Synod of Dort and the Death of Oldenbarnevelt 5.5 Palamedes Seeks Revenge: The Poet and the Persecutory Imagination

53 65 77 85 98 98 108 115 128 132 145 146 154 164 175 191 192 198 203 214 223

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

x Contents 6. The Academy and the Arminian Controversy in the First Years of Frederik Hendrik’s Stadtholderate 6.1 Controversy and the Popular Press at Amsterdam, 1626–30 6.2 Haec Libertatis Ergo: Liberty of Conscience Revisited 6.3 Babel: The Academy’s Rhymed Prize Contest Conclusion Bibliography Index

227 229 236 248 259 265 289

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

List of Illustrations 1. Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt, portrait of Maurits van Nassau (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 2. Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt, portrait of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 3. Anonymous, portrait of Jacobus Arminius (1615) (Image reproduced with permission of the Remonstrantse Gemeente Rotterdam) 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, portrait of Johannes Uytenbogaert (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 5. Anonymous, The Arminian Dungcart (1619) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 6. Portrait of Samuel Coster, engraving after Joachim Sandart (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 7. Hendrick Goltzius and Dirck Volckertz. Coornhert, False Opinion ruins the World (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 8. Anonymous, The Righteous Sieve (1618) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 9. Joost van den Vondel, Op de Waeg-schael (1618) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 10. Claesz Jansz Visscher, The Execution of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1619) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 11. Cornelis Sanftleven, Satire on the Synod of Dort (1621) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 12. Govert Flinck, portrait of Joost van den Vondel (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 13. Cornelis Sanftleven, frontispiece of Vondel’s Palamedes (1625) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) 14. Rembrandt van Rijn, The Stoning of St Stephen (1625), Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon) © MBA Lyon–Photo Alain Basset

3 4 37 49 84 100 130 150 152 158 165 192 220 222

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/08/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction The Arminian controversy (1609–19) was without question the most momentous event in the early history of the Dutch Republic. Having only just emerged as an independent political entity, the Dutch Republic was confronted with a level of  doctrinal controversy and religious dissent unparalleled since the heyday of the Revolt. The Arminian conflict shared, of course, in the late sixteenth-century debate on will and grace that divided Protestants and Catholics in many parts of Europe. Yet nowhere else was doctrinal disagreement debated with such acrimony, and among such a large section of the population. Nowhere, not even in England under Charles I and William Laud, did religious controversy alone bring a country to the brink of civil war. Nowhere did it lead to a military coup, the fall of a regime, and to schism in the public church. There were Arminian controversies in England, yet Arminianism as a denomination originated in the Dutch Republic, ten years after the death of the man who had given it its name, in the immediate aftermath of the Synod of Dort (1619). The importance of these developments for the history of Reformed Protestant­ ism, and indeed, for Reformation history, hardly needs to be emphasized. Historians such as Willem den Boer, Eef Dekker, Richard Muller, and Keith Stanglin have established beyond contestation that, despite the claim of its adherents that their views were in line with a distinct tradition within the Dutch Reformed Church, Arminianism, as a theological system, constituted a wholesale alternative to orthodox Reformed Protestantism.1 It is, moreover, increasingly recognized that in a period in which the Republic, with Leiden as its leading university, emerged as the intellectual centre of late humanist scholarship in Western Europe, the Arminian 1  William den Boer, God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacobus Arminius 1559–1609 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); Eef Dekker, Rijker dan Midas: Vrijheid, genade en predestinatie in the theologie van Jacobus Arminius (1559–1609) (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1993); Eef Dekker, ‘Theologische en filosofische vrijheid in de vroege zeventiende eeuw’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E. Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw (Amsterdam: AUP, 1999), 53–69; T. Marius van Leeuwen, Keith D. Stanglin, and Marijke Tolsma (eds), Arminius, Arminianism and Europe: Jacobus Arminius 1559/60–1609 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls (eds), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005); Richard A. Muller, God, Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Great Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991); Keith D. Stanglin, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603–1609 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007); Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (eds), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011); and Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbert Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

2

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

controversy constituted a seminal moment in the history of early modern political thought, shaping the debates on the relation between the church and the civil magistrate, religious toleration, and on the nature and normative character of the Hebrew polity.2 What distinguished the Arminian controversy from anti-Calvinist conflicts elsewhere was the regime’s determination not to let one party prevail, but to enforce the toleration of both doctrinal positions within one church. It was a daringly ­innovative policy that provoked incomprehension and dogged opposition within the Dutch Reformed Church, and fatally damaged the reputation of the regime abroad. It alienated the leader of the Republic, Stadtholder Maurits of Nassau (1567–1625, Prince of Orange after 1618) (see Figure 1), who up until the debates on the Twelve Year Truce had focused on his military campaigns against Spain. For a period of over twenty years, there had been a good working relationship between the Stadholder and Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1522–90) (see Figure 2), who as Land’s Advocate (landsadvocaat) of the States of Holland was de facto the most powerful politician in the country. In the ten years between the death of Arminius and the Synod of Dort, the States of Holland, under the guidance of Oldenbarnevelt, embarked on a fully fledged campaign to justify its ecclesiastical policy and its strategy for quelling religious division. For this purpose, Oldenbarnevelt employed the services of two high-profile protégés: Johannes Uytenbogaert (1577–1644) (see Figure 4), Arminius’s successor and leader of the Remonstrants, and Hugo Grotius (1585–1647), the rapidly rising star of the Republic of Letters, who in these years was involved in every intellectual debate shaping the Republic’s foreign and domestic politics. In providing ammunition for the defence of the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland, Grotius furthermore enlisted the aid of several of the Republic’s leading scholars, such as the humanist, church historian, and philologist Gerardus Vossius (1577–1649), the philosopher and theologian Caspar Barlaeus (1584–1648), the polymath Petrus Bertius (1565–1629), and the jurist and Hebraist Petrus Cunaeus (1586–1638). All these men had connections to the University of Leiden, where Vossius was rector of the theological college from 1614 until his resignation in 1619, Barlaeus and Bertius were respectively vice-regent and regent of the States’ College, and Cunaeus was professor of Latin, politics, and jurisprudence (respectively from 1612, 1613, and 1615 onwards). They shared an intellectual background, education, and outlook, having been trained in the classical and biblical languages by the great Joseph Scaliger and Johannes Drusius. Leiden, with Scaliger, 2  On this topic, see Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010); Gordon Sochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger, and Meirav Jones (eds), Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern ­Political Thought (Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press, 2008); Warren Zev Harvey, ‘The Israelite Kingdom of God in Hobbes’s Political Thought’, Hebraic Political Studies, 1 (2006), 310–27; Lea Campos Boralevi, ‘Classical Foundation Myths of European Republicanism: The Jewish Commonwealth’, in Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (eds), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 247–61; John Sommerville, ‘Hobbes, Selden, Erastianism and the History of the Jews’, in G. A. J. Rogers and Tom Sorell (eds), Hobbes and History (Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge, 2000), 160–88.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 3

Figure 1 Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt, portrait of Maurits van Nassau (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), the author of De politia Moisis observatione (1593), and Franciscus Raphelengius, had emerged as Europe’s leading centre of Hebrew studies in the closing decades of the sixteenth century, closely followed by the University of Franeker, where Drusius was active. The second generation of Leiden humanists consolidated the university’s reputation as the leading intellectual centre of Europe, while harnessing the critical tools of biblical philology, church history, and Hebrew studies to the service of an ecclesiastical and religious policy that was Erastian, irenicist, and dedicated to religious toleration. Many of its leading lights were Arminians, or Arminian sympathizers. Barlaeus had been a minister, whose career as a preacher had been cut short because of his Arminian beliefs. Both he and his friend Vossius lost their positions after the Synod

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

4

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 2  Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt, portrait of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

of Dort. Bertius had been a personal friend of Arminius. Cunaeus, finally, although he did not choose sides, and chastised Arminians and Gomarists alike in his Neo-­Latin satire Sardi venales (1612), stood with Grotius and the Arminians politically, at least. Of course it would be a simplification to present the ‘Leiden circle’ as unequivocal in support of the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland. The poet and philologist Daniel Heinsius (1580–1655), who had been Scaliger’s favourite pupil, eventually chose the side of the opponents of the Arminians, and served as secretary to the representatives of the States of Holland at the Synod of Dort, a course of action that led to the end of his friendship with Grotius. However, the importance of the personal and intellectual ties that existed between Leiden’s humanists and the leading figures of the States’ regime is increasingly clear.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 5 What is less commonly recognized is that these ties extended to include many of the leading proponents of Dutch vernacular literature as well, and that the line between The Hague and Leiden should rather be conceived as a triangle, connecting Leiden, The Hague, and Amsterdam. The ambitious intellectual project for which Grotius, with the backing of Oldenbarnevelt, endeavoured to win support found a wider reception through the efforts of the poet and playwright P. C. Hooft (1581–1647), Dr Samuel Coster (1579–1665), the founder of the first civic theatre in Amsterdam, the Nederduytsche Academy (Nederduytsche Academie), and a far wider group of minor poets, playwrights, and pamphleteers, many of whom are  now forgotten. The Mennonite poet and playwright Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679), whose mature dramatic work stands as the towering achievement of Dutch seventeenth-century literature, was a later arrival in this group, but emerged as its most outspoken spokesman, an indefatigable champion of Grotius and Oldenbarnevelt. The Arminian controversy shaped Dutch literary culture not only insofar that the Synod of Dort decided in favour of a new translation of the Bible, the Statenbijbel (1637), that strongly influenced the development of Dutch as a literary language, but also because it propelled new developments in Dutch vernacular literature, ranging from vernacular religious satire and libel verse to biblical tragedy. This book aims to draw attention to this exchange between political and religious polemic and vernacular literary culture. It seeks to investigate how religious controversy shaped the literary culture of the Dutch Republic, and how, in turn, doctrinal dissent was itself shaped by the very specific conditions of the literary and political culture in which it arose. In doing so, it aims to rescue from near oblivion some of the lesser-known characters of Dutch Golden Age literature such as Samuel Coster, whose shortlived theatre will play a central role in this book, and the redoubtable religious controversialist and satirist Reinier Telle (1558/9–1618), a key figure in the history of toleration in the Republic.3 This book contends that the Arminian controversy acted as a catalyst of halfhidden fault-lines in Dutch culture, many of them dating back to the turbulent final decades of the sixteenth century, concerning the relation between church and civil magistrate, the status of confession and catechism, and the toleration of religious dissent, framing them in a context already politicized by the debates over whether or not to continue the war against Spain. Lastly, it brought the conflict over the nature of divine predestination into the open, debated in the pulpits, in 3  For Samuel Coster, see Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een studie naar de opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena en Iphigenia (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1986). There is as yet no monograph study of Telle. Valuable information is found in Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle traducteur de Castellion et de Servet’, in Bruno Becker (ed.), Autour de Michel Servet et de Sébastien Castellio (Haarlem: s.n., 1953), 142–57; Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle, hekeldichter, pamfletschrijver vertaler’, Zestigste Jaarboek Genootschap Amstellodamum (1968), 53–73, 142–57; idem, ‘Drie vrienden, Bredero, Telle, Le Blon’, Maandblad Amstelodamum, 58 (1971), 49–57; idem, ‘Willem Jansz: Blaeu as a Publisher of Books’, Quarendo: A Quarterly Journal from the Low Countries Devoted to Manuscripts and Printed Books, 3/2 (1973), 141–6. See also D.  Nauta et al. (eds), Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1983), i. 375–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

6

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

streets and taverns, as well as on the stage. The effect on literary culture, as well as on religious controversial literature, was electrifying. The motivation for this book is twofold. There is an objective paucity of literature dealing with this period in the Republic’s history. Van Deursen’s classic study on the Dutch Reformed Church, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt, conveys a vivid sense of the passion and conviction with which matters such as predestination, assurance of salvation, and irresisti­ble grace were discussed in congregations and local communities.4 In its account of the theology and ecclesiology of Arminianism, however, it suffers from serious flaws.5 Political histories of the period, as a rule, tend to discuss the controversy only in passing. In Simon Groenveld’s account of the Twelve Year Truce (1609–21) the conflict is settled, not uncharacteristically, in a mere five pages. As a rule, the theology of Arminianism is still largely left to theologians and historians of religion. More broadly this book aims to look beyond the boundaries of genre and ­medium, to the flexible and capacious interface between pamphlets, vernacular theological polemics, broadsides, and libels, as well as poetry, drama, and satire. In this way, a fuller understanding of the literature of the period can be gained: one that does not presuppose a static one-to-one relationship between literature and religious and political discourse, but offers a full contextualization, looking at the influence of works of political and religious party leaders such as Grotius and Uytenbogaert, but also registering the rhyme and reason of popular politics with its pamphleteering campaigns, petitions, strikes, and riots. Looking at such a broad corpus of texts makes it possible to see distinctive characteristics of the literature of the Arminian controversy in a clearer focus, while at the same time shedding new light on the culture of early modern politics. In the sprawling landscape of vernacular politico-religious controversiae, Amsterdam emerges as a focal point, not only because it was the undisputed centre of the Republic’s publishing industry, a market of books, ideas, and opinions, but also because it functioned, during the period of the controversy, as the centre of the opposition to Johan van Oldenbarnevelt’s policy of toleration, as well as of its strongest supporters among the Republic’s literary establishment. The poets and playwrights who took a stand in the Arminian controversy used the stage, like they used other literary forms, to propagate their views, appealing to and helping to create an arena of public debate much larger than the customary conduits for political discussion. Thus it happened that the professionalization of the stage was propelled by the existence of political and religious division. By this, I do not mean the theatre’s gradual 4  A. T. van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt (Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2010). 5  ‘Episcopius, Grevinchoven, Sapma, Wtenbogaert, Dwinglo, were incapable of providing more than scholastic subtleties’; according to Van Deursen, Arminianism was an ‘eclectic theology (. . .) that failed to construct anything new’, Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 259–60. This rather eccentric verdict is based on a single letter from Uytenbogaert to Episcopius, and a thesis ascribed to Nicolaas van Grenichoven by his opponent, the Contra-Remonstrant preacher, and later professor at Leiden, Jacobus Trigland. The book lacks any sustained discussion of the theological works of Arminius, Uytenbogaert, or Episcopius.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 7 breaking away from the literary forms and poetic conventions of the urban chambers of rhetoric, a process spanning the first decades of the seventeenth century, but an  awareness of the inadequacy of the existing structures, and the need to find new  means to bring a political message across to a wider audience. Coster’s Nederduytsche Academie, the direct ancestor of Amsterdam’s city theatre, arose in response to this need. One of the fascinating aspects of the Arminian controversy is that it takes up all the familiar themes of the puritan-playwright controversy analysed so brilliantly by Peter Lake in The Antichrist’s Lewd Hat, but plays them out in the arena of high politics and, perhaps even more scandalously, high theology. Yet equally important is the question of what happened to political and religious questions once they were translated from their official media into the volatile sphere of pamphlets, verse satire, and theatre plays. What happens when predestination, one of the arcana Dei, of which Calvin wrote one may only inquire with extreme caution, ‘lest one loses oneself in a dark labyrinth’, becomes a matter of public debate? While Chapters 3, 4, and 6 treat the impact of the Arminian controversy on Dutch literary culture in a more or less straightforwardly chronological fashion, Chapters 2 and 5 engage more deeply with the issue of how mediatization, dissemination, and the politics of genre and literary style affect the questions under debate. Chapter 2 does so by looking at the complex dialectic between irenicism and satire to show how the corrosion of rhetorical decorum had a directly polarizing effect on religious debate. Chapter 5 pursues a similar set of concerns by looking at the troubling boundary traffic between victim tragedy and blood libel in what is perhaps the most famous literary work of the period, Vondel’s tragedy Palamedes or Innocence Murdered, a topical allegory on the fall of Oldenbarnevelt. Pursuing these concerns assumes a view of Dutch Golden Age politics and culture which differs in a number of ways from the existing historiography. The first of these concerns the role of ideology in politics. Up until quite recently, the domi­nant tendency in Dutch political history was to downplay ideological factors in the process of politics. An emphasis not unlike that of Anglo-Saxon revisionism has for  several decades determined how historians of the seventeenth century understood the political—a fact undoubtedly due to the influence of works like Daniel J. Roorda’s Partij en factie and Groenveld’s Evidente factiën in den staet, which both emphasized the role of patronage and urban and regional factions, while minimizing the importance of religious or ideological factors.6 Not unlike revisionism in  England, this emphasis on patronage and clientelism, and on urban as well as regional factions, has had the salutary effect of breaking open a historiographical paradigm, dating back to the nineteenth century, and dominant well into the twentieth century, that saw Dutch seventeenth-century history in terms of two opposing ideological blocs, the ‘Orangists’ and the ‘States-party’. Yet the 6  D. J. Roorda, Partij en factie: De oproeren van 1672 in de steden van Holland en Zeeland, een krachtmeting tussen partijen en facties (Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1961), Simon Groenveld, Evidente factien in den staet: De sociaal-politieke verhoudingen in de 17 e eeuwse Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden (Hilversum: Verloren, 1990) and more recently Geert H. Janssen, Creaturen van de macht: ­Patronage bij Willem Frederik van Nassau (1616–1664) (Amsterdam: AUP, 2005).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

8

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

criticism that has been levelled by, among others, Kevin Sharpe, at the English ­revisionists can with some justice be said to be pertinent for the Dutch case, too. For while historians like Roorda and Groenveld have been successful in analysing the mechanisms of ‘day-to-day politics’, they have more difficulty in explaining how, and why indeed at all, violent conflict erupted, and why such conflicts could leave the political landscape fundamentally altered.7 Some significant exceptions aside, the linguistic turn, which over the last three decades has revitalized the discipline of intellectual history, has found few adherents among Dutch historians of the seventeenth century.8 The fact that influential historians like Ernst Kossmann have stressed the conservative, traditional nature of Dutch political thought has, moreover, not done much to encourage scholars to look on Dutch political culture as an exciting, under-explored terrain.9 Something similar holds for the new literary and cultural history as practised by historians—however much they may otherwise differ in outlook and approach—such as David Norbrook and Kevin Sharpe.10 Dutch seventeenth-century history is still waiting, to quote Peter Lake, for a ‘new cultural history with the politics put back in’.11 Yet there are other reasons why the literature and ideology of Dutch seventeenth-century political culture have remained underinvestigated, reasons related to deep-lying assumptions about the nature of Dutch seventeenth-century culture, which can be summarized by the question ‘conflict or consensus?’ Here, Dutch historians, have tended towards consensus, rather than conflict, viewing consensus (again, a point of similarity with the revisionists) as the norm, and conflict as a temporary, anomalous, phenomenon. In particular the historiography of the practice of religious coexistence has seen a noticeable change of orientation from the older view that saw Dutch society as confessionally segregated, towards a new conception of Dutch Golden Age culture as a ‘culture of co-operation and tolerance’.12 7  Kevin Sharpe, ‘Remapping Early Modern England: From Revisionism to the Culture of ­ olitics’, in Sharpe, Remapping Early Modern England: The Culture of Seventeenth-Century Politics P (Cambridge: CUP, 2000), 11. 8  Exceptions are Martin van Gelderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt (Cambridge: CUP, 1992) and Arthur Weststeijn, Commercial Republicanism in the Dutch Golden Age: The Political Thought of Johan and Pieter de la Court (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 9  E. H. Kossmann, Politieke theorie en geschiedenis: Verspreide opstellen (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1987) and idem, Political Thought in the Dutch Republic: Three Studies (Amsterdam: KNAW, 2000). 10  David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (Oxford: OUP, 2000 [1988]), and idem, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics 1627–1660 (Cambridge: CUP, 1999); Kevin Sharpe and Steven Zwicker (eds), The Politics of Discourse: The Literature and Politics of Seventeenth Century England (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987); K. Sharpe and P. Lake (eds), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993); Sharpe, Remapping Early Modern England. 11  Peter Lake and Michael Questier, The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. xi. 12 Judith Pollmann, ‘The Bond of Christian Piety: The Individual Practice of Tolerance and ­Intolerance in the Dutch Republic’, in R. Po-Chia Hsia and H. F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 55. For the older view, stressing the element of confessional segregation, see A. T. van Deursen, Mensen van klein vermogen: Het kopergoud van de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam: Ooievaar, 1999), 263–351, and Simon Groenveld, Huisgenoten des geloofs: Was de samenleving in de Republiek de Verenigde Nederlanden verzuild? (Hilversum: Verloren, 1995).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 9 In her study of Haarlem after the Reformation, Joke Spaans has drawn attention to the policies with which the town government tried to foster concord and civic unity among Christians of different denominations, while Benjamin Kaplan’s study on Utrecht argued for the continuous influence of a non-denominational practical Christian culture among the wider population. Judith Pollmann’s study of the religious Werdegang of Arndt van Buchel, The Reformation of Arnoldus Buchelius, has demonstrated how attachment to a church (Buchelius was an elder of the Reformed Church of Utrecht, and a convinced anti-Arminian) could coexist with a broader conception of Christianity, centred on a notion of individual pietas, that allowed him to maintain friendships with men of different religious denominations, including Mennonites, Catholics, and Arminians.13 Pollmann emphasizes that there is an element of ambiguity in religious attitudes of what she sees as different religious modes: ‘one connected with confessional religion, and one based on a non-confessional concept of piety’.14 The question this raises is what happens in periods of political and religious strife, when the partitions separating these two domains come under strain? The emphasis on consensus has also left its mark on the way Dutch literature is studied in literature departments. Dutch Golden Age literature is often described as ‘bourgeois’ and part of the ‘establishment’, while this literary establishment of writing merchants and ministers is defined in direct opposition to a ‘literary underground’, for which Elizabethan Grub Street is taken as a kind of ideal type.15 Dutch literary history, furthermore, has tended to privilege genres like Senecan drama, Aristotelian tragedy, and epic, while paying less attention to more ‘demotic’ forms, such as the fable, satire, and farce.16 An example of the sanitizing practices with which this book takes issue is the way in which the polemical poetry of the period, whether in verse, ballad, or performed on the stage, is invariably described as ‘satirical’, whereas often it should more accurately be described as libel. In the period under study here, 1610–30, it was not uncommon for poets to engage in protracted, almost ritualistic, verse-exchanges in which threats, ­insults, and invective, varying from drunkenness, wife-beating, and pox-carrying, to heresy, treason, and sedition, were exchanged. The easiest objection that could be levelled here was that such verse, and the poets who produced it, were marginal.17 This book argues not only that they were not, but also that the issues that 13  Joke Spaans, Haarlem na de Reformatie: Stedelijke cultuur en kerkelijk leven (The Hague: Stichting Hollandse Historische Reeks, 1989); Benjamin Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht, 1578–1620 (Oxford: OUP, 1995); Judith Pollmann, Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation of Arnoldus Buchelius (1565–1641) (Manchester: MUP, 1999) and idem, ‘The Bond of Christian Piety’, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age, 53–71. 14  Pollmann, ‘Bond of Christian Piety’, 70. 15  Maria A. Schenkeveld van der Dussen, Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt: Themes and Ideas (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1991), 35. 16  An exception is René van Stipriaan, Leugens en vermaak: Boccaccio’s novellen in de kluchtcultuur van de Renaissance (Amsterdam: AUP, 1996). 17  As Schenkeveld van der Dussen has it, in her discussion of satirical verse, or risqué farces like Huyghens’s Trijntje Cornelis: ‘But all this would seem to be only the fringe of an orderly literary life. In principle, the common goal is the defense of Christian humanist standards, in the services of one’s country’, eadem, Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt, 35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

10

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

roused their satirical muses and which got their bile (and ink) flowing were not marginal, but lead us straight to the heart of the politico-religious conflict sparked off by the Arminian controversy: predestination, the locus of sovereignty in the Republic, the relationship between the clergy and the civil magistrate, and the concomitant debates on liberty of conscience. As more work is being done to establish the relationships b­ etween pamphleteers and party-leaders, between political thought and the popular press, it has becoming increasingly clear that a rigid distinction between establishment and underworld, between policy-makers and hired ‘hacks’ is altogether untenable.18 This impression is confirmed when we look to the growing body of literature dealing with pamphlets, petitioning, and other forms of written and oral political communication that has transformed the way we understand early modern political culture. Some of these studies were stimulated by new insights into the relation between scribal and print culture fostered by studies such as Harold Love’s The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Others arose out of the engagement with Jürgen Habermas’s concept of the public sphere. Habermas first expounded his ideas on the emergence (and, it is sometimes forgotten, the decline) of the bourgeois public sphere in his Habilitationsschrift Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit of 1962, translated into English in 1989 as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. As historians began to apply the concept of a public sphere of discussion and debate to the early modern period, the terminus ad quem to which its emergence could be traced was pushed back further and further, at first to the early Enlightenment, from there deeper into the seventeenth century, and indeed, to the Reformation. Historicization was accompanied by a drive towards social, cultural, and temporal differentiation. In what is perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to appropriate Habermas’s concept for the early modern period, Peter Lake and Steve Pincus have described the growth of the public sphere as a complex, gradual process in which the impact of the printing press and the development of a news culture, socio-economic factors, religious controversy, and the ebb and flow of political conflict all play their role.19 Instead of an ‘ideal-typical’ public sphere, Lake and Pincus posit a three-phased process leading from a post-Reformation public sphere via a Revolutionary public sphere to a Restoration public sphere; an approach which, while avoiding facile teleologies, does manage to maintain a narrative of 18  John Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil War and the Interregnum (Farnham: Ashgate, 2004), ch. 3. 19  In her study Öffentlichkeiten der frühen Neuzeit Esther Beate Korbe distinguishes an ‘Öffentlichkeit der Macht’, an ‘Öffentlichkeit der Bildung’, and ‘Informationen-Öffentlichkeit’. David Zaret describes how, in seventeenth-century England, a public sphere of science developed in competition with an earlier public sphere of religion. See Esther Beate Körber, Öffentlichkeiten der frühen Neuzeit: Teilnehmer, Formen, Institutionen und Entscheidungen öffentlicher Kommunikation im Herzogtum Preußen von 1525 bis 1618 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998); David Zaret, ‘Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth-Century England’, in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 212–35; Peter Lake and Steve Pincus, ­‘Rethinking the Early Modern Public Sphere’, Journal of British Studies, 45/2 (2006), 270–92; and idem (eds), The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester, MUP, 2007).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 11 historical development which tracks significant shifts and changes in early modern political culture. Yet the drive towards differentiation has come at certain costs. Summarizing the many differences between Habermas’s normative Idealtypus and its historicized adaptations, Andreas Gestrich concluded: ‘Neither the rise of the newspapers nor of a generally politicized reading public happened in a new social space between state and society, nor was this new reading public bourgeois by nature, nor, in fact, did it take a long time for this public to become politicized.’20 Indeed, part of the problem arises, as Harold Mah has argued, from historians’ tendency to view Öffentlichkeit, or a public sphere, in spatial terms, as a domain that different groups can access or leave, whereas in Habermas’s analysis, the idea of Öffentlichkeit is predicated upon the shedding of such group identities.21 Some critics have attempted to break the stalemate by replacing the concept of a public sphere with that of political communication, a notion used for example by Filippo de Vivo to transcend the opposition of reified categories such as power and the public, political propaganda and public opinion, in favour of what he calls the ‘tense, at times creative interaction between multiple actors engaged in political conflict’. Communication in this sense is politics, because it was ‘the terrain both of conflict and compromise, possibilities and difficulties’.22 De Vivo’s account of Venice shows that, although the city’s ruling oligarchy espoused a strictly exclusivist political ethic, bolstered by a rhetoric of patrician concord and consensus, and enforced by a policy of strict secrecy in all matters political, political communication was not by any means limited to the narrow class possessing political rights. Instead, it involved a range of agents operating in a wide array of social circles. Political communication took place in a variety of places outside Venice’s corridors of power, including the palazzi of the patricians, residences of foreign diplomats, piazze, printing houses, and bookshops, as well as pharmacies and barbershops. Political communication, moreover, traverses the vertical axes of social status, blurring the boundary between the political elite and the disenfranchised, as well as those ­between citizens and foreigners.23 The fact that even in a supposedly closed political culture, such as Venice, political communication effectively involves the entire fabric of urban life should affect how we view early modern political culture. De Vivo’s conclusions have a particular relevance for the Dutch Republic where, as foreigner observers noted, real power lay with the voting towns, the so-called stemhebbende steden who sent their representatives to the provincial estates, and the regenten-oligarchies that ruled 20  Andreas Gestrich, ‘Habermas and the Public Sphere Debate’, German History, 24/3 (2006), 424. 21  ‘The simple spatialization of the public sphere—as a domain that any group can enter or leave— fails to address the way in which the public sphere constructs itself as a unified entity.’ Harold Mah, ‘Phantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of the Historians’, Journal of Modern History, 72 (2000), 166. 22 Louise Schorn-Schütte, Politische Kommunikation im Europa des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: Politische Theologie, Respublica-Verständnis, konsensgestützte Herrschaft (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2004); Filippo de Vivo, Information and Communication in Venice: Rethinking Early Modern Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2007), 16. 23  De Vivo, Information and Communication, 57–85, 86–119.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

12

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

them. The structural parallels between these two urban mercantile republics have been explored by Peter Burke in his study of Venice and Amsterdam. Yet Burke drew attention to differences as well as to similarities, pointing to the different composition of the ruling classes, as well as the wide divergences in political culture.24 The urban oligarchies that ruled Dutch towns were not juridically defined as a class as the Venetian patricians were. While the exercise of political power within the towns was limited to a number of families belonging to the regent ­patriciate, the boundary between this group and the cities’ wider mercantile and entrepreneurial elites was, at least during the first half of the seventeenth century, permeable, allowing some individuals to rise from economic and social prominence to political power. The regent patriciate of the Dutch towns guarded its powers as zealously as the aristocracy of Venice, regarding itself as qualified for the exercise of political power by virtue of its wealth, breeding, and education, and the wider citizen body, through lack of these qualities, as unfit to rule. Politics was regarded as a specialized metier, for which those required to work for a living lacked time, money, and capability.25 As in Venice, corporate bodies such as guilds were, exceptions like Leiden and Dordrecht aside, excluded from politics. Yet those formally excluded from power did not always see things that way. In many towns, for example, the urban civic militias guarded the memory of the turbulent days of the Revolt, when they had at times been decisive in determining a city’s political stance. In times of widespread dissatisfaction, old claims to have a share in defending the liberties and privileges, as well as safeguarding the true religion, could suddenly be reactivated, as my analysis of the events of 1627–8 in Amsterdam will show. In comparison to Venice, the distance between the ruling elite and the rest of the citizen population appears rather small. The lack of deference ordinary people showed to their social superiors was another feature of Dutch society travellers ­frequently commented upon. In the narrow social spaces of early modern Dutch towns, regents suspected of corruption or associated with unpopular policies would be faced with a whole range of symbolic and physical acts and gestures, ranging from the conspicuous withholding of outward signs of respect, the pulling or tearing of status symbols such as cloak or hat, to the intrusion into one’s domestic space, up to the ultimate form of collective punitive action, the ritual plundering of a house, all serving as a reminder that there were limits to what the population was willing to tolerate.26 The decentralized character of the institutions of Dutch political life contributed to the relative openness of the Republic’s political culture. Representatives to 24 Peter Burke, Venice and Amsterdam: A Study of Seventeenth Century Elites (London: Temple Smith, 1974). 25  Jan Hartman, Jaap Nieuwstraten, and Michel Reinders (eds), Public Offices, Personal Demands: Capability in Governance in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009). 26  Luc Panhuysen’s biography of the brothers De Witt contains a vivid description of the measure and grade of defiant behaviour, see Luc Panhuysen, De ware vrijheid: De levens van Johan en Cornelis de Witt (Amsterdam: Atlas, 2005), 23; on house plundering, see Rudolf Dekker, Holland in beroering: Opstanden in de 17de en 18de eeuw (Baarn: Ambo, 1982).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 13 the Provincial States were not allowed to cast their vote without conferring with their superiors in the towns—the principle of ruggespraak—which meant that the decision-making process was preceded by several rounds of discussion and debate at an urban and provincial level. Not only did this make decision-making slow, it also made secrecy a mirage: hotly pursued but forever eluding control. Another contributing factor shaping the Republic’s distinct political culture was the precocious development of the Dutch printing and publishing industry. Predisposed by its geography to the role of entrepôt of books and ideas as well as commercial goods, the Dutch Republic emerged as a centre of the international book trade.27 In the sixteenth century, the centre of gravity of the printing industry still lay in the Southern Netherlands, yet the same political and economic conditions that propelled the rise of the North also determined the Republic’s ascendancy in the book industry. Yet favourable economic conditions, advances in printing techniques, and even the relative laxness of censorship laws cannot entirely explain the success of Dutch printing, especially in view of the Republic’s reputation for spawning an  endless flood of cheap political print. When the expelled anti-Arminian Jan Willemsz Boogaert complained that, due to the magistrate’s lackadaisical handling of religious dissent, Amsterdam had degenerated into ‘a Babel full of confusion’, a foreign observer might have perhaps raised an eyebrow—had that city ever been anything else? Such, indeed, was the association between printing, pamphlets, and religious diversity that ‘Opinion’ herself was considered to be, at least, a Dutch denizen.28 While more work remains to be done on the exchange between the Republic’s centres of power and the hubs of political news, between politicians, printers, and pamphleteers, the assumption is warranted that the same structures that facilitated a wider distribution of political communication also aided the distribution of political ideas in print. From the earliest phase of the Revolt, the submission of the Supplication of the Nobles (dismissively described by Granvelle as gueux, beggars) to Margareta of Parma in April 1566, and the creation of a ‘Beggar’ counter-culture in verse, print, and song, complete with the tongue-in-cheek subversive motto ‘loyal to the King until reduced to beggary’, every turn of affairs in the following decades was marked, propelled, and shaped by an outburst of pamphleteering, covering the entire spectrum from anti-Spanish verse and song, prints and engravings, proclamations, apologies and justifications, to political treatises. William of Orange was a politician with a strong feel for the importance of communication and a sharp eye for the best pens, but he was of course by no means the only leader to exploit print for political purposes. Here too, however, the histories of the 27  G. C. Dibbs, ‘The Role of the Dutch Republic as Intellectual Entrepôt of Europe in the Seventeenth Century’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 86/3 (1971), 323–41; Alastair Duke et al. (eds), The Bookshop of the World: The Role of the Low Countries in the Book Trade 1473–1941 (Philadelphia: Coronet Books, 2001); Simon Groenveld, ‘The Mecca of Authors? States Assemblies and Censorship in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic’, in Alastair Duke and C. A. Tamse (eds), Too Mighty to be Free: Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands (Zutphen: Walbug Pers, 1987). 28 Peacey, Politicians, 315; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 255–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

14

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Southern Netherlands and the rebel provinces in the North would soon begin to  diverge. For while Alessandro Farnese, Philip II’s new Governor-General of the Low Countries, made use of the printing press in the 1580s to persuade the nobility and towns of the Flemish and Walloon provinces to return to obedience to Spain, political communication in print all but ceased once Spanish authority had been effectively re-established.29 The Republic never experienced such a period of normalization. While the intensity of pamphleteering abated somewhat in the 1590s, the years after 1600 witnessed a renewal of debate about the desirability of concluding a truce with Spain.30 The closing decades of the sixteenth century also brought domestic dissent, both between the Reformed and their opponents, and within the Reformed churches, that to some degree anticipated aspects of the ­Arminian controversy. While pamphlet polemic tends to follow the trajectory of political events, it is important to bear in mind that any individual production was by definition part of a wider discursive field of cheap print that lacked clearly defined spatial or chronological boundaries. Thus, a substantial amount of the anti-Spanish propaganda produced during the Revolt directly borrowed from German cheap print produced in the context of the Habsburg wars earlier in the century.31 In a similar way, a particularly vitriolic anti-Oldenbarnevelt pamphlet, The Golden Legend of the New St John (1618), was resuscitated in 1672 to serve the same aim in demolishing the name and reputation of that other ‘St John’, Johan de Witt. Every period of crisis triggered a new wave of cheap print, but grew, at the same time, on the back of a wave which had preceded it, supplying it with a stock of ready tropes, images, narratives, and forms. In recent years, historians have become more attuned to the role of allusion, appropriation, and intertextuality in Reformation polemical culture. Many of the Reformation’s spiritual and polemical songs were contrafacta, new songs set to a familiar melody, spiritual or profane.32 Not only did such an act of appropriation aid the memorization and communication of a song, it also carried a deeper polemical or theological significance. For his songs in support of the Lutheran cause, the Nuremberg poet Hans Sachs consciously adopted well-known songs of Marian devotion. The popular Judaslied, which continued to be sung in its original version throughout the sixteenth century, lent itself to several Lutheran contrafacta, against the enemies of Evangelical reform.33 Such an act of appropria­ tion enhanced the emotional resonance of a particular song by adding an extra 29  Monica Stenslund, ‘Peace or No Peace? The Role of Pamphleteering in Public Debate in the Run-up to the Twelve Year Truce’, in Femke Deen, David Onnekink, and Michel Reinders (eds), Pamphlets and Politics in the Dutch Republic (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 233. 30  Craig Harline, Pamphlets, Printing and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987). 31  Alastair Duke, ‘A Legend in the Making: News of the “Spanish Inquisition” in the Low Countries in German Evangelical Pamphlets, 1546–1550’, in Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer (eds), Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 119–35. 32  On the mechanism of the contrafactum, see Louis Peter Grijp, Het Nederlandse lied in de Gouden Eeuw: Het mechanisme van de contrafactuur (Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens-Instituut, 1991); Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), ch. 3, ‘Militant in Song’. 33  For these examples see Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion, 51–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 15 layer of association, as in the case of the Judaslied, or it could perform its function through substitution, as with Sachs’s doctrinally cleansed Marian songs. The first years of the Dutch Revolt saw the emergence, next to an earlier tradition of martyr songs, of a corpus of anti-Spanish songs and spiritual battle hymns, the Beggars’ Songs (Geuzenliederen). Beggars’ Songs made full use of the polemical potential of contrafacta: the most famous example, the Wilhelmus, now the Dutch national anthem, is a contrafactum of an earlier Catholic song celebrating the defeat of Condé at Chartres.34 Songbooks of Beggars’ songs were printed throughout the seventeenth century, fulfilling a function that was commemorative and celebratory, as well as continuously polemical: many of the later songs allude more or less directly to the Arminian controversy, the fall of Oldenbarnevelt, and the triumph of Reformed orthodoxy. A growing number of studies reflect the increased awareness of the importance of pamphlets and popular print in Dutch politics and society. While for a long time Craig Harline’s Pamphlets, Printing and Political Culture in the Dutch Republic remained an isolated pioneer in the field, recent years have seen a flurry of studies on the political, economic, literary, and visual aspects of cheap print in the Dutch Republic. We are now much better informed about the production and distribution of pamphlets, broadsides, and prints, their role in the creation of media events, their participation in what has been called the Republic’s culture of discussion and debate, and their political agency in periods of crisis such as the years 1650 and 1672.35 Yet there remain, inevitably, many lacunae. By and large, the study of pamphlets in the political sphere shows a distinct bias towards the later seventeenth century, to the momentous events set in motion by the unexpected death of William II in 1650, which led to the inauguration of the first Stadtholderless era, the period in which the position of Stadtholder was left vacant in Holland and Zeeland, the ascendancy of the brothers De Witt, and the eventual collapse of the De Witt regime in 1672, the Year of Disaster. Undoubtedly these decades reshaped political culture in a fundamental way. Michel Reinders’ study has shown how the participation of citizens in the events of 1672 transformed political culture and can be viewed as a prelude to the more politically engaged model of citizenship that made its entrance in the eighteenth century.36 During roughly the same period, 34 Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion, 71. 35  José Kruijf and Marijke Meijer Drees (eds), Het lange leven van het pamflet: Boekhistorische, iconografische, politieke en literaire aspecten van het pamfletten, 1600–1900 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2005); Joost Vrieler, Het poëtisch accent (Hilversum: Verloren, 2007); Clazina Dingemanse, Rap van tong, snel van pen: Literaire discussiecultuur in Nederlandse praatjespamfletten (circa 1600–1750) (Hilversum: Verloren, 2008); Michel Reinders, Gedrukte chaos: Populisme en moord in het Rampjaar 1672 (Amsterdam: Balans, 2010); Jill Stern, Orangism in Word and Image 1650–1675 (Manchester: MUP, 2010); Roeland Harms, Pamfletten en publieke opinie: Massamedia in de zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam: AUP, 2011). The sociology of literature has been less prominent in Dutch and Anglo-Saxon historiography than in e.g. Germany. For perspectives informed by media studies and sociology, see Martina Dlugaiczyk, Der Waffenstillstand (1609–1621) als Medienereignis: Politische Bildpropaganda in den Niederlanden (Münster: Waxmann, 2005) and Dirk Maczkiewitz, Der niederländische Aufstand gegen Spanien (1568–1609): Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Analyse (Münster: Waxmann, 2005). 36  Michel Reinders, ‘“The Citizens Come from All Cities with Petitions”: Printed Petitions and Civic Propaganda in the Seventeenth Century’, in Deen et al., Pamphlets and Politics, 113–18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

16

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

theorists and philosophers such as Pieter de la Court, Franciscus van den Ende, and Benedictus de Spinoza began to draft blueprints for a more truly free political order. On questions of the location of sovereignty within the Republic and the role and powers of the Stadtholder, the pamphlet debate which pitted Orangists against supporters of the De Witt regime nevertheless remained within the para­ meters e­ stablished earlier in the century, during the Arminian controversy. The stereotypes and rhetoric, too, changed little, as libels accusing the brothers De Witt of usurpation, tyranny, and treason showed an uncanny (and often deliberate) similarity to those that had prepared the way for Oldenbarnevelt’s death, more than fifty years before. Supporters of the De Witt regime similarly exploited the ‘myth of Loevesteijn’, the castle where leaders of the Arminian party and their political supporters had been incarcerated and from which Grotius had made his legendary escape, to paint a broad-brush canvas of the perpetual struggle between powerhungry Stadtholders versus the defenders of Holland’s liberty. That the reality of Dutch politics was more complex than this is hardly pertinent here. Just as it requires an act of the imagination to understand (which is something different than to accept at face value) what lay behind English fears of popery and superstition, it requires a conscious effort to unravel the strands of the Republic’s foundational myths. Myth, narrative, and trope are, after all, just as important a spur to action as political and juridical argument. A more serious oversight concerns the lack of studies on religious conflict and the printing press. In a recent study by Deen, Reinders, and Onnekink not a single contribution directly addresses the impact of the Reformation, or the many disputes that followed in its wake. The case for the importance of the advent of the Reformation in shaping early modern Europe’s emerging print culture does not have to be restated. Recent work on Reformation culture has seen something of a shift away from a focus on the printed word to a wider media universe comprising visual images, verse, psalms, songs, sermons, and theatre plays.37 Viewed in this light, the Arminian controversy emerges as a phase in the process of the long Reformation, fought with particular acerbity as both sides believed the very nature of the Dutch Reformed Church to be at stake. Yet this book is not, or at least not foremost, a study of religious controversy and political communication. It is a book about the literary culture of religious controversy. It eschews defining texts according to genre or medium in favour of a broad concept of the literary, not because it believes genre distinctions are irrelevant, but because it believes that by focusing on the interchange between theological writing, pamphlets, satire, and drama, we gain new insight into the dynamics of early modern religious and political controversy. In a way, this book is trying to do the opposite from Peter White’s attempt, in his study Predestination, Policy and Polemic, to sepa­ rate theology from polemic. White insists that ‘theological development had a momentum of its own, which was sometimes at odds with the political circumstances and the interests of the court’.38 While I am in agreement with the first part 37  See e.g. Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. 38  Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Introduction 17 of this statement, I am less convinced by the implication that polemic is a kind of white noise, determined by mere interest and circumstance. For polemic, too, has a momentum of its own. Polemic, moreover, as this book will argue throughout, matters fundamentally to the matter at the heart of religious controversy. To take the disputed issue of the middle ground as an example, I agree with White that appeals to moderation should not be dismissed out of hand as mere rhetoric, if that is taken to mean hollow, empty language.39 But I do believe that in early modern religious controversy, the middle ground is inherently dangerous terrain, as all appeals to a fundamental consensus, moderation, and fraternal love were articulated through a rhetoric of toleration which, paradoxically, functioned almost invariably to increase tension and to exacerbate enemy stereotypes. It is, of course, possible to trace the development of Arminian theology from the Latin works of Arminius to the Remonstrant Confession, and of Reformed Protestantism from the Confessio Belgica to the canons of the Synod of Dort. But do we really want to write a history of the Arminian controversy that ignores the controversial works of Trigland, the sermons of Smout, the satirical pamphlets and broadsides of Telle, or the poetry of Vondel? Sensitivity to the literary qualities of religious controversial texts their rhetoric, poetics, and performativity, and their relation to other literary texts is moreover not a matter of choice or ornament, extrinsic to the ‘real’ developments in doctrinal debate. More often than not, they shape and ­determine the outcome of controversy itself. To understand the culture of early modern religious literature, nothing less than a reconsideration of the role of the ‘polemical’ in religious controversy is required. 39 White, Predestination, 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

1 Church at the Crossroads The Reformed in the Dutch Republic 1.1  T H E D U TC H R E F O R M E D C H U RC H I N T H E S I X T E E N T H C E N T U RY The Dutch Reformed Church, like the society in which it grew up, was a product of rebellion and war, which bore the signs of its early days of exile and persecution long after its emergence as the new Republic’s public church. From the opening decades of the sixteenth century onwards, the Low Countries had offered a fertile soil for Reformist ideas. Several factors, such as the presence of large communities of foreign merchants in the great cities of the South, high literacy rates, and the role of Antwerp as an international printing centre, all contributed to the readiness with which new ideas were embraced.1 In no other European country were the works of Luther printed and translated as rapidly, or in as many editions.2 During the first decades of the sixteenth century the Low Countries experienced a ‘Reformation from below’ in which a rapid proliferation of Lutheran, Anabaptist, and Sacramentarian ideas led to the spontaneous emergence of dissenting groups and conventicles. The establishment of new churches was hampered by the fact that, unlike in Germany, where the Emperor ruled in consultation with the German Princes, the Low Countries fell under Habsburg patrimonial rule, which meant that the anti-heresy laws were executed with full force. In the period between 1523 and 1566 the Inquisition, with the aid of a large network of informers, tried and sentenced thousands of individuals, a number of victims higher than anywhere else in Europe.3 Lutheranism in particular never recovered from this early repression, and when Reformed Protestantism came to make its influence felt in the middle decades of the century, it was scarcely able to offer any resistance. Yet the Reformed churches also struggled to survive. In Antwerp, where a church had been founded in 1555, the congregation was divided into sections of eight to ten members, with only a few sections meeting at a time to listen to the minister’s sermon, to minimize 1  H. F. K. van Nierop, ‘Introduction’, in Arie Jan Geldernblom, Jan L. de Jong, and Marc van Vaeck (eds), The Low Countries as Crossroads of Religious Beliefs (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1–9. 2  Alastair C. Duke, ‘Moulded by Repression: The Early Netherlands Reformation 1520–1555’, in Duke, Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries, ed. Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 81. 3  On the inquisition and the repression of religious dissent before the outbreak of the Revolt, see  Alistair C. Duke, ‘The “Inquisition” and the Repression of Religious Dissent in the Habsburg Netherlands 1521–1566’, in Dissident Identities, 99–118.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

19

the dangers of detection and denunciation.4 The persecutions claimed the lives of many leaders of the Reformed movement, including the minister Pierre Brully, sent by Calvin to lead the establishment of Reformed churches in the Walloon provinces, and Guy de Brès, the author of the Confessio Belgica. Yet by 1566, despite ferocious repression, churches had been established in sixteen towns in Walloon provinces, Flanders and its neighbour province Zeeland. North of the great rivers, the progress of Reformed Protestantism was slow. The Northern Provinces presented a highly complex picture, with different religious currents and groups vying for adherents. Heterodox ideas here manifested themselves in a startling variety of ways. Anabaptism had found early followers here, due to the activities of Reformers such as Melchior Hoffmann (1495–1543) in Holland in the 1530s, and the Menno Simons (1496–1561), the Frisian Reformer who reorganized Dutch Anabaptism after the disaster of Münster, giving it its devoutly pietistic and pacifistic form. Apart from Melchiorites and Mennonites, the Northern Netherlands proved to be particularly susceptible to spiritualist ideas. In the Netherlands, the work of Sebastian Franck, including the Geschichtsbibel and his 1531 letter to Campanus on the Ecclesia spiritualis, were widely available. Indeed, from the second half of the sixteenth century to the first quarter of the seventeenth century no foreign author was reprinted more often in the Dutch language than Franck.5 And then there were the followers of figures like Caspar von Schwenckfeld (1489/90–1561), a nobleman from Silesia, and Henry Niclaes (1501–81), founder of the Family of Love. Unlike Anabaptism, Spiritualism also found adherents among men of influence and standing such as the Frisian diplomat Aggaeus van Albada (1525–87) and William of Orange’s equerry, Emmery de Lyere, son of a noble family from Antwerp with ties to David George.6 Another name encountered frequently in the sources is that of the ‘Libertines’, an elusive group defined by George Huntson Williams ‘as a loosely interrelated antinomian movement . . . , compounding variously the self-deification of Rhenish mysticism, the libertarianism of the medieval Brethren of the free spirit and other groups, the ecclesiastical indifferentialism of Erasmus and . . . and in some places, at least, the Averroism of Padua’.7 Their Reformed opponents were only too quick to identify these sectarian groups as sects, discovering, apart from Melchiorites and Mennonites, Schwenckfeldians, Denckists, Familists, Coornhertists (followers of the Dutch lay theologian 4  Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 178–9, 188. 5  B. Becker, ‘Nederlandse Vertalingen van Sebastian Franck’s geschriften’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis (1928), 149–60. 6  For Emmery de Lyere, see the extensive introduction by Cornelis Kramer to Emmery de Lyere’s Antidote ou contrepoison contre les conseils sanguinaires et envenimez de Philippe de Marnix Sr. de Ste. Aldegonde in Emmery de Lyere et Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde: Un admirateur de Sébastien Franck et de Montaigne aux prises avec le champion des calvinistes néerlandais (Emmery de Lyere), Antidote ou contrepoison contre les conseils sanguinaires et envenimez de Philippe de Marnix Sr. de Ste. Aldegonde, ed. Cornelis Kramer (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971). For Agge van Albada see Wiebe Bergsma, Aggaeus van Albada (c.1525–1587), schwenckfeldiaan, staatsman en strijder voor verdraagzaamheid (Gronigen: s.n., 1983). 7 Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminser Press, 1962), 351.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

20

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert), Sebastianists, followers of the French humanist, Bible translator, and Calvin-critic, Sébastien Châteillon, or Castellio (1515–63), and even ‘Loists’, the followers of Eligius (Loy) Pruystick, a slater from Antwerp who identified the Holy Spirit with man’s reason within him.8 Yet even when the temptation of viewing these groups in confessional terms is resisted, it is clear that the pervasive presence of heterodox ideas shaped the context into which the new Reformed churches had to establish themselves. The wide ­appeal of Spiritualism in the Netherlands was influenced by earlier reformers who de-emphasized the sacraments, stressed inner experience over outer observance, and placed ethics above doctrine: these included Wessel Gansfort and Erasmus, as well as sacramentists such as Hinne Roode.9 It was reinforced by the experience of persecution, which led many sympathetic to the Reformation to adopt a Spiritualist form of Nicodemism. No wonder, then, that the Reformed felt that they were fighting a war on two fronts, and that the literature of the period abounds with polemical attacks on Anabaptists, Nicodemists, and Spiritualists. For the story that is to follow, however, it is important to remember that the history of Reformed Protestantism cannot confine itself to doctrine and church organization without taking account of the way in which these were shaped and altered by the situation on the ground in the churches and parishes. Here, increasingly, historians of the Reformed Church have come to realize that, as Wim Verboom phrases it, ‘a liberal faith practice asserted itself right from the start of the Reformed church in the Netherlands’.10 The contrast between the church’s effort to tighten discipline and enforce orthodoxy through catechetical preaching and this liberal practice led to a series of protracted conflicts within the churches of Holland in the closing decades of the sixteenth century.11 From the viewpoint of intellectual history, it is important to note that heterodox and dissenting ideas were spread earlier and more widely than is usually acknowledged. Although the early Enlightenment in the Dutch Republic drew in part upon the intellectual energies of dissenting groups such as the Dutch Collegiants, less scholarship has been ­devoted to the ways in which the origins of these groups can in turn be traced back to the heterodox currents of the radical Reformation. Important in this context are various strands of tolerationist arguments, shared by Anabaptists and Spiritualists alike, the former primarily on biblical, and the latter also on sceptical and epistemological grounds, the influence of different currents of a rationalist free-will theology, associated with reformers such as Jacopo Aconcio (Acontius, 1492–1566), 8  On the Loists, see Williams, Radical Reformation, 351–3. In his influential treatise Den Leeken Weghweyzer (A Layman’s Guide) Anastasius Veluanus polemicized against the Sebastianists; see Williams, Radical Reformation, 501. 9  Particular mention must be made here of the tendency to produce strategic readings from Erasmus’s work, in particular the Annotationes and the Paraphrases, radicalizing his ideas on the Trinity and the sacraments, such as can be found in Franck’s Chronica or Geschichtsbibel. See Peter G. Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), ch. 1, ‘Sebastian Franck Scrutinizes Erasmus’ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum’, 13–31. 10 Wim Verboom, ‘Catechism Teaching in the Netherlands’, in Karla Apperloo-Boersma and  Herman J. Selderhuis (eds), Power of Faith: 450 Year Heidelberg Catechism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 176. 11  Verboom, ‘Catechism Teaching’, 176.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

21

Bernardo Ochino (1487–1564), and Castellio, who identified the Johanine Logos human reason and denied or minimized original sin, a group of which Coornhert was the most prominent Dutch exponent, as well as varieties of anti-Trinitarianism such as Socinianism, that intersected with other heterodox or dissenting currents. The complex history of Dutch religious radicalism forms the essential backdrop of  the Arminian controversy, an otherwise purely intra-Reformed controversy, and the way in which the two would become entangled will be part of the argument of Chapter 2. Yet despite competition from dissenting groups and sects, the Reformed churches were inexorably on the rise. A temporary lull in persecutions due to the weakness of the regime of Margareta of Parma in Brussels prompted the Reformed to seek confrontation, shunning Catholic church services, taking to the streets singing psalms, and attending hedge sermons. During the ‘Wonderyear’ 1566 (summer 1565–6), iconoclastic riots swept the country from Flanders to Friesland. In the backlash that followed, Philip II sent his most experienced general, the Duke of Alba, with special judicial and military powers to quash the rebellion and root out heresy. Within months the Council of the Troubles set up by Alba in Mechlin, soon known as the ‘Blood Council’, had sentenced hundreds to death in absentia. Thousands fled the country, choosing exile, taking refuge in Germany, Switzerland, England, and Emden in East Frisia. Paradoxically, the Reformed movement drew strength from the experience of exile and persecution. It reinforced the ties between the different national churches, mobilizing a far-flung network of international support. The different refugee churches collected money for their brethren under the cross and provided vital financial and organizational support for the rebellion, to which the Reformed churches committed with steely determination.12 The refugee church of Emden with its large international community and its active printing presses became a nerve-centre in the war effort.13 The formative experience of exile and persecution meant that, initially, the church was slow to extend its influence over society. As Alastair Duke was first to note, the Dutch Reformed Church was characterized by a fundamental ambiguity to the extent that it was at the same time a public church and a voluntary association.14 Grown up under conditions of persecution and war, it always retained some of the characteristics of a church under the cross, a church that placed stringent demands on the doctrinal and moral rectitude of its believers and did not hesitate to exclude from the Lord’s Supper those who failed to meet these standards. Anyone wanting to become a member was required to make a public confession of faith before the church council, and submit to ecclesiastical discipline. Even though 12  Heinz Schilling, ‘Calvinism as an Actor in the Early Modern State System around 1600’, in Irena Backus and Philip Benedict (eds), Calvin and his Influence, 1509–2009 (Oxford: OUP, 2011), 165–6. 13  Andrew Pettegree, Emden and the Dutch Revolt: Exile and the Development of Reformed Protestantism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). 14  Duke, ‘The Ambivalent Face of Calvinism in the Netherlands 1561–1618’, in Duke, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries (London: Hambledon Press, 1990), 269–93.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

22

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

it was understood that this last demand in particular posed a formidable obstacle to many who were otherwise sympathetic to the Reformed religion, the church refused to compromise its status as purior ecclesia. Because the Reformed Church was the Republic’s public church, it was obliged to administer the sacrament of baptism to all new-born infants, even the children of ‘whoremongers, excommunicates, papists and other such’, and to allow all to attend its sermons.15 Participation in the Lord’s Supper, however, was limited to those who were lidmaten, communicant members who had made a confession of faith and submitted to church discipline. A substantial number of those who considered themselves Protestants did forgo this step. The Dutch Reformed Church accepted such people under the status of liefhebbers (‘sympathizers’) or toehoorders (‘auditors’): those who regularly attended Reformed Church services, but did not submit to church discipline.16 Around 1600, only a meagre 10 to 20 per cent of the population was formally lidmaat of the Reformed Church. Church discipline would therefore prove to be highly controversial, eliciting criticism from those who argued that a too strict discipline hampered the growth of the public church, a criticism often voiced by regents and magistrates who hoped that the identity between church and civic community, lost with the advent of the Reformation, could eventually be restored again. Many believed that transforming the character of the public church, making it, if not latitudinarian, then at least doctrinally flexible, would enhance its appeal, and would allow her to win over wider segments of the population. Oldenbarnevelt, for example, was convinced that a too strong fixation on doctrinal rectitude would alienate those wavering ‘middle groups’, while making it impossible to win over members of the Lutheran or Mennonite Churches.17 The diaspora also contributed to what was to become another characteristic of  Dutch Reformed Protestantism, namely the variety of theological influences it  accommodated and made into its own. In contrast to the French Reformed churches, which were culturally and linguistically closely bound to Geneva, the Dutch Reformed churches were shaped by English, German, and Swiss Reformed Protestantism, as much as, or more than, Calvinism.18 A particularly strong line of influence ran from Zurich along the Rhine Valley to Basel and Heidelberg, a city linked by cultural, institutional, and dynastic ties to the Netherlands, and from there to Emden.19 It was from Heidelberg that the Dutch Reformed Churches took their catechism, rather than Geneva. And although the appeal of the ‘City on the Hill’ and the personal prestige of Calvin cannot be altogether discounted, the fact is that Reformers such as Melanchthon, Bullinger, Bucer, Ursinus, and Vermigli, 15  Quoted in Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 194. 16 On the ‘liefhebbers’ see W. Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata: Studies in the Dutch Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 1994), ii. 128–9, and, more extensively, A. Th. van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen (Franeker: Van Wijnen), 149–51. 17  Jan Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1960–72), iii. Bestand, 1609–1619, 21. 18  Here, as elsewhere, I follow contemporary usage in referring to the German-speaking Reformed churches as the Swiss Church, and using Geneva for its French-speaking counterparts. 19 Herman J. Selderhuis, ‘From Heidelberg, through Emden, and into the Whole World’, in Apperloo-Boersma and Selderhuis, Power of Faith, 19–28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

23

as well as Micronius, Uytenhove, and à Lasco (Jan Laski), were as significant in giving shape to Dutch Reformed Protestantism as Calvin.20 Indeed, in the midand late sixteenth century, translations of Bullinger’s Decades far outran those of the Institutes.21 The adoption of the Heidelberg Catechism itself marked a significant choice, the consequences of which would influence the debates of the Arminian controversy, many decades later. The Heidelberg Catechism was the only Reformed ­catechism that embodied an irenicist objective, and that had been commissioned by Frederick III of the Palatinate with the aim of finding a formula of consensus acceptable to Heidelberg’s Lutheran and Reformed factions.22 Its formulations aimed at being interpreted as compatible with the Confessio Augustana and therefore avoided giving offence to Lutherans on contested matters such as predestination. The Catechism barely speaks about predestination, and does not mention reprobation or limited atonement, just as it avoids other topics that might arouse controversy, such as the Covenant, and certain aspects of sacramental theology.23 Although the Elector’s search for a Reformed consensus that included the Lutherans failed, as the Heidelberg Catechism was criticized by Lutheran theologians, the idea of such a wider consensus did not disappear entirely, and resurfaced decades later, when the Arminians attempted to redraw the boundaries of what differences of opinion could be accommodated within the Reformed Church.24 For the Reformed churches of Europe, however, the catechism, together with Ursinus’s commentary, soon came to function as a consensus document.25 It is significant in this respect that the Dutch were among the most prolific translators of the Catechism, with more than twenty Dutch-language editions appearing before 1600.26 The choice for the Heidelberg Catechism may well reflect a desire to find a common ground among the different currents of Dutch Reformed Protestantism, which at this time harboured a variety of opinions on matters of doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, discipline, and the relation between church and civil magistrate. Predestination was one such topic. Especially in its Calvinist and Bezan form, in 20  This can, of course, be said to be true of ‘Calvinism’ more generally, if one takes the word to mean Protestant Reformed. See Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), ch. 3, pp. 68–9. 21  On the influence of Bullinger in the Netherlands, see Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger, Leben, Werk und Wirkung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), ii. 288–98. Editions were published in Emden (1563, 1567, 1568), Dordrecht (1582, 1595, 1601), and Amsterdam (1607, 1612, 1622). Büsser, on the whole, seems overly cautious in assessing Bullinger’s influence on the Dutch Church. 22  Lyle D. Bierma et al. (eds), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology: With a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 55. 23  Bierma et al., Introduction to Heidelberg Catechism, 94, 96. 24  Arminius, and the Remonstrants after him, frequently appealed to Melanchthon and the Danish theologian Niels Hemmingsen (Hemmingius). Although he is never explicitly mentioned in his works, Keith Stanglin considers the influence of Anastasius Veluanus on Arminius likely, Stanglin, Arminius on Assurance of Salvation (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 84–5 n. 47. 25  Christoph Strohm, ‘The Heidelberg Catechism in the Context of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Calvinism’, in Apperloo-Boersma and Selderhuis, Power of Faith, 101. 26 Selderhuis, ‘From Heidelberg, through Emden, and into the Whole World’, in ApperlooBoersma and Selderhuis, Power of Faith, 19–28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

24

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

which the decree of election was held to have preceded the Fall of Adam (the variety which would later become known as supralapsarianism), and God had not only permitted but actively willed the destruction of the reprobate, the subject proved highly divisive, as the controversies between Calvin and Bolsec in 1551, Vermigli and Bibliander in Zurich in 1560, and between Zanchi and Marbach in Strasbourg in 1561 had shown.27 Bullinger did not disagree substantially with Calvin on the matter of predestination, but argued nevertheless that there were instances in the latter’s work that could be interpreted as making God the author of sin.28 Bullinger’s own Decades affirms the double nature of predestination, ­insisting that it includes reprobation, as well as election, and l­ocates its origin in God’s sovereign will, yet the treatment of the doctrine is throughout marked by a pronounced asymmetry, in which predestination is identified with election, and the decree of reprobation is passed over.29 Bullinger’s work, as Venema has argued, never presents an alternative to the doctrine of double predestination, and what differences of emphasis and presentation there are, are largely due to its author’s pastoral concerns. Even so, there are passages in his work, such as the identification of the reprobates with unbelievers, the stress on the universality of the promise of grace, and the suggestion that grace may be lost, that explain how its author was liable to be misinterpreted as advocating a form of election from foreseen faith.30 In the Dutch context an alternative account of predestination can be found in Der Leken Weghweyzer (The Layman’s Guide, 1554) of Anastasius Veluanus (Jan Gerritz. Versteghe, 1519–70), a minister from Gelderland. This work, which otherwise speaks of Calvin’s Institutes in highly laudatory ways, going so far as to call the work ‘a good catechism of Scripture’, refers to Melanchthon’s Loci communes in comparing the doctrine of absolute predestination to Stoic determinism, a noxious doctrine that is to be avoided at all costs.31 In its stead, he develops his own doctrine of the ‘small free will’, arguing that when God exhorts us to believe 27  Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002). 28  Venema, Bullinger and Predestination, 61. On the difference between Bullinger and Calvin, see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 39–47. 29 Venema, Bullinger and Predestination, 54. 30  ‘Despite the fact that this definition taught a kind of doctrine of double predestination, Bullinger proceeded to interpret it by insisting that unbelief is the occasion for the rejection of some. A reprobus is one who does not believe (non credentes esse reprobos), and the fact that not all believe may not be ascribed directly to God’s predestination. The culpability for one’s rejection does not lie with God “but in man himself when he rejects the grace of God and does not appropriate his heavenly gifts”. All those who believe are assuredly God’s elect; all those who reject the grace of God are reprobate. Whereas the gift of faith is due to God’s mercy alone, the failure to believe remains die to the unbeliever’s refusal to accept the promises of the Gospel.’ Venema, Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 66–7. 31  On the Institutes as a ‘catechism’ of the Bible, see B. Pol, ‘De uitverkiezing in Der Leken Wechwyser van Johannes Anastasius Veluanus: Een gereformeerde afwijzing van de dubbele predestinatie’ (MA diss., University of Utrecht, 2010). On determinism, see Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine. Loci communes 1555, tr. and ed. Clyde L. Manschreck (New York: OUP, 1965); ‘Of the Origin of Sin’, 47. Melanchthon’s Loci communes had been similarly used by Bolsec. On Veluanus’ adoption of Melanchthon’s critique; Pol, ‘Anastasius Veluanus’, 25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

25

and repent, the will, even in its fallen, sick state, can exert itself to receive or reject grace.32 What is at issue here is not so much a form of synergism, but a minute movement of the will, in response to God’s initial call, and disposing it towards, or away from, grace. By the closing decades of the sixteenth century, such minority positions were on the decline. As the position of the church became more secure, a concerted effort was made to standardize teaching and tighten orthodoxy, often by means of enforcing stricter adherence to the catechism. The conflicts that resulted are the topic of the following part of this chapter. Another point of contention was the question of the relation between the church and the civil magistrate. The National Synod of Emden (1571) laid down the presbyterian organization of the Dutch Reformed Church. According to Trigland, the experiences of the exile churches in England led to a rejection of the episcopal system, in order that ‘no church, minister or deacon would raise himself over another’.33 Church organization was local and decentralized, moving from consistory to church council and classis to the provincial and national synods. The right to elect and appoint ministers, elders, and deacons belonged to the church, which similarly reserved to itself the right to be arbiter of ecclesiastical discipline. The latter question in particular proved a bone of contention, especially in Holland and Utrecht, where many of the regents favoured the ideas of Thomas Erastus, the court physician and spiritual adviser of Frederick III. The conflict between Erastus and Caspar Olevianus about the nature of ecclesiastical discipline and the right of excommunication, in which Erastus defended the rights of the civil magistrate and Olevianus those of the church, was eventually decided, despite Bullinger’s support for Erastus, in favour of the latter. Yet the controversy would prove of long-lasting influence in the wider struggle between the Genevan and Zurich varieties of Reformed Protestantism that were played out within the different national churches.34 In England, the closing decades of the century witnessed the concerted effort of anti-puritan bishops such as Whitgift to promote works of Bullinger as a counterweight to the influence of Geneva.35 In the different context and circumstances of the Dutch Republic, a similar move can be discerned in the attempt of the magistrates of certain towns in Holland, in alliance with a group of Erastian-minded clerics, to foist a Zurich ecclesiology upon a by and large unwilling church. For the magistrates of the towns of Holland, Zurich’s magisterial Reformation appeared to offer a far more attractive model than conflict-ridden Geneva. The conflict between Erastians and Presbyterians raged with particular intensity in Leiden where the magistrate supported the dissident minister 32  ‘Wanneer wy voir die wederghebuert mit Godes woirt recht vermanet werden, an ewige salicheit vnde verdamnus, so kunne wy mit onse reden etlicker maten mercken, dat ons an sullicke leer wat zy gelegen, vnde kunnen oick onsen wil etlicker maten dair hin wenden, dat wy ons darmit onderwysen laten. Jn sullicken val is ons muegelick, onse salichheit durch den kleinen frien willen wat to forderen, oder to behinderen.’ Veluanus, Der Leken Weghweyzer, quoted in Pol, ‘Anastasius Veluanus’, 22. 33  J. Trigland, Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen (Leiden: Adriaen Wyngaerden, 1649), 162. 34 Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘Bullinger and the English-Speaking World’, in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger: Life –Thought—Influence (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), ii. 932–3. 35  MacCulloch, ‘Bullinger and the English-Speaking World’, ii. 932–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

26

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Caspar Coolhaes (1522–90), an Erastian with Spiritualist leanings, against the dogged opposition of the consistory. Coolhaes had clashed with his Presbyterian colleagues about the question of predestination, the banning of people from the Lord’s Supper, a measure Coolhaes disapproved of, and his support of the civic magistrate’s ius circa sacra.36 Matters came to a head in 1578, when the Leiden magistrate dismissed Coolhaes’s colleague Pieter Cornelisz. The city justified its actions in the Justification of the Magistrate of Leiden (1579), a document written by Coornhert, which contained some very strong denunciations of Calvinism. Coolhaes in turn brought out his own Apology. Attempts by the Prince of Orange and the States of Holland to move Leiden to a more accommodating position came to nothing, and, in a move that prefigures (as well as post-figuring, of course, the hedge-sermons preached during the early days of the Revolt) the schisms caused by the Arminian conflict, Cornelisz took to preaching in the small town of Voorschouten, outside Leiden, where most of his flock followed him. In 1581 the Synod of Middelburg banned Coolhaes from preaching and bringing out books, and the next year, the provincial Synod of Haarlem followed with a formal excommunication. Coolhaes fought back, publishing several pamphlets in which he a­ rgued that the institution of a Genevan-style discipline amounted to a resurrection of a new spiritual tyranny.37 One of the results of these conflicts was that the church orders drafted by a succession of national synods foundered on the opposition of the Erastian towns. As late as 1581, after the Synod of Middelburg, there still was no church order recognized throughout the Republic. The church order of 1586 granted the authorities more influence over ecclesiastical affairs by accepting the addition of ‘political commissioners’ to the consistories, and was accepted by the States of Zeeland, but because it carried the stamp of Leicester, it was never endorsed by the States of Holland.38 In 1591, Oldenbarnevelt tried to force matters to a resolution with a provisional church order, drafted by eight ministers in collaboration with representatives of the authorities. Both the church and the Erastian towns in the States of Holland balked at the compromise it entailed and it remained, despite Oldenbarnevelt’s efforts, a dead letter. By this time, however, local conflicts over the doctrine of predestination and the status of the catechism in the churches of Holland had taken on endemic 36  For Coolhaes’s life, see H. C. Rogge, Caspar Janszoon Coolhaes: De voorlooper van Arminius en der Remonstranten (Amsterdam: Rogge, 1865). For the conflict between Coolhaes and his presbyterian colleagues, see Christine Kooi, Liberty and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 55–89. 37  C.C.V.M.I.D.H.G. [Caspar Coolhaes], Een christelijcke vermaninghe, aen alle onpartydighe Predicanten: om te waecken dat die sathan gheen nieu pausdom, aen des ouden benaest vervallen plaets wederom oprechte ([1584]). Coolhaes had earlier translated a treatise on church discipline by Rudolph Gwalter, Bullinger’s foster-son and successor: Caspar Coolhaes [Rudoph Gwalther], Van die christelijcke disciplijn ende excommunicatie ofte ban: . . . Uyt de Latijnsche tale . . . overgheset door Casparum Coolhaes (Leiden: Andries, Verschout, 1582). 38  See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490–1700 (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 371, for the decisive influence of the conflict with Leicester; Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata, ii. 140–1, gives a succinct summary of the conflicts over church order and discipline; more extensively, see Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 42–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

27

proportions. These conflicts have often been interpreted in proto-Arminian terms, but are more properly understood as an expression of a more diffuse popular antipredestinarianism, driven to the surface by the increased emphasis on catechismus preaching after the Synod of Middelburg (1581). The controversies between the church and the dissident preachers Herman Herbers in Gouda (1592), Herman Wiggertsz in Hoorn, and Taco Sybrandts in Medemblik (1597) were resolved by Oldenbarnevelt through local mediation, rather than through a synod as the church insisted. The compromises thus achieved left an ambiguous legacy, satisfying neither party fully, yet being claimed as a victory by both sides. The Remonstrants would later insist that Herbers, Wiggertsz, and their fellows had been treated with leniency, and had not been excluded from the church, while the ­Contra-Remontrants, also not without justification, asserted that this had happened only after retraction and recantation. Oldenbarnevelt’s role, even when it occasionally worked to curb the aggressive Erastianism of towns like Leiden and Gouda, was nevertheless ­resented as meddlesome interference by the orthodox. His slight opinion of the theologians, his sometimes less than courteous treatment of clerical deputies, combined with his reputation for indifference or even irreligiosity, did much to sour relations between Oldenbarnevelt and the Reformed clergy. Prominent ministers such as Petrus Plancius minced no words in their critique of the Advocate. As early as 1591 he had been denounced by some hotheads as a ‘villain and a traitor of the churches’ and likened to Uzziah who had been struck with leprosy for laying his hands on the Ark.39 For Contra-Remonstrant polemicists, like Reginald Donteclock and Jacobus Trigland, these earlier attempts to subordinate the church to the civil magistrate lay at the root of the Arminian troubles.40 1.2   T H E D E B AT E O N L I B E RT Y O F C O N S C I E N C E Throughout the Arminian controversy, an Erastian claim for the civil magistrate’s ius circa sacra remained one pillar of the States of Holland’s strategy to contain the conflict within the church. However one may judge Oldenbarnevelt’s ecclesiastical policy in practical, prudential terms, it was entirely in line with the ideas he had encountered decades earlier when studying in Heidelberg.41 For Oldenbarnevelt, the States’ power to decide what doctrine could be taught in the churches of Holland followed directly from their rights as the sovereign authority. There was no way in which he could compromise on this position without violating the principle of States’ sovereignty that was the linch-pin of his career.42 39  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 2. 40 Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 24–7; Trigland, Kerkelycke Geschiedenissen, 712–14. 41  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, i. 62–4. 42  The criticism often levelled at Oldenbarnevelt’s high-handed, authoritarian tendencies by historians such as Van Deursen is therefore beside the point (which is of course not to deny that Oldenbarnevelt was authoritarian). Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 291–2, and idem, Maurits van Nassau (Amsterdam: Aula/Bert Bakker, 2002), 273.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

28

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

The second pillar of the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland was the idea of limited religious toleration in matters not touching the essentials of the faith. This was in essence a strategy for the containment of dissension by appeal to a fundamental doctrinal consensus, and was as such closely related to irenicism. In the form in which it was defended by Oldenbarnevelt’s spokesmen, among whom Grotius was increasingly emerging as the most prominent figure, it was comparable to the latitudinarianism with which James I attempted to keep the peace between the Puritan and Arminian factions within his church. It was a far cry from the idea of full religious liberty debated at different moments in the Republic’s history. In the historiography of the toleration debate, the two forms of religious toleration have sometimes been discussed without clear distinction, which is perhaps not altogether surprising seeing that, even in the seventeenth century, the two debates tended to become entangled. Yet in order to understand the issues at stake it is vital to understand the differences between the two concepts and their different intellectual pathways and legacies. In Chapter 2, I will analyse the concept of toleration advocated by Grotius in the Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas (1613), a key text in the development of the States’ party ecclesiastical policy in these years. I will also show how these ideas were quickly appropriated by those whose real agenda was full religious toleration. Before arguing why the resulting confusion had such damaging results, I will first give an outline of the earlier debate on toleration. The idea of liberty of conscience had a venerable tradition in the Republic, which stretched back to the beginning of the Revolt. In the Beggars’ Songbook (Geuzenliedboek), a collection of anti-Spanish spiritual and military battle hymns and lamentations dating from 1560s and 1570s, we find the notion opposed to Spanish ‘conscience-tyranny’.43 Yet as the Revolt progressed and the Reformed Church became more firmly entrenched in society, the idea of liberty of conscience increasingly came under pressure. The Reformers had rejected the traditional scholastic definition of conscience as synderesis, reason’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Separated from God, man’s reason in its fallen, corrupted state was utterly unable to distinguish right from wrong. They insisted that, correctly understood, conscience meant the relationship of the individual to God. Conscience, to borrow the metaphor of Colin Davis, is the fax machine linking man to the divine will.44 In Beza’s words, liberty of conscience was nothing other than the liberty to 43  On the Beggar’s Songs, see René van Stipriaan, Het volle leven: Nederlandse literatuur en cultuur ten tijde van de Republiek (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2002), 20–8; Martine de Bruin, ‘Geuzen en Anti-Geuzen Liederen’, in Louis Peter Grijp (ed.), Een muziekgeschiedenis der Nederlanden ­(Amsterdam: AUP, 2001), 174–81. On the cultural politics of the Beggars’ propaganda offensive, see H. F. K. van Nierop, ‘Edelman, bedelman: De verkeerde wereld van het Compromis der Edelen’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 107 (1992), 1–27. On the theme of liberty of conscience in 16th-cent. propagandistic literature, see Marijke Spies, ‘ “Vrijheid, vrijheid”: Poëzie als propaganda, 1565–1665’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E. Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw (Amsterdam, AUP, 1999), 71–98. 44 J. C. Davis, ‘Religion and the Struggle for Freedom in the English Revolution’, Historical Journal, 35 (1992), 519.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

29

obey God.45 A definition of this concept in terms of individual rights, he rejected as a ‘diabolical doctrine’.46 The political controversy over liberty of conscience raged with particular intensity in the wake of the debates over the Pacification of Ghent (1576), yet the tide of political events was turning away from full religious toleration. William of Orange’s policy of confessional coexistence foundered on the intransigence of the Reformed in Ghent and Antwerp who had inaugurated an aggressive policy of Protestantization of the countryside. This radicalism, and the military advances made by the new commander of the Spanish army, Alessandro Farnese, the Duke of Parma, did much to assist the return of the nobility of the Southern provinces to obedience to the King of Spain. This process culminated in the Union of Arras, signed on 6 January 1579, which ratified the reconciliation of the Southern provinces to Spain. A fortnight later, Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, and Groningen signed the Union of Utrecht. This document, essentially a treaty outlining the rights and duties of the confederated provinces in the contribution to the war effort, later came to be regarded as the embryonic ‘constitution’ of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces. Article 13 of the Union granted the provinces of Holland and Zeeland the liberty to follow their own judgement in matters pertaining to religion, while the other provinces were bound to observe the terms of the religious peace drafted by Archduke Matthias with the consent of the States General.47 The text of Article 13 referred to the Pacification of Ghent in guaranteeing liberty of conscience for the private believer, but made no mention of liberty of worship.48 In most of Zeeland and Holland, moreover, the mass had effectively been suppressed since 1572, and in 1581 the States of Holland formally banned public Catholic worship. During the late 1570s and 1580s the increased prominence of the Reformed churches, and their growing assertiveness in campaigning for the suppressing of Lutheranism and Anabaptism, galvanized the toleration debate. For the urban magistrates, who feared civil unrest and loss of trade, the practical problems involved in enforcing religious uniformity were no less real now than they had been under Spanish rule. And although the suppression of Catholicism could be justified for political reasons, as at that time there was a habit of identifying Catholicism with Spain, they drew a line at persecuting Protestant sects like the Mennonites, who were regarded as simple people who erred in their beliefs but who otherwise lived honest, God-fearing lives, and who might still be won for the church.49 45  Dufour, ‘La Notion de liberté de conscience chez les Réformateurs’, in H. R. Guggisberg, Frank Lestringant, and Jean-Claude Margolin (eds), La Liberté de conscience (XVe–XVIIe siècles): Actes du Colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989) (Geneva: Droz, 1989), 18. 46  Dufour, ‘La Notion de liberté de conscience’, 15. 47  For the original text of article XIII, see S. Groenveld and H. L. Ph. Leeuwenberg (eds), De Unie van Utrecht : Wording en werking van een verbondsacte (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1979), 34–5. On the question of religion in the Union treaty more broadly, see O. J. De Jong, ‘Unie en religie’, in Groenveld and Leeuwenberg, De Unie, 155–81. 48  Groenveld and Leeuwenberg, De Unie, 35: ‘mits dat een yder particulier in syn religie vry sal mogen blyven ende dat men nyemant ter cause vande religie sal mogen achterhaelen ofte ondersoecken volgende die voors. Pacificatie tot Gendt gemaect.’ 49  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 31, 34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

30

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

The early history of the Reformation in the Netherlands did however also mean that support for a more principled defence of religious toleration could be found among broader social groups. For the Anabaptists in particular, who had suffered most during the earlier phases of persecution, and for whom the experience of persecution, exile, and martyrdom became central to their religious identity, a rejection of the persecution of heretics on biblical grounds came to be the commonly shared position. The most comprehensive work on religious toleration produced in this period was written by the Mennonite Jan Pietersz Twisk.50 Spiritualists and Libertines likewise rejected religious persecutions. In a similar way to the Mennonites, they appealed to the example of Christ, and to a host of loci from the New Testament, such as the parable of the wheat and the tares, the story of Gamaliel the Pharisee (Acts 5: 34), and the account of the persecution of the Saints in the Book of Revelation. Both groups insisted that faith was the work of the Spirit, and that the Spirit could not be compelled. What sets the Spiritualist defences of toleration aside, however, is a philosophical and epistemological scepticism about the capacity of unregenerated humanity to understand the truth or to grasp the nature of the divine. An interesting case in this respect is the conflict between two individuals from the immediate entourage of the Prince of Orange: the Spiritualist Emmery de Lyere and the Prince’s Reformed adviser, Marnix of St Aldegonde. In 1595 Marnix had produced what was intended to be the definitive refutation of the Spiritualists, the Investigation and Thorough Refutation of the Teachings of the Spiritualists (Ondersoeckinge en grondelijcke wederlegginge der geestdrijvische leere (1595)), to which De Lyere had responded with Antidote ou contrepoison contre les conseils sanguinaires et enveminez de Philip de Marnix, Sr de Ste Aldegonde.51 In this work, De Lyere married the strategic employment of doubt that can be found in  works like Sebastian Franck’s Paradoxa to the epistemological scepticism of Montaigne.52 Central to De Lyere’s argument is the idea, borrowed Montaigne’s Apologie pour Raymond Sebon, that human judgement is too weak and frail to form an adequate conception of the nature God.53 Throughout the work De Lyere quotes freely from the Essais, particularly De l’experience, De la vanité, and the Apologie to urge all religious sects, groups, and churches to a Montaignian suspension of judgement in matters of religious truth: ‘Qu’ils tiennent en surseance leur jugement, se servant de leur raison pour enquerir, mais non pour arrester et choisir, ayantz un jugement sans pente et sans inclination a quelque occasion que ce puisse ester, jusques a ce que Dieu commence besoigner en eulx par la foy.’54 50  Samme Zijstra, ‘Anabaptism and Tolerance: Possibilities and Limitations’, in R. Po-Chia and H. F. K. van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 115–16. 51  For an introduction to the debate that gives the text of De Lyere’s Antidote, see: Emmery de Lyere et Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde: Un admirateur de Sébastien Franck et de Montaigne aux prises avec le champion des calvinistes néerlandais, ed. Cornelis Kramer (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971). 52  Emmery de Lyere, ed. Kramer, 37. 53  ‘Ceste saincte et grande image ne pourroit entrer en un si chetif domicile, si Dieu pour cest usage ne le prepare, s’il ne le reforme et fortifie par sa faveur et impulsion particuliere et supernaturelle’, Emmery de Lyere, ed. Kramer, 176. 54  Emmery de Lyere, ed. Kramer, 183.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

31

Scepticism, albeit of a rather different kind, is likewise central to the work of the  best known defender of religious toleration of the sixteenth-century Dutch Republic: Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert. Throughout his long and productive life, this remarkable figure was active as a translator of Seneca, Cicero, Boethius, and Homer, engraver, poet, playwright, and producer of ethical and religious literature, like his Ethics, that is the Art of Living Well (1584) and his collection of biblical loci communes, a life project left unfinished at his death. A native of Amsterdam, although he spent much of his working life in Haarlem and Gouda, he had many ties to the literary scene in Amsterdam to which his friends, Hendrik Laurensz Spiegel and Roemer Visscher, belonged, and to whose project to enhance the status of the Dutch language he contributed. As a toleration thinker, however, Coornhert is best known for the Synod or Balance of the Old and the New Church on Freedom of Conscience (1582) and the Trial of the Killing of Heretics and the Constraint of Conscience (1590)—a diptych, of which the first part was directed against the reason of state arguments in favour of religious uniformity articulated in Lipsius’s Politicorum libri sex, while the second part aimed at the ‘Calvinist’ doctrine about the civil magistrate’s duty to punish heresy.55 Coornhert consistently opposed the claims of the Reformed Church to constitute the true church of Christ. Unlike the Catholic Church, which although corrupted and deformed, still constituted a true church, the various Protestant churches grown up in the wake of the Reformation had been instituted without divine ordination and were therefore mere sects.56 He attacked the Heidelberg Catechism in the Errors of the Catechism (1578) and, late in life, turned against the Reformed doctrine of predestination, which he rejected as unscriptural.57 Coornhert also took the Reformed to task for refusing to grant to 55  The most comprehensive introduction to Coornhert’s life and works is till Bonger’s slightly outdated biography, Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert (Amsterdam: Van Oorschot, 1978); H. Bonger et al. (eds), Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert: Dwars maar Recht (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 1989) offers a number of articles by different authors, shedding light on the different aspects of Coornhert’s work. Gerrit Voogt’s Constraint on Trial: Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert and Religious Freedom (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000) offers a concise introduction to Coornhert as a toleration thinker. See for this topic also Martin Van Gelderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 243–59. On Coornhert’s links to the Eglantine, Anneke C. G. Fleurkens, Leren met lust: De toneelspelen van D.V. Coornhert als middelen tot het geven van morele instructio (Hilversum: Verloren, 1994) and J. A. Worp, Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen schouwburg (Amsterdam: Van Looij, 1920), 13–14. 56 Voogt, Constraint on Trial, 95, 133–5. 57  D. V. Coornhert, Proeve. Vande Nederlantsche Catechismo omme te verstaen. Of die voort gecomen is wte Godlijcke Schrift, dan wt het menschelijcke vernuft,/wt gegeven tot allemans oordeel ende waerschouwinge door D. V. Coornhert (Haarlem: Anthonis Ketel, 1582); Vande predestinatie, verkiezinghe ende verwerpinghe Godes. Ontwarringhe. Nu nut ende nodigh; om de valsche ende argherlijcke leringhe die in dezen gheleert werdt by leraars dezer tyden: streckende tot wanhoop van vele ghoedthertighen, ende valsche vryheydt veler verwaande menschen: elck een tot waarschouwinghe gheschreven (Gouda: Pieter Symensz. Kies, 1590). Coornhert had earlier written about predestination, free will, and justification: Vande vreemde sonde, schulde, straffe, na sporinghe. Waer inne naecktelijck werdt ontdeckt de rechte grondt ende oorsake vande schadelijcke dolinghen gheslopen inde leeringhen vande vrije wille, predestinatie ende justificatie . . . / in druck gegheven door D. V. Coornhert (Gouda: [Jasper Tournay (?)], 1584) He had also translated the fourth of Castellio’s dialogues on predestination: Tsamensprueken vande predestinatie ende schickinge Godes, verkiesinge, vrye-wille, tgheloove. Eerst ghemaect int Latijn door . . . Sebastiaen Castellion, ende nu . . . / in Nederlandtsche tale overgheset, te weten die drie eerste door Dirck Adriaensen Kemp, ende het laetste door D. V. Coornhert (Utrecht: [Coenraet Henricksz], 1581), Bibliotheca Belgica C-128.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

32

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

others that freedom of conscience that they had demanded for themselves when they were a persecuted minority. In recent years, a revisionist emphasis on Coornhert’s anti-Reformed polemics has led to a questioning of the traditional account of Coornhert as a defender of religious toleration. In her meticulous reconstruction of the public disputations between Coornhert and the Reformed ministers at Leiden (1578), where he crossed swords with Reginald Donteclock, the future Contra-Remonstrant polemicist, and The Hague (1583) where he met with the Leiden theologian Adrianus Saravia (1532–1612), who was to become known as an apologist for the Elizabethan episcopacy, Marianne Roobol has argued that Coornhert’s real aim was the restoration of religious unity, not any abstract ‘theory of toleration’.58 Although the new attention to the polemical context in which Coornhert articulated his ideas has been salutary in nuancing a history of ideas-driven approach to the idea of toleration, Roobol’s account nevertheless obscures some fundamental aspects of the toleration debate. Opponents and supporters of toleration alike deplored the existence of ­religious division and hoped for the eventual restoration of religious unity. Few, if any, in the sixteenth century defended religious toleration as a positive good. Yet this does not mean to say that radically divergent, and indeed incompatible, interpretations of conscience and its rights did not exist. We find in Coornhert’s works the traditional blend of biblical and sceptical ­arguments against religious persecution that stand within a wider European body of toleration writings. He rehearses the sceptical argument that the church, as a party in the dispute, cannot be arbiter in its own case. Yet Coornhert’s defence goes  beyond scepticism in emphasizing that conscience is sacrosanct even when in  error.59 Conscience, the Synod on the Liberty of Conscience argued, ‘is free and exempt from all human authority’.60 No man has the authority to bar an individual from the path that leads him to God; neither the ministers with their confessions and catechism, censorship, bans, and excommunications, nor the civil magistrate by enforcing outward conformity to the public faith. This second point meant a departure from the Erastian position he had earlier defended in the Justification of the Magistrate of Leiden (1579). Irrespective of whether his opponent was the Reformed Church or a thinker like Lipsius, Coornhert resisted any attempt to define liberty of conscience as a purely spiritual good, insisting that freedom of worship, as its outer dimension, was an inextricable part of the definition. Coornhert put great weight on the external dimensions of liberty of conscience, which to him included the right to debate and to publish, as well as freedom of worship, for reasons that had to do with his ideas on how certainty in religious matter could be attained. He believed that the only way in which one could ascertain the truth of one’s religious beliefs was to subject them to a process of strategic doubt, examining them critically, and rejecting anything not in accordance with scripture. This tactical scepticism can be traced to Coornhert’s reading of the 58  Marianne Roobol, Disputation by Decree (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 54. 59  Van Gelderen, Political Thought, 252–3; Vooght, Constraint on Trial, 60. 60 Coornhert, Synodus van der Conscientien Vryheydt, in Coornhert, Wercken (Amsterdam, 1633), ii, sig. 23r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

33

De arte dubitandi of Sebastian Castellio, an author whose work Coornhert knew very well, and propagated in the Netherlands through his translations.61 To investigate whether a belief accords with scripture, Coornhert believed, was first of all an individual duty, but it also entailed a moral obligation to God and to one’s fellow Christians, to share what one knew for certain is the truth.62 This idea of divulging the truth as a moral and indeed religious duty is central to Coornhert’s work. It supplies the animating force to his relentless polemicizing, not just with the Reformed, but with the Anabaptists and Spiritualists as well, which earned him, already among some of his contemporaries, a reputation for intolerance.63 It was an aspect of his role that sometimes appears to have agonized him, as testified by the curious ‘Dialogue between Dirk Coornhert and his Conscience’, which prefaced one of his shorter works, published in the posthumous folio edition of the Complete Works. Here, Coornhert’s conscience asks him: ‘what is the purpose of all your writing? Do you want to make everyone full of doubt?’ To which Coornhert replies, ‘No, but I want to help diminish everyone’s false certainties, as much as I can.’64 This idea of conscience as reason’s capacity for moral judgement was incompatible with the more corrosive form of epistemological doubt associated with Pyrrhonian scepticism. It is not surprising, then, that Coornhert once criticized his friend Spiegel for what he believed to be the latter’s espousal of ‘Montaigne’s pernicious paradoxes’. Similarly, it was incompatible with the insistence on the complete depravity of unregenerated man found in Protestant theology. If faith is not just a gift of God, but involves an element of choice, the will must be able to discern, and choose, the good. When, in the aftermath of the debate in The Hague, the States of Holland banned Coornhert from publishing about religion, Coornhert changed strategy and brought out a vernacular ethics titled Ethics, That is the Art of Living Well, Through the Knowledge of Truth Concerning Man, Sin and Virtue, now described for the First Time in the Dutch Language (1586). In this work, he developed a systematic moral philosophy that overthrew the psychological basis of Augustinian theology, describing error of judgement, rather than man’s perverted nature, as the source of evil, reducing the role of the will to that of reason’s executive, and thereby reinstating man’s free will as well as his capacity to attain perfect moral goodness in this life.65 61  On Coornhert and Castellio, see Gerhard Güldner, Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden im Ausgang de 16. Jahrhunderts (Lübeck and Hamburg: Matthiesen Verlag, 1968), and Hans R.  Guggisberg, Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563: Humanist und Verteidiger der religösen Toleranz im Konfessionellen Zeitalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997). 62  See Coornhert’s letter to Plantin in Alistair Hamilton, The Family of Love (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1981), 106–7, see also the short treatise ‘Vande waerheydt of men die magh weten’, Coornhert, Wercken, I, fos 76r–80v. 63  Wiebe Bergsma, ‘“I shall honestly confess to you the truth”. A Learned Frisian Speaks his Mind about Coornhert’, Lias, 22 (1995), 19–27. 64  Coornhert, ‘Ghesprake in Voor-redens plaetse tusschen Coornhert ende syne Conscientie’, Van de Onwetenheyt der Menschen, die daer in is onschuldigh of schuldigh, Wercken, I, sig. 121r, quoted in Voogt, Constraint on Trial, 73–4. 65  Dirck Volckerstz Coornhert, Zedekunst dat is wellevenskunste, vermids waarheyds kennise van den mensche, Vande zonde ende Vande dueghden, nu alder eerst beschreven int Neerlandsch, ed. B. Becker (Leiden: Brill, 1942), book II, pp. i–iv.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

34

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

As Coornhert’s life drew to its close, he appears to have reached the conclusion that next to the defence of religious toleration, the elimination of pernicious doctrines such as double predestination should have absolute priority. In the 1580s he had produced a string of shorter works on topics such as unconditional election, reprobation, and perseverance. In 1589–90, the year of his death, when he was engaged in an increasingly bitter controversy with Lipsius over the civil magistrate’s right to enforce religious uniformity, he wrote a voluminous treatise titled On Predestination, Election, Reprobation: Distentanglement.66 Even viewed in the wider context of the late sixteenth-century controversy on grace and free will, Coornhert’s project stands out. Despite the sometimes acrimonious debates between Jesuits and Dominicans, between the followers of Hemmingius and Peter Baro, and those of Girolamo Zanchi and William Perkins, theologians on both sides of the  divide agreed that God’s eternal decree was a difficult, dangerous subject, to be approached with humility rather than inquisitiveness.67 Never were these debates conducted in the vernacular, or addressed to a larger, lay audience. Coornhert’s objections to the Reformed doctrines of election, reprobation, ­perseverance, and obdurance were in the first instance biblical. His studies had brought him to reject these doctrines as human inventions, without scriptural foundation, and incompatible with God’s goodness and mercy. Adumbrating the argument that would later be articulated in Arminian pamphlet polemics, predestination made God into a tyrant, condemning man for deeds which he is compelled to commit.68 Contrary to what has sometimes been claimed, there is no direct line of influence from Coornhert to Arminius. The chasm separating the scholastic-Reformed theology of Arminius from the religious controversiae of an autodidact free-will theologian is simply unbridgeable.69 Yet there are other ways in which Coornhert is important for the history of the Arminian controversy. What Coornhert’s performance as a controversialist does make clear is the difficulty involved in discussing liberty of conscience without encroaching on the Reformed economy of grace. The Coornhert case is interesting also for the way in which it shows Dutch society as capable of producing, as well as curtailing, heterodoxy and dissent. The States of Holland attempted on several occasions to silence Coornhert. The debates at Leiden and The Hague were organized, as Roobol has demonstrated, to this end and purpose.70 Yet as instruments for curbing religious controversy they 66  D. V. Coornhert, Vande predestinatie, in Wercken, III, fos 171–291. 67 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxi.2., p. 608, III.xxiii.2, p. 628; John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, tr. J. K. S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997 [1961]), 65, 86–8, 113, 168–9. 68 Voogt, Constraint on Trial, 78–9. This is an argument that can already be heard in Erasmus’s defence of free will against Luther, see Erasmus, De libero arbitrio diatriba sive collatio, in Luther and Erasmus, Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 94. 69  I here disagree with Voogt who claims that the element of perfectism in Arminius ‘seems to point to Coornhert’s influence’. Voogt, Constraint on Trial, 235, referring to Bang’s Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971), 345–7. Few people would nowadays hazard the claim that Arminius’ theology contained ‘perfectist elements’. 70 Roobol, Disputation by Decree, 153–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

35

were, at most, only a partial success. This was partially due to the nature of early modern religious disputation, which, as a rule, tended to aggravate the controversies it was supposed to quell. Another factor was the decentralized nature of the institutions of the Dutch Republic. Because of this, the effort to ban Coornhert from publishing on religious matters was difficult to enforce. When Leiden proved a hostile environment, Coornhert simply moved to Gouda, a city known for its hospitality towards dissenters, where the printing presses of Jasper Tournay would continue to print his works on predestination in the wake of the Arminian controversy. But while Coornhert’s work generated considerable public interest, the ­extent of his actual influence is nevertheless difficult to assess. Undoubtedly, it was less widespread than his vexed Reformed opponents tended to claim.71 That his ideas won enough adherents to justify speaking of a ‘sect’ of ‘Coornhertists’, as some Reformed authors such as Trigland and Donteclock do, seems doubtful. Strictly speaking, the anthropological and theological foundations on which Coornhert built his defence of full liberty of conscience would have been unacceptable not only to the Reformed Church, but to most Protestants as well. And yet, Coornhert’s concerns about the attempt of the Reformed Church to curtail liberty of conscience seem to have resonated with wider groups in society, including elements within that church itself. There is, moreover, a current within Dutch moral philosophy and literature that was directly influenced by the ethical writings of Coornhert and Spiegel. I will examine this influence in more detail in Chapter 3. In order to understand the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland in the years of the Arminian controversy, it is nevertheless vital to understand that the limited toleration advocated by the Oldenbarnevelt regime was not identical, and indeed in many ways was incompatible, with the full religious toleration advocated by Coornhert. A tell-tale sign was the manner in which the authorities reacted to the Lipsius affair. The magistrates of Leiden to whom Coornhert had dedicated Trial of the Constraint of Conscience had distanced themselves from the work, and had expressed their support for Lipsius’s response to Coornhert, De una religione, adversus dialogistam (1590). At stake was more than the prestige of Leiden’s alma mater and its greatest luminary. Many, rightly or not, blamed Coornhert for Lipsius’s sudden decision to exchange Leiden for Louvain. Yet it was Coornhert’s definition of liberty of conscience as freedom from constraint by both church and civil authorities that proved a step too far for Holland’s magistrates. Lipsius’s distinction between private belief (fides) and public faith (confessio) offered a more workable solution to the Republic’s endemic problem of religious diversity. Tellingly, it was Oldenbarnevelt who took a particular interest in Lipsius’s ideas.72 In 1591 the States of Holland made their view on the matter clear by forbidding the 71  See on this point e.g. Donteclock, who argues that only a minority within the States of Holland professes the Reformed religion, ‘while some, following the teachings of Coornhert and Franck show little interest in it, and others are inclined towards an altogether different religion, such as that of the Papists, Lutherans, and Anabaptists. And I pass over these who do not eschew certain abominable sects.’ Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 31. 72 Güldner, Toleranz-Problem, 114.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

36

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

followers of Coornhert, who had by that time died, to publish any more works against Lipsius. Neither Lipsius’s narrow definition of liberty of conscience, nor Coornhert’s broad one, moreover, would provide an answer to the problem of dissent within the Reformed Church. By 1610, the followers of Arminius had mustered sufficient self-confidence to present their views on predestination as a viable alternative to those preached in the Republic’s churches. To persuade their Reformed opponents that these views could indeed be legitimately held would require an altogether different strategy. 1 . 3  T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F A R M I N I A N I S M Jacobus Arminius (Figure 3) was born in 1559 in Oudewater, a small town in the province of Utrecht, the son of a prosperous weapon-maker. His uncle, a Catholic priest, recognized the young boy’s talent and paid for his early education. After the massacre of Oudewater by the Spanish in 1575, in which his entire family lost their lives, he was taken under the wing of Snellius, the Leiden professor of mathematics. A scholarship from the Amsterdam guild of cloth merchants allowed him to pursue his studies abroad in Geneva, Basel, and Padua, on the condition that having completed his studies he would return to serve the city as a minister. Having taken up his office as a preacher at the Oude Kerk, he soon afterwards married Lijsbet (Elizabeth) Reael, daughter of the merchant Laurens Jacobsz Reael (1536–1601, not to be confused with his son, Laurens Reael (1583–1637), governor-general of the VOC and literary friend of Hooft and Vondel), one of the  figureheads of Amsterdam’s early Reformation, who, having barely escaped the persecutions of Alba, had returned to play a leading role in the setting up of Amsterdam’s Reformed Church.73 His marriage opened the door to the world of the merchant patriciate and provided him with alliances with powerful and influential men like burgomaster C. P. Hooft, another Reformed Protestant of the first hour but, like Reael, a man of a declared anti-Calvinist temper, and the ship owner Rem Bisschop, brother of Simon Episcopius. Arminius was a popular preacher, much loved by his congregation. When the plague struck Amsterdam he continued to visit the sick and the dying without concern for his own safety. In this period, however, the rumours about his alleged heterodoxy became current. In 1595 he was challenged by his colleagues on account of the interpretation he had given of Romans 9 in one of his sermons. The matter was eventually resolved, yet suspicions remained. In 1602 Arminius received the call to become professor of divinity at Leiden, where a plague epidemic had carried off both Franciscus Junius and Lucas Trelcatius senior, leaving the teaching burden on the shoulders of the one remaining senior professor, Franciscus Gomarus. The consistory initially refused to let Arminius go, ostensibly because he could not be missed as a minister, but more probably because they were not fully convinced about Arminius’s soundness and feared the spreading of heterodox ideas to the 73  On Laurens Jacobz Reael see Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata, ii. 170.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

37

Figure 3 Anonymous, portrait of Jacobus Arminius (1615) (Image reproduced with ­permission of the Remonstrantse Gemeente Rotterdam)

Republic’s foremost theology faculty. Only after lengthy mediation by Uytenbogaert, combined with considerable pressure from a delegation sent by the university’s curators with the backing of the States of Holland, did Amsterdam finally cave in and release Arminius from his obligations to the city.74 Arminius received his doctoral examination from Gomarus in June 1603, and obtained his title a month later after a public disputation on the topic of the nature of God.75 Throughout the following year, the new colleagues worked together in relative 74  R. Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, Ook dat was Amsterdam: De kerk der hervorming in de gouden eeuw (Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1965–78), ii. 197–8. 75 Bangs, Arminius, 238, 252–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

38

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

harmony, lecturing on the Old and New Testament and taking turns in holding public disputations. Controversy arose when Gomarus held a disputation on predestination that was out of turn and out of schedule and appeared to be aimed directly at Arminius’s disputation on the topic earlier that year. Arminius responded with a detailed Examination of Gomarus’ Theses on Predestination. Both the disputation and the Examination were published, together, in 1609 and again in 1610. Before long the conflict began to disrupt university life. In 1605 a delegation of the Synod of North Holland visited Arminius to express its concern about the fact that candidates for the ministry had been given Arminius’s name as authority when giving novel answers at their examination.76 Arminius rejected the implicit accusations, but refused to enter into a debate, arguing that as a university professor he needed the permission of the curators before accepting to submit to the authority of the Synod.77 In the years that followed the conflict escalated further, becoming a matter of national and indeed international concern, as the Oldenbarnevelt regime struggled to keep the two warring parties of Arminians and Calvinists within one church. As a strategy for the containment of religious controversy the States party’s policy was perhaps not unparalleled, yet it was defended with singular vigour and consistency by Oldenbarnevelt’s collaborators, among whom Grotius was increasingly beginning to emerge as the intellectual figurehead. Its justification was based on the twin pillars of authority and consensus: a defence of the States’ ius circa sacra based on an Erastian interpretation of Article 13 of the Union of Utrecht, and a consistent endeavour to minimize conflict through an emphasis on moderation and mutual tolerance, combined with a ban on polemical preaching.78 As a strategy for downplaying or glossing over conflict, the appeal to consensus shows interesting similarities to the usage of this term in the early Jacobean church in the years after the Hampton Court conference. In this case, the point of departure was an altogether different one, as King James and bishops such as Joseph Hall employed a rhetoric of peace, unity, and moderation to project an image of the Anglican Church as the golden mean between the two extremes of popery and puritanism.79 The idea of an Anglican via media was an attempt to rhetorically redescribe an altogether more complex and divided religious landscape, allowing James to play off the various groups and factions within the church, rather than a reality. Even so, it was an idea supported by a powerful current of Anglican exceptionalism within the English church, and sustained by James’s own irenicist ambitions as rex pacificus.80 It was an 76 Bangs, Arminius, 268. 77  Arminius’s reasons for not submitting to synodal authority are stated in Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, in The Works of James Arminius, tr. James Nichols and Wiliam Nichols (London: Baker Book House, 1986), i. 600–13. 78  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii, ch. 4, ‘Remonstrantie’, pp. 123–56, and ch. 8, pp. 262–304. 79  Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, ‘The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I’, in Kenneth Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993), 24. For a literal approach to this rhetoric of moderation, Peter White, ‘The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church’, in Fincham (ed.), Early Stuart Church, 212–13. 80  Fincham and Lake, ‘Ecclesiastical Policies’, 28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

39

idea, moreover, that held a powerful appeal to latitudinarian Protestant scholars such as Grotius and Casaubon.81 Oldenbarnevelt was too much of a pragmatist to have much interest in grand schemes of religious reunification. Yet he no doubt watched with great interest how James used his rights of patronage to balance the factions of bishops like Overall and Lancelot Andrewes against those of George Abbott, John King, and James Montague, while presenting himself as a moderating influence in the ­debate over predestination.82 James’s ostensible success at keeping doctrinal controversy within limits must have steeled Oldenbarnevelt in his conviction that the conflict within the Dutch Reformed Church could be kept within bounds. To the extent that their views on the topic can be reconstructed, both men seem to have held similar views on predestination. Both appear to have inclined more towards the orthodox position (although Oldenbarnevelt rejected the idea of ­active reprobation), but did not think the doctrines were necessary for salvation, and believed that both positions could be accommodated within one church.83 Oldenbarnevelt appears to have regarded James as an ally, someone who understood his difficulties with the Calvinists. He had himself first gained prominence through the forceful way with which he dismantled Leicester’s conspiracy, which heavily implicated the presbyterian faction of Leiden’s consistory, and had thereafter always retained a residual distrust of radical Calvinism.84 To James he played the anti-puritan card, blatantly exploiting the King’s fears of presbyterian subversiveness, whilst downplaying the level of doctrinal disagreement between the parties.85 The fact that the controversy over the theology of Arminius saw the rise of a virtually identical rhetoric of peace, moderation, and unity, sustained by the same distinction between essential and inessential doctrines and legitimized, as it was in England, through a historical vision of the nature of the church, should give English historians of the controversies in the Stuart church pause to think, and should furnish an additional argument to approach such appeals to consensus cautiously and with attention to the polemical context within which they were made.86 This is not to say that we need dismiss such arguments out of hand as 81  White, ‘The Via Media’, 222–3; Paul R. Sellin, Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England (Oxford: OUP, 1968), 23–8. 82  Fincham and Lake, ‘Ecclesiastical Policies’, 32–3. 83  See n. 115. On Oldenbarnevelt’s own position on the spectrum of predestinarian theology, see Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, i. 60–1, iii. 13–18; Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 231. On James I see Fincham and Lake, ‘Ecclesiastical Policies’, 31–2. 84  On Oldenbarnevelt and Leicester, see Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, i. 289–320 and 379–403, on Oldenbarnevelt’s suspicions of ‘Leicestriana consilia’, iii. 22, 161, 523. 85  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 203–4. 86  Compare Peter Lake’s criticism of the too naïve and too literal reading of the rhetoric of consensus that characterizes the work of revisionist historians such as Kevin Sharpe and Peter White. See Peter Lake, ‘The Moderate and Irenic Case for Religious War: Joseph Hall’s Via Media in Context’, in Susan D. Amussen and Mark Klishansky (eds), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 55–83, and Lake, ‘Joseph Hall, Robert Skinner and the Rhetoric of Moderation at the Early Stuart Court’, in Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough (eds), The English Sermon Revised (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2000), 167–85.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

40

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

‘hollow rhetoric’ and accuse those who employed them of being insincere or hypocritical. Oldenbarnevelt appears to have been convinced that a modicum of doctrinal moderation would make the Reformed Church a more attractive alternative for Lutherans and Mennonites.87 The argument for doctrinal moderation appears to have found acceptance among those groups within the Dutch Reformed Church who refused to break the bond of Christian brotherhood with the Arminians. Although the ‘moderates’, as these people were referred too, rejected the Arminian view on grace and predestination and regarded the existence of doctrinal diversity as regrettable, they nevertheless believed the issues at stake were not worth the risk of a church schism.88 Yet the development of the controversy should equally serve as a reminder that appeals to consensus primarily function by projecting and imposing the very consensus which it proclaims as pre-existing and therefore normative. This became increasingly apparent in the later phase of the Arminian controversy, the years between 1613 and 1618, as the calls for unity and consensus grew increasingly shrill and short-tempered, and the gap between ideal and reality more and more apparent. Indeed, as I shall argue in Chapter 2, it can be said that the very idea of consensus, and the appropriations and distortions to which the idea was liable, itself contributed to the growing polarization. The parallel between England and the Dutch Republic also serves to highlight the far more restricted position from which the Oldenbarnevelt regime had to ­operate in enforcing its divisive policy in a highly decentralized society, where power had to be negotiated on a local level, where the central authority lacked strong coercive power, and where the church had no intention of relinquishing its traditional autonomy and doctrinal purity without a fight. To make matters worse, two separate controversies that erupted during these years provided additional fuel to what was already a highly volatile situation: the debate over the conclusion of a truce with Spain, and the conflict over the appointment of Conrad Vorstius as Arminius’s successor at Leiden. The diplomatic talks that began in The Hague on 1 February 1608 and ended on 9 April with the conclusion of the Twelve Year Truce brought many of the Republic’s latent tensions to the surface, sowing the seeds of dissension that were to ripen over the next decade. The Truce further antagonized the orthodox ­Reformed, who had always viewed the war against Spain as a war for the cause of the true religion. Other disgruntled parties included a group within Amsterdam’s merchant elite who had been campaigning for the founding of the West Indies Company (WIC), a sister to the older East Indies Company, the VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), a project which was now to be sacrificed for the sake of peace with Spain. Amsterdam’s merchants found allies in the maritime towns of Zeeland, who equally supported the WIC, and who also stood to lose trade if the blockade of the Scheldt were to be lifted.89 87  Van Deursem, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 276. 88  Van Deursen gives examples of such moderates, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 277–9. 89  Simon Groenveld, Het Twaalfjarig Bestand (The Hague: Haags Historisch Museum), 50–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

41

Finally, there was the disastrous affair of the Steinfurt theologian Conrad Vorstius, Arminius’s successor at Leiden, which further eroded the authority and reputation of the States of Holland both at home and abroad. The period of the Truce negotiations saw a steep rise in anti-popish polemics, with a link being forged between the peace negotiations and the emergence of religious dissent, with the Arminians as the Republic’s fifth columnists, fomenting religious dissent in order to lead the country back to Spain. The accusations of papist and cryptopapist tendencies repeatedly levelled at Arminius resurfaced with a vengeance.90 Oldenbarnevelt, too, came under suspicion. Just after the conclusion of the Truce, rumour ran that a sleigh with Spanish gold had been left at the door of Oldenbarnevelt’s house.91 The relationship between Oldenbarnevelt and Maurits, which had been frosty for years, was damaged beyond repair, with the Advocate questioning Maurits’s hidden political ambitions, and the Prince doubting Oldenbarnevelt’s trustworthiness.92 In addition to his predestinarian theology and his views on the national synod, Arminius now also came under attack for his views on the nature of Christ. During the disputation ‘On the Divinity of Christ’, one of his students proposed that Christ is autotheos, meaning that he holds his divine essence from himself and not from the Father, a position which Arminius’s colleague Lucas Trelcatius junior had defended in his Commonplaces, but which Arminius himself rejected as unscriptural. Even though Arminius insisted that both scripture and the church fathers emphasized a degree of subordinationism, and that the word should be taken to mean ‘truly God’ rather than the etymologically closer ‘God of himself ’, the damage was done, and the charge of Socinianism was added to the rumours circulating about him.93 As his position in Leiden was becoming untenable, Arminius requested the States of Holland that a legal inquiry be made into his situation. In May 1608 the States summoned Arminius and Gomarus to appear before the High Court in The Hague. After hearing the two men, the Court reported to the States, and Oldenbarnevelt held an oration arguing that the differences between the two theologians did not touch the fundamentals of faith, enjoining them to live in peace and teach nothing contrary to scripture, confession, or catechism. Famously, Gomarus replied that he would not want to appear before God his judge with the opinions of Arminius, warning that religious controversy would lead to civil strife, ‘province against province, church against church, city against city, citizen against citizen’.94 After the failure of the conference in The Hague, the provincial synod of South Holland decided that all ministers should submit their opinions to the confession and the catechism within thirty days. In reaction, the States invited ­Arminius to appear before them on 30 October. Arminius defended his actions 90 Bangs, Arminius, 287, 295. 91  On the rumors of Oldenbarnevelt’s treason, Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, ii. 639–41. 92  On the deteriorating relations between Maurits and Oldenbarnevelt during the truce negotiations, Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, ii. 564–5, 633–7, 660–1; Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 212–13. 93 Bangs, Arminius, 281–2.   94 Bangs, Arminius, 298–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

42

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

and his views on predestination, the status of confession and catechism, and the divinity of Christ in the Declaration of Sentiments, published posthumously by Arminius’s friends in 1610, and later translated into English by Tobias Conyers as The Just Man’s Defence (1657). Gomarus now insisted that he too should receive a hearing, a request the States duly granted. His oration turned into a full frontal attack on Arminius, whom he accused of Pelagianism, doctrinal errors, duplicity, and attempting to bring the church under control of the magistrate. The States should beware not to allow themselves to be led astray as Constantine was at the Council of Nicaea.95 In the following year, the university printer, Jan Paedts, brought out a Dutch translation of the orations of Gomarus and Arminius on predestination of 1604, and the exchange of pamphlets that followed in its wake can be seen as the first blast of the storm that was about to break loose. To thwart the attempts of the provincial synod to set itself up as arbiter, the States of Holland saw no other solution than to invite both men once more to appear in The Hague for a ‘friendly conference’. This meeting, however, was broken off ahead of time due to Arminius’s illness. The States now requested both parties to submit their views, with a refutation of the opinions of the opponent, within two weeks. Arminius, at this stage already critically ill, never fulfilled the request. He died later that year, on 19 October 1609. So what, exactly, was at stake in this debate? Over the last two decades, the work of Richard Muller, Eef Dekker, Keith Stanglin, and William Den Boer has done much to elucidate the method, structure, and fundamental ideas of Arminius’s ­theology. Different approaches and points of emphasis aside, these scholars can be said to be in agreement on two important issues: that Arminius’s theology should be seen within the context of Reformed Protestant scholasticism, while at the same time representing a wholesale alternative Reformed orthodoxy.96 The opposition between ‘humanist’ or ‘biblical’ Arminius and his ‘scholastic’ opponents, applied by scholars such as Hoenderdaal and Bangs, is no longer endorsed. A more fraught question concerns the claim of Arminius and his followers to belong to Reformed orthodoxy. After careful consideration of the arguments traditionally adduced to place Arminius within the church, Richard Muller has concluded that, although Arminius accepted the confessional standards of the synods of the Dutch Reformed Church, and could certainly be called Reformed in the colloquial sense of ‘Dutch Protestant’, his interpretation of the confession and catechism places him well outside the limits of Reformed orthodoxy: ‘What should remain incontestable is that, however Arminius and his allies in the Dutch Reformed Church attempted to interpret the words of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, authorial intention and the plain reading of the text by most Reformed clergy and theologians stood against them.’97 95 Bangs, Arminius, 319–20. 96  For a fuller account of these developments, see Keith D. Stanglin, ‘Arminius and Arminianism: An Overview of Current Research’, in Th. Marius van Leeuwen, Keith D. Stanglin, and Marijke Tolsma (eds), Arminius, Arminianism and Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 3–25. 97  Richard A. Muller, ‘Arminius and the Reformed Tradition’, Westminster Theological Journal, 70/1 (2008), 39, 47–8; Stanglin, ‘Arminius and Arminianism’, 11–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

43

Viewed in this light, Arminius’s theology does emerge more clearly as an alternative to, rather than variation of, Reformed Protestantism. According to Muller, ‘Arminius’ system can only be understood as a full-scale alternative to Reformed theology as his doctrine of predestination rests on a view of the relationship of  God and world opposed to virtually all the tendencies and implications of Reformed theology.’98 Although in the following chapters the emphasis will come to lie on the way in which the soteriological, and pastoral consequences of the doctrines of conditional and unconditional predestination, universal or limited atonement, assurance of salvation, resistible and irresistible grace were discussed in pamphlet polemics, it is nevertheless necessary to relate these topics to the wider theological framework that encompasses the question about the nature of God, providence, the relationship between God and the created world, and the concomitant questions about freedom, necessity, and determinism. One of the most fundamental points where Arminius’s theology departs from Reformed orthodoxy is that it returns to a Thomist model of faculty psychology that distinguishes God’s intellect from his will and his goodness from his power. In Arminius, as in Aquinas, the divine will follows the last judgement of reason and wisdom.99 Calvin had consistently argued against the application of such distinctions to God, in whom, he argued, intellect, will, power, and justice are one.100 Reformed scholasticism follows Calvin in combining philosophical intellectualism with soteriological voluntarism which places the will over the intellect.101 The return to a modified Thomism in Arminius therefore has far-reaching consequences for the doctrine of providence, creation, and the way in which God’s power manifests itself in the world. In his view on the relation between God’s power and his justice, Calvin’s theology shows, as has often been pointed out, the influence of the nominalism of Gregory of Rimini and Gabriel Biel, which had emphasized God’s ­potentia absoluta over his potentia ordinata and which defined iustitia Dei as the divine beneplacitum, the arbitrary decision of the divine will.102 Whereas Calvin often resorted to stressing the fundamental unknowability of God’s justice, the later, systematizing work of Reformed scholasticism amounts to an attempt to understand immediate divine causality—God’s will as the cause of everything that happens in the world—without falling into the trap of determinism, and without making God the author of evil. As Muller has shown, Arminius does not altogether reject the terminology of potentia absoluta, but he radically redefines it by viewing God’s absolute power in terms of potentia ordinata. The effect of Arminius’s denial of a transcendent, 98  Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), 281. 99 Stanglin, Arminius on Assurance of Salvation, 100–2, and more extensively, Richard Muller, ‘The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob Arminius’, Westminster Theological Journal, 55 (1993), 55–72. 100  Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: OUP, 2012), 59–73. 101 Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 145. Cf. Calvin, Institutes, I.xv.7–8. 102  William den Boer, God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacobus Arminius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 282–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

44

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

essentially arbitrary potentia absoluta has the dual effect of limiting immediate divine causality in the world, while at the same time bringing the divine being and goodness in a more immediate and stable relation to the moral order of the created universe.103 Arminius does not differ from Gomarus in the belief that there is a divine providence that steers all; what he categorically rejects, however, is the idea that there can be any arbitrary exercise of power in God. Arminius’s doctrine of creation, which sees creation as an emanation of the divine goodness, that is to say, a communication of the goodness of being to the creature, effectively places a limit on God’s power, albeit that this limit is self-imposed.104 The idea of the power of God as self-limited in creation has radical implications for the doctrine of creation, providence, and the order of salvation. Whereas Reformed orthodoxy emphasizes the fundamental disjunction between nature and grace, between the order of creation and the order of salvation, and shows a tendency to regard the former as a means to the execution of the latter, Arminius’s theology brings creation and salvation back together, viewing creation as the first divine act which sets the framework within which the work of salvation takes place.105 Yet its more immediate, polemical butt was the Reformed doctrine of predestination. For if God, Arminius ­argued, has decided before the creation of the world to reprobate certain individuals out of his mere good will and pleasure, then creation, for the reprobate, would be an evil.106 The redefinition of God’s potentia absoluta and the insistence on the intelligibility of God’s justice allow Arminius to view predestination as flowing forth from God’s justice. This justice is approached through the concept of duplex amor Dei, God’s twofold love: his justice (his love of righteousness) and his love of the creature. In the Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius defines the duplex amor Dei as the foundation of all religion and, as Den Boer’s study has shown, the concept plays a central role in the overall structure of Arminius’s theology. Within the hierarchy of love, love of justice must of necessity come before love of the creature, yet this equally implies that when God’s demand for justice has been satisfied, he will love the creature.107 For this reason, Arminius’s takes his hermeneutical key to the Gospel from Hebrews 11: 6: ‘For he that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.’108 Arminius rejects the orthodox distinction between God’s revealed will (voluntas signi), according to which all are admonished to repent and believe, and God’s hidden will (voluntas beneplaciti), according to which he will grant belief only to his elect.109 The Gospel’s call to repent and believe must be taken for what it is. To argue that God grants sufficient faith to believe only to the elect would amount to questioning 103 Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 228–9. 104  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 625. 105 Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 233. 106  Arminius, ‘The Examination of the Theses of Dr. Franciscus Gomarus Respecting Predestination’, in Works, iii. 538–9. 107 Boer, God’s Twofold Love, 69–70. 108  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 634, 636–7. 109 Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 105–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

45

the trustworthiness of scripture and making God into a hypocrite.110 Arminius’s doctrine of predestination follows from the universality of the call to believe. God has predestined, before the foundation of the world, those he foreknew would believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation and eternal life, passing over and leaving in their sinfulness those whom he foresaw would through obstinacy persist in unbelief.111 Arminius’s interpretation, like that of his opponents, maintains a fundamental asymmetry between the doctrines of election and reprobation. Predestination properly understood is election, God’s active choosing of the elect to salvation and eternal life, while reprobation is viewed in the passive sense, as God’s passing over of unrepentant sinners. There is no talk of good works here; everything is dependent on grace, including faith, which Arminius defines as a free gift from God, the foremost of the aids of grace (adiumenta gratiae).112 Yet the eternal decree itself is no longer viewed as located in God’s sovereign will, but in his intellect. Nowhere is the departure from Reformed theology more marked than in Arminius’s exegesis of Romans 9: 13 (‘As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’) as referring to classes of people, rather than individuals. They are those whom Paul earlier calls the ‘children of the promise’ and the ‘children of the flesh’ (Rom. 9: 8), the faithful and the unbelievers.113 It is this distinction, between unconditional election and election ex praevisa fide, from foreseen faith, which lies at the heart of the  controversy, as it did in Cambridge in the conflict between Peter Baro and Whitaker.114 Of subordinate importance is the discussion of the differences between supralapsarian and infralapsarian doctrines of predestination. These terms, which did not gain currency until after the Synod of Dort, are sometimes taken to refer to the temporal order of predestination, situating it before (supralapsarian) or after the fall (infralapsarian). This is not correct, as predestination is always interpreted as being before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1: 4) while the different positions refer to the different modes in which the creature is viewed, as to be created (creabilis) or created (creatus), fallible (labilis) or fallen (lapsus). The supralapsarian position, associated with Beza and Perkins, views God’s decree as extended over man regarded as uncreated and unfallen. A more moderate position, represented in Leiden by Junius, interprets the decree as relating to man as created and fallible. In the Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius gives an account of the different interpretations of  the doctrine before giving his own position on predestination from foreseen faith.115 Arminius rejects supralapsarianism as logically impossible, since God cannot be said to have a right over a non-existing creature apart from metaphorically, for power presupposes a relation, and a relation presupposes existence.116 110  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 634. 111  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 653–4. 112 Boer, God’s Twofold Love, 202–3. 113  Arminius, analysis of Romans 9, quoted in Bangs, Arminius, 194–6. 114  On this conflict and the parallels between the antipredestinarian polemic of Baro and Arminius, see Keith D. Stanglin, ‘“Arminius avant la lettre”: Peter Baro, Jacob Arminius and the Bond of Predestinarian Polemic’, Westminster Theological Journal, 67 (2005), 51–74. 115  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 647–53, 653–7. 116  Arminius, ‘Examination of the Theses of Dr. Franciscus Gomarus’, Works, iii. 537.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

46

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

This account of the different currents within predestinarian theology does i­ndeed touch upon a sensitive point, in so far as the orthodox were aware that a supralapsarian position appears to lead more straightforwardly to determinism, and is therefore more likely to generate resistance. Supralapsarianism, although taught in the theology faculties and preached by some, including Gomarus, was therefore sometimes suppressed in preaching or in religious polemics, for example in the debate between Coornhert and Reginald Donteclock, in which Donteclock consciously adopted an infralapsarian position.117 But the main reason why Arminius dwells on these differences would appear to be strategic. By giving an account of diverging positions within Reformed Protestantism, Arminius situates his own views within a pre-existing spectrum of opinion, reducing the chasm that separates unconditional predestination from predestination ex praevisa fide. Even so, Arminius underlines that both the supralapsarian and the infralapsarian positions ultimately do not escape the charge of introducing determinism, because they cannot avoid making the Fall the necessary instrument for the execution of the decree.118 If God ordained the Fall, it follows that God is the author of sin, and indeed, that God is the only sinner.119 In his Examination of the Theses of Dr Franciscus Gomarus Respecting Predestination, Arminius explicitly rejects the appeal to the ‘ajasakgpsom si’, ‘the incomprehensible’, through which Reformed authors, following Beza, asserted that, even though God ordained the Fall, he is not thereby made the author of sin:120 Christ, who is the foundation of election, is reduced by this doctrine to a mere instrument in the execution of the decree.121 Unconditional predestination is also, finally, inconsistent with the freedom of the will. Arminius is careful to make sure this notion of freedom of the will is properly understood. It is not theological freedom. Only through grace does the will ­become effectively free and able, as Arminius says, ‘to possess its own motions’.122 Yet what the will always possesses, even in its unregenerated state, is freedom from necessity, that is, freedom from direct divine causation. Without this freedom, the will would not just be unfree, it would cease to be a will.123 In Arminius’s view this argument does not amount to postulating a synergism between God’s grace and the will of man. The assent of the will is not a contribution to faith obtained through grace; it is a mere precondition. He explains his position by referring to the well-known simile of the beggar holding up his hand to receive alms: the alms does not cease to be a gift because the beggar needs to hold up his hand to receive it.124 In order 117  C. Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Barth: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme (The Hague: Boekencentrum, 1987), 133–5. 118  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 647. 119  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 630. 120  Arminius, ‘Examination of the Theses of Dr. Franciscus Gomarus’, Works, iii. 539. 121  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 630. 122  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 628–9. 123  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 626. 124  Eef Dekker, ‘Theologische en filosofische vrijheid in de vroege zeventiende eeuw’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E. Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw (Amsterdam: AUP, 1999), 67–8. A slightly different version of the simile is found in Erasmus’s De libero arbitrio, in which he compares God extending his grace to a father showing his child an apple and guiding and steadying the child’s steps, so it can reach it. Erasmus, De libero arbitrio, 91.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

47

to allow such a modicum of freedom, Arminius separates divine foreknowledge from direct divine causation by introducing the concept of the scientia media ­according to which God knows, even before the Creation, what a creature will do freely under certain conditions. By allowing some conditions, and withholding others, God creates a world in which everything depends on God’s decree, while at the same time allowing man to act with freedom from compulsion.125 Accordingly, to Arminius, God does not infuse grace with overpowering, irresistible force. In the Declaration, Arminius treads very carefully, yet concludes that scripture in many places seems to say that it can be resisted.126 This grace is, moreover, not arbitrarily withheld from those who are ‘passed over’ and ‘left in their sinfulness’. Sufficient grace is applied according to the decree of providence, with certain foreknowledge that it will be rejected by the human free will, while efficient grace is administered according to the decree of predestination, with certain foreknowledge that people will believe and repent.127 Gomarus’s response to Arminius follows the pattern of reactions to anti-Calvinist predestinarian polemic set by Calvin’s work against Pighius, De aeterna predestinatione Dei. He starts out with a forceful affirmation that predestination is grounded in God’s sovereign will and pleasure, that it concerns individuals, not groups or classes of people, and that the decree to salvation precedes the decree of creation. For salvation is the end of creation, and therefore decreed and determined before it, although executed later.128 Among Dutch Reformed, this supralapsarian position appears to have been widely shared. In the first book of his theological epic in verse, the poet, theologian, and church historian Jacobus Revius (1586–1658) places the poem ‘Election’ (‘Verkiesinghe’) almost immediately at the beginning; following the poems on the nature of God and religion, but squarely before ‘Creation’ (Scheppinge). Revius here speaks at his most catechetical, proceeding through a repetition of paradoxical counterfactuals (‘if the lump of clay lays to the  potter the law’) to the conclusion: ‘then man’s works take precedence over God’s Decree’.129 Gomarus proceeds with the same cast-iron certainty. Every assertion is bolstered by a host of biblical proofs, and, unlike Arminius, he also furnishes evidence from the Confessio Belgica and the Heidelberg Catechism. The argument for predestination 125  Dekker, ‘Theologische en filosofische vrijdheid’, 63. 126  Arminius, ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, Works, i. 664. 127 Boer, God’s Twofold Love, 183. 128 Gomarus, Franciscus Gomari Verclaringhe Pver de vier hooftstucken, der leere, waer van hy met sijn weerde mede-Professore D. Iacob Arminio gheconfereert heeft, voor de E.E moghende Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende Westvrieslandt: overghelevert den achsten Septembris (1609), 13. 129  ‘Indien der tijden vloet het eeuwigh’ achterhalet, / Indien een leemen cluyt den meester stelt de maet, / Indien God gist of mist in sijnen wijsen raet, / Indien sijn vast besluyt is los en onbepalet, / Indien niet alle deucht van boven nederdalet, / Indien niet al ons heyl is loutere genaed’ / Indien van hem alleen niet comet wil en daet, / Indien hy lijden m ach dat aerde voor hem pralet, / Indien den mensch yet deed’ eer dat hy was gemaeckt,/Indien een doode pry yet voelet, ruyckt of smaeckt, / Indien de moeder van haer dochter wert geboren, / Indien de Heer sijn eynd’ al kiesende verliest, / Indien het schepsel God verliesende verkiest, / Soo gaet des menschen werck Gods willekeur te voren.’ Revius, ‘Verkiesinghe’, Over-Ysselsche sangen en dichten, ed. W. A. P. Smit (Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1930), 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

48

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

ex praevisa fide is rejected as leading to a confusion of causes and effects. It is, as Gomarus put it tersely, to ‘put the cart before the horse’. The fruit, after all, is not before the tree, and faith is the fruit of predestination to salvation.130 By denying that God does elect from his mercy and good pleasure by an immutable decree, Arminius contradicts article 16 of the confession, question 54 of the catechism, as well as Romans 8: 30. Arminius, he claims, wilfully distorts matters by making it appear as if he teaches that God predestines without regard for Christ, that he wants to save us without faith, that the good acts of the faithful do not matter for salvation, that God wants to predestine simply without regard of sin, that God ordains man to sin, and that God is the author of sin.131 Lastly, Gomarus addresses the question of the relation between grace and free will in regeneration, emphasizing that grace works unaided, that it is irresistible, and that man contributes nothing to either faith or regeneration.132 Gomarus refuses to accept Arminius’s claim that this amounts to determinism. Indeed, grace cannot be resisted, but that is not because it constitutes a form of external compulsion, but because ‘it takes away the slavery to sin from the heart and mind that could oppose it’.133 Gomarus would answer the challenge of determinism more extensively in a Latin treatise on providence, which he dedicated to the States of Holland, and which soon appeared in Dutch translation.134 Yet the most surprising feature of Gomarus’s Declaration is that it opens with an exposition of justification, and treats predestination only after that. At the conference in The Hague Gomarus had insisted that the real differences between his teaching and that of Arminius lay not with the issue of predestination, but with the doctrine of justification. At this point Oldenbarnevelt had intervened, determining that the issue under debate was predestination. Gomarus had clearly not agreed, and used the Declaration to state his views publicly. The incident strikes the reader as slightly puzzling. Did Oldenbarnevelt, in the brusque manner that typifies him, merely express his impatience with a theologian who appeared to want to set a different agenda from the one established in advance? Or was his grasp of doctrinal issues perhaps more solid than he has usually been given credit for? If this were the case, it is remarkable, to say the least, that he tried to steer the debate away from justification, a doctrine central to Reformation theology, to the more arcane, and therefore, he perhaps believed, less divisive, question of predestination. However this may be, it remains a fact that Reformed theologians, in the seventeenth century and later, have argued that the issue at the heart of the differences between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, justification, had never been properly settled.135 In the Remonstrance, the question of justification has altogether disappeared. Under the pressures of orthodox censure, Arminius’s sympathizers had coalesced into a group, speaking with a new self-assurance. The Remonstrance was drafted by 130 Gomarus, Verclaringhe, 14–15.   131 Gomarus, Verclaringhe, 19. 132 Gomarus, Verclaringhe, 20–4.   133 Gomarus, Verclaringhe, 21. 134 Gomarus, Accoort van de recht-sinnige Leere van de Voorsienichheyt Gods (Delft: Jan Andriesz., 1613). 135  Graafland cites the examples of Koolbrugge, Ritschl, and, among Arminius’s contemporaries, Reginald Donteclock. Graafland, Van Calvijn to Barth, 123–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

49

Figure 4 Rembrandt van Rijn, portrait of Johannes Uytenbogaert (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Uytenbogaert (see Figure 4) and submitted to the States of Holland in May 1610 after revisions introduced under the supervising eye of Oldenbarnevelt.136 In the face of opposition and repression, the signatories pleaded for the convention of a synod, under the authority of the magistrate, in which the disputed articles of confession and catechism would be tested by the standard of scripture. Up until that time, toleration should be extended over differences of opinion set out in the text. On the question of the authority of the confession and catechism, the Remonstrants 136  On the differences between the original document and the final version of the Remonstrance, with Oldenbarnevelt’s revisions, see Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 133–4, 142–3. The text of the Remonstrance has been reprinted in De Remonstrantie 400 jaar, ed. Koen Holtzapffel and Marius van Leeuwen (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema, 2010), 14–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

50

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

take a dual stance. They claim that their opinions are not in overt conflict with the articles of the confession and catechism, while some of the views of their opponents’ contradict them outright. In the peroration, it is repeated that the five articles of the Remonstrance uphold the confession and catechism intact, while maintaining harmony and consensus with the other Reformed churches. Their criticism does not touch the fundamentals of the Reformed religion, or diminish the authority of the church. At the same time, the Remonstrance insists that in the coming national synod, the confession and catechism need to be examined against scripture and, if necessary, revised. To maintain that the confession cannot be revised would be to follow the Catholic practice of placing human writings on a par with scripture. After having rendered the position of their opponents in five points, the five articles of the Remonstrance give the Arminians’ alternative view on election, reprobation, grace, faith, and perseverance. The first two articles of the Remonstrance amount to a refutation of unconditional double predestination in its supra- and infralapsarian form. The Remonstrance draws what it holds to be the consequences of unconditional predestination in stark colours: God’s judgement extends over all mankind, even the children of the Covenant, who have been baptized in the name of Christ and die in their infancy. To execute his judgement, moreover, God employs means through which the elect are necessarily saved, and the reprobate inexorably damned. The corollary of this, it is claimed, is that Jesus Christ did not die for all men, but only for those who have thus been elected: he is the means and Mediator only for the elect. The spirit of God and of Christ works in those who have been elected with irresistible grace, the force of which is such that they cannot do otherwise but convert, believe, and attain salvation. This irresistible grace is not only withheld from the reprobate, they are also denied that grace sufficient for conversion, faith, and salvation. By making a distinction between God’s revealed and his hidden will, their opponents argue that it is possible that the reprobate are ‘outwardly’ called to convert and believe, yet are withheld the inner force necessary to have true faith. Those who once possess true salvific faith cannot, because of this irresistible force of grace, lose it again, no matter how gravely they sin. Against this, the Remonstrance argues that God, by eternal, inalterable decree, has decided, before the creation of the world, to save, in Christ, for Christ, and through Christ, those among fallen and sinful humanity who by the grace of the Holy Ghost believe in his son Jesus Christ, and who persevere in faith and in obedience of faith; but that He passes over the unbelievers and unconvertable, leaving them under his wrath (John 3: 36). That, therefore, Christ our Saviour has died for all men, and that he, by dying on the cross has obtained forgiveness and reconciliation for sin, yet that forgiveness of sin will be enjoyed solely by those who believe (John 3: 16 and 2: 2). That man does not possess salvific faith by himself, or through the power of his free will, while he, being in a fallen, sinful state, cannot think, will, or do anything good that is truly good on his own strength, but that it is necessary that he is reborn in Christ through the Holy Ghost (John 15: 5). When it comes to the question of the resistibility of grace, the Remonstrance is more cautious. While emphasizing that without grace man is utterly unable to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Church at the Crossroads

51

achieve anything good, and that all good deeds and actions need to be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ, it is nevertheless maintained that man can resist grace, ‘as is testified by Acts 7 and many other places’. On the final point, the question whether the believer can fall from faith, the Remonstrance is markedly circumspect. It is granted, with reference to John 10: 29 (‘No man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand’), that those who have been claimed by Jesus Christ through a true faith have sufficient force to fight against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and can fight off temptation through assistance of the Holy Spirit. Yet whether ‘they cannot through negligence lose the principle of their being in Christ . . . turn away from the holy teaching once given to them, lose good conscience and neglect grace’ is something that ‘should be investigated more closely from scripture before we could teach it with assured conscience’. The reaction to the Remonstrance was submitted on 10 March 1611 in The Hague, where six theologians of both parties had been summoned to appear before the States in a conference, where the status quaestionis would be established, on the basis of which both parties would have to start working towards consensus.137 The Contra-Remonstrance contained a refutation of the five points of the Remonstrance, sharpened in its critique by the blatant way in which the document had made a caricature out of the orthodox position. It emphatically denied that its adherents placed the confession on a par with scripture, yet emphasized the need for a confession to maintain unity within the church. Equally important, it attacked the way in which their opponents had thus far proceeded by refusing to bring forth their views in a clerical assembly; indeed, refusing even to be open about their objections to the confession and catechism, and by seeking support with the States, as if they were already subject to censure and persecution.138 Adumbrating the ­accusation that would be levelled against the Remonstrants time and again in Contra-Remonstrant propaganda, the Contra-Remonstrance decries the way the Arminians abuse the support of the authorities to force their brethren to tolerate them. Whether they themselves will be so tolerant towards those brethren who find their persuasions intolerable, it says, can be judged if one looks at the cities where they have the upper hand.139 Even though the Arminians had, for the time being, gained the initiative, all signs indicated that recognition would have to be fought for in the teeth of dogged opposition. As early as 1610, schism erupted in the town of Alkmaar, where the magistrate had brought Remonstrants into the church council. On Sundays, Alkmaar’s Calvinists left town to listen to the sermons of the preacher of the neighbouring village of Koedijk, where the church was uncontaminated by heterodoxy. The classes of Amsterdam, Edam, Hoorn, and Enkhuizen refused to keep communion with the new church council.140 Alkmaar set an example that would in the following year be followed by towns and villages throughout the Republic. On the political front, too, clouds where gathering. During the negoti137  For the text of the Contra-Remonstrance, see Wim Verboom, De Belijdenis van een gebroken kerk (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005), 135–41. 138 Verboom, De belijdenis, 135–7.   139 Verboom, De belijdenis, 141. 140  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 276–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

52

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

ations about the Truce, a number of parties had emerged which for a variety of political, economic, and religious reasons rejected peace with Spain. In the following years these groups gradually began to combine into a coalition. As the ­religious policy of the States of Holland increasingly became the focus of an international dispute, religious controversy, abetted by political and economic grievances, entered into its next phase, which bore all the characteristics of a ­perfect storm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

2 Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers during the Arminian Controversy This chapter examines one of the central tenets of the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland as defended by Grotius in the Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas of 1613: the idea that peace within the church could be preserved by underlining the fundamental consensus and unity within the Dutch Reformed Church, whilst allowing for some latitude of opinion in doctrines deemed not ­essential to salvation. This notion for limited toleration in controversies over nonfundamental doctrines was bolstered by a ban on polemical preaching, which, it was hoped, would lead to a scaling down of the conflict and a subsiding of mutual animosity. From the onset both ideas would prove to  be as contentious as they were difficult to enforce. In the following I will examine the processes through which the Grotian ideas of consensus, moderation, and toleration were taken up in a wider public sphere of religious controversiae, where they came to be highly liable to strategic misreadings and partisan appropriations that muddied the waters as they attempted to redefine the central concepts of the debate. The examination of the sprawling anti-Calvinist literature produced in the years following the Ordinum pietas exposes moreover a more profound contradiction lying at the heart of the rhetoric of consensus, as it shows how the flipside of the Erasmian plea for unity, peace, and moderation proved to be an increasingly aggressive attack on Calvinist ‘ambition’ and ‘intolerance’. 2.1   T H E A DV E N T O F C O N T ROV E R S Y: F RO M T H E R E M O N S T R A N C E TO T H E O R D I N U M P I E TA S ( 1 6 1 3 ) In a word, I not only freely confess but emphasize everywhere in my writings both that the salvation of men is bound to faith, and that Christ is the only door by which all must enter into the heavenly kingdom . . . (Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God )

In the years following 1610, the provinces of Holland, Utrecht, Overijssel, Gelderland, and Friesland fell into warring Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant camps. In the larger towns, rival congregations flocked around their preachers. Hardly any of the larger cities would remain untouched by religious division. Even

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

54

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

in a town like Rotterdam, a Remonstrant bulwark throughout the seventeenth century, the Calvinist segment of the congregation shunned official church services, separated themselves from the congregation, and began organizing private conventicles.1 In the countryside, the progress of Arminianism was dependent upon the energy and effort of the local preacher, but here too it would happen that churchgoers voted with their feet, marching off to neighbouring towns and villages, sometimes walking for several hours braving rain and cold to hear the Word preached by a minister whose orthodoxy they trusted. The Remonstrants were ­unimpressed by the zeal of the ‘slijkgeuzen’, the ‘Beggars with muddy boots’, simple folk, they claimed, easy prey for Calvinist agitators.2 Just as the church had taken an active stance in opposing the teaching of ­Arminius, it now put up a front of determined resistance against the spread of Remonstrantism. The classes of the larger towns supported and offered advice to the church councils of smaller communities. In the North of Holland, Edam, Enkhuizen, Purmerend, and Amsterdam began to coordinate resistance on a provincial level.3 A number of Contra-Remonstrant ministers arose to take up the gauntlet thrown by the Remonstrants, producing lengthy doctrinal controversiae—a genre in which the charismatic young preacher Jacobus Trigland (1583–1654), whose eloquence and learning rivalled Uytenbogaert’s, excelled particularly—as well as more overtly topical and polemical pamphlets. Almost without exception, these pamphlets aim their criticism at the handling of the conflict by their opponents and their political supporters, as much as at the actual controversy over the doctrine of predestination. They remind their audience that the thirty-sixth article of the Confessio Belgica obliges the civil authorities to prevent idolatry and false worship, in order to destroy the kingdom of Antichrist and promote the kingdom of Christ.4 They argue that the policies of the States of Holland constitute a break with the way the church had been allowed to govern itself over the last forty years, and threaten to change the nature of the Dutch Reformed Church from a national church to a confederation of provincial churches.5 The only way to restore the peace and unity of the church was through the convocation of a national synod.6 History proved that the authority in the church did not originally belong to the powers of the sovereign, as is demonstrated by the fact that, during the first ages of the church, when the Roman Empire was ruled by heathen emperors, the church governed itself without any interference from outside. Ultimately, the power over

1  A. Th. Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen (Franeker: Van Wijnen), 266. 2  Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, 341–8. On the origin of the term slijkgeus, see pp. 356–7. 3  R. B. Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1965–78), iii. 123. Jan Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1966), iii. 298–304. See also the Verclaringe Vande Heeren Burgermeesteren, Raden, ende Vroedtschappen der Steden van Amstelredam, Enckhuysen, Edam, en[de] Purmereynde, Mede-leden vande Vergaderinghe der Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vrieslandt, . . . , dat de particuliere ende verschillende opinie van seeckere vijf poincten op’t stuck vande Predestinatie ende gevolge dien . . . (Amsterdam: Maarten Jansz. Brant, 1617). 4  Reginald Donteclock, Overlegginghe van de Oorsaecke . . . (Delft: Jan Adriesz, 1612), 9. 5 Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 19.   6 Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

55

the church does not derive from the political authority of princes, kings, and rulers, but from the spiritual authority of Christ, its head.7 The Further Advice Concerning the Conference held at Delft about the Resolution of the Troubles Currently Arisen in the Church of these Lands (Naerder advijs over de conferentie tot Delff gehouden, aengaende het remedieren der yeghenwoordighe swaricheden in de kercken deser landen opgheresen, 1615), produced by the ministers Johannes Bogaert, (1553–1614), Johannes Becius (1558–1626), and Festus Hommius (1576–1642), examines the Remonstrant appeal for toleration, only to reject it as a way of resolving controversy. We are asked, the Further Advice argues, to tolerate the feeling of the Remonstrants, but what they request goes beyond mere toleration, for they wish to be allowed to preach and publish their opinions as well.8 They are, moreover, unwilling to make clear whether they differ on the five points of the Remonstrance only, or on other points as well.9 The Further Advice expresses willingness to tolerate the Remonstrants, but only on condition that they promise to refrain from preaching and teaching the topic until a synod is convened, state unequivocally that the teachings taught in the churches of the land and contained in confession and catechism are scriptural, and accept to subject themselves to the authority of the classes and the synods.10 The Contra-Remonstrants, moreover categorically reject the idea of containing controversy through doctrinal ambiguity. There can, they claim, be no peace separated from truth. Trigland’s Necessary and Christian Explanation (Christelycke ende nootwendighe verclaringhe, 1615) refers to Melanchthon to argue that articles that can be interpreted in diverse ways lead to contention, a sentiment which is echoed in the Further Advice.11 Moderation, the Further Advice insists, will open the door to new controversies, for if silence has to be kept about questions about predestination and perseverance, just because there are some within the church who disagree, should silence in that case also be maintained about justification and satisfaction, if there are challenges on those points?12 Time and again, Contra-Remonstrant pamphlets level the charge that toleration of the Remonstrants would open the door to allowing new opinions into the church. Many pamphlets, broadsheets, and engravings exploited popular fears about popery, presenting the Arminians as Pelagians, crypto-Catholics, or worse. Festus Hommius’s Little Sample of the Dutch Controversies presents an inventory of the heterodox and heretical opinions held by the Remonstrants. Episcopius claims that God does not possess perfect foreknowledge, the Little Sample argues, and Venator denies the homoeostatic union. Uytenbogaert wants 7 Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 24. 8  Naerder advijs over de conferentie tot Delff gehouden, aengaende het remedieren der yeghenwoordighe swaricheden in de kercken deser landen opgheresen (1615), 8. 9  Naerder advijs, 7.   10  Naerder advijs, 9–10. 11  [Jacobus Trigland], Christelycke ende nootwendighe verclaringhe waerinne cortelijck ende duydelijck verclaert wordt/wat in seecker formulier van eenicheyt/uyt gegheven onder de tydel van Resolutie vande Doorluchtige &c Met Godes H. Woort ende met de Leere der Ghereformeerde kercken over een compt ofte daer van verschilt. (The Hague, 1615), 10; cf Naerder advijs, 19. 12  Naerder advijs, 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

56

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

to subject the church to the civil magistrate, and Grotius thinks that it would be good to have bishops in the church.13 But moderation is, from the orthodox perspective, not merely a tactical error. For pastoral purposes, it is a fundamentally mistaken approach. We do not reject moderation, Trigland argues, nor do we advocate too precise enquiries into God’s decree, but we do not want to obscure those things about which scripture speaks clearly. Predestination must be explained, Trigland says, quoting Augustine’s De dono perseverantiae, so that the believer learns not to exalt himself.14 Predestination has to be preached, because it pertains to God’s honour. ‘We are not allowed’, Trigland explains, referring to Prosper’s book against Ambrose, ‘to investigate that which God has wished to remain hidden, but we should not veil that which He has  unveiled, so that we are neither found illegitimately curious, nor damnably thankless.’15 Contra-Remonstrant literature is unequivocal in its rejection of election ex praevisa fide. If grace had to do something with our worth, grace would not be grace.16 Not merely the power to believe, but faith itself is a gift from God, Trigland argues, glossing over the fact that the Arminian view as contained in the Remonstrance does not argue that individuals have the power to believe from themselves, and that it too claims that faith is a gift from God.17 Questioning the orthodox interpretation of predestination, especially the crucial doctrine of perseverance, will have damaging pastoral consequences, as believers will lose the assurance of salvation, leading to doubt and despair.18 Yet even more emphatic than the insistence on the comforting and salutary nature of the orthodox doctrine is their claim that the Remonstrant view is an affront to God’s majesty. Arminius claims that God has two wills, Trigland writes: an antecedent will, through which he wills all to be saved, and a consequent will, through which he saves those that he has foreseen will believe. He explains this through the simile of a merchant who wishes to bring all his goods safely into the port, but who will nevertheless decide to cast some of his wares overboard when the ship is caught in a storm. If anyone requires proof that such a division within God’s will is incompatible with his omnipotence, Trigland argues, this would be it.19 Indeed, although all these pamphlets, like Calvin’s De eterna predestinatione Dei, emphasize that election is in Christ, through Christ, and on account of Christ, their view of the decree of election ex mere beneplacito nevertheless imagines a God that is radically different from that of Arminius. The ‘Dedicatory epistle to the Christian reader’, with which Trigland’s 13  Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, 314–15. 14 Trigland, Christelycke verclaringhe, 74–5. 15 Trigland, Christelycke verclaringhe, 80. 16 Trigland, Christelycke verclaringhe, 75, quoting Augustine, De dono perseverantiae. 17 Trigland, Christelycke vermaninghe, 25. 18  See for instance Heinsius’s homily on John 17: 9: ‘Electionem tuam divide cum Deo, iam perseverantiam in fide quia a te petis, eius certitudinem omnino tibit eripis’, Daniel Heinsius, Homilia in locum Iohannes cap XVII versus ix in qua de Electione, & quae ab ea pendet quinque Articulorum doctrina, deque eius quae in Ecclesiis recepta est, usu ac aedificatione agitur (Lugdunum: Batavorum Typiis Isaaci Elzeviri, 1619), 43. 19 Trigland, Christelycke verclaringhe, 210–11, referring to p. 195 of Arminius’s treatise against Perkins.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

57

Christian explanation begins, highlights God’s transcendent majesty and radical alterity, appealing to Isaiah 45: 5–7: ‘I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.’20 Whether the policy of the States of Holland ever had a chance of succeeding in the face of determined opposition from within the church seems doubtful. Even in the early phase of the conflict local authorities had been compelled to take punitive measures, sacking intransigent ministers and fining or expelling individuals who had slandered Arminian clergymen.21 Pamphleteering and sermonizing were the twin engines of controversy and ministers, Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants alike played a leading part in the production of both polemical sermons and pamphlets.22 Preaching provided ammunition for pamphlets and vice versa. Romanus, a Remonstrant minister at Goeree, was caught handing out copies of Slatius’s pamphlet to his congregation.23 The States party attempt to argue for toleration by appealing to a fundamental consensus shared by Arminians and Gomarists was thus from the beginning undermined by the ministers’ flouting of the bans on polemical preaching and pamphleteering. Yet the most salient feature of the polemical literature spawned in the decade after the submission of the Remonstrance was the part played in it by ordinary laypeople. In a country where the controversy over the Twelve Year Truce had barely died down, the Arminian conflict had a divisive effect on society, splitting congregations, alienating friends, and even tearing apart families.24 The lasting achievement of Van Deursen’s classic study, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Marits en Oldenbarnevelt, was that, long before it became fashionable, it engaged with the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary church members, who, thanks to painstaking archival research, gained a prominence and visibility rarely rivalled in later scholarship. In its insistence on the theological literacy of ordinary men and women, even concerning questions such as providence and predestination, the book does in fact read as surprisingly modern, and very much in line with the current interest in questions such as the divulgation and appropriation of theological ideas, and the culture and literature of religious doctrine.25 What becomes evident reading Van Deursen’s book is the extent to which ordinary citizens responded to doctrinal dissent by becoming actively, passionately engaged. The Dutch Republic, a society known for its culture of open discussion and debate, now became a place 20 Trigland, Christelycke vermaninghe, 22. Cf. Calvin’s use of Rom. 9: 20–1: ‘Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?’ in De aeterna predestinatione Dei, 58, 89. 21  Contra-Remonstrant preachers who were sacked included Geselius in Rotterdam, Willem Crijnze in Den Briel, Hillenius in Alkmaar, Roggius in Hoorn, and Rosaeus in The Hague. Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, 266. See also p. 282. 22  Craig E. Harline, Pamphlets, Printing and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic (Dordrecht: Nijhoff), 103 ff. 23  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 309. 24  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 300. 25  See for these concerns Leif Dixon, Practical Predestinarians in England, c.1590–1640 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

58

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

where predestination, grace, free will, justification, and perseverance were debated in churches, streets, taverns, and canal boats. In Rotterdam inns like the Red Cow, the White Horse, and the Golden Nail were centres of religious dispute, where proponents of the opposing camps crossed swords.26 Often, these debates attempted to imitate the model of the formal disputation, as when laymen sought to debate with a minister of the opposing party. In 1613 Adam Hartewech, a lay preacher from Rotterdam, travelled all the way to Utrecht to dispute with the Remonstrant minister Petrus Cupus. As Cupus’s report of the meeting demonstrates, Hartewech possessed a more than average knowledge of scripture.27 Ordinary men and women also vigorously exercised their political rights as citizens, drawing up petitions and submitting ‘requesten’ with the civic authorities. In many ways, the controversy over the theology of Arminius reactivated the polemical culture of the Reformation and the Revolt. Many of the literary manifestations of religious dissent consciously harkened back to older forms. A genre the Contra-Remonstrants exploited with particular success was the Beggars’ Songs (Geuzenliederen). Songbooks of the Geuzenliederen were printed throughout the seventeenth century, fulfilling a function that was commemorative and celebratory, as well as continuously polemical.28 These are the songs of those who viewed the Dutch as God’s elect nation, casting the struggle against Arminianism as part of a continuing narrative of the combat of the church against the enemies of the Truth. Jacobus Revius, the pietist minister and poet, Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620–77), and even the otherwise rather worldly poet Jan Jansz Starter, author of the popular songbook The Frisian Pleasure-garden (De Friese lusthof, 1621), all wrote poems that evoked the style of the Geuzenliederen.29 The melodies of the psalm adaptations of Petrus Dathenus, that had been part of the spiritual diet of Dutch Reformed Protestants for over a generation, were similarly used for polemical appropriations. Pieter Martens, a schoolmaster from Lekkerkerk, composed a doctrinal battle song for the spiritual comfort of the recusant congregation of Schoonhoven, to be sung to the melody of the second Psalm.30 The chambers of rhetoric employed the didactic and dialogic nature of their plays to explore the doctrinal questions at issue, in much the same way in which, at the onset of the Reformation, they had debated questions such as the doctrine of justification, the relationship of grace and good works, and the role of images, indulgences, and saint-worship.31 Thus in 1613, the Haarlem chamber of rhetoric 26  Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, 300. 27 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 238; on Cupus’s disputation with Hartewech, Van Deurssen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 317. 28  Nieuw Geuzenlied-boek, ed. H. J. van Lummel (Utrecht, 1882), nos. 175–83, 432–50; De Bruin, ‘Geuzen en Anti-Geuzen Liederen’, in Louis Peter Grijp (ed.), Een muziekgeschiedenis der Nederlanden (Amsterdam: AUP, 2001), 177; Louis Peter Grijp, ‘Van geuzenlied tot Gedenck-clanck. Eerste deel: Het Geuzenliedboek in de Gouden Eeuw’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10/1 (1994), pp. 129–31, and ‘Van geuzenlied tot Gedenck-clanck. Tweede Deel: De receptie van geuzenliederen, in het bijzonder in de contrafactuur’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10/2 (1994), 266, 271. 29  Grijp, ‘Van geuzenlied tot Gedenck-clanck [1]’, 127. 30  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 317–18; the full text of the song, 438–9. 31  On the Arminian controversy in rhetoricians’ literature, see Arjan van Dixhoorn, Lustige geesten: Rederijkers in de Noordelijke Nederlanden (Amsterdam: AUP, 2009), 164–5, 256–8; Marijke Spies,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

59

organized a contest on the question ‘whether God’s grace is sufficient for salvation’, which was won by the Middelburg chamber with a response that stressed the sole authorship of God in the working of salvation, against the Socinians and latter-day Pelagians.32 Although some of the chambers, notably those of Leiden and Gouda, produced plays that can be described as sympathetic to Remonstrantism, the large majority of plays produced appear to stand in the Contra-Remonstrant camp. A play by the Haarlem rhetorician Jonas van Gerwen features the character ‘Many a Good Heart’, an honest plain man who is confused by the doctrinal controversies, a ‘Good Message’, dressed as a minister, who explains the issues at stake, as well as ‘Investigation of the Truth’, who adduces no less than forty biblical loci in support of the Contra-Remonstrant position.33 Especially in the later years of the conflict, the controversy appears to have resulted in chambers breaking up or splitting, as happened in Delft and Noordwijk. In Bleiswijk, the local chamber positioned itself squarely behind its minister, Hendrik Slatius, and was subsequently abolished in 1619.34 Increasingly, rhetoricians resorted to directly topical plays. Abraham de Koningh, the artistic leader of the White Lavender, the Amsterdam chamber dominated by immigrants from Brabant, in which support for the Prince of Orange and ContraRemonstrantism was particularly strong, wrote a play on the biblical hero Samson (Simson treurspel, 1618), an exhortation to Maurits to take up his role as the defender of the true religion. Another play published in that same year, The tragedy of Ahab (Achab’s treur-spel, 1618), struck an even more openly polemical chord, as few people would have been able to miss the allusion, made with some frequency in Contra-Remonstrant sermons and pamphlets, to Oldenbarnevelt as a ruler led astray by false prophets.35 Yet doctrinal division also proved productive of literary innovation and experiment. Possibly the most lyrical poem written in the Dutch language containing allusions to the contemporary of church schism, Revius’s adaptation of the Song of Songs, published in 1621 in the aftermath of Dort, expands the narrative of the love between the bride and the groom to recount the story of the love between Christ and his church, whom he has ‘chosen before she was’ (ll. 1–4). The poem’s eight songs, set to the melodies of psalms and spiritual songs, transform the dialogue of ‘Rederijkers in beroering: Religie en politiek bij de Hollandse rederijkers in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, ‘Teeckenrijcke Woorden’ voor Henk Duits: Opstellen over literatuur, toneel, kunst en religie meest uit de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU, 2002), 59–76. 32  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 377. 33  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 378–9. 34  Van Dixhoorn, Lustige gheesten, 256–8, 165. 35  Abraham de Koningh, Simsons treurspel (Amsterdam: voor Cornelis Lodewijcksz vander Plasse, bij Paulus van Ravesteyn, 1618); Abraham de Koningh, Achab’s treur-spel (Amsterdam: voor Abraham de Konig, Konstverkooper aan de Borse, 1618). Earlier, De Koningh had published a collection of spiritual songs, ‘for the comfort and edification of the oppressed and downtrodden Church of Christ in the Netherlands’: Sekere liedekens, ghesteld tot stichtinghe ende troost der vervallene en verdrukte kercke Christi in Nederlant ([Amsterdam, 1616]). On the distinctive character of The White Lavender, see Mieke B Smits-Veldt, ‘Het Brabantse gezicht van de Amsterdamse rederijkerskamer “Het Wit Lavendel”’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8 (1992), 160–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

60

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the Song of Songs into a narrative of the union, separation, and reunion of bride and groom corresponding to the different stages in the history of the church, that follows Christ, loses him through negligence, seeks for him, is tempted by false teachers, but stays true, and is ultimately reunited with him, assured of his abiding and enduring love.36 The poetry of Revius’s friend, Daniel Heinsius, similarly bore the signs of doctrinal controversy, signalling towards the rift within the Dutch Republic of Letters that would begin to form in the following years. Daniel Heinsius, the son of Flemish refugees, who had become Joseph Scaliger’s most cherished pupil, was the most prominent and prolific member of the Leiden circle, who had made his mark as a classicist in the first decade of the century with editions and translations of Silius Italicus (1600), Hesiod (1603), Theocritus (1603), Aristotle (1611), Clemens of Alexandria (1616), and Terence (1618).37 As well as his editions and his works of literary criticism, notably his De tragoediae constitutione of 1611 and his work on satire, Heinsius produced poems in the vernacular. Writing under the nom de plume of Theocritus a Ganda (Theocritus from Ghent) in homage to his favourite poet, he published the Emblemata amatoria (1608) as well as the Mirror of Illustrious, Honest, Brave, Virtuous and Prudent Women (Spiegel vande doorluchtige, eerlicke, cloucke, deuchtsame, ende verstandege vrouwen, 1606). Many of his amorous and pastoral poems, epigrams and elegies which were brought together by his friend and admirer, the antiquarian historian Petrus Scriverius, and published as the Nederduytsche poemata (1616). He also produced two long narrative poems: the Hymn in Praise of Bacchus (Lof-sanck van Bacchus, 1614) and the Hymn in Praise of Christ (Lofsanck van Christus, 1616).38 His public career in Leiden had been steep and tempestuous: he had been made professor extraordinarius of poetry in 1603, professor of Greek in 1605, and had been appointed university librarian and member of the Academic Senate. By 1610, his salary exceeded 1000 guilders per annum, more than most of his senior colleagues.39 With Grotius, with whom he in these years maintained a close friendship, he shared an interest in the reform of Neo-Latin tragedy. The poetic rivalry between Grotius and Heinsius soon bore fruit in the publication of Grotius’s Adamus exsul (1601), Heinsius’s Auriacus sive libertas saucia (1602), a play on the assassination of William of Orange, first performed in Leiden’s Town Hall, and translated soon after, and Grotius’s Christus patiens (1608).40 Yet the two men differed in their views on Arminianism and its impact on the Dutch Reformed 36 Jacobus Revius, Over-Ysselsche sangen en dichten, ed. W. A. P. Smit (Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1930), i. Het Epos der Godsgeschiedenis, 96–126. 37  On Heinsius’s critical studies, see J. H. Meter, The Literary Theories of Daniel Heinsius: A Study of the Development and Background of his Views on Literary Theory and Criticism during the Period from 1602 to 1612 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) and Paul R. Sellin, Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England (Oxford: OUP, 1968), 15. 38  Bacchus en Christus: Twee Lofzangen van Daniel Heinsius, ed. L. Ph. Rank, J. D. P. Warners, and F. L. Zwaan (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1965). 39 Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 15. 40  On the poetic rivalry between Heinsius and Grotius, see Jan Bloemendal, ‘Neolatin Drama in the Low Countries’, in Jan Bloemendal and Howard Norland (eds), Neolatin Drama and Theatre in Early Modern Europe (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 342–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

61

Church. To Janus Dousa, the poet-burgomaster of Leiden, and former curator of  the university, Heinsius had commented negatively on the appointment of Arminius, and in a letter written to his contacts at the English court, he had deplored the factions in the Dutch Reformed Church, laying the blame squarely with the Arminians.41 After the Arminius’s death, Grotius needed to prod his friend into writing a funeral elegy for his former colleague, reminding him that he should write for the man, even if he could not support his ideas.42 Although Heinsius did not become active as a controversialist in the way that Grotius, Barlaeus, and Cunaeus did, until after his appointment as Secretary of the Lay Commissioners at the Synod of Dort, the following years would see him move closer towards the Contra-Remonstrant camp, to which his ties were still further strengthened by his alliance, through his marriage in 1617 to Irmgard Rutgers, with one of the country’s most powerful Contra-Remonstrant families.43 Although outwardly adverse to polemic, the self-consciously, and indeed defiantly, orthodox nature of Heinsius’s poetry is beyond dispute. A comparison to Grotius’s sacred drama, in particular the Christus patiens, throws the difference between the two works into stark relief. For Grotius, the aim and goal of sacred drama had always been closely linked to his irenicist ideals. A decade earlier he had dedicated Adamus exsul (1601) to Justus Lipsius, who by that time had returned to Catholicism, explaining that the work had been written for the benefit of all Christianity.44 The dedication of the Christus patiens, written a few years later, to the French diplomat Pierre Jeanin, follows a strikingly similar pattern: it argues for the importance of Christ’s passion as a topic for a tragedy, as it is one of the few fundamentals of the faith about which Christians of different denominations are still in agreement.45 While he was among his contemporaries undoubtedly the scholar with the deepest understanding of classical tragedy, Heinsius appeared to have struggled with the idea of sacred tragedy. His own play on the massacre of the innocents, Herodes infanticidia, written in 1607/8 was not published until 1632. When, in 1615, he finally returned to sacred poetry with the Hymn in Praise of Christ, the contrast to the patient, suffering, and above all, human Christ of Grotius’s Christus patiens could not be more pronounced. Heinsius’s poem is a meditation on the nature of Christ, his divinity, incarnation, birth, life, and voluntary death to atone for the sins of mankind. Instead of Grotius’s sacred tragedy, which aims to move the affections through identification with the suffering Christ, Heinsius’s poem invites its audience to contemplate the transcendent mystery of Christian doctrine. The link 41 Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 22. 42 Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 22. Cf. Henk Nellen, Hugo de Groot: Een leven in strijd om de vrede (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007), 113. 43  The Secretary of the Lay Commissioner translated and explained the transactions for the commissioners, and acted as an intermediary between the Lay Commissioners and the external delegates. Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 29–30. On his marriage to Irmgard Rutgers, the niece of Hugo Muys van Holy, one of Maurits’s close collaborators and future judge of Oldenbarnevelt, Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 21. 44  Bloemendal, ‘Neolatin Drama’, 344 n. 152: ‘Toto orbi christi nomen haec (sacra poemata in quibus Adamus exsul) vigilata sunt.’ 45 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 487–8; Grotius, Meletius sive de iis quae inter Christianos convenient Epistola, ed. Guillaume H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden: Brill, 1988), Introduction, 51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

62

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

between dogmatics and individual belief, which Grotius’s poetry works to de-emphasize, and which his De veritate religionis Christianae (1627 (a Dutch version had appeared in 1622)) tried to sever altogether, is foregrounded here, as the exposition of justification, election, and redemption follows that of the passion.46 The poem, moreover, is framed by a dense body of marginalia; explanatory footnotes with references to the Bible, the church fathers, and Reformed theologians, and laced with occasionally highly technical idioms. In the dedication of the poem, Heinsius appeals to the authority of Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Synesius, yet his direct model, he claimed, was Tertullian’s dogmatic poem against the Marcion of Sinope, adversus Marcionem.47 The poem opens with an explanation of the divinity of Christ and his unity and co-eternity with the Father.48 It is hard to read these lines without being reminded of the accusations levelled time and again in Contra-Remonstrant polemics that the Remonstrants were seeking to introduce anti-Trinitarian ideas in the church.49 And although the poem refrains from open polemics, it follows the outline of Contra-Remonstrant argument in asserting both the mystery of predestination, and the unassailable truth of its revelation in scripture. The mystery of predestination is not how it works in the world, but why it works in the way it does: We pass Esau by and refuse to ask nor inquire too deep why God hated him, before he was, but praise him that asks and keenly inquires who pleases You most Begin at the beginning, count Your steps two times Whose trail still here below you find And stray not left nor right. The rest, if he is wise He shall leave of until Paradise This is that the great school, where You will reveal The Father’s deep intent, your wisdom unveil Seated on the throne, from eternity kept for You where a numberless angelic flock gathers Jacob we accept, whom God chose to give A strong faith in You, even before life and in his mother’s womb, and separated him there not regarding Jacob’s gifts, but what He Jacob gave.50 46  On the connection between Grotius’s irenicist works and the De veritate, see Jan Paul Heering, ‘Hugo Grotius’ De veritate religionis Christianae’, in Henk J. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie (ed.), Hugo Grotius—Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 41–52. 47  Christus en Bacchus, 196. 48  Christus en Bacchus, 207–19. 49  Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 421–39; J. Rohls, ‘Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands until the Synod of Dort’, in M. Mulsow and J. Rohls (eds), Socinianism and Arminianism: Anti-Trinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 3–48; Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 261–2. 50  ‘Wij laten Esau staan, en willen niet bevragen / Noch al te diep insien waerom dat God mishagen / In hem hadd’ eer hy was, maer prijsen hem die vraecht / En neerstich ondersoeckt, wie dat u meest behaecht, / Begint van onder aen, telt altemael uw’ treden, / Daer vand hy noch de baen sal vinden hier beneden / En gaet daer buyten niet. Het ander, is hy wijs, / Dat sal hy stellen uyt, tot in het

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

63

This dogmatic certainty marks increasing distance separating Heinsius from his former pro-Remonstrant friends within the Republic of Letters.51 It also incidentally provoked the ire of Grotius’s hot-tempered friend, the Hebraist Petrus Cunaeus.52 The hostility between Heinsius and Cunaeus appears to have gone back some time, and may initially have been of a purely personal nature—it is known that Cunaeus tried to block Heinsius’s appointment as professor of politics in 1610.53 Doctrinal dissension, however, proved a potent incentive, leading to an all-too-transparent attack on Heinsius’s reputation in Cunaeus’s Menippean satire, Sardi venales (1612).54 Especially in its vernacular form, Menippean satire had been tried and tested in the heat of confessional polemic. The anonymous La satyre Ménippée, de la vertu du Catholicon (1593), the collaborative project of a group of Gallican parlementaires, written in the final phase of the conflict between the crown and the Catholic League as an all-out attack on Spanish encroachments on French politics, was avidly read throughout Protestant Europe, as was Marnix van St Aldegonde’s popular satire on the abuses in the Catholic Church, The Beehive of the Holy Roman Church (De bijencorf der H. Roomsche Kercke, 1569). Cunaeus’s work, however, broke new ground in offering, behind a solid dose of ridicule and invective against the Contra-Remonstrants and their time-serving allies, a more fundamental reflection on the dangers of dogmatic theology. The dedication of the work to Apollonius Schotte, a captain of the East Indies company with whom Cunaeus was on close terms, and Rombout Hogerbeets, pensionary of the city of Leiden, declares Paradijs. / Dat is de groote school, daer ghy sult in verklaren / Des Vaders diepen si, uw wijsheyt openbaren: / Geseten op den throon, altijd voor u bewaert; / Daer een ontallick volck van Engelen vergaert. / Wij nemen Jacob aen, die Good koos, om te geven / Eeen sterck geloof in u; noch sijnde sonder leven, / Noch in zyns moeders buyk: en sonderd’ hem daer af / Noch siend’ op Iacobs deucht, maer dat hy Iacob gaf.’ Daniël Heinsius, Bacchus en Christus: Twee lofzangen van Daniel Heinsius, 304–6, ll. 701–16. 51  Nellen situates the breach with Heinsius, who had earlier spoken favourably of the Ordinum pietas, in the year 1614, when he altogether disappears from Grotius’s correspondence. Intellectually, his role seems to have been largely taken over by Vossius, Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 152, 179; C. S. M. Rademaker, Life and Work of Gerardus Joannes Vossius (Assen: Von Gorcum, 1981), 84. 52  Sardi Venales, satyra menippea in huius saeculi homines plerosque inepte eruditos (Leiden, 1612). I consulted the edn by C. Mattheeussen and C. L. Heesakkers, Two Neolatin Menippean Satires: Justus Lipsius: Somnium. Petrus Cunaeus: Sardi Venales (Leiden: Brill, 1980); a Dutch translation appeared in 1675 under the title Gekken te hoop. Of Schimpschrift Op de Verkeerd-geleerden van onze tijd. For an introduction to Cunaeus’s life and work, see Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 125–9; Arthur Eyffinger, introduction, in Petrus Cunaeus, The Hebrew Republic, introduction by Arthur Eyffinger, tr. Peter Wyetzner (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006), pp. xxx–xxxvii. The most up-to-date analysis of the text is Mark Somos, Secularization and the Leiden Circle (Leiden: Brill), 201–382, which provides a wealth of information on the literary and intellectual contexts of the text. More problematic, however, is Somos’s claim that Cunaeus’s ‘anti-theology argument’ should be seen in the context of a secularizing effort which he regards as a shared objective of the Leiden humanists. An attack on dogmatic theology should, however, not be identified with an attack on theology tout court. Neither can the subjugation of the church to the civil magistrate which Erastian thinkers such as Grotius, Cunaeus, and Vossius advocated be readily identified with ‘secularization’, if one takes the term to mean the banishing of religion from politics. See also the cautionary remarks in Deborah K. Shuger, The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994), 24, 47–8. 53 Sellin, Daniel Heinsius, 20 n. 1; Nellen also mentions a quarrel about the division of the teaching load, Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 64. 54  On Cunaeus’s place in this tradition, see Somos, Secularization, 242–87.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

64

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

that the text has at its heart a distinction between two kinds of knowledge, good and bad, and was written out of concern about the public dangers arising out of intellectual arrogance. One must speak the truth boldly, the author asserts, for truth becomes clear by resisting those who spread falsehood—and criticism makes for more amusing reading than theology! The address to the reader is a mock retreat from the bold posturing of the dedication: the author is neither omniscient nor arrogant, and does not stoop to attacking individuals. Theologians and Catholics are too touchy when it comes to criticism, and have no sense of humour. Yet Christ himself had a jovial nature and was a satirist who spoke to the common people. The narrative of Sardi venales unfolds as a dream vision, in which God lifts the narrator up to an unknown world. Cunaeus encounters Menippos, dressed in the attire of a Cynic, who agrees to be his guide. Menippos inveighs against the theologians, invoking the recent debate over free will and necessity as a good example of how ignorance and fanaticism lead to madness and civil strife. A procession of the recently deceased, victims of religious controversy, serves as a pointed reminder of the dangers of religious violence. Menippos leads the author to the Republic of Scholars, where those who have dedicated themselves to learning dwell after death. After an eventful journey, they reach the Temple of Paideia, where the Republic’s Senate is in meeting. Erasmus, the speaker, opens deliberations on the question of how to deal with the sudden influx of foreigners whose presence is causing discord and social tension. Aware of the problems the newcomers present Erasmus nevertheless speaks in favour of moderation and equity. At least the learned ones among the newcomers should be admitted into the Republic. Next to speak is Angelo Poliziano, whose tirade against the theologians concludes with the advice to have them branded, their beards shaven off, and send them back whence they came. Someone speaks out in favour of the newcomers, but this man, a pedant with a droning voice, is ordered to leave the stage by Menippos, and sent on his way by the court. As first Ermolao Barbaro and then Rudolph Agricola continue the deliberations, the mood seems to be strongly against the foreigners. Erasmus nevertheless wishes to consult Sophia before any decision will be taken. Diogenes is sent out to seek the Goddess, who arrives, finally, in the company of her handmaidens: Alethea (Truth), Parrhesia (Free Speech), Sophrosyne (Prudence), and Eleutheria (Freedom). Diogenes meanwhile is exhausted. Finding Sophia has proved an ­ordeal; in vain he looked for her among the theologians, who tried to sell him a painted prostitute. When Sophia speaks, she declares that the decision to act against the foreigners is the right one. She describes the ways in which the theologians have always acted against her, giving a whole catalogue of their intellectual and moral sins. A worrying recent development, however, is that unlearned, crass thinkers have begun discussing divine matters in public. Yet many of the highest subjects are shrouded in mystery: it is more pious to believe in them than to understand them. No one, no matter how learned, can transcend the epistemological limitations that have been placed on human knowledge, but the theologians in particular seem incapable of self-knowledge or intellectual humility. This is all the more dangerous because nothing spreads and multiplies faster than false opinion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

65

Sophia declares that she will henceforth only accept as her followers those who ­remain within the bounds of the verisimilar, who accept criticism from others, and honour freedom of speech. The narrator is taken aside by Sophrosyne, who advises him to know his limitations, to observe moderation in seeking knowledge, and practise detachment in the middle of partisan strife. It is an attitude which will cause him the enmity of many, but Cunaeus should counter their attacks with laughter, rather than with anger. Only the truly wise will recognize them as one of their own. As Sophrosyne disappears, the narrator turns his attention to the assembly. A Dutch theologian has taken the floor whom he recognizes as a one-time acquaintance. The speaker starts with a remarkable admission of guilt: in life, he too was guilty of partisanship in theological debates which led to acrimonious controversies, anger, and strife. He appeals to the theologians to mend their ways, reining in their curiosity and practising charity instead of merely preaching it. Under pressure, the theologians unite and appoint a speaker to defend their cause. He produces what the narrator admits is a persuasive defence, but before the assembly can proceed to put the matter to the vote, the news arrives that criminals who for a thousand years have been kept prisoner in Tartarus have broken loose, and are planning to invade the Republic. The assembly breaks down in chaos, and Menippos whisks the narrator away. At a wine fountain, they meet a group of drunken revellers. One of them starts singing the praises of wine (a very obvious snipe at Heinsius’s drinking habits), arguing that it should be introduced in the churches. When ‘Cunaeus’ makes a derisive comment to Menippos, the drunkard tries to attack him with a stick, and he suddenly wakes up. Not surprisingly, the appearance of Sardi venales caused a storm. The allusions to the Vorstius affair and the Arminian controversy, the all-out attack on the arrogance and partisanship of the theologians, as well as the blatant attack on Heinsius, managed to offend more or less everyone. Complaints were lodged, Cunaeus’s classes disrupted by hooting students, and the university was closed down to prevent further mayhem. Even so, the text continued to be published; seven editions appeared in Cunaeus’s lifetime alone. Translations into English, French, and Dutch would follow. Sophia’s speech, at the heart of the work, took on a life on its own, often published as a separate set piece, as for example in Geeraerd Brandt’s influential History of the Reformation in the Netherlands (Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen, in en omtrent de Nederlanden, 1671–1704). The alliance between Erasmian ethics, a sceptical attack on false opinion, and satire, moreover, would, as we shall see, prove a powerful polemical tool. 2 . 2  G ROT I U S ’ S O R D I N U M H O L L A N D I A E W E S T F R I S I A E P I E TA S

ac

As the quarrel among the Leiden theologians turned into a nationwide conflict between the church and the States of Holland, a subsidiary controversy about the appointment of Arminius’s successor at Leiden propelled the ecclesiastical policy of the States into the spotlight of international attention.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

66

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Conrad Vorstius, a theologian from Erfurt, had been the States’ ideal candidate. He was known as a man of irenic disposition, learned, peaceable, and, at this point in time at least, not a party in the conflict between Remonstrants and ContraRemonstrants. He was also on good terms with Uytenbogaert.55 Yet there were persistent rumours of heterodoxy. In protest at the appointment, Gomarus resigned his post, moving to Middelburg to become rector of the newly founded Atheneum Illustre. Gomarus and his allies, the Franeker theologian Sybrand Lubbertus and Matthew Slade, a Brownist schoolmaster from Amsterdam, who acted as an informer to the English ambassador, Dudley Carleton, now began to garner support among the Reformed Churches of Heidelberg, Scotland, and England. When Vorstius’s Tractatus theologicus de Deo came to the eyes of James I, the King reacted with horror to what he regarded as its manifest heresies. He ordered the book to be publicly burnt, and informed the States that Vorstius had to be sacked instantly.56 Oldenbarnevelt, not a man to be dictated to in the best of circumstances, considered forced measures against Vorstius an affront to the authority of the States of Holland. Nor was he prepared to sacrifice Vorstius without giving him the chance to defend himself. This principled stance was to cost him dearly. James increasingly viewed Arminianism as tainted with the brush of Socinianism. He became suspicious of Oldenbarnevelt’s trustworthiness, and sought a rapprochement with the Prince of Orange, symbolized by Maurits receiving the Knighthood of the Garter on 4 February 1613. The fact that Oldenbarnevelt initially tried to prevent its conferral caused another chill in the rapidly cooling relations between the Advocate and the Prince.57 Oldenbarnevelt now thought the time ripe for a countermove. Uytenbogaert furnished a translation of the Remonstrance, which, together with the concept for a  letter of agreement, was submitted to the King.58 When, in March 1613, the King’s response came with the added words ‘we think that these opinions do not differ so much that they are inconsistent with the truth of the Christian faith and the salvation of souls’, the States party’s goal had ostensibly achieved.59 One month later, a diplomatic mission left for England to negotiate about the trade monopoly in the Indies. Grotius was hastily added to the delegation and given a special instruction to ensure that the King did not waver in his support for the policy of the States and did not retract his assent to the Remonstrance.60 The support of sympathizers like Overall and Andrewes should be consolidated, and opponents, such as Archbishop Abbot, with whom Lubbertus was in frequent contact, should be won over, 55  For the friendship between Uytenbogaert and Vorstius, see H. C. Rogge (ed.), Brieven en onuitgegeven stukken van Johannes Uytenbogaert (Utrecht: Kemink, 1868). 56  Frederick Shriver, ‘Orthodoxy and Diplomacy: James I and the Vorstius Affair’, English Historical Review, 85/33 (1970), 462, see also Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata, ii. 205–24, and Peter White, Policy, Polemic and Predestination (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 159–66. 57  Shriver, ‘Orthodoxy and Diplomacy’, 471–2; A. Th. van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, (Amsterdam: Aula/Bert Bakker, 2002), 244–6. 58 White, Policy, Polemic and Predestination, 162; Nellen, Hugo de Groot, and Rabbie’s introduction to Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas (1613), ed. Edwin Rabbie (Leiden: Brill, 1995), Introduction, p. 29. 59  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 283–4. 60 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 131–2; Grotius, Ordinum pietas, Introduction, 30; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 289–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

67

or neutralized. While Grotius did win the sympathy (but not necessarily support) of Andrewes and Overall, with whom he had exchanged letters (in which Overall had outlined a position on predestination that could be used as a middle way ­between the Calvinist and Arminian positions), Abbot was working hard to ensure he would not win the King over. James, this time, remained uncommitted.61 In a letter to Casaubon, Grotius complained bitterly about the way Abbot misrepresented the position of the Remonstrants and sought to damn the opinions of Andrewes and Overall. It made him fear the worst, for how could the King ‘­tolerate in his own church what he condemns in a foreign?’62 Even so, he had little qualms about playing on the King’s prejudices, painting the Contra-Remonstrants as presbyterian rabble-rousers, who would not accept any form of ecclesiastical hierarchy.63 His strategy backfired disastrously. Lubbertus again wrote to Abbot, who in turn informed James about the way the Contra-Remonstrants’ ecclesiastical position had been misrepresented. The King, needless to say, was not amused. He felt cheated by Grotius and particularly by Oldenbarnevelt, and his distrust of the latter changed into open hostility.64 The Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas, published in the late summer of 1613, in response to Lubbertus’s letter to Abbot that accompanied his Commentarii ad nonaginata novem errores Conradi Vorsti, was the product of this struggle for the King’s support, aimed to justify the States’ handling of the Vorstius affair, and explain their policy for the containment of the controversy over predestination. The Ordinum pietas contains the core of the religious policy of the States of Holland in the years between 1613 and 1618: a vindication of the States of Holland’s proceedings in the Vorstius affair, a defence of the ius circa sacra of the States, as the sovereign authority in the province of Holland, a history of the differences of opinion in predestinarian doctrine from antiquity to the present, and a strategy for the containment of religious controversy. Grotius is relatively brief about the Vorstius affair. The oration sets out by vindicating, as the title proclaims, the piety of the States of Holland, drawing attention to the role of the States in defending the Reformed religion during the war with Spain, and emphasizing in particular the heroism shown by Leiden’s magistrate, for these, Grotius writes, are the fathers of the men whose name and reputation Lubbertus has dragged through the mire by accusing them of favouring Socinianism. The impropriety of Lubbertus’s actions in appealing for foreign assistance in what is essentially an internal affair of the States of Holland, and in slandering the authorities, is given wide scope. In contrast to the indignant rhetoric of the exordium, the affair itself is treated in a matter of fact manner. The States were not aware of Vorstius’s heterodox ideas, as the book in question had only just been published and was barely known. When they became aware of the grave errors it apparently contained, they immediately took appropriate action, and some of them expressed their dismay to Vorstius directly. Anti-Trininitarian ideas are not 61  Briefwisseling van Hugo Grotius, Overall to Grotius, 26 May 1613, 241, cited in White, Policy, Predestination and Polemic. 62 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 163. 63 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 135.   64  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 290.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

68

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

being spread in Leiden’s theology faculty, for Vorstius’s appointment has never taken effect. In fact, he does not even live in Leiden, having voluntarily offered to stay away from the city and live as a private citizen until the matter has been settled to everybody’s satisfaction. Grotius emphasizes that no matter how grave the ­accusations against Vorstius, the law prescribes that he will be heard, and given the opportunity to defend himself. To expel him from the country would be a flagrant breach of due process, reminiscent of the religious persecution of the old days, Grotius says, carefully glossing over the fact that this was also the punishment James I had demanded. In court, Vorstius has emphatically and unequivocally ­rejected the beliefs of Socinus, and usually, when speaking under oath, a man’s word is taken for the truth. Nowhere does Grotius engage with the contents of Vorstius’s De natura Dei. In the light of the States’ firm and decisive action, Lubbertus’s shrill accusations sound rather suspect. In fact, Grotius argues, the real reason for his behaviour lies in the resentment he harbours against the States of Holland for not suppressing the opinions of the Remonstrants, as he, and those who hold the same opinion on the question of predestination, insisted should be done.65 This topic, Grotius argues, has at all times given rise to complex questions. Nevertheless, ‘it has always been indisputable that two extremes had to be avoided: first that we do not ascribe the causes of sin to God, and damnation to fatal necessity; second, that we do not trace back the origin of salutary good to the powers of our depraved nature’.66 Grotius here employs a strategy central to many strands of irenicist argument that goes back to Erasmus’s dispute with Luther on free will. In his De libero arbitrio diatriba sive collatio, Erasmus had outlined a moderate position on free will that avoids the extremes of both Pelagius, who he claims ascribed too much to free will, and Augustine, who denied free will altogether, a position which enables him to steer a middle course between ‘the Scylla of arrogance’ and ‘the Charybdis of despair or indolence’.67 From this intermediate position Grotius proceeds to give an account of the five articles of the Remonstrants. On the first article, that God has decreed from eternity to save believers, he asserts rather brazenly that Lubbertus is, essentially, in agreement with his opponents, since he believes that, although God decides to act from eternity, he nevertheless acts in time, and justifies individuals by means of faith ‘or, which is the same, he saves believers’.68 Rather than identifying an underlying agreement, Grotius (wilfully, one can assume) ignores the orthodox distinction between the decretum electionis, which depends on the sovereign will of God alone, and the execution of the decree, the pactum salutis, through which God saves his chosen elect through his grace and justifies them through faith. To hold 65 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §34, p. 131. 66 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §35.16–20, p. 131. 67  Grotius here employs a strategy familiar to irenicist argument going back to Erasmus’s dispute with Luther on free will. Erasmus, De libero aribtrio diatriba sive collatio, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 89–96. The simile appears to have been commonplace within both inter- and intraconfessional irenicism. 68 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §35.16–20, p. 131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

69

that God gives the elect faith as an instrument of salvation is by no means the same as to claim that he elects those he foreknew would believe. Grotius historicizes and relativizes the conflict between Arminians and Gomarists by arguing that the views that the Contra-Remonstrants now want to anathematize as ‘intolerable’ were in fact widely accepted by the ancient church before Augustine.69 Using Chrysostom as witness for the Greek fathers, and Ambrose for the Latins, Grotius adduces a host of citations to prove that a rejection of the idea of God as the cause of reprobation, of man’s sinning by necessity, and a belief in conditional predestination, election from foreseen faith, and resistable grace, were accepted within the Greek and Latin Churches in those centuries when the church was closest to its apostolic purity.70 He concedes: There were others, well-known, too, who disagree, especially Augustine. I say only this: was Chrysostom a Socinian, was Ambrose, were so many other ancient Fathers? If they lived now, would they not be acceptable to our Church? These are questions I would like to see answered. If someone says that they are not to be tolerated, his ­arrogance will be intolerable to all pious people; if he thinks that they should be tolerated, let him not be a respecter of persons; let there be equity, which requires equal treatment of equal cases.71

The argument that conditional predestination had been an acceptable position within the ancient church was developed further in Vossius’s Historia de controversiis, quas Pelagius eiusque reliquiae moverunt (1618), in the conception of which Grotius had had a steering hand. Vossius had been appointed as Bertius’s successor as regent of the States’ College on recommendation of Grotius who, not without an element of theatricality, assured his friend that, after God, it depended chiefly on him what sort of church the Republic would have in ten years. Vossius, however, was a meticulous worker, and the Historia Pelagiana took several years to complete, appearing only in 1618, when the conflict had been decided and the Remonstrants had lost the plea. Despite the conciliatory tone of the preface, which insisted that the book’s aim was to extinguish the fires of controversy in the church, the Historia Pelagiana was no less offensive to orthodox sentiment than the Ordinum pietas. Sketching the whole spectrum of opinion on grace, free will, and faith, Vossius not only manages to relegate the debate on predestination to ‘adiaphoral’ status, but also argues that the fathers insisted on the synergy of grace and free will, and therefore believed that grace could be resisted. In the Ordinum pietas, Grotius does not quite push the argument that far. He continues the historical analysis, arguing how after Augustine, predestination, grace, and free will continued to excite controversy among scholastic theologians, 69  Here too, Grotius appears to follow Erasmus, who had similarly emphasized the historical and contingent nature of the controversy, see Erasmus, De libero arbitrio, 42–3. 70 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §§44–9, pp. 138–41. 71  ‘Sunt alii non ignobiles qui dissentiant, imprimis Augustinus. Hoc tantum dico, an Socinianus fuit Chrysostomus, an Ambrosius, an tot alii vetustissimi patres? Ad haec mihi responderi velim. Siquis nin tolerandos dicat, eius arrogantia piis omnibus erit intolerabilis; si tolerandos putat illos ne sit pqorxpokñpsg|; valeat aequitas quae in eadem causa ius idem desiderat.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §49.24–9, pp. 140–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

70

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

a situation that continues up to the present day, as the conflict between the Jesuits and Dominicans testifies.72 Within the Reformed religion ‘it appears that many are indeed for a long time on Sibbrandus’ side’, Grotius concedes, but yet even so the German churches that follow the Augsburg Confession were by many regarded as members of the same body.73 He cites the example of Calvin, who, although he rejected Melanchthon’s interpretation of predestination, wrote a laudatory testimony to the French translation of the Loci communes.74 In the context of the Dutch Reformation, the early influence of Erasmus was determining, Grotius claims, thereby moving away from his argument in his Annales et Historiae de rebus Begicis (published 1657) in which Erasmus and Luther had still stood together as the founding fathers of the Dutch Reformation.75 In the polemical context of the Ordinum pietas, Grotius now asserts that, in the dispute between Luther and Erasmus over free will, ‘The majority of the population was, of its own accord, more inclined towards Erasmus, and consequently, the book written by a certain Anastasius Veluanus, which argued the same point, was also cheerfully received, and Dirck Coornhert’s cause, which for many reasons was otherwise odious, was made popular by nothing so much as the fact that he was believed to side with Erasmus on predestination and free will.’76 Grotius weds this historical account to an analysis of the dynamics of doctrinal definition and dissent. He gives many reasons why the States have decided not to settle the controversy through means of a synod, from which, he claims, in the current climate of mutual recrimination nothing good can be expected. Some years before, the States had actually taken the first steps towards a national synod, but their efforts had foundered on the opposition of the orthodox, who rejected the idea that the confession and catechism would be considered for revision. Such a revision would not be a novelty, as the examples of the Anglican Confession and the Augsburg Confession show, and is, moreover, highly necessary, for the Confessio Belgica was drafted in considerable haste, whereas the catechism has been borrowed from their neighbours.77 Lubbertus appeals to the apostolic saying ‘The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets’, to claim that judgement in doctrinal matters pertains to the clergy alone, but he does not appear to understand the meaning of ‘prophecy’. ‘For it is well known that “prophecy” in the Early Church was not so much the name of some perpetual office, as of a gift, such as the gift of “healing” and “tongues”.’78 He proceeds to give a diametrically opposite definition of prophecy, for which he cites Chrysostom as authority: ‘However, none of the 72 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §56.15–18, pp. 146–7. 73 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §57.29–32, pp. 146–7. 74 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §59, pp. 148–9. 75  Johannes Trapman, ‘Grotius and Erasmus’, in Nellen and Rabbie, Hugo Grotius—Theologian. 83. 76  ‘Plebis itaque pars magna sponte sua in Erasmi sententiam pronior, itaque et Anastasii cuiusdam Veluani liber in eandem partem disputans laetissimis animis exceptus fuit et Diderici Cornharti causam multis alioqui nominibus exosam nihil tam favorabilem fecit quam quod de predestinatione ja¨ peq¨ sot athaiqåsot cum Erasmo sentire crederetur.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, V, §61.17–22, pp. 150–1. 77 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §§76–7, pp. 161–3. 78  ‘Notum enim est pougse¨am in prima ecclesia non tam perpetui muneris alicuius quam doni fuisse nomen, ut et ¨lasa et ck›rra|.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §§79.10–12, pp. 162–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

71

ancients believed that such words had a meaning that restricted judgement, such they are written in such a way that all those who listened to the prophets considered whether what they were taught was true.’79 Yet the fundamental question is ‘whether deciding “yes” or “no” on every controversial point and excluding from the body of the Church or from the ministry those who do not comply, tends to increase or decrease the divisions in the Church’.80 To this question Grotius replies with an irenicist plea for consensus on fundamentals combined with flexibility in the adiaphora, citing the Emperor Constantine, Erasmus, and Junius’s Eireinicum de pace ecclesiastica (1593), better known in its French translation as Le paisible chretien. He quotes Erasmus’s De amabili ecclesiae concordia: ‘that consideration is needed, so that each party adapts itself somewhat to the other; without this no concord can last; but it should not be followed so far that inviolable points are touched, and human infirmity should be tolerated so that they are bit by bit incited to a more perfect situation’. From Erasmus’s letter to Jean Carondolet, in the preface to the edition of the works of Hilary of Poitiers, Grotius cites the following lines: ‘The essence of our faith is peace and unanimity. They can hardly last unless we define only the absolute minimum and leave to each individual his own free judgment on many questions, because many things are very obscure.’81 In the context of 1613, this amounts to a very restricted notion of tolerance. Yet Grotius’s diagnosis of the causes of religious controversy, as well as the remedy he describes, is fundamentally the same as in his more ambitious, irenicist works. They form, as Henk Nellen has argued, the core of a programme to which he would remain dedicated throughout his life. Grotius developed these ideas in the epistolary treatise Meletius, sive de iis quae inter Christianos conveniunt (1611), a work which, although probably written with the Arminian controversy in mind, opens a door towards an intra-confessional dialogue. The animating idea of the Meletius, named after the Greek patriarch and irenicist theologian Meletius Pegas (1549–1601), is that of a universal consensus on the fundamentals of the faith. Grotius, claiming to follow the example of the patriarch, argues that the basic tenets of Christianity are few, and easily comprehensible. On these essential points consensus can exist, but an increasing emphasis on doctrinal rectitude has destroyed consensus, and brought about a decline of concord and charity. Grotius distributed the manuscript among a small number of friends; and it was in particular because of the criticism of Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639), a moderate 79  ‘Nemo autem veterum vim aliquam illis verbis inesse credidit quae iudicium restringeret, cum potius ideo scripta sint ut omnes ii qui prophetas audiebant dilligenter attenderent an vera essent quae docerentur.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §80.15–17, pp. 162–3. 80  ‘Illud quaeritur, ad augendas an ad minuendas ecclesiae scissuras pertineat ut quidque in controversiam venerit de eo statuere ma¨ ñ o�, non obtemperantes aut ab ecclesiae corpore aut ministerio segregare.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §90.12–15, pp. 168–9. 81  ‘Item: summa nostrae religionis pax est et unanimitas. Ea vix constare poterit nisi de quam potest paucissimis definiamus et in multis liberum relinquamus suum cuique iudicium, propterea quod ingens sit rerum multarum obscuritas.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §90.23–6, pp. 168–9. See Desiderius Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), ix. Letters 1252 to 1355, ed. James Estes, Ep. 1334, p. 252.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

72

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Contra-Remonstrant minister from Zeeland with whom Grotius was on friendly terms, that he decided to withhold the text from publication.82 Yet Erasmus’s words could and, as the history of the Arminian controversy was to prove, would be interpreted in a far broader sense than either Grotius, or Erasmus himself, would have wished. By redefining the adiaphoara as non-essential doctrines, rather than externals, like ceremonies and clerical vestments, Erasmus had unwittingly released the genie from the bottle. In the polarized religious climate of the 1610s many controversialists exploited the ambiguity inherent in the notion ‘fundamentals of the faith’ to argue not for irenicism, but for full and unlimited religious toleration. Nor does the Ordinum pietas escape the hermeneutic circle dogging appeals to consensus throughout the period. Like Erasmus, whose hermeneutic he appears to share, Grotius draws a clear distinction between those parts of scripture whose meaning are simple, and those passages which are difficult or obscure.83 Yet Grotius’s appeal to consensus in those matters about which scripture speaks plainly fails to acknowledge that ‘consensus only works where consensus already exists, as consensus by definition does not exist wherever meaning has been found to be a problem’.84 All appeals to history to support the idea of an ‘ancient consensus’ aside, Grotius is forced to use assertion to bolster his case against Lubbertus. He quotes extensively from Melanchthon’s Loci communes, where it is written ‘the words “God desires all men to be saved” should be taken in  their natural sense’ (Simpliciter intellegendum ‘Deus vult omnes homines salvos fiere’ ).85 Yet in dealing with those loci that, from Calvin and Beza onwards, had been central to Reformed predestinarian theology, the appeal to the sensus simplex is categorically rejected. Repeatedly, Grotius contrasts the crass exegetical literalism of Lubbertus and his like with the meticulous care of the Latin and Greek fathers: ‘You trim the parable of the potter to the quick; what do they do? One writes: “He does not say this in order to take away free will, but to show to what degree one should have faith in God”. The other: “In the potter there is only will but in God there is will with justice, for he knows whom he has to pity”’.86 The phrase ‘vessels of wrath made for destruction’ (Rom. 9: 22) has been ‘dangerously twisted by some’.87 Despite his best intentions, Grotius appears to abandon his own principles. Even in scriptural passages where the literal sense is obscure, some exegetical methods are more likely to illuminate meaning than others. The last and lengthiest part of the Ordinum pietas consists of a defence of the States of Holland’s ius circa sacra. Grotius would return to this question in the De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra (1617), which appeared too late to have 82 Grotius, Meletius, Introduction, 57. 83  Brian Cummings, The Literary Culture of the Reformation (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 156. 84 Cummings, Grammar and Grace, 152. 85 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §57.36–7, p. 148. 86  ‘Figuli similitudinem ad vivim resecatis; quid illi? Ot sæ a�seno�rom ama¨qxm sotso kåceikk deijm�| levqi pqærot de∫ pe¨herhai s› he›. Alter: in figulo sola voluntas est, in Deo autem voluntas cum iustitia; scit enim cuius debeat misereri.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §46.1–4, pp. 140–1. 87  ‘Sequitus locus ille periculose rsqebko�lemo| a quibusdam: rje�g oqcñ| jasgqsirlåma e¨| ap›keiam$ : Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §47.5–6, pp. 140–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

73

any impact on political debate and was published only posthumously, in 1647.88 Grotius sets out by investigating Lubbertus’s disavowal of puritanism. It is true that Lubbertus grants that the magistrate is the guardian of both tables, yet in his discussion of the right of the public authority in the convening of synods and the electing of ecclesiastical officials, he shows that what he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. For while in his account the magistrate has the right to convene a synod, it does not decide who will attend it. Yet the contrary is proved by the Council of Ephesus, the first Council of Constantinople, the Council of Chalcedon, and others.89 The public authority does not merely convene a synod and choose delegates, it also determines the agenda. In Lubbertus’s view, the fact that the public authority presides over the synod means that its role is merely to ensure the proceedings are run in an orderly manner, and that no matters that do not pertain to the church are discussed.90 Against this argument, Grotius musters many examples that show that governments have passed judgement in synods, and on synods.91 Lubbertus does not seem to grasp the difference between private religion and public faith. ‘For every individual is judge over his own religious conviction, the Church itself decides the faith of the Church; but nobody has the right to decide on the faith of the Church inasmuch as it is public, except for him in whose hand and power all public bodies lie.’92 Those who wish the same governmental non-interference as the Lutherans and Mennonites have, ‘should leave the churches, for they are public; they should not ask for stipends from the treasury, for the treasury is public, or if they do wish to enjoy those public facilities, they should accept that the law is laid down publicly for them, too’.93 Lubbertus’s argument, that while the supreme power resides with the Emperor, the subordinate power remains with the church, is a mere ruse. Autocracy presupposes integrity of powers, ‘it is unable to support itself unless it is whole and fixed; if you lose part of it you will not retain the rest either’.94 ‘To avoid ill feeling some today deny that they ­establish antipodal powers, a political one and an ecclesiastical one’, but their ­obvious lack of respect for the authority of their rulers, against whom they even dare to mobilize the mob, shows how much their words are to be trusted.95 88 Grotius, De imperio summarum potestarum circa sacra, ed. Harm-Jan van Dam (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 89 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §§101–5, pp. 176–81. 90 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §108, pp. 182–3. 91 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §§109–26, pp. 182–95. 92  ‘Videtisne igitur ut ar�rsa doceatis cum supremum de religione publica iudicium summo magistratui eripitis? Publica, inquam; nam de sua religione iudex est unusquisque, de ecclesiae fide ipsa ecclesia statuit; at de fide ecclesiae qua est publica est nemo ius statuendi habet praeter eum cuius omnia ecclesiae qua publica est nemo stauendi habet praeter eum cuius omnia publica sunt in manu ac potestate.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §118.6–9, p. 189. 93  ‘Quo recte intellecto concidit illa vanissima obiectio: Lutheranis nihil praescribitis, nihil Mennonitis; cur ergo reformatis? Ita qui loqui volunt templa deserere debent, sunt enim publica, stipendia ex aerario petere non debent, aerarium enim est publicum, aut si istis publicis frui volunt, ferant et sibi publicitus legem dici.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §118.9–13, pp. 188–9. 94  ‘Hoc nimirum est sñ| atsojqasoq¨a| ingenium, sustinere se nisi tota ac solida non potest, parte eius amissa nec reliqua retinebis’: Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §131.29–31, p. 197. 95 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §132, pp. 196–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

74

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Grotius provides a similar string of historical examples from antiquity, the Middle Ages, up to the Burgundian and Habsburg periods, to show that the right to appoint ecclesiastical officials pertains to the civil magistrate as well. The right of the civil magistrate even includes the election of elders, ecclesiastical legislature, and the right to take action against ecclesiastical censorship. Grotius ends his peroration with a reassertion of the correctness of the actions of the States, who have not tolerated Pelagianism or Socinianism, but remain steadfast in the true faith, yet not without having reminded his audience of the role of the Calvinists in Flanders ‘about which it can truly be said what was once said about Greece, that it went down “because of the undue freedom and irresponsibility of its assemblies”’.96 It was the Reformed ministers who slandered the Prince of Orange, who thwarted his plans, and who called ‘the mob, no, the dregs of the nation to power’, and who later, under Leicester, tried to undermine the authority of the States.97 Reactions to the Ordinum pietas were mostly hostile. Even in the Remonstrant camp more than a few deplored Grotius’s polemical style, so patently at odds with its author’s attempt to style himself as the champion of moderation.98 Grotius’s friend and collaborator Vossius praised the book abundantly, but also mentioned the angry reactions it had provoked. Abraham van der Myle was sharper. While he concurred entirely with the book’s contents, he deplored the attacks on the ministers. Grotius should have submitted the book to him—the way that it had been published only served as grist to the mill of the Jesuits.99 For Grotius’s reputation among the Contra-Remonstrants, the publication of the work was indeed downright disastrous. Its extreme claims for the magistrate’s ius circa sacra, its account of the controversy over predestination, and its insistence that the confession and catechism should be open to revision, were unlikely to win any supporters among the orthodox. In their eyes, Grotius, who had up to this point maintained a façade of neutrality, had lowered his mask and shown himself as the Remonstrant sympathizer they had always suspected him to be. Equally damaging was the tone of the book, and the open contempt with which Grotius treated Lubbertus, a respected theologian nearly thirty years his senior. In the polemical exchanges that followed Lubbertus prepared a response to the Ordinum pietas (or impia pietas, as the work was commonly known in ContraRemonstrant circles), and his Franeker colleague Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637) took up the pen against Grotius. The Remonstrant minister from Leiden, Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (1582–1650), furnished a reply, aided in secret by Vossius, while Caspar Barlaeus, vice-regent of the States College of Leiden University, dealt with Bogerman’s preface in his Bogermannus åkecvoælemo| (1615). En passant he also drew the teeth of Matthew Slade, who in his Disceptatio cum Conrado Vorstio (1614) had presented Grotius as a Socinian and a supporter of Vorstius.100 Matters 96  ‘Testis est Flandia, de qua vere dici potest quod de Graecia olim, periisse eam libertate immodica et licentia contionum.’ Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §199.30–1, pp. 236–7. 97 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, §199, pp. 236–9. 98 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, Introduction, 61. 99 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, Intoduction, 61–2. 100 Grotius, Ordinum pietas, Introduction, 66–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

75

were made worse when the States of Holland banned Lubbertus’s Responsio ad pietatem Hugonis Grotii. Apart from being ineffectual, the ban provoked much bad blood, as Lubbertus was professor at Franeker, where the States of Holland had no jurisdiction whatsoever. Grotius’s response to Lubbertus’s reply, provocatively titled Bona fides Sibrandi Lubberti, did nothing to improve relations with the ContraRemonstrants.101 It did not take Grotius long to realize that he had gone too far in antagonizing his opponents. In the second edition of the Ordinum pietas, the more offensive passages against Lubbertus were eliminated.102 He also set out to work on the Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi, adversus Faustum Socinum (1617), a refutation of De Jesu Christo Servatore (1578, published 1594), Socinus’s work on the office and role of Christ. As a defence of the orthodox doctrine of the atonement, Grotius’ work was unlikely to find many supporters among the Reformed, since it insisted that scripture needed to be interpreted with help of the tools provided by secular learning. It ignored other attempts to counter Socinius, including Lubbertus’s voluminous De Iesu Christo Servatore, hoc est cur et qua ratione Jesus Christus noster servitor sit, libri quattuor contra Faustum Socinum (1611), choosing instead to refute the Italian scholar on his own grounds, taking a juridical and historical-philological approach to the theological question of sin, divine retribution, and satisfaction.103 Grotius agreed with Socinus that God does not punish innocents, yet took issue with his individualistic interpretation that viewed divine punishment as directly related to individual guilt. Unlike Socinus, who rejected vicarious punishment as morally abhorrent, Grotius insisted not only that punishment, rather than being an individual right of ownership, was a political right, exercised with an eye to the greater good of the community, but also that punishments can indeed be transferred from a guilty to an innocent party. Discussing the forms of cancelling a penalty or debt described in the Corpus juris civilis, Grotius attacked Socinus’s interpretation of Roman law, arguing that the legal context of the atonement was not a remission of a debt, or acceptiliatio, as the latter had argued, but a satisfactio, in which a person, instead of paying what is owed, pays a substitute, or has someone else pay it on his behalf.104 Examining examples of punishment through satisfactio from ancient history as well as the Bible, Grotius concludes that neither God, nature, nor the ius gentium, consider substitute punishment unjust.105 Although the De satisfactione defends the doctrine of atonement as Christ’s sacrificial death for the sins of humankind, the work nevertheless shows a latent correspondence between the ideas of Grotius and those of Socinus that was unlikely to escape their opponents. For Grotius departs from the traditional view, going back to Anselm’s Cur deus homo, that regarded sin as a debt owed to God as the lawful owner, or dominus of all Creation. Rather than as a dominus, Grotius 101 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 161–2.   102 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 157. 103  On Grotius’s De satisfactione, see Sarah Mortimer, ‘Human and Divine Justice in the Works of Grotius and the Socinians’, in Mortimer and John Robertson (eds), The Intellectual Consequences of Religious Heterodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 75–94; Hans Blom, ‘Grotius and Socinianism’, in Mulsow and Rohls, Socinianism and Arminianism, 121–48; Shuger, Renaissance Bible, 54–88. 104 Shuger, Renaissance Bible, 59–60.   105 Shuger, Renaissance Bible, 67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

76

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

argued, God should be seen as a ruler, a rector, who punishes sin ‘ad boni ordinis conservationem’.106 What Shuger has termed Grotius’s ‘civic theology of the Atonement’ rests on the fundamental assumption of the correspondence between earthly and divine justice, a correspondence which he only later, in De iure belli ac pacis, came to regard as problematic.107 Although reached by different means and with different aims and purposes, the preoccupation with the justice of God, iustitia Dei, and its relation to the norms of justice governing human communities, forms a point of contact between the theology of Arminius, that of Grotius, and that of the Socinians, that serves to close off the possibility of any exercise of arbitrary power by God, which the voluntarist emphasis on the will of God as the highest norm of justice had opened up. These real and perceived correspondences muddied the waters of Grotius’s attempts to clarify the differences between tolerable doctrinal difference and manifest heterodoxy. In spite of his efforts, Grotius was suspected by many among the orthodox of being a Socinian, or at least a ­Socinian sympathizer; suspicions that were reinforced by the discovery that parts of the ­second and third books of Grotius’s De veritate religionis Christianae (1627), written during his imprisonment at Loevesteijn, were directly dependent on Vorstius’s edition of Socinus’s De auctoritate Sacrae Scripturae (1611).108 Because the book had been published anonymously, Grotius could legitimately (although ­perhaps not entirely plausibly) claim to have been ignorant of its author. Yet for many, such protestations were not convincing. Grotius did indeed keep a friendly correspondence with Johannes Crell, the leader of the Polish Brethren. A number of members of the Remonstrant brotherhood cultivated ties with Socinians abroad, including the brothers Samuel and Johannes Naeranus, Johannes and Petrus Geesteranus, preachers at Alkmaar and Egmond aan Zee, who eventually exchanged the Remonstrants for the Collegiants, and Dominicus Sapma, a preacher from Hoorn.109 Such ties of intellectual exchange and influence complicated Grotius’s attempt to separate Remonstrants from Socinians, and to convince his opponents of the orthodoxy of the States of Holland. The Tolerance Resolution (Resolutie tot de vreede der kerken) drafted by Grotius in the wake of the Ordinum pietas, and accepted by the States of Holland in 1614 can be seen as the regime’s ultimate attempt to maintain the authority of the States in ecclesiastical affairs while at the same time curbing controversy by a ban on ­polemical preaching. Both sides were enjoined to forbearance and moderation, while the tolerable differences ought to remain strictly limited to the five points of the Remonstrance. During the final months of 1613 until the beginning of 1614 Oldenbarnevelt worked to win over the centres of opposition. As the official 106 Shuger, Renaissance Bible, 57–8. 107  Mortimer, ‘Divine and Human Justice’, 83–5. 108 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 353; Heering, ‘Hugo Grotius’ De veritate religionis Christianae’, in Nellen and Rabie, Hugo Grotius—Theologian, 46–8. 109  Van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeeuzen, 262; On Johannes and Petrus Geesteranus, see Jan Pieter de Bie, Lambregt Abraham van Langeraad, Johannes Lindeboom, and Jakob Loosjes (eds), Biographisch woordenboek van Protestantsche godgeleerden in Nederland (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1907–49), iii. 190–2, 193–4. On the brothers Naeranus, see P. C. Molhuysen and P. J. Blok, Niew Nederlands Biografisch Woordenboek (Leiden: Slijthof, 1912), ii. 975–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

77

e­ xpression of the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland, it needed full unanimity to have any real force. But while Dordrecht and other staunchly ContraRemonstrant towns eventually gave in, Amsterdam, Enkhuizen, Purmerend, and Edam remained firm in their opposition. Trigland roundly denied that the States had any competence in the church’s internal affairs.110 Accepting the Tolerance Resolution, he argued, would be the first step towards the total subjection of the church to the magistrate, both in matters of church government and in dogma and discipline. Only old burgomaster C. P. Hooft, one of Oldenbarnevelt’s most loyal allies, lent his active support to the Tolerance Resolution, but his influence within the city was rapidly waning. Hooft’s son, the poet and dramatist P. C. Hooft, praised Grotius in his Oration on the Dignity of Poetry (c.1614), a plea to the Amsterdam magistrate for aid to help finance a new theatre for the city’s chamber of rhetoric, the Eglantine. The Oration hailed Grotius as the ‘eye of the fatherland’, who had succeeded where the theologians failed in leading warring Christendom ‘away from the contest of hatred towards the contest of love’.111 Despite his obvious and spectacular lack of success, Grotius’s work as an irenicist theologian and architect of the toleration policy of the States of Holland transformed the former childprodigy into the intellectual hero and icon of a generation of Remonstrants and Remonstrant sympathizers, including men such as P. C. Hooft, Samuel Coster, Reinier Telle, and Joost van den Vondel. In the end, the Resolution was voted through the States without the support of Amsterdam, Enkhuizen, and Edam, remaining effectively a dead letter. The publication of the justification of the Tolerance Resolution, in which Grotius had been seconded by Uytenbogaert and Paulus Bertius, brought nothing but another round of polemics.112 2.3   A P P RO P R I AT I N G E R A S M U S : T H E P O L A R I Z AT I O N OF ‘CONSENSUS’ The fact that the church was unwilling to concede the right to decide what it was allowed to teach to the authorities, and that it was prepared to go to considerable lengths in its resistance, explains the failure of the policy of the States of Holland. It goes only so far, however, to account for the sheer volume of the pamphlet literature and the intensity of the passions it aroused. Certain pre-existing characteristics of Dutch culture, such as its high literacy rates, its culture of public debate, and 110 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 329–38. 111  The oration echoes the words of the dedication of Grotius’s Christus patiens, and praises Grotius’s dramatic work, Adamus exsul and Christus patiens. If, however, as Jeroen Janssen argues, the Oration was produced in 1614, a more polemical (albeit oblique) reference to the Ordinum pietas and the Resolution of the States for the Peace of the Churches cannot be excluded. On the dating of the Oration, see P. C. Hooft, Reden vande Waerdicheit der Poesie, ed. Jeroen Jansen (Amersfoort: Florivallis, 2005), 7. In her article on Hooft and Grotius, Smits-Veldt also allows for this possibility, Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en de Groot’, in Jeroen Jansen (ed.), Omnibus Idem, Opstellen over P.C. Hooft ter gelegenheid van zijn driehonderdvijftigste sterfdag (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997), 55. 112  Van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, 198–204.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

78

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the legacy of the Revolt, reactivated by the debates over the Truce, all played an important role. Yet there were other reasons, too, which transcend the particularities of the Republic, and which expose the paradoxes of the early modern toleration debate. From the outset, Grotius’s case for limited toleration for the Arminians was controversial, and vexed with scandals caused by unruly figures within the Remonstrant party, like Petrus Bertius, author of the scandalous Hymenaeus desertor, sive de sanctorum apostasia problemata duo (1612), and Adophus Venator, a preacher from Alkmaar, notorious for his anti-Trinitarian sympathies.113 Many of those who championed the States party’s policy of toleration, moreover, were not Remonstrants, but Remonstrant sympathizers who opposed Reformed Protestantism and seized the Grotian argument to advance what was in fact a far more radical agenda. Figures like the controversialist Reinier Telle (Zierikzee 1558/9–Amsterdam 1618), the rector of a Latin school who worked as a translator for the publisher Blaeu, a key figure in Amsterdam’s literary scene in the early seventeenth century, and the mathematician, poet, and pamphleteer Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu (Amersfoort 1563–Hoorn 1630), adopted the Remonstrant cause for their own purposes, combining a propensity for heterodox ideas with a virtually complete disregard for polemical decorum.114 Tradition has accorded writers like Telle and Robbertsz only a marginal role in the history of the Arminian controversy. The interest of their writings, lacking the academic clout and intellectual coherence of the work of Grotius, Vossius, Uytenbogaert, and Episcopius, is usually restricted to the purely anecdotal, enlivening a story that is still very much being written from the perspective of the Republic’s centres of political and religious power. Yet in many ways, their writings exemplify the processes set in motion when religious dissent becomes a matter of public debate, and when the forms of academic controversy like the assertio, the disputation, or the irenicist treatise, touch and merge with a wider media universe of popular print, song, and satire. Moreover, as ‘Coornhertists’, Spiritualists, and ‘neutralists’ tried to advance their own ideas behind a specious façade of States party respectability, the very notion of consensus and moderation became increasingly conflictual, provoking controversy, rather than appeasing it. A closer look at the fate and reputation of Erasmus during the Arminian controversy conveys to what extent the net effect of popular polemics was to polarize the very idea of consensus. The period witnessed a renewed interest in the works of Erasmus, while, increasingly, the name of the humanist became, depending on one’s position, synonymous with true learning, piety, and moderation, or with inconstancy, unorthodoxy, and heresy.115 In the aftermath of the turmoil caused by the Ordinum pietas Matthew 113 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 185. 114  Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle traducteur de Castellio et de Servet’, in Bruno Becker (ed.), Autour de Michel Servet en de Sébastien Castellio (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1953), 151–2. 115  For an informative account of Erasmus’s fame during the period of the Arminian controversy, see Simon Willem Bijl, Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1978), passim, and H. J. M. Nellen, ‘A Rotterdammer Teaches the World How to Reform: The Image of Erasmus in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

79

Slade opened the attack on Erasmus—and through him also Grotius himself—as the progenitor of the Socinian heresy. Grotius abstained from further controversy, but his friend Barlaeus had come to the rescue, vindicating Erasmus’s reputation, and in the process, wholly demolishing that of Slade.116 Yet even supporters of an Erasmian position on the containment of religious controversy needed to be circumspect about which part of Erasmus’s legacy they were seen to endorse. Thus, in 1612, the printer Matthijs Bastiaensz ran into trouble with the authorities for his publication of a translation of Erasmus’s De libero arbitrio. In 1616, however, he dedicated a new edition of Erasmus’s Opuscula, containing ethical and pietistic works, to the States of Holland.117 Advancing the cause of moderation was a balancing act, complicated by the fact that not only the supporters of the policy of the States of Holland, but also the religious fringe, who made a disproportionately large contribution to the pamphlet debate, tried to adopt Erasmus for their cause. A fascinating example of such an appropriation can be found in the work of Telle, who, apart from being a propagator of full religious toleration, appears to have held heterodox ideas which he advocated with an insouciance bordering on audacity. In 1614 he was working on a translation of Servetus’s De trinitatibus erroribus which only appeared after his death, in 1620.118 In his New Year’s Song to all humble Christians, of whichever persuasion they may be (Reinier Telle, Vrede-sang, welcke magh dienen voor een eeuwigh Nieuwe-jaer-liedt aen alle eenvoudighe Christenen, van wat ghevoelen sy ook zijn, 1615) we see Telle donning the armour of Erasmus’s Christian knight. He criticizes his compatriots’ fixation with ceremonies and externals, advocating an internalized, spiritual faith, characterized by true Christian charity, modesty, and humility. Instead of indulging in theological hair-splitting and waging war with each other, Christians, Telle argues, should put on the livery and armour of Christ.119 This advocacy of a practical, ethics-centred Christianity, combined with the call for mutual tolerance, at first instance makes him appear as an Erasmian, and, in the context of the times, a champion of the States party. It is only when he moves onto the topic of the sacraments that the author shows his true, SpirituRemonstrant and Counter-Remonstrant Propaganda’, in M. E. H. N. Mout et al. (eds), Erasmianism: Idea and Reality (Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1997), 177–88. 116  For this controversy, see Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 161–2. 117  Erasmus van de vrijen wille teghen Lutherum. Een seer lieflijcke ende onpartijdige overlegginghe (Rotterdam: Matthijs Bastiaensz, 1612); Opuscula Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. Eenighe tractaetkens vande eerwerdighen wytberoemden ende welgheleerden Desiderio Erasmo van Rotterdam Uut het Latijn overghezet int Nederduytsch (Leiden: Mathijs Bastiaensz, 1616). A good deal of Mathijs Bastiaensz’s energies seem to have been spent on Remonstrant propaganda, as he published pamphlets of Petrus Cupus, Hendrik Slatius, and Nicolaes van Grevinchoven, as well as edns of the works of Melanchthon, Erasmus, and Bullinger. In 1616, the year of the publication of the Opuscula, Bastiaensz brought out a pamphlet titled The Tyrannies, Calumnies and Lies of John Calvin (Joannis Calvini tyrannien, scheldinghen ende leughenen ([Hendrik Slatius], 1616), the forerunner of Slatius’s more famous John Calvin, Cruel, Bitter, Deceitful of 1619. On Bastiaensz’s conflict with the civic authorities see J. G. C. Briels, Zuid-Nederlandse boekdrukkers en boekverkopers in de Noordelijke Nederlanden 1570–1630 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1974), 128–9. 118  Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle traducteur’, 156–7. 119  Reinier Telle, Vrede-sang, welcke magh dienen voor een eeuwigh Nieuwe-jaer-liedt aen alle eenvoudighe Christenen, van wat ghevoelen sy ook zijn (1615), fo A2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

80

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

alist colours. The New Year’s Song asserts that people are mistaken to worry about not being able to keep the sacraments, for the Bible shows us many examples of people whom necessity forced to do so. For Christians, it is enough to recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord, and the Bible the true Word of God. Erasmus had, of course, never defined the sacraments as adiaphora, a term which he reserved for dogma alone. And yet his lack of engagement with the topic, and persistent habit of privileging the imitation and internalization of the example of Christ over outward worship made him liable to being taken for a forebear or kindred spirit of Spiritualism. Telle’s use of Erasmus is here very similar to that of Sebastian Franck, who in his Chronica or Geschichtsbibel of 1531 had argued that Erasmus identified the sacraments with church ceremonies, about which the Bible says nothing, and which are not necessary for salvation—a claim first advanced as a polemical objection by Erasmus’s opponents in Valladolid.120 Lurking behind the States party’s co-option of Erasmus as the forebear of the idea of limited religious toleration, emerges a more radical strand of reading Erasmus, a history of critical reading (or misreading) shaped no doubt by the great popularity of Franck’s Chronica in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic.121 Whether Telle was himself a Spiritualist, as his opponents appear to have believed, is a moot point.122 His activities as a translator of Castellio and Servetus do suggest a different intellectual agenda. What seems more likely is that Telle espoused Spiritualism for tactical reasons, taking from it the arguments needed to argue the case for a tolerant, non-confessional church, which he rather brazenly presented as being identical to Grotius’s latitudinarian Reformed Church. Telle’s tactic is even more apparent in the Second Peace-Song, or Anniversary Song on the Completion of the First Hundred Years of the Reformation of the Churches (Renier Telles Tweede vrede-sang: Oofte Jaerlied op de vol-eyndinghe van de eerste hondert jaren na de aengevangene reformatie der kercken, 1617), a song to mark the centenary of the Reformation. It departs from the fiction of a ‘true Reformation’, the reformation of Erasmus, which has been hijacked by a legion of overzealous reformers: ‘Shortly before Erasmus’s death, Calvin, an able teacher of God’s Word, of great abuses began to cleanse the Church of Geneva and did so, that within a short span of time, he won town and country to his side.’123 Luther, Zwingli, Calvin all stand in an equally negative light, for they all established their churches through force, rather than persuasion. The outcome has been Christianity at war with itself, setting in course a process of fragmentation which—a clear reference to the Arminian controversy—continues until this very day.124 120  Peter G. Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 21. 121 Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus, 31. 122  [A. T. R. Smijters], Consideratien op een vrede-gesangh, twelck tot een nieuwe-jaer-liedt van ’t jaer 1615 is uytghegheven (Amsterdam: Lodewijck Cornelis van der Plas, 1615). 123  ‘Maer ten propoost / recht voor Erasmus doot/ begost Calvijn / een Leeraer wel bedreven / In Godes Woort / van veel misbruyken groot / Te suyvren de Kercke van Genevn / en maeckte ’t soo dat hy in korten tyde / stadt en landt geheel kreech op syne syde.’ Reinier Telle, Renier Telles Tweede vredesang: ofte Jaerlied op de vol-eyndinghe van de eerste hondert jaren na de aengevangene reformatie der kerc ken (Amsterdam, by Porcevant Morgan, 1617), sig. A2v. 124  Reinier Telle, Tweede vrede-sang.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

81

A rather different case is offered by Telle’s friend Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu, whose unhappy life-story serves as a reminder that, even in a religiously pluriform society like the Dutch Republic, positioning oneself outside the existing churches could entail serious dangers to name, fame, and livelihood.125 Robbertsz began his career as a mathematics teacher in Amsterdam. Although he made no scientific discovery worthy of the name, he was apparently considered a mathematician of some repute: together with the Leiden professor Rudolph Snellius he was called to examine Thomas Leamer’s theory for the calculation of the parallel of latitude.126 It was probably in this milieu of cartographers and navigation experts that he became acquainted with Telle, whom Robbertsz regarded as a spiritual kinsman. It was here, also, that he encountered the opposition of Plancius that finally seems to have driven him out of employment. Like Telle, Robbertsz, who came from a Mennonite background, was a Spiritualist, who like Franck, called himself an impartial or ‘neutral’ Christian’ (neutralist, cf. Franck’s use of unparteiisch).127 But while Telle’s spiritualism appears to have been a cover for more radical, anti-Trinitarian ideas, Robbertsz was a Schwenckfeldian with mystical leanings, who viewed the existence of rival confessions in terms of spiritual regeneration and purification.128 A broad view of religious toleration, allowing a place for all Christian churches and sects, is the corollary of this position, and one to which Robbertsz remained true throughout his life. Robbertsz’s commitment to toleration in fact far predated the arrival of the Arminian controversy. In 1608, apparently believing that the message needed to be spread more forcefully, he brought out a satirical song, the Northern Rumbling Pot (‘De Noordtsche Rommelpot’), chastizing the intolerance of the Christian churches, a work unlikely to earn him much sympathy, as it called the Catholic Church ‘the orphanage’, the Reformed Church ‘the plaguehouse’, and so on.129 Robbertsz was one of those who looked on in apprehension as the climate turned against the Arminians, seeing the hostility of the Contra-Remonstrants as a prelude to the onset of religious persecution. As Amsterdam became a centre of the opposition to Oldenbarnevelt’s toleration policy, Robbertsz moved to Hoorn, a militantly Remonstrant town, from where he continued to write pamphlets: short, cheap, duodecimo works, which suggests that he was perhaps publishing them at his own expense. In 1610 he published a May-talk Between a Father and a Son, Concerning the Dispute between the Professors at Leiden (Een Mey-praetjen tusschen vader ende sone, over ’t geschil der professoren . . . tot Leyden), while in 1614 he brought out 125  On Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu, see D. Nauta et al., Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme (Kampen: Kok, 1978–2006), i. 285–6, and Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 237–41; an extensive account of Robbertsz’s life and works in C. P. Burger junior, ‘Robbert Robbertsz. Le Canu en Thymen Claesz. Honich’, in E. W. Moes and C. P. Burger, (eds), De Amsterdamsche boekdrukkers en uitgevers in de zestiende eeuw (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1988), ii. 54–186. 126 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 237–8. 127  Burger, ‘Robbert Robbertsz. Le Canu’, 96–7. Bietenholz, Encounters, 15. 128  Burger, ‘Robbert Robbertsz. Le Canu’, 164–5. 129  [Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu], De Noordtsche Rommelpot, Jerem. I, vers 13. Op de wijse: Dick heb ik mijn lief gebeden (s.a.), see also Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii., 240.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

82

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

his Neighbours-chat about the Resolution of the Mighty Lords, the States of Holland and West-Vriesland (Sommighe buert-praetgens, van de resolutie der Ed. Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vriesland), in which he gave his support for the Tolerance Resolution.130 Yet the Neighbours-chat was in fact exactly the type of popular religious polemic that the Tolerance Resolution aimed to quell. It seems unlikely that Robbertsz was unaware of the fact that the concept of toleration expounded in the Ordinum pietas and the Tolerance Resolution was a far cry from his own ideas on religious liberty, yet this nevertheless did not stop him—like it did not stop Telle— from styling himself as a champion of the States. Indeed, besides offering support for the tolerance policy of the States of Holland, Robbertsz’s writings, like those of Telle, attempt to lend respectability to heterodox ideas by collapsing the theological and ecclesiological distance between his own views and the official position of the States of Holland. But Robbertsz lacked Telle’s rhetorical versatility. In terms of learning, literary style, and patronage, he was less well equipped to engage in religious polemics. His pamphlets were easily traced back to their author, making him something of an embarrassment for the Remonstrants and their political allies. In the polemic sparked off by Arminius’s death, Gomarus taunted Bertius by pointing at the ­Arminians’ curious fellow-travellers, ‘Libertine, fame-robbing pasquil-makers’, ‘of whom you do not approve, even though they support you, and are so fervently dedicated to the teachings of D. Arminius’. These people, Gomarus continues, are wholly unqualified to judge in matters of religion, and are indeed, as they themselves admit, ‘an 0  in the cipher’—a joke on Robbertsz the mathematician’s device The ‘0’ in the cipher.131 Indeed, Remonstrant historiography has remained conspicuously silent about Robbertsz. Brandt devotes only a few lines to him, calling him a ‘strange, loose, vacuous spirit’ and a ‘scoffer’—taking over the Contra-Remonstrant tag against which Robbertsz had always defended himself vociferously.132 Yet despite the Remonstrants’ efforts to sanitize their own history by effacing such troubling, discordant voices, Robbertsz’s Spiritualist toleration thinking did not altogether disappear: in 1646 the Frisian H. de Leeuw brought out a new edition of Robbertsz’s work on the nature of the true church, a sign that even in this wholly altered politico-religious landscape the core elements of his religious ideas were still seen to be of value.133 The most telling example of the appropriation of Erasmus can be found in the ‘life of Coornhert’ which appeared as an introduction to the folio edition of 130  [Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu], Onder Verbeteringh: Een Mey-praetjen tusschen vader ende sone, over ’t geschil der professoren . . . tot Leyden (1610); [Robbert Robbertsz Le Canu], Sommighe buertpraetgens, van de resolutie der Ed. Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vriesland, ende de magistraten der stad Hoorn: alles dienende tot opbouwinghe van de ware Gereformeerde kercke (Hoorn: Willem Andriessz, 1614). 131  Burger, ‘Robbert Robbertsz. Le Canu’, 135. The pamphlet that caused Gomarus’s wrath must have been the Nieuwe-jaars claach-liedt, over de dood van D.D. Jacobus Arminius. ( . . . ) op de wijse vanden Tweeden Psalm, Waerom raest het volck met sulcken hoochmoedt (1610). 132  Burger, ‘Robbert Robbertsz. Le Canu’, 156–7. 133  Robbert Robbertsz le Canu, Rechte aen-wijsinghe tot die ware sichtbare kercke Gods (Statum, gedruckt voor Arent Sjoerssz, 1646).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

83

Coornhert’s Works. While the Works did not appear before 1633, the originator of the project and author of the ‘life of Coornhert’, Coornhert’s friend Adriaan Cornelisz Boomgaerd, had been working on it since 1612 and undoubtedly intended it as a contribution to the Arminian controversy. Boomgaerd’s ‘Life’ contains the germ of what would later develop into ‘the Coornhert-myth’.134 He begins with Coornhert’s civic career as a notary of the town of Haarlem, and servant of the Prince of Orange. Proceeding to describe Coornhert’s conflict with the Reformed and the disputations at Leiden and The Hague, he broadens his narrative into a nutshell version of the Remonstrant history of the struggle for freedom of conscience. According to Boomgaerd, nobody wrote ‘more beneficially, zealously and correctly, with the power of truth, against the constraint of conscience and for the common freedom of the land—out of love only and without any compensation, unless one wanted to count the mortal hatred he in this way gained as remuneration’.135 The fact that, in spite of the machinations of the preachers, the forcing of conscience has not become as widespread a practice in Holland as in other provinces was no doubt due to the warning effect of Coornhert’s ‘prophetic mind’.136 Having established his main point, Boomgaerd rushes his narrative to a conclusion, halting only to describe Coornhert’s exemplary death-bed. What is interesting, however, is the way in which Coornhert, who never ­acknowledged the Reformed Church as the true church, but who had equally criticized Erasmus for not leaving a church which he knew was corrupt, is here presented as one of the key figures in a tradition of Dutch Reformed Protestantism leading from Erasmus to Arminius, who, according to Boomgaerd, was brought to doubt the Calvinist doctrine of predestination by reading a work of Coornhert which he had been commissioned to refute.137 With complete disregard for one of the cornerstones of Coornhert’s religious beliefs, the idea that certainty in difficult doctrinal matters can be achieved, Boomgaerd proceeds to make the foundation of Coornhert’s views on toleration Erasmian. ‘For the main point of our Christian religion’, he states, ‘is peace and unity, which cannot be maintained unless one ­defines as few point as possible, and leaves judgement free in many things’, ‘as has also been very accurately and correctly observed by the well-renowned Erasmus of Rotterdam in his letter of 1522 to the Archbishop of Palermo as a preface to the works of the Church Father Hilary’.138 Among the authors praising Coornhert produced by Boomgaerd one encounters friends and patrons like Spiegel and Artus van Brederode, as well as his onetime opponent Lipsius, who praises Coornhert’s sharp intellect, and expresses his regret about having quarrelled with him. Of the proponents of the States party, we encounter only Grotius, who, from his exile in Paris showed himself willing to 134  ‘Het leven van D.V. Coornhart’, in, Coornhert, Wercken, I, fos 1r–6r. On the ‘Coonrhert-myth’, see Marianne Roobol, Disputation by Decree (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 53–64. See also E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier, ‘Coornhert in de geschiedschrijving’, in H. Bonger et al. (eds), Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert: Dwars maar recht (Zutphen: De Walbug Pers, 1989), 154–70. 135  ‘Het leven van D.V. Coornhart’, in Coornhert, Wercken, I, sig. 4v. 136  ‘Het leven van D.V. Coornhart’, in Coornhert, Wercken, I, sig. 5r. 137  Het leven van D.V. Coornhart’, in Coornhert, Wercken, I, sig. 3v. 138  Het leven van D.V. Coornhart’, in Coornhert, Wercken, I, sig. 4v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

84

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 5 Anonymous, The Arminian Dungcart (1619) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

praise Coornhert’s dedication to the good cause in a way that would have been unthinkable at the time of the Ordinum pietas. Conspicuously absent, however, are  the Remonstrant theologians and scholars.139 The Contra-Remonstrants, on the other hand, were only too eager to lump the Remonstrants together with the ‘Coornhertists’, as is illustrated by the engraving, The Arminian Dung-cart (Den Arminiaenschen Dreck-waghen, 1618) (see Figure 5), where the Remonstrant leadership, here identified as Johannes Uytenbogaert, Jacobus Arminius, Petrus Bertius, Conradus Vorstius, Jacobus Taurinus, and Adolphus Venator, up to their elbows in shit, are depicted in the company of David Joris, and Coornhert. The cart is drawn by two bolting horses (an allusion, possibly, to the horses on the frontispiece of 139  ‘Eenighe loffelijcke ghetuyghenissen van Dierick Vol-kaersen Coornhart Amsterdammer, een Licht van sijnen tijdt’, Wercken, I, sigs. 6v–7v. For the polemical association of Arminianism with the  ideas of Coornhert, see J. Trigland, Kerkelyke Geschiedenissen . . . (Leiden: Adriaen Wyngaerden, 1649), 715.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

85

Coster’s Iphigenia) identified as ‘Discord’.140 The dung-cart’s four wheels identify the pillars of the Remonstrantism: ‘free will’, ‘moderates’, disturbance of the truth, and, a reference to the controversies of the 1570s and 1580s, ‘old hatred’. The cart’s canopy, ‘so-called Reformed religion’ is tangled up in a knot, and tied to four posts identified as ‘calumny’, ‘false appearance’, ‘lies’, and ‘self-interest’. The whole ramshackle construction is held together by ‘universal license’. Two Jesuits stand nearby the road leading ‘to Rome’, while on the right, an Arminian vainly attempts to persuade a Reformed preacher to climb on board. A rebus identifies the small figure in a field holding a burning torch as the instigator of the troubles: Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (burning = barnen; field = veld).141 2.4   T H E A C A D E M Y A N D T H E A L E H O U S E : T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F A N T I - C A LV I N I S T S AT I R E A direct consequence of the polemical appropriation of ‘Erasmian’ toleration was the development of a polemical anti-Calvinist rhetoric, complete with a repertoire of mutually reinforcing stereotypes. That this should be so is perhaps not surprising, seeing that the activities of controversialists, pamphleteers, and politically engaged publishers like Jasper Tournay and Matthijs Bastiaensz, show a strong element of intellectual and personal continuity between the anti-Calvinist debates of the late sixteenth century and the Arminian controversy. In this way, the activities of the team of authors who translated the work of Castellio around the turn of the century bring together the friends and supporters of Coornhert with pro-Remonstrant polemicists like Telle. Even so there is more at stake than the ­dynamics of popular religious controversy alone. The rhetoric of peace, consensus, and moderation also pushes to the surface the inherent paradoxes of the early modern debate on toleration. Because the proponents of toleration argue from a position in which the objective good of peace, moderation, and consensus are beyond question or dispute, every attack or attempt to reframe the debate is invariably figured as arising from sheer pig-headed stupidity, misguided zeal, or lack of charity. The conflictual nature of religious parrhesia, in which one’s credibility as a truth-speaker is constituted by the public assertion of one’s ethical and hermeneutic virtues, and the censure of one’s opponents for lacking these same virtues, feeds into this mechanism. One can already detect this dynamic in Coornhert’s religious polemics, yet what is lost in the later phase of the Arminian controversy is the relatively restrained tone in which Coornhert had voiced his critique. With this loss of polemical decorum was lost also the idea, cherished by Grotius until 140  See the discussion of the frontispiece of Iphigenia in Ch. 3.3. 141 Anon. Den Arminiaenschen Dreck-waghen gheheel naer het leven afgebeelt ghelijck de letters binnen uytwijsen sullen (Amsterdam, 1618). On this pamphlet, see Marijke Meijer Drees, ‘Kijken, lezen, oordelen. Prent en tekst van het pamflet Den Arminiaenschen Dreck-waghen (1618)’, in M. van Vaeck, H. Brems, and G. H. M. Claassens (eds), De steen van Alciato. Literatuur en visuele cultuur in de Nederlanden. Opstellen voor Prof. Dr. Karel Porteman bij zijn emeritaat (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 495–513.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

86

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the very end, that at least the moderate Contra-Remonstrants could be won to the cause of religious tolerance. New in the polemical literature of the Arminian controversy was the way in which next to, and indeed in conjunction with the controversy over predestination, the debate over the persecution of heretics now gained centre stage. The polemical link between predestination and persecution can already been found in the Contra libellum Calvini (1612 [1554]) of Castellio (1515–63), an author whose influence on the pamphlet literature we will discuss in the following.142 At the level of argument, this association goes back to the debate on the meaning of the word ‘tares’ in the parable of the wheat and the tares, the single most important biblical locus of the toleration debate. Beza had here given a determinist interpretation: a species cannot change its nature, and the tares will never become ears of wheat.143 The fusing of these two distinct issues proved a goldmine for Arminian and antiCalvinist pamphleteers, who used it to argue that the orthodox interpretation of predestination was not merely wrong but was a danger to freedom, morality, and society. In the following years, a polemical caricature of Calvinist predestination, viewed as a synecdoche for Contra-Remonstrant cruelty and intolerance, grew ­increasingly pronounced. From an issue that, in Arminius’s view, did not touch upon man’s salvation, it came to be viewed as an abomination, an offence to God’s honour, a ‘murderous doctrine’ that destined unborn or unbaptized infants to the eternal flames of hell. This anti-predestinarian rhetoric reached its climax in Vondel’s poem ‘Decretum Horribile: Horror of Destruction’ (‘Decretum Horribile. Gruwel der verwoestinghe’ 1631), but can already be found in pamphlets like The Hobgoblin, containing some questions for the Contra-Remonstrants concerning the ­predestination of underage children, who die in their infancy (Quelgheest.bevattende enkele vragen aan de Contra-Remonstranten van de predestinatie van onmondige kinderen, in haar kindsheid stervende, 1618).144 Following the work of the translators of Castellio in the early seventeenth century allows one to trace the genesis of this rhetoric, and follow the activities of those figures who helped to shape it. Castellio’s work had enjoyed an early popularity in the Low Countries, playing a role in the debates around the religious peace of 1579. Coornhert possessed Castellio’s Latin Bible (Biblia sacra Latina, 1551) and De haereticis an sint persequendi (1554), which he cites approvingly in the Trial of the Killing of Heretics, and 142  Hans R. Guggisberg, ‘Haïr ou instruire les héretiques? La Notion d’hérétique chez Sébastien Castellion et sa situation dans l’exil bâlois’, in Hans R. Guggisberg, Frank Lestringant, and Jean-Claude Margolin (eds), La Liberté de conscience (XVe–XVIIe siècles): Actes du Colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989) (Geneva: Droz, 1991), 65–81, 74. 143 Bietenholz, Encounters, 97–8. 144 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 248; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 442–3; anon., D’Arminiaanhsce Quelgheest.bevattende enkele vragen aan de Contra-Remonstranten van de predestinatie van onmondige kinderen, in haar kindsheid stervende. Trigland furnished a reply Geessel om uyt te dryven dem Arminiaenschen Quel-gheest (Amsterdam: Marten Jansz Brant, 1618); Vondel, ‘Decretum Horribile: Gruwel der verwoestinghe’, De Werken van Joost van den Vondel: Volledige en geïllustreerde tekstuitgave (Amsterdam: Maatschappij voor goede en goedkope literatuur, 1927–40) (henceforth WB), iii. 1627–1640 (1929), 346–51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

87

appears to have been intimately familiar with De arte dubitandi et confidendi.145 After his death, Coornhert’s friends and supporters continued the propagation of Castellio’s work. In 1604, Dirck Adriaensz Kemp and Cornelis Boomgaerd brought out a Dutch translation of the Quinque impedimentorum . . . ennumeratio, as a reply to the Dutch translation of Beza’s De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis (1554) by Henricus Geldorpius and Johannes Bogerman.146 In the following years Castellio’s work became increasingly instrumentalized as ammunition against the Contra-Remonstrants. In 1612 appeared the first printed edition of Castellio’s polemical Contra libellum Calvini, which had up to that ­moment circulated only in manuscript. Editor and publisher of the book, and ­author of its dedication, was the ubiquitous Reinier Telle. A year later, in the year of the publication of the Ordinum pietas, Telle translated the work into Dutch. The years 1612–13 marked the high tide of Castellio’s popularity. In 1612 the printing presses of publisher Jaspar Tournay in Gouda produced an edition of the Dialogi quatuor, including the opuscula added to these by Socinus in his edition of 1578, together with the Annotationes ad cap. IX ad Romanos, the Quinque impedimentorum . . . enumeratio, and the Tractatus de justificatione.147 Tournay’s publishing activities in these years sound like a catalogue of all things abhorrent to the orthodox: as well as Coornhert and Castellio he produced works by David George, Sebastian Franck, Vorstius, as well as Remonstrant controversialists such as Eduardus Poppius, Haroldus Tombergen, and Theodorus Herbers, the son of Herman Herbers.148 In 1613, the Haarlem publisher Pieter Arentsz brought out what for a long time would be the definitive Castellio edition, the Opera Sebastiani Castellionis, which included all the works that had up to that point been translated into Dutch, including the Contra libellum Calvini, as well as four new ones, including the De praedestinatione . . . ad Borrhaum and the De calumnia. The dedication to the States of Holland stressed the particular relevance of Castellio’s ideas in this time of Contra-Remonstrant intolerance.149 From Telle’s 1613 Dutch translation of the Contra libellum Calvini one can trace a strain of increasingly vitriolic anti-Calvinist polemic, culminating in the notorious John Calvin: Cruel, Bitter, Deceitful, a libel pamphlet published in 1619 by the Remonstrant minister Hendrik Slatius (Oosterland 1585–The Hague 1623), who, as it happens, was also a kinsman of Telle.150 In 1616, in response to the controversy that had arisen over the measures against the Contra-Remonstrants at Zevenhuizen, and Grotius’s ‘Schielands Placcaat’, Slatius had brought out an anonymous pamphlet titled The Tyrannies, abuses and Lies of John Calvin, that is a Brief and Clear Instruction for Simple Hearts (Joannis Calvini tyrannien, scheldingen 145  Hans R. Guggisberg, Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 274. 146  Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle traducteur’, 150. 147 Guggisberg, Castellio, 276. 148  P. H. M. Abels, ‘Spreekbuis voor dissenters: De drukkerij van Jasper Tournay’, in In die stad van die Goude (Delft: Eburon, 1992), 221–62. 149  Fontaine Verwey, ‘Reinier Telle traducteur’, 153. 150  On Slatius see Nauta et al., Biografisch Lexicon, i. 345–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

88

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

en leughenen: dat is, Korte ende klare onderrichtinghe voor eenvoudighe herten . . . ).151 One year later, in a pamphlet printed for the publisher Matthijs Bastiaensz in Rotterdam, Slatius was still attacking the Schielanders, this time stepping out of anonymity to ‘prove’ how the Contra-Remonstrant doctrine of reprobation means that children, including those of the faithful, who die in the age of innocence might be damned by God’s unalterable decree.152 In 1619, when Slatius, who, following the expulsion of the Remonstrant preachers after the Synod of Dort, had been installed as director of the clandestine Remonstrant printing press in Antwerp, again took up the libel offensive against Calvin and his Contra-Remonstrant followers in a pamphlet of which the offensiveness can best be gauged by reading its title out aloud: John Calvin, Cruel, Bitter, Deceitful. That is: a Short and Clear Description of the Nature or Spirit of John Calvin, showing him in his Tyrannies, Lies and Slanders. Extracted from the Teachings of John Calvin.153 Yet in apparent contradiction of the title, the pamphlet does not go into Calvin’s theological works; ­indeed the pamphlet side-steps doctrinal controversy altogether, but gives a concise, yet detailed (and annotated!) account of the way in which Calvin, through a mixture of intrigue, sly manoeuvres, and slander campaigns against opponents managed to establish his rule over Geneva after a protracted struggle with the urban magistrate. This, it will be obvious, is what Slatius wants us to believe to be Calvin’s true teachings. Indeed, what seems to be at stake here is not a mere ­unmasking of the Machiavel in the guise of a religious reformer but an ‘anatomia Calvinismi’, performed via the attack on its founding father. Arguments that the Calvinists were attempting to erect a new papacy, bolstered by a Genevan Inquisition, had been voiced since the days of Coornhert and Coolhaes. Complaints about their ineradicable tendency to insubordination, rebellion, and treason, with as loci classici the loss of Ghent, the failure of Orange’s policy of religious coexistence in the Southern Netherlands, and the implication of the Leiden Calvinists in Leicester’s conspiracy, became ubiquitous during the Arminian controversy, when more and more they came to be presented as proof that the Contra-Remonstrants were aiming to subordinate the worldly magistrate to the church. But it is Slatius who pushes the logic of this argument to its conclusion. What the pamphlet attempts to demonstrate, in a way that is not dissimilar to Milton’s analysis of Catholicism in Areopagitica, is that the Calvinist church is not so much a church as a worldly power, an international organization, inimical to liberty of conscience and political freedom.154 As a speech act, Slatius’s analysis of the power struggle between the Calvin and the Genevan magistrate offers a radical 151  Anon. [Hendrik Slatius], Joannis Calvini tyrannien, scheldingen en leughenen: dat is, Korte ende klare onderrichtinghe voor eenvoudighe herten (1616). 152  Hendrik Slatius, Henrici Slatii bewijs, dat de schuer-predicanten vrienden ende toestanders van dese lere, dat Godt on-mondige jonge kinderkens, die in hare onbejaertheyt sterven, zelfs der geloovighen van eeuwigheyt heeft verworpen, ende in tijde gedoemt (Rotterdam: Matthijs Bastiaensz, 1617). 153  Anon. [Hendrik Slatius], Iohannes Calvinus vreedt, bitter, vals. Dat is: Corte en Clare verbeeldinghe vanden aert of gheest Iohannis Calvini hem vertonende in sijne tyrannie, leughenen ende scheldinghe. Ghetrokken wt Joannis Calvini leere (Antwerp: Guillaume Leestens, 1619). 154  David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 120; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 266–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

89

solution—a blow at the root of the problem of international Calvinism. Slatius’s argument signals the point where religious controversy has reached its ultimate point of polarization. Yet, as we shall see in the following chapters on Coster’s Iphigenia and Vondel’s Palamedes, Slatius was by no means the only author who espoused it. The same figures who took the lead in the anti-Calvinist pamphlet campaign were also at the vanguard of the avalanche of satirical and libellous ephemera which galvanized Dutch literary culture in the second decade of the seventeenth century. This new genre of satire was parasitic upon a culture of religious conflict which it appropriated into a stock of demotic or semi-popular forms such as the mocking ballad, the verse libel, the farce, and the animal fable. The thwarted energies of religious controversial literature, with its labyrinthine and repetitive moves of claim and counter-claim, assertion and confutation, apology and responsio, were now unleashed to spectacular effect, leading to an explosion of cheap print and a proliferation of new literary forms such as the mock-confession, the mock-catechism, and the mock-death-scene narrative. Telle in particular was gifted at reshaping the anti-Calvinist rhetoric of religious controversial literature into the mould of urban satire. In 1616, he provoked the ire of the Contra-Remonstrants with his Tableau, which claimed to demonstrate ‘the great and clear difference between Holy Writ and the teaching of the Reformed Church, and that of the Contra-Remonstrants’. While de-contextualized reading is habitual practice in religious polemic, the Tableau takes this method to a new level. Quoting a dozen sources, ranging from the Institutes, Calvin and Beza’s Commentaries on Romans 9, and the text of The Hague conference, on questions such as divine causation, reprobation, and ineffective calling, the opposite column of the pamphlet gives loci from scripture which contradict the ‘orthodox’ sense. Below these, marginal notes refer the reader to a sacred text that seems to correspond to the orthodox view—the Quran!155 If the Contra-Remonstrants were willing to cast the Remonstrant view on predestination as papist, or even Pelagian, there was always a pamphleteer to be found on the other side who was willing to raise the stakes even further by equating the ContraRemonstrant view with ‘Mahomedan fatalism’. Telle concludes his dashing exploit of multiple misreadings by asking the reader ‘to consider whether the teaching of the Contra-Remonstrants is not identical to the faith of the Mahomedans and Turks, and whether the High Mighty Lords the States of Holland have not had good reason to bar these abominations from the Churches of their land?’156 In the following year, Telle brought out a mocking ballad, ‘The CounterRemonstrant Slate’ (Der Contraremonstranten kerf-stock, die nimmermeer yser wordt, set to the tune ‘Twas a pretty, rich burgher’s child’) that advertised the virtues of 155  Anon. [Reinier Telle] TAFEREEL, begrypende kortelijck het cort ende merkelijck verschil datter is tusschen de leere der H. Schriftuere ende der Gereformeerde kercken/ aen d’ene / ende der Contra-Remonstranten aen d’andere syde (1616). A refutation of the Tafereel appeared under the title On-deckinghe van Verscheyden On-waerheyden, ende ontrouvvicheyden, begaen in een seecker Schrift t’Amsterdam Wtghegheven, met den Titel TAFEL Begrijpende ’t Verschil tusschen de Leere des Goddelijcken Woordts ender der Remonstranten [1617], sig. A5v, 8. 156 Telle, Tafereel, sig. A5v–6r, 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

90

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the  dogma of the perseverance of the saints with great enthusiasm. For the elect sinner, this ‘slate’ is a veritable panacea: neither sin nor transgression need worry him, as he goes through life with a slate carved with sins, and a conscience as light as a feather. The Catholics, the narrator concludes, are poor sods indeed: they labour through confession and penance to obtain what God has granted the elect for free.157 Yet it was Telle’s kinsman Slatius who with The Predestined Thief (Den gepredestineerden dief, 1619), a dialogue between a Calvinist minister and a thief destined for the gallows, exploited the possibilities of the genre to the maximum. While the Werdegang of the unrepentant thief offers a comic, occasionally hilarious, account of ‘Calvinist’ hypocrisy and duplicity (including an episode that could be called ‘How to have a good time in Geneva without getting caught; and what to do if you are’), the pamphlet also offers a theological debate in which the two participants are more than well matched. When the minister, worn out and exasperated by the thief ’s argumentative skill and utter lack of moral scruple, finally gives up the attempt to effect a change of heart, what matters is perhaps not so much the question of which of the two is right—although it would appear that the thief has the upper hand in the argument—but rather the uncomfortable awareness that the doctrines of election and reprobation, when pushed to their logical extremes, rob ministerial and pastoral care of its solace, creating a spiritual wasteland in which creatures like the predestined thief can flourish.158 Satire, as Andrew McRae has argued, is an indicator of the breakdown of consensus, a measure of the extent to which what had previously been accepted as orthodox or authoritative is being called into question.159 As such, it is closely ­associated with the rhetoric and performance of parrhèsia. In terms of performativity, the satirist’s work is similar to that of the parrhèsiastès: it justifies language that could be viewed as licentious through the speaker’s unflinching commitment to speaking the truth, and the all-pervasive presence of vice and hypocrisy in society. Viewed in this way, lack of refinement and rhetorical decorum, rather than being indicative of the speaker’s flawed moral status, becomes the satirist’s most powerful argument for his position as a plain-truth speaker, as simplicity or bluntness is ­inevitably if one wishes to speak the truth in an open, candid, and understandable way.160 Indeed, as we shall see in the following, satire’s aggressive energies aim to undermine the words of its opponents as false parrhèsia. Satire deliberately rejects everything that tends towards opacity or indirectness, in favour of a rhetoric of openness and disclosure that in a polarized context often takes on hyperbolic forms. The dominant metaphor associated with the satirist is that of the surgeon revealing society’s hidden ills: cutting open festering sores, applying strong but effective medicine. Thus, after the appearance of Palamedes, an admirer hailed Vondel as the 157  [Reinier Telle], Der Contraremonstranten kerf-stock, die nimmermeer yser wordt (Amsterdam, 1617). 158  [Hendrik Slatius], Den gepredestineerden dief, ofte, eenen t’samen-sprekinge: ghehouden tusschen een predikant der Calvinus gesinde, ende een dief, die ghesententieert was om te sterven ([Antwerp], 1619). 159  Andrew McRae, Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State (Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 86–7, 113. 160 McRae, Satire, 89–90, and Antónia Szabari, ‘Rabelais Parrhèsiastes: The Rhetoric of Insult and Rabelais’s Cynical Mask’, Modern Language Notes, 120/1 (2005), 86, 104–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

91

physician of his country’s ills, urging him to cut open ‘old sores’—and to continue doing so.161 Yet satirical cultures differ from country to country, and a comparison between the literature of the Arminian controversy and the satirical literature of Stuart England examined by McRae shows that the Republic’s satirical literature was markedly open, and more inclined divulgation than England. While in England libel verse such as the poems against Buckingham and those in praise of his assassin, Felton, seems to have belonged to a more clandestine, ‘underground’ current of political criticism, in the Republic this form of satirical and libellous literature verse was almost always printed, frequently as broadsides to be publicly displayed.162 Poetry did of course also circulate in manuscript, yet more material appears to have ‘leaked’ from manuscript to the press. Often, poems were distributed in the inner circle of friends and colleagues before being distributed in public places. Brandt describes how Hooft and Reael had a hearty laugh reading Vondel’s poem against burgomaster Reinier Pauw, ‘A New Song of Reynard the Fox’ (‘Nieuw lietgen van Reyntgen de Vos’, 1627), before it was printed with the subscript that it had been ‘written to be sung from the bridge, even if it would make Reynard explode with fury’.163 This seemingly innocuous instruction brings us to another, important feature of Dutch satirical culture: that a large part of the satire produced in this period—and this emphatically also includes libellous verse—was intended to be sung, as well as read. With the arrival of the Arminian controversy, this musical landscape was enriched by a new phenomenon: the doctrinal battle song, with which preachers on either side of the divide tried to instruct their flock in the right interpretation of predestination.164 Here, the continuing influence of the Beggars’ Songs may have played an important role. Yet here, too, satire made inroads, and the dividing line between doctrinal battle song and mocking ballad was sometimes very thin indeed. A good example of a satirical ballad posing as a doctrinal battle song is ‘All Human Affairs are Determined by Predestination’ (‘Ol es de mensch predestinacie’), attributed by Vondel to Laurens Reael, in which every last word ends on -acie, mimicking the sing-song accent of the Flemish immigrants who formed, as stereotype would have it, the majority of the most fervent Contra-Remonstrants.165 161 Anon., Aen den E.E. Welgeleerden Joost van den Vondelen, beroerende zijn Palamedes (1625). 162 McRae, Satire, 23–50; Alistair Bellany, ‘Rayling Rhymes and Vaunting Verse: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England’, in P. Lake and K. Sharpe (eds), Culture in Politics in Early Stuart England (London: Basingstoke, 1994), 285–310. 163  ‘Gemaakt om op de brug te zingen, al zal er Reintje er om zijn vel uit springen’, Vondel, ‘Nieuw lietgen van Reyntgen de Vos’, WB iii. 111–14. 164  The controversial battle song is not limited to the Arminian controversy, for the Mennonites also had recourse to songs to fight out their doctrinal differences. The early modern music ensemble Camerata Trajectina has brought some of the songs of the Arminian controversy—including two by Vondel—together on Bavianen en slijkgeuzen (Globe 6031, 1995). For the 16th-cent. Beggars’ Songs, see Camerata Trajectina and Ensemble Oltremontano, De Vrede van Munster: politieke muziek uit de 80 jarige oorlog (Globe 6048, 1998) and earlier, on gramophone record: Die tyranny verdrijven (vnm/ Eurosound ES 42.426; 1979). 165  Geeraerd Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven (Maastricht: Charles Nypels, 1928), 57. For another such poem in mock-Flemish, see Telle’s ‘Old Flemish Poem’ [Geerard Brandt], Apollo’s Harp (Amsterdam: Jan Henrysz en Jan Rieuwertsz. Boeckvercoopers, 1658), 230.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

92

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

A patrician like Reael would probably feel qualms about having his poem printed, and it is in fact through the efforts of Brandt, who published a substantial number of poems related to the Arminian controversy in his Apollo’s Harp (1658) that the poem is still extant in printed form.166 Yet the majority of satirical and ­libellous poetry was in fact printed. This category includes most of the poems on the death of Oldenbarnevelt, among which, as we will see, can be found attacks on the Prince of Orange that are little short of seditious, as well as libel poems on politicians and clergymen. Indeed, most of the poets whom we will discuss in the following, like Telle, Coster, and Vondel, chose more openly libellous forms in attacking prominent Contra-Remonstrant preachers like Trigland, Badius, Cloppenburg, and Smout; men whom they could meet in the street, whose sermons they could attend, and who, by all accounts, they seem to have hated with a passion. As well as being open, vociferous, and very much part of popular print and song culture, Dutch satire seems entirely uninhibited when it comes to the question of ‘popularity’. There is very little in the work to suggest that writers like Telle, Coster, or Vondel had any qualms about mixing the serious with the comic, the satirical with the libellous, and high theology with popular religious stereotype. If anything, ‘popularity’, for these men, seems to have constituted an opportunity, rather than a problem. Vondel, Telle, and Coster were acutely aware of the powerful hold charismatic preachers like Trigland and Smout could exercise over the population, and it was exactly this form of ‘popularity’ they seem to have disliked most in them. Yet they were confident enough about their own capacity to win an audience to attack the ‘zealots’ head on. Both Vondel and Coster, were, of course, men of the stage, and if anything, the tremendous success of the comedies of Bredero, whose jokes, as Vondel’s epitaph had it, could make even the gloomy ghosts in Charon’s boat burst out laughing, would have impressed them with the power of laughter.167 Part of the story of Coster’s Academy in the years 1617–22 is therefore, about the competition for an audience. Moreover, the ‘Academists’ had the tactical advantage that, for them, any kind of publicity was good publicity. Indeed, as Coster never ceased to remind his opponents, it was to no small extent due to the preachers’ ceaseless railing against Coster’s Academy that the cash-boxes were flowing over. Vondel came to the same conclusion when he wrote ‘To the slanderers of the Academy’ (‘Op de lasteraers vande Academi’, 1630) that forbidding people to go to the theatre will only make their curiosity grow, for ‘gainsaying provokes the mind’s attraction / and to what is forbidden each takes particular affection’.168 To highlight the element of competition between poets and preachers is in no way to diminish the importance of the issues these satirical works addressed. It is only to emphasize that it is very difficult to draw clear boundaries between the 166  Apollo’s Harp, 198.   167 Vondel, WB i. 1605–1620 (1927), 792. 168  ‘Verbiet de lieden het toneel/Soo loopter seven mael so veel, / ’t Verboden wilmen allermeest / En tegenstreven noopt den geest/Wie dan den YVER blussen wil, / Sie door de vingers, en swijgh stil: / Want wort u op u seer geraeckt, / Soo denckt: ick heb’ter na gemaeckt. Vondel, ‘Op de lasteraers vande Academi’, Vondel, WB iii. 334.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

93

politico-religious controversiae, satire, and libel-offensive. At the interstices of satire and libel, we see ‘oral’ and literary culture merge almost imperceptibly. To damage the reputation of Trigland, a preacher of unrivalled popularity, a Remonstrant sympathizer, in this case the owner of the bakery called ‘the Little Rooster’, could ‘plant’ the rumour that he had seen him in a state of intoxication, walking, as was said, ‘on straw legs’—causing a scandal that would be picked up by Vondel, who dedicated several poems to Trigland’s indulgence in the fleshly pleasures of beer and wife beating.169 A considerable part of the appeal of such mocking rhymes and ballads depended moreover on the tune to which they were set. Thus Vondel’s ‘Rumbling Pot of the Chicken Run’ (a translation that does not quite capture the Dutch ‘Rommelpot van’t Hanekot’) of 1627, the squabbling of the roosters of the Amsterdam consistory, Smout, Cloppenburgh, and Trigland, is set to the tinkettling of Maarten Jansz Brandt, the Contra-Remonstrant publisher, sung in a quaint dialect that seems to recall the prose style of Vincent van Drielenburgh, a Contra-Remonstrant pamphleteer and arch-enemy of Telle.170 Even more popular was the tune ‘Betteken voer naar Marienmont’, which Vondel used for his poem against Otto Badius, ‘An Otter in the Bulwark’ (‘Een Otter in't Bolwerck’, 1630).171 The answer came in the form of the anonymous ‘Dogs out of the Church—Against the Otter in the Bulwark’ (‘Honden uit de Kerck tegen den Otter in't Bolwerck’)172, and another ‘Attempt at an Answer to the Otter in the Bulwark’ (‘Versoeck tot Antwoordt van Een Otter int Bolwerck’).173 The song in fact seems to have taken on a life of its own, for when Vondel once more decided to drop a bombshell, bringing out his rhymed prize contest, at least one reply, ‘Aesop’s Donkeys on Stage’ (‘Aesopus Ezels op ’t Tooneel’), was set to the same tune. The reply, it is almost needless to say, came in identical form under the title ‘Aesop’s Donkeys in the Pulpit’ (‘Aesopus’ Ezels op den Stoel’).174 In Vondel’s ‘The Poets against the Consistory’ (dated 1628), which presents the poet’s companions, Coster, Bredero, Mostart, and Victorinus, as a band of literary brothers-in-arms, bravely fighting off the attacks of the ‘consistorian madmen’, we can sense something of the atmosphere of this polemical ballading. Parnassus may have replaced the inn as background, but the atmosphere is that of the alehouse with its riotous hilarity and debasing, carnivalesque humour.175 These poems 169  On Trigland’s reputation for heavy drinking, Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i 212–13. ­ ccording to Vondel: ‘Wie sach oyt gecken sonder bel? / Kalkoentjen is wat root van vel / En suyver geus, A / Om dat de Rijnsche muskadel / Met al het suyver nat / Van ’t Heydelbergsche vat, / Treckt in sijn neus, / En daerom buldert hy soo fel, / Als Goliath den Reus; / Wy achtent boert, en kinder-spel. / By dronck is hy wat beus; / Maer nuchteren wonder geus.’ ‘Op Haen Kalkoen’, WB iii. 337–8. 170  Vondel, ‘Rommel-pot vant hane-kot’, WB iii. 115–23. 171  Vondel, ‘Een otter in’t Bolwerck’, WB iii. 335–7. 172  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten (Leiden: Slijthoff, 1890), i. 245–7. 173  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 247–9. 174  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 236–8 and 239–41; see also Micke B. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1986), 335–7. 175  ‘De goddeloose plonder-geest / Liet vliegen eenen donder-veest / Van uyt sijn lasterlogen-gat, / De stanck die quam gevlogen rat / By Dichters, op Parnassus neck; / Wat bruyt ons deuse Classis-geck. / Nu Prekers bystre wegen gaan, / Riep Breroo, vijster tegen aan: / Laat Luyt en Koster, Victoryn, / Of Malsen vry den pictor zijn, / Om af te malen desen dreet, / Die ons poëten vreesen deed’; / En hangen die, als wapen, veur / De donderdaachsche Papendeur; / Op dat dit volckje blint en manck, / Denckt,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

94

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

combine literary sophistication—or at least ingenuity and wit—with an emphasis on the rude, crude, scurrilous, and bathetic. Most focus on the lower stratum of the body, and on its openings in particular: the mouth, through which gargantuan measures of alcohol are consumed, and from which tempests of words and floods of spit flow, or the anus, from which equally insalubrious farts are produced. Yet this scurrilous emphasis on the body is not merely humorous banter. It touches upon one of the fundamental tenets of early modern physiology: that the body is not a closed, sealed-off entity, but rather an open, porous, vessel that communicates with its surrounding environment, and that it is, therefore, fundamentally unstable as a locus of identity.176 The compulsive scrutiny of the physical body thus brings the reader/listener back to one of the central preoccupations of early modern culture: the opposition between essence and appearance, between the splendid exterior and the flawed, corrupt interior, between the deceptiveness of speech and the inscrutability of the heart.177 While most authors accepted that the heart could not be known, they nevertheless engaged, as McRae has phrased it, in ‘processes of scrutiny and inscription’, scouring the behaviour or the physical condition of their adversary for outward ‘marks’ that could be interpreted as signs of hidden corruption, or the outward manifestations of a guilty conscience.178 It is this preoccupation with the avenging conscience which we will encounter in our discussion of the literature generated by the execution of Oldenbarnevelt, and in the rumours that in the years after the Advocate’s death grew up around a number of his judges, and indeed, around the Prince of Orange himself. Alternatively, the poems and ballads target the outward marks of clerical authority: their long gowns and patriarchal beards and, not least, their style of preaching. Thus, as Vondel, again aiming at Trigland’s drinking habits, punned epigrammatically ‘Even though the devil, like a papist, goes dressed in black / His nose betrays him, or his tail’.179 But it was in particular the vehemence which typifies the sermonizing of ministers such as Trigland (that ‘thundering Goliath’, as Vondel called him) and Adriaan Smout, which won them great popularity among Heer, wat zijn wy wint en stanck: / Wat geven wy de kleuren schijn, / Die rechte slechte leuren zijn. / De Preeck-stoel lacht de Dichters uyt, / En hy is selfs een lichter guyt. / Soo ’t guyten zijn, wiens toverreen / ’t Volck eeren doen hun Overheen, / En nimmer sotte zielen broen, / Gelijck die botte fielen doen, / Die malle Ian te klauwen plach, / Soo dick hy speelde vrouwen dach: / En swetste met sijn Priester breet, / Wanneer hy Burgemiesters scheet / En Schepens, op die greep geleert, / ’t Ging glat, al wast met zeep gesmeert. / Dan gilde ’t gecke Doorentje, / Trots Waach, trots Dam, trots Toorentje, / Een Vinck, die ’t van de geesten hoort, / Die seyt het aen geen beesten voort.’ Vondel, ‘De poeten tegens het consistorie’, WB iii. 180–1. 176  Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and his World, tr. Helene Iswolsky (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), 26. 177  On early modern conceptions of the body see among others Jonathan Sawday, ‘Self and Selfhood in the Seventeenth Century’, in Roy Porter (ed.), Rewriting the Self: Histories from the Renaissance to the Present (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 29–48. For the interrelated problematic of inwardness, conscience, and the heart, see Katherine Eisaman Maus, Inwardness and Theatre in the English Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 1–34. 178 McRae, Satire, 65–8. 179  ‘hy lijckt een sant en dubbel geus / En voert een roo kalkoense neus / Al speelt de droes de paep in’t Swart / syn snuyt verraat hem, of syn start’, epigram to Vondel’s ‘Amsterdamsche Kakistorie of Muyt-school’, WB iii. 298–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

95

their own congregations, that poets like Vondel and Coster found offensive. In Coster’s Euripylus, one of the evil geniuses of Iphigenia, the priest’s loud, blaspheming mouth metonymically stands for his whole persona (Euripylus translates as ‘gaping gate’). Behind the caricatures of Contra-Remonstrant ministers as thundering demagogues and braying donkeys, however, lies a genuine conflict of values about the language and behaviour appropriate to minister of God’s Word. A model that foregrounds moderation, peacefulness, and mildness clashed with a more impassioned preaching style associated with the so-called passionate plain style in orthodox preaching.180 For Contra-Remonstrants such as Reginanld Donteclock, ‘zeal’, and outspokenness, or even severity, in the criticizing of erring magistrates are the marks of a religious freedom of speech that goes back to the example of Paul.181 Closer to home, there is a link to the rhetoric of censure employed by Calvin in his role as defender of the true faith against heretics and detractors, which justifies frankness, even severity with an appeal to the defence of Christ’s church on earth.182 It was this notion of zeal as linked to aedificatio, the building and defence of the true church, which came under direct attack, as the anti-Calvinists aimed to ­unmask their opponents’ frankness as false parrhèsia. Thus, zeal for the cause of religion came to be construed as fanaticism and intolerance, while frankness was redescribed as dangerous licence, indicative of a lack of true Christian humility, or as spiritual arrogance and worldly ambition. Indeed, inspired language could be the marker of a false prophet, just as much as a religious parrhèsiastes. In response to Gomarus’s satirizing him as an ignoramus in religious matters, Robbert Robbertsz’s May-Talk, exposes Gomarus as a false prophet ‘inebriated with the strong drink of the Lord’.183 A six-line poem accompanying the quotation would leave no doubt about the identification of this false prophet.184 In a similar vein, but exchanging prophetic satire for libel verse, Vondel attempted to demonstrate how Trigland’s ­inspired manner of preaching derived from a taste for Heidelberg wine, rather than a dedication to the Heidelberg Catechism.185 A good deal of the humour of the libel verse and ballads thus depends on a ­familiarity with the local personae and their particular vices, yet these vices are never ‘merely’ personal, but serve, without exception, as template images of Contra-­ Remonstrant vice, hypocrisy and duplicity. In ‘An Otter in the Bulwark’, Vondel had sought to attack on two levels: combining the image of the garrulous, intolerant Calvinist, ridiculous in his rabid animosity against the Academy (‘He let his spit fly freely, so fervently rails he, against Coster’s Academy’) with that of the old fool 180  On the passionate plain style, see Deborah Shuger, Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in the English Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 51–3, 65, 69–71, 93–5, 98–101, 108–9, 145–6, 229–30. 181 Donteclock, Overlegginge, 26–7. 182  Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: CUP, 1982), 193–4. 183  ‘The priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink, they err in vision, they stumble in judgement. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean’ (Isaiah 28: 7). 184 Robbertsz, Een mey-praetjen tusschen vader ende sone, title-page. 185  Vondel, ‘Op Haen Kalkoen’, WB iii. 337–8, 337.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

96

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

courting a young girl. For Vondel, it must have been a stroke of luck that Badius’s beloved was a full cousin of Coster, for—how typical of these Calvinists—the poor doctor had been struck off the invitation list!186 The opposing camp, which, after a few years of having served as anvil, finally learnt to take up the hammer, had their own favourite targets: primarily the poets’ reputation for Arminianism, ‘libertinism’, and loose living, as well as their eternal lack of money. ‘Dogs out of the Church’, thus contains a warning to Vondel that he should be suspicious of Coster’s friendship for it is his wife that Doctor Coster is interested in.187 The main target of this mudslinging here is Coster, ‘Coster penniless’, that down-and-out, who would not get credit from goldsmiths nor from the silk makers (‘if you don’t believe me, the author assures you, feel free to ask those in the Warmoesstraat—or anywhere else in town’).188 So, when Coster had decided to remarry, he had succeeded in wheedling his daughter out of her ring, afterwards lying to the poor girl that he had lost it, ‘While she can see still see it every day on her step-mother’s hand’. ‘One would feel ashamed even to mention it’, the author claims, not quite sincerely, one suspects, ‘if the whole town did not already know of it’.189 In the rather funny ‘The Devil caught in a tangled skein’ (‘Droes in ’t Warregaern’), the devil is presented as an actor playing the dandy 186  Vondel, ‘Een Otter in’t Bolwerck’, WB iii. 335–7: ‘Wel hoe is Otjes hart so groen? / Wel hoe is Otjes hart so groen? / Dat hy dus yvert in’t sermoen, / O jeemy, o jeemy, / Om Boogers dochter ist te doen, / Hy preeckt van d’Acadeemy. / Ongs Otje is gien stomme hongt, / Ongs Otje, etc. / Hy woeckert met sen Miesters pongt, / jeemy, o eemy. / Het quijl dat loopt hum uyt sen mongt, / So schelt hy d’Acadeemy. / Dat preken klinckt tot Haerlem toe, / Dat preken, etc. / Elck vreest hum as de Roode-Roe, / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Hy maket alle Speulers moe, / En hekelt d’Acadeemy. / Wel Boogers dochter loopt hum na, / Wel Boogers, etc. / En segt nou tegens Otje ja. / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Wangt kreechje’m niet twas songt en scha, / So schrobt hy d’Academy. En asje gaet nae ’t Bruylofs huys, / En asje, etc. / So laet vry dockter Koster thuys: / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Al is hy Bruytjes Neef incluys, / Hy metste d’Academy. / Hy speulter nou sijn Iphigeen, / Hy speulter, etc. / Wel mannen broeders zijn dat reen. / O jeemy, o jeemy. / ’t Sijn Fielten sticken al mit een, / Godt schen deus Acadeemy. Al baet dat speulen ’t Weeshuys yet, / Al baet, etc. / Dat geeft an Otjes Vleeshuys niet, / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Wat beurt ongs spijt en groot verdriet, / Van deuse Acadeemy. / Neen Otje straf dit mit Goods woort, / Neen Otje, etc. / Al souje mit de tocht schuyt voort, / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Vry Otje schrey iens datmet hoort / In Costers Acadeemy. / Wel is dit niet ien wongder werck, / Wel is, etc. / Sy hieten ongs de plongder-kerck, / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Och broeders schuwt het dongderperck, / Van Costers Acadeemy. / Mocht Smout nou op de preecstoel staen / Mocht Smout, etc. / Hoe sou haer dan de Hagel slaen, / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Jan-rap in stee van Monckelbaen, / Sou plongd’ren d’Acadeemy. / Ick wouse saten inden Briel, / Ick wouse, etc. / Dit speulen raeckt myn ongder ziel. / O jeemy, o jeemy. / Ick hou mier van ien plongder fiel, / As van deus Acadeemy.’ 187  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 245. 188  The marginal notes in the plano print of the poem read: ‘Dat dit waerachtigh is sullen de winkeliers inde Warmoesstraat ende over al de stadt van Amsterdam, wel voor mijn verantwoorden.’ J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 246. 189  ‘Wangt toe hy kreeg’ sijn tweede vrouw, / Wangt toe, etc. / Ja wel ick wort beschaemt van jouw, / Entwegen, entwegen. / Kmien van jou Dochters Ring, dan nou / Veel beter noch ‘eswegen* / Je weet wel Koster wat ick mien, / Je weet wel, etc. / Dat toch wy bennent niet allien, / Dat Meysje, dat Meysje. / Dat klaptet teugen ellick-ien / Vry speultet, noch ien Reysje.’ ‘* Wat dit te seggen is meugje jou dochter vraeghen, doen sy u de ring van haer Moeder zal: leenden, daer ghyt fatsoen na wilde laten maecke. ** Doe ghy al rasende by avondt inquaemt, ende maectent kindt wijs dat ghyse verloren hadt, maer sy sietse haer Stieffmoer noch alle dagen aen haer handt dragen.’ J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 246–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets, Playwrights, and Pamphleteers

97

at  the Academy—oh yes, the author claims, ‘That was a poetical licence / Like he  used to practise with the kitchen wench / though now she’s buried at the leper-house/a bit removed from the Academy’.190 In Chapter  6.3, on the Academy’s rhymed prize-contest, we will deal more ­extensively with these poems and the anti-Arminian rhetoric and stereotype they employ. For the moment, it is important to stress that libel verse, despite its typically local flavour, nevertheless engages with the political and religious questions at heart of the Arminian controversy. What is more, it points to a fundamental ambiguity in the role of the popular press in the Arminian controversy. Nearly all the writers discussed so far appear caught in an uncomfortable split between a dedication to the Erasmian virtues and irreverent, sometimes downright ferocious satire. Writers like Telle, Coster, and Vondel incessantly preach concord, peace, and charity and almost immediately bounce back into the satirical mode, chastising the Contra-Remonstrants as scheming Machiavels, carping church crows, and braying donkeys, without—apparently—perceiving any contradiction. This ambiguity, characteristic of most of the self-acclaimed advocates of toleration, with their inability to see in their opponents’ unwillingness to compromise anything else than obstinacy, misguided zeal, or sheer stupidity, is at least in part due to these authors’ incapacity to bridle their satirical muses. That this should be the case in a country where literary culture has usually been described as bourgeois, consensus-oriented, and, on the whole, somewhat placid, is ironic, to say the least. Satire, more often than not, brushed shoulders with libel, transporting anti-­ Calvinist stereotype and invective from controversial literature into the streets, and finally onto the stage. Already in the 1570s and 1580s, Coornhert had articulated the main points of criticism which would later become part and parcel of an antiCalvinist rhetoric. Yet he had done so with care, assuming a position that would allow him to mediate between the extremists on either side, steering clear of crass generalizations or personal vituperation. In Coster’s Iphigenia we see a similar discursive set-up as in the Trial of the Killing of Heretics. Here, the Contra-Remonstrant zealots, personified by Euripylus and his followers, are confronted by a group of anti-­ clerical hotheads, led by the heroes Protesilaus and Ajax, while king Agamemnon is caught in the middle. Political prudence comes in the shape of old king Nestor, through whose sagacious advice calamity is prevented. Yet at the same time, Coster’s Iphigenia contains a more than average dose of anti-Calvinist rhetoric: showing, in its depiction of Euripylus-Trigland, the schismatic anatomized with a razor blade, the puritanical minister unmasked and crowned with a fool’s cap, paraded on stage for the audience to guffaw at. Both ingredients, needless to say, made for a highly inflammable cocktail. 190  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 243, ‘Dats een Poetsche vryicheyt / dat’s een, &c / Hy hadder ook een by syn Meyt / o jeemy, o jeemy, / ’t Welk by / ’t Pesthuys begraven leyt / Ver van de Academy.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

3 Poets on the Offensive Coster’s Academy and the Staging of Iphigenia Sometimes this sort of madman is needed, in order that the common people, so ignorant and insolent, can howl what someone higher-up cannot say. (Coster, Iphigenia)

This chapter focuses on a detailed analysis of Samuel Coster’s tragedy Iphigenia that demonstrates how the play participates in the controversy over the relation between church and state, the exemplary nature of the Hebrew Republic, and the debate on consensus and toleration. Coster’s work abounds with references to Uytenbogaert’s Treatise Concerning the Office of the Sovereign Magistrate in Church, Grotius’s Ordinum pietas and Cunaeus’s De republica Hebraeorum. Yet for all its high-minded didacticism, the play bristles with aggressive anti-Calvinist satire of a highly topical, often personal, nature. Better than perhaps any other work of the period, Iphigenia demonstrates the generic malleability of religious controversial literature, and the porous boundaries between the Latinate world of religious controversiae and Menippean satire, and the sprawling literary underworld of libel verse, pamphlet, and broadsheet. It also set an important example, as an experiment with the possibilities of political allegory, that would later be followed by Vondel in his tragedy Palamedes (1625). In order to understand the full significance of Coster’s play as an intervention in the Arminian controversy, however, we need to look at the circumstances which led Coster to break with his literary confrères at the Amsterdam chamber of rhetoric the Eglantine, in order to found the Nederduytsche Academie. 3.1  R E L I G I O U S C O N T ROV E R S Y A N D C U LT U R A L I N N OVAT I O N : C O S T E R A N D T H E F O U N D I N G OF THE NEDERDUYTSCHE ACADEMY Samuel Coster was born in in Amsterdam in 1579, the son of Adriaen Lennaertsz and Aertgen Jansdochter. The story of his family forms part of the history of those for whom the Revolt had brought opportunities as well as challenges. His father, a carpenter from Montfoort in Utrecht, had taken part in the iconoclastic riots of 1566 and had later fled to Emden, where he had married his wife. Returning to Amsterdam in 1578 he was given the position of sexton of the Oude Kerk. His son

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

99

continued the family’s rise by going to Leiden to study medicine and marrying a girl from a good family, Josina Albrechtsdochter, whose father held several public offices in The Hague. The first known literary work by Coster, a poem in praise of Reginald Scot’s Discovery of Witchcraft, probably dates from his student days.1 In 1613 Coster was appointed as physician of the St Pietersgasthuis on a salary of 500 guilders per annum. The engraving based on his portrait by Joachim Sandart (see Figure  6) shows a prosperous, cosmopolitan burgher in a fine black gown, surrounded by the symbols of science and learning: open books, a celestial globe, and a bust of Socrates. Coster joined De Eglentier (The Eglantine, or Sweetbriar, whose motto was ‘Blossoming in Love’), the oldest and most prestigious of the city’s three chambers of rhetoric, and tried his hand at plays, including two farces, Farmer Theewis (Boere-klucht van Teeuwis de boer, en men Juffer van Grevelinckhuysen, 1612) and Thiisken van der Schilden (1613), and Ithys (1615), a tragedy based on Ovid’s myth of Tereus and Procne. The urban chambers of rhetoric, lay literary societies dedicated to poetry and drama which had developed in the towns of the Northern and Southern Netherlands in the fourteenth century, had for centuries played a vital role in civic life of the Burgundian-Habsburg Netherlands. As well as offering an institutional framework for cultural sociability, the chambers staged comedies, farces, and morality plays for the benefit of their fellow citizens, and organized pageants and tableaux for royal entries and civic or ecclesiastical feast days. The chambers were focal points of local pride and civic patriotism and at the same time, the organization of the Landjuwelen, yearly festivals in which the rhetorician chambers of the cities of different provinces competed for the prize of staging the best comic and serious play, also fostered to the formation of a supra-local sense of community.2 The chambers’ relation to the central authorities had always been characterized by an element of tension. From the early decades of the sixteenth century onwards, many of them had been associated with the dissemination of Reformist ideas.3 Under 1  ‘Geleerdheid, Grijsheid werd (‘k weet niet waarom) gelooft, / Of die wel scherp alleen van alle ding kond’ spreken: / Die Meesters weten ’t al, en voort de rest zijn Leken; / Reden, zij dragen geen vierkante muts op ’t hoofd. / Beruchte Tooveraar, van Vrienden gansch berooft, / Ik ben uw Vriend, ik wil uw boejen stukken breken, / Tot leed van Rechters, die’r onschuldig aan u wreken: / De kaak’lende gewoont’ heeft reden lang verdooft; / Waarom? om dat het hier aan Rechtsgeleerde wijsheid / Schorten? Neen: ’t Schorten hier aan Rechtsgeleerde wijsheid. / Die slechs een oordeel sprak na ’s volks gewoonte gek. / Ik leer de Rechter dit, gewoont’te treen met voeten / En met wat recht hij sal de Toovenaars ontmoeten / Daartoe plant ik hem noch twee ooghen in den neck.’ Coster, ‘Uit Reginald Scots’ Ontdekkingh van tooverij. Sonnet.tot den lezer’, in Samuel Coster’s werken, ed. R. A. Kollewijn (Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1883), 614. 2  The literature on the chambers of rhetoric is extensive, and a selection of more recent work will have to suffice: Elsa Strietman and Peter Happé (eds), Urban Theatre in the Low Countries, 1400–1625 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006); Anne-Laure van Bruaene, Om beters wille: Rederijkerskamers en stedelijke cultuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1400–1650) (Amsterdam: AUP, 2008); Arjan van Dixhoorn, Lustige geesten (Amsterdam: AUP, 2009). 3  On the role of the chambers of rhetoric in promoting the Reformation, see Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000) and Arjan Van Dixhoorn, Lustige geesten, 245–51; On the Amsterdam chambers of rhetoric during the second half of the 16th cent., see Marijke Spies, ‘Rederijkers en Reformatie in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw in Amsterdam’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8 (1992), 66–74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

100

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 6 Portrait of Samuel Coster, engraving after Joachim Sandart (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Alba, the chambers of rhetoric were proscribed and the possession of rhetorician’s drama became a punishable offence. As the conflict stabilized, and war was transferred to the inland provinces, the chambers of the towns of Holland and Zeeland began to revive. Up until the middle of the seventeenth century, and much later in the countryside, the chambers of rhetoric continued to play a vital role in literary and cultural life. Around the turn of the century Amsterdam’s Eglantine had once again become a focal point of cultural innovation. Its leading members, the poet and moral ­philosopher Hendrik Laurensz Spiegel (1549–1612), and the poet-emblematist Roemer Visscher (1547–1620), had been engaged in promoting the status of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

101

Dutch language, bringing out the first handbooks on grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic in the vernacular.4 Yet by the beginning of the second decade of the seventeenth century, the Eglantine began to show signs of internal conflict. A division of spirits became evident between members like Coster and Hooft, who were ­attempting to reshape Dutch comedy and tragedy on classical models, and those committed to the traditional forms of rhetorician’s theatre. The plays of Coster, Hooft, and in particular, Bredero, proved highly popular with the public, and with audiences growing, the Eglantine’s home in the Nes (in a building that still stands today) became increasingly overcrowded. Several initiatives were taken to remedy the situation. With his Oration on the Dignity of Poetry (Reden vande Waerdicheit der Poesie, 1610–15), Hooft attempted—unsuccessfully, it seems—to garner the burgomasters’ support for the construction of a new, purpose-built theatre, and after a series of disturbances and drunken quarrels, new statutes were drafted which stipulated rank and rights for voting and non-voting members, and setting out a new code of behaviour. The civic authorities backed the initiative, in which Hooft and Coster again had a leading part, yet the problems continued unabated.5 The faultlines of the future split were already becoming apparent. In 1617 Samuel Coster bought a plot of land on the up-market Keizersgracht between the Berenstraat and Runstraat where the Nederduytsche Academie would be built. Hooft and Bredero followed Coster in abandoning the Eglantine. In a few years’ time Vondel, who in these years was still associated with the Brabant chamber, the White Lavender, would join them. The founding of the Nederduytsche Academie should not be portrayed as a clear break with theatrical tradition, which it very clearly was not. Dutch vernacular drama differs from its Neo-Latin counterpart in that it shows only limited interest in classical poetics, and incorporated classicizing elements in an unsystematic, strategic manner.6 Hooft’s tragedy Geeraerd van Velsen (1613), a history play about the murder of count Floris V of Holland, strives to adhere to the three classical unities yet remains formally a drama of argumentation, divided by sung choral scenes, rather than a drama of action. It is a pattern that is followed by many of the authors of the period: classicizing elements are added to a dramatic form which, like the rhetoricians’ drama from which it evolved, is rhetorical, with a strong emphasis on sententiae and moral examples. Coster’s tragedy Ithys show a strong debt to the tragedies of Seneca, and a more sustained attempt at imitatio, but intersperses this 4  Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 565–9. 5  M. B. Smits-Veldt, ‘9 maart 1613 P.C. Hooft vraagt in een brief aan de Amsterdamse schepen dr. Jan ten Grotenhuys om hulp van de stadsregering bij de reorganisatie van de rederijkerskanmer De Eglentier’, in R. L. Erenstein et al. (eds), Een theatergeschiedenis der Nederlanden: Tien eeuwen drama en theater in Nederland en Vlaanderen (Amsterdam: AUP, 1995), 156–61; J. A. Worp, Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen schouwburg (Amsterdam: Van Looy), 20–4. 6  For what follows, see Lieven Rens, ‘Samuel Coster als dramatisch experimentator’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, 26 (1972), 335–51, and Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, Het Nederlandse renaissance-toneel (1991), 61–7. On Dutch Neo-Latin drama and poetics, see Jan Bloemendal and Howard Norland (eds), Neolatin Drama and Theatre in Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2013), ch. 5; C. S. M. Rademaker, Life and Work of Gerardus Johannes Vossius (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981); J. H. Meeter, The Literary Theories of Daniel Heinsius (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) and Mark Somos, Secularization and the Leiden Circle (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

102

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

play of horror and excess with pastoral scenes, which mainly serve a didactic purpose in setting up a contrast between the violent and corrupt world of the court and the innocence, honesty, and wisdom of Coster’s shepherds and shepherdesses. Coster’s farces, Farmer Theeuwis and Thiisken vander Schildern are, not surprisingly, even closer to tradition, and his Play of the Rich Man (Spel van de rijckeman, 1615), written for a lottery to raise money for the city’s old men and women hospital, shows that Coster was perfectly willing to write an entirely conventional rhetorician’s morality play, complete with allegorical figures such as Truth, Abundance, and Poverty. It was only with Warenar (1617), one of the plays on which Hooft and Coster collaborated, an adaptation of Plautus’s Aulularia, that the influence of classical comedy really began to make its influence felt on Dutch drama. Coster’s Academy also retained many of the organizational characteristics of a  chamber of rhetoric. It was closer to a literary society than to a fully fledged ­commercial venture with stakeholders like the Elizabethan professional theatre companies. Like the chambers of rhetoric, it had its own coat of arms, depicting a swarm of bees surrounding a beehive with the motto ‘industry’ and its explanation Fervet opus, redolentque thymo fragrantia mella (‘the work inspires zeal, and the honey smells of fragrant thyme’). The day-to-day running of the Academy was the task of the ‘chief brethren’ of the Academy, while the plays were directed by a commission of six heads, who were chosen from among the actors.7 Like a rhetoricians’ chamber, the Academy was a charitable institution that paid part of its profits into the coffers of the town’s orphanage and old men’s hospital. The Academy also continued the rhetorician tradition of using the arts as a means of providing moral instruction for the citizenry. Yet the Academy’s educational plans were far more extensive, ambitious, and potentially divisive. Its theatre doubled as a lecture hall, where free lectures were given on a variety of topics, including history, astronomy, mathematics, and even Hebrew. In contrast to the many ‘illustrious schools’ that began to spread through the Republic from 1611 onwards, and that were meant to prepare boys for university life, lectures at the Academy were in Dutch, which constituted an infringement on the universities’ monopoly in providing higher education.8 Coster’s Academy was a private institution, which meant that, while it enjoyed no special status, liberties, or legal protection, it was equally free from outside interference, leaving Coster at liberty to set up the curriculum as he saw fit. Indeed, in the five years between 1617 and 1622 in which Coster stood at its head, before a combination of financial difficulties and opposition from the church council forced him to sell his project to the regents of the city orphanage, the Academy operated in a way that would have been impossible for any institution controlled by the civic authorities. Due to the paucity of source material, it is difficult to say what its curriculum looked like, it does not seem too hazardous to conclude that, for a few years, the Academy functioned as a centre of opposition: a meeting-point 7  J. H. Gallée, Academie en kerkeraad (Utrecht: Beijers, 1878), 8. 8  W. H. M. Hummelen, Amsterdams toneel in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1982), 83.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

103

for a group of like-minded poets and playwrights, Remonstrant sympathizers of different religious backgrounds, supporters of the States party, adverse to ContraRemonstrantism and suspicious of what they perceived as the political ambitions of the Calvinist clergy. Such a sweeping statement requires some qualification. Coster’s Academy was in first instance a playhouse, where comedies, tragedies, and farces were staged for the benefit of the city’s orphanage, and the majority of the plays performed on the Academy’s stage reflect the need to keep the cashboxes filled and the audience happy, rather than any explicit political concern. Yet it is equally true that the Academy’s figureheads, as we shall see, took a clear stand in the Arminian controversy: Coster with his Iphigenia; Vondel with Jerusalem Destroyed, Palamedes, ­Hippolytus, and his satirical poetry; and Hooft with Baeto. With the exception of Coster and P. C. Hooft’s brother, Hendrik Hooft, none of these men were Remonstrants. Most were what I have called Remonstrant sympathizers, a category which includes those individuals who are sometimes referred to as ‘political Arminians’, as well as a group whose religious allegiance is rather difficult to determine. A surprisingly large number among them, including the Academy’s printer, Nicolaes Biestkens, two of its teachers, and, indeed, Vondel himself, were Anabaptists, members of the Waterland Community, who, after their leaders had been ousted from the church by Menno Simons in 1557, preferred to call themselves ‘Doopsgezinden’ rather than Mennonites. Unlike the more conservative Anabaptist congregations such as the Old Flemings and the Old Frisians, the Waterlanders were opposed to practices such as banning and shunning, believing that the ban should only be applied in exceptional cases. They espoused an individualistic piety with spiritualist tendencies, and laid particular emphasis on the praxis pietatis.9 Under the leadership of Hans de Ries, the Waterlanders developed into a community with a distinctive character. De Ries took over elements of Reformed discipline and administration of the sacraments, while incorporating the spiritualism and tolerationism of Schwenckfeld, Franck, and Coornhert, the latter a personal friend of De Ries.10 Intellectually open, doctrinally flexible, and outwardly closer to the Reformed churches, the Remonstrants seem to have looked upon the Waterlanders as natural allies. Indeed, before the drafting of the Remonstrant confession, Remonstrants often used that of the Waterland community.11 Together these individuals constitute a loosely knit network, connecting the worlds of vernacular literature, Neo-Latin scholarship, and publishing to that of urban and provincial politics. The frequency with which we encounter the figure of Reinier Telle, who as Blaeu’s Latin expert mediated between two literary 9  Piet Visser, ‘Mennonites and Doopsgezinden in the Netherlands, 1535–1700’, in John D. Roth and James Mentzer Stayer (eds), A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 299–345, esp. 313–14. 10  Visser, ‘Mennonites and Doopsgezinden’, 322–3; Samme Zijlstra, ‘Anabaptism and Tolerance: Possibilities and Limitations’, in R. Po-Chia Hsia and H. F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 112–31, esp. 121–3; W. J. Kühler, Geschiedenis der Doopsgezinden in Nederland (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1932–50), ii. 44. 11 Kühler, Geschiedenis der Doopsgezinden in Nederland, 48.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

104

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

c­ ultures, and whose circle of friends included men like Coster, Bredero, the Mennonite poet Dirck Scabaelje, and the diplomat Michel le Blon, tells something about the fluidity and reach of these networks. Indeed, in the wider orbit of the Nederduytsche Academy and the poets associated with it, we find many representatives of the urban civil service and regent patriciate, such as Nicolaes van ­Wassenaer, Daniel Mostart, city secretary of Amsterdam, the merchant patrician Laurens Reael, and of course P. C. Hooft.12 This is a different environment from the more cosmopolitan world of Constantyn Huygens, and it shows to what extent the flourishing of Dutch literature in the seventeenth century had its roots in urban civic culture. Yet the boundaries between the two cultures were permeable. The literature generated by the Arminian controversy demonstrates in a fascinating way how religious controversy and high politics impacted on the world of vernacular literature. Vondel and Hooft, whose friendship began to wane only after Vondel’s conversion to Catholicism, shared many friends and literary acquaintances, including Coster and Bredero, as well as the poet Maria ­Tesselschade Roemer Visschersdr (1594–1646), Gerardus Vossius, Caspar Barlaeus, and Grotius.13 Indeed the fervency with which literary historians have insisted that the so-called ‘Muiderkring’, a circle of friends meeting regularly at the castle of Muiden, Hooft’s residence as bailiff of the Gooi, is a nineteenth-century myth, has obscured the more interesting fact that Hooft, for all his aristocratic aspirations, struck up friendships and literary partnerships with men of humble social status like Bredero, the son of a shoe-maker, Vondel, the son of a glove-maker, or, for that matter, a well-to-do burgher like Coster. Something of this vigour and vibrancy of literary life is reflected in Coster’s Academy, which, due to the presence of Biestkens’s shop on the premises appears to have combined the functions of theatre, auditorium, and bookshop.14 On 12  In his edn of the complete works of Bredero (Alle de wercken, so spelen, gedichten, brieven en kluchten / van den gheest-rijcken poëet Gerbrand Adriaensz. Bredero Amsterdammer, 1638), published by Bredero’s friend Lodewijk Cornelisz vander Plasse, we find elegies and funerary poetry by Vondel, Nicolaes van Wassenaer, Daniel Mostart, Hooft’s brother Hendrik Cornelisz Hooft, and many members of the Academy, such as Jan Fransz, J. J. Colevelt, Pieter Adriaensz, Thomas Hertoch, and A. van Mildert. For the members of the Academy, see Elise E. Oey-de Vita, Marja Geesink, and Ben Albach, Academie en schouwburg (Amsterdam: Huis aan de drie grachten, 1983), 287–93 and  Worp, Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen schouwburg, 58. There is nothing by Telle, who supplied sonnets for Lucelle and Moortje, but Telle died before Bredero. 13  Maria Roemer Visscherdr, known to her friends as Tesselschade (Damage on Tessel), because her father lost a ship near the Dutch island Texel on the day of her birth, was arguably the most brilliant of Roemer Visscher’s three talented daughters, Anna, Maria, and Gertruid, all of whom had received an excellent education. She was a gifted poet and engraver, an accomplished musician, and maintained a wide network of literary friendships which included figures such as P. C. Hooft and Constantijn Huygens. She worked on a translation of Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata and, together with Hooft, translated Giambattista Marino’s Adone (1623). For her biography, see Mieke Smits-Veldt, Maria Tessel­ schade: Leven met talent en vriendschap (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 1994). Her poetry has been edited by Agnes Seller and Olga van Marion, De gedichten van Tesselschade Roemers (Hilversum: Verloren, 1994). 14  On Biestkens, see P. J. Koopmans, ‘Nicolaes Biestkens en de Nederduytsche Academie’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8 (1992), 125 n. 11. On the Acdemy’s cultural project, see Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, ‘De Nederduytsche Academie van Samuel Coster: De eerste Nederlandse Volksuniversiteit (1617– 1622)’, Literatuur, 1 (1984), 61; R. B. Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1965–78), ii. 278–82; Worp, Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen Schouwburg, 55. Biestkens did not,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

105

23 September 1617, the Academy’s theatre was inaugurated with a performance of Suffridius Sixtinus’s Apollo, or the gathering of the gods (Apollo over de inwydinghe van de Neerlatsche Academia De Byekorf, 1617), in which Apollo presents Coster’s playhouse to the audience as the new ‘Parnassus on the IJ’.15 The nine Muses, like good Dutch burgher-daughters, appear on stage to emphasize the practical and social utility of the arts. As Barlaeus was to do much later in Mercator sapiens, his inaugural oration for the Amsterdam Athenaeum Illustre, Sixtinus’s play stresses the links between a broad education in the liberal arts, good citizenship, and economic prosperity.16 Following the opening play, the actors of the Academy performed Gijsbrecht van Hogendorp’s tragedy about the murder of William the Silent, a tragedy of the heroic-celebratory kind: not a particularly offensive play, but yet clear enough in its emphasis on the war against Spain as a struggle against tyranny and oppression to demonstrate where the Academy stood politically.17 The second day, celebrations were concluded with a performance of Warenar, an adaptation of Plautus’s Aulularia. Soon thereafter, to judge by the notes in the archives of the church council, the public lectures had commenced. On 30 November 1617, we find the following remarks recorded in the minutes of the church council: ‘Concerning the new (as people call it) Academy, situated in the new city: that there are said to be two public professors. One in arithmetic, called Sibrant Hansen, a Mennonite, and one Jan Theunisz, also another apostate Mennonite, in the Hebrew language; also that there has been playing of comedies that can be neither profitable nor edifying . . .’ It had been decided to send a delegation to the burgomasters ‘to entreat with them, so that all these things would, by their lordships’ authority, be suppressed and abolished’.18 How the burgomasters responded to the request is not known. The however, have a monopoly over texts printed for the Academy, which were occasionally printed by Willem Jansz Blaeu and Joris Veselaer as well, while Biestkens himself continued to print other works as well, including, on occasion, the plays of Theodoor Roodenburg, leader of the Academy’s competitor, the Eglantine; Koopmans, ‘Nicolaes Biestkens’, 124–5. 15  Suffridius Sixtinus, Apollo over de inwydinghe van de Neerlatsche Academia De Byekorf, ghesticht door D. S. Coster, Amsterdammer;Oey-de Vita et al., Academie en Schouwburg, 41, Worp, Geschiedenis van de Amsterdamschen Schouwburg, 44. 16 Sixtinus, Apollo, fo. A4v; Dirk van Miert has pointed to the similarities between Barlaeus’s inaugural oration, the mercator sapiens, and the educational project of Coster’s Academy. Elsewhere, he is quick to discount any continuities between the Nederdutsche Academie and the Athenaeum Illustre, yet his portrayal of the Academy as ‘an attempt to recreate the old chambers of rhetoric’ is hardly accurate. Likewise, his claim that lecturing probably already ceased in 1618 can be discounted on the basis of the evidence of the anniversary plays of 1619 and 1620. Dirk van Miert, Humanism in an Age of Science (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 36–7, 39. 17  Smits-Veldt, ‘De Nederduytsche Academie’, 61; Smits-Veldt, ‘De opening van de “Neerlandtsche Academia de Byekorf ”: Melpomene presenteert: Gijsbrecht van Hogendorps Orangien tragedie’, Spektator, 12 (1982–3), 199–214. 18  On the conflict between Coster’s Academy and the Amsterdam Church Council, see Henk Duits, ‘11 november 1621: De Amsterdamse Kerkeraad stuurt twee afgezanten naar de burgemeesters om te klagen over Samuel Coster’s Iphigenia in de Nederduytsche Academie. De moeizame relatie tussen kerk en toneel in de zeventiende eeuw’, in R. Erenstein (ed.), Een theatergeschiedenis der Nederlanden. Tien eeuwen drama en theater in Nederland en Vlaanderen (Amsterdam: AUP, 1996), 178–85; Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1986), 316– 20; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 282–6; Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, passim.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

106

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Amsterdam consistory was undoubtedly right in its suspicion of the Academy, its members, and teachers, Mennonite or otherwise. For the moment, however, Coster prudently wished to avoid a head-on confrontation with the ContraRemonstrant clergy. His most outspoken anti-Calvinist play, Iphigenia, was performed but only behind closed doors, for a select audience invited to attend the performance. The text of the invitation reads: ‘On All-Saints Day / How the World fares and how fare it may / Coster’s Nestor in his Iphigenia does portray / All this will be played for those who wish the country well / And our good intentions can easily tell.’19 Yet, inevitably the consistory would get wind of the performance. In March of the following year, the church council, deciding that the time for firmer measures had come, sent two preachers of considerable intellectual and political clout, Plancius and Trigland, to convince the burgomasters that the Academy should be closed down. At the next meeting of the church council, they declared ‘That their lordships had shown that they were displeased with such irregularities, and would see to it that they would be suppressed.’20 But it was not only from the side of the clergy that the Academy encountered opposition; the chambers of rhetoric, too, tried to stir opinion against those of the Academy.21 Telle, though himself not a member of the Academy, intervened in the controversy with the satirical ballad ‘Asinus ad Lyram’.22 In three songs, sung by a turf farmer in the Amsterdam dialect, the author has a swipe at the ministers and the rhetoricians alike. The first two satirize the ministers, with their incessant cackling, squabbling, and scribbling of nasty little books. ‘Church crows’, the turf farmer threatens, ‘beware: seek you shelter in the church, the sexton will find you there’ (‘Koster’ is the Dutch word for sexton).23 The eponymous song about the donkey playing the lyre exposes the literary pretensions of the poets of the Eglantine, ‘blossoming in love’ (in liefde bloeiende) here rendered as ‘flourishing in lies’ (in leugen groeiende); ‘when it comes to singing, my grandma could take four of their rhymesters on’.24 One year later, the Academy staged an anniversary play, in which Jupiter asks the muses what they have so far achieved. Only Melpomene, Thalia, Calliope, Erato, and Polymnia are content, while Euterpe declares that her lessons attracted great crowds, but that her work has been thwarted by the envy of others.25 Urania too complains of malicious lies being spread behind her back, preventing her from doing her work. Clio has also e­ ncountered opposition, but will, she says, counter 19 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 315, 406; Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 13. 20 Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 15. 21 Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 15. 22  Asinvs ad lyram. Ofte: wat wongders en wat nieus, ien huysman komt vertellen, hoe d’ezel op ien lier, de snaren grof gaet stellen (s.a.). C. G. N. de Vooys, ‘Amsterdamse spotliedjes uit het begin van de zeventiende eeuw’, Nederlands tijdschrift voor volkskunde, 27 (1922), 142–51. 23  ‘En recht as of die nacht-uylen / D’Arent wouden ien kangs bien: / ’s Middechs op de son te sien: / uylen / uylen: loapt vry schuylen: / Kom-je by dach in de Kerck / Costers nemen op jou merck’, De Vooys, ‘Amsterdamse spotliedjes’, 7. 24  De Vooys, ‘Amsterdamse spotliedjes’, 10. 25 Anon., Gezelschap der Goden vergaert op de ghewenschte Bruiloft van Apolllo met de eenighe en eerste Nederduitsche Academie (1618), fo. A2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

107

it by redoubling her efforts. Interestingly, the muses are now joined by two newcomers: Themis, goddess of justice, and Asklepios, god of medicine, indicating, perhaps, that the Academy had plans to extend her curriculum.26 The optimism of The gathering of the gods appears to have been short-lived, for in the anniversary play of 1619 the muses appear on stage as mutes, with sealed lips emblematically pointing to (self-)censorship. Only Thalia and Melpomene are granted license to speak.27 In the Academy’s third anniversary play, printed with the motto ‘kneppel onder de hoenderen’ (‘put the cat among the pigeons’), self-criticism has made way for a more defiant stance, as the ‘Academy’ falls victim to the machinations of Envy, Lies, and Slander, whose evil plot is just in time uncovered by Time and Truth.28 The very existence of the Academy must have been a thorn in the side of the church council. On 29 March, it had once more sent minister Rolandus, this time seconded by alderman Heemskerk, to plead with the burgomasters that the activities of the Academy should be curbed, because of the ‘great license in speech, gesture’ that could be seen there ‘to the great displeasure and injury of the godly’.29 But undoubtedly, there was more to the ministers’ gravamen than that it than offended ‘puritan’ sensibilities. For in the anniversary play of 1619, Thalia is warned to refrain from calling people by their names or impersonating them by dress, gait, or words, ‘or what has happened to your sisters will happen to you as well, and with more reason’.30 What caused the Academy to take up this defiant stance is not certain. Perhaps it was caused by the arrival of another minister, Adriaan Jorisz Smout (c.1580– 1646), who was particularly outspoken in his opposition against the Academy.31 Between Smout and Coster, matters soon got personal. Coster was accused of having given a speech in which he had complained of ministers abusing the chair of truth to spread lies, and having mentioned Smout ‘nominatum’.32 No fewer than three times in the following year, the church council sent a delegation to the burgomaster to lobby for the closure of the Academy and the outlawing of rhetorician drama at fairs, ‘which were a vexation to all godly people’. In November of the following year, Smout and his colleague Rudophus Petri again bore a complaint against Coster’s Academy, and on 18 November the church council recorded ‘that he [Smout] had spoken with the presiding burgomaster concerning Doctor Coster’s grievous tragedy playing, with which he shamelessly aims blows at both the government and the church’. As Coster had been summoned before the burgomasters and had declared that he would ‘rule himself to their Lordship’s wishes’, 26  Gezelschap der Goden, fo. B2r. 27  S. A. Coster, Duytsche Academie (Amsterdam: Cornelis Lodevvijcksz Vander Plassen, 1619), fo. A2r. 28  S. A. Coster, Nederduytsche Academijs Niemant genoemt niemant geblameert (Amsterdam: Voor Cornelis van der Plassen, 1620). 29 Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 18. 30 Coster, Duytsche Academie, fos. A2v–A3r. 31  For Adriaan Jorisz Smout, see D. Nauta et al., Biografisch Lexicon (Kampen: Kok, 1978), i. 351–2. 32 Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

108

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

they decided to let the matter rest for the moment.33 This time, it would appear that Coster had overplayed his hand, for he had already been summoned to appear before the burgomasters before the ministers had presented their grievances.34 The direct cause was the staging of Iphigenia, which had been performed, as the edition of 1626 triumphantly proclaims, in 1621, on All Saints ‘for people of all sorts’.35 After the first performance for a select audience of ‘good patriots’ in 1617, Coster had decided to go public—and was immediately checked. Iphigenia disappeared from the boards, and would not reappear before 1626, when the Amsterdam’s political and religious course had taken a radically different turn. 3.2  I P H I G E N I A A N D A N T I - C A LV I N I S T P O L E M I C S What was it that made the Iphigenia so offensive to city council and consistory? In the nineteenth century, historians of Dutch theatre tended to contextualize the play in the ongoing controversy between church council and consistory, highlighting the element of satire in Coster’s characterization of the Greek priesthood. The Iphigenia, it was argued, took sides in the ongoing debate by taking a shot at the Amsterdam church council, and at Trigland in particular.36 In her monograph on Samuel Coster’s Ithys, Polyxena, and Iphigenia, Mieke Smits-Veldt strove to come to a more balanced view of the play, looking not only at its direct polemical aims, but also at the ethical and political lessons it intended to convey. While Smits-Veldt discusses the conflict between the poets of the Nederduytsche Academie and the Amsterdam consistory in great detail, she still tends to privilege the element of moral and political instruction over that of the satirical, which, in her words, is subordinated to Coster’s real aim: setting out the foundations for a harmonious, well-ordered state, based on the principles of natural reason.37 Such a formulation, however, suggests an opposition between political thought and satire, which I believe to be untenable. Put more strongly, satire is an indispensable tool in showing the audience what (or rather, who) poses a threat to such a well-ordered state, undermining their claim to authority by showing them in all their ridiculous pomposity and arrogance, and bringing their secret machinations to light. In the preliminaries of the play, Coster first defends the liberties he has taken with the story with an appeal to poetical licence: the story of the Trojan War has already been so embellished that ‘people will not take it unkindly if I play with it as it suits me to say what I have in mind’.38 Furthermore, he continues, we know that there 33 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 318 n. 36; Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad, 20–1. 34 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 317. 35 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 316. Technically speaking, the performance of Iphigenia was held on the evening before All Saints, i.e. on 31 October, and not on 1 November. 36  Vondel, ‘Op Haen kalkoen’, WB iii. 337–8. 37 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 454–5. 38  Samuel Coster, Iphigenia, ‘Inhout deses treur-spels’, in Samuel Costers Werken, ed. Kollewijn (Haalem: Bohn, 1883), ii. 224, ll. 30–5: ‘Den gheheelen handel van Troyen is. een versiering, ofte ten minsten isser seer vveynich vvaarheyts aan: daarom en salmen ’t my niet qualijck af-nemen, dat ick hier mede speele, ghelijck als het my, om mijn voornemen uyt te spreken, gheleghen komt.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

109

have never been heathen gods such as Diana, even if superstitious zealots have believed in them. Equating his own intentions with those of the ancient poets and philosophers, he concludes: that the ancient poets have not handed this over to posterity as lies, but have hung it on the wall, as if it were a painting, in which perceptive people can detect how the world fares, and take note how the Hypocrite, under the guise of religion, plays its character. And how Ambition and Self-interest under the cloak of uprightness, dress up their villainies and use them for their own advancement, even if it would turn the whole world upside down.39

Coster’s Iphigenia is in fact very much a drama of argumentation, in which the sacrifice of the young girl is the stake in a deadly conflict between king Agamemnon and the Greek priesthood. The play thus centres around the question of whether to give in to an over-ambitious clergy or, by resisting their demands, risk the fury of the populace. In Euripides’ Iphigeneia at Aulis all characters are directly involved in the tragic plot; Coster’s play introduces a number of subsidiary characters whose primary purpose is to outline the two political positions and to depict the division among the Greeks. Agamemnon is supported by two wise councillors: Nestor and Palamedes, while the faction that demands Iphigenia’s blood is headed by Euripylus and Ulysses. In contrast to Euripides, Coster’s Calchas is a loyal servant of Agamemnon. Protesilaus is a staunch supporter of Agamemnon and an outspoken critic of the political ambitions of the priesthood. The character of Thersites is, as he is portrayed in Homer, an ignorant loudmouth whose devotion to Euripylus is only matched by his hatred for the army grandees. The position of Achilles and Menelaus is less clearly defined, with Achilles more averse, and Menelaus more inclined to back Euripylus, even though their weight will eventually determine to which side the political balance will swing. The evil genius of the play is Ulysses. Even more so than with Euripides, Coster’s play emphasizes his scheming, deceitful character. Here, it is Ulysses who had first spread the rumour that Agamemnon had offended Diana and that only the blood of Agamemnon’s own daughter will placate the goddess. For refusing to give up Iphigenia, Ulysses knows that Agamemnon will incur the odium of not respecting the gods. Encouraged by the priests, the people will rise against the king, and he, as head of their faction, will gain Agamemnon’s crown. In Iphigeneia at Aulis, the authenticity of the oracle is never questioned: Ulysses merely turns it to his own advantage. In Coster’s Iphigenia, none of the Greek princes believe that the gods desire a human sacrifice. Euripylus has been deceived into thinking so, but the leaders of the Greek army know that he is being manipulated by Ulysses. The appearance of Diana as dea ex machina is not a divine intervention, but a plot concocted by Calchas, which leaves Ulysses in the position of 39 Coster, ‘ Inhout deses treur-spels’, ii. 224, ll. 46–53: ‘Besluytende, dat de oude Poëten dit niet voor een. logen de nakomelingen inde hand stoppen, maar als een schildery aan de vvant hangen, daar in de siende menschen des Werelts loop. kunnen af-meten, en bespeuren hoe den Schynheylich, onder den.deckmantel van Godsdienst, zyn personagie speelt. Hoe Staat en Baat-sucht in het kleet der oprechticheyt, al soudet alles t’onderste boven raken, haar schelmeryen op-proncken, ende tot haar voordeel int vverck stellen.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

110

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the trickster tricked. Seeing the inevitability of Agamemnon’s submission to the wishes of Euripylus and his followers, Calchas has found a solution that will make it seem as if Agamemnon obeys the command of Diana, while saving Iphigenia from the murderous priests. A beautiful woman, dressed up as a goddess, will ­appear at the moment of the sacrifice, demanding the girl’s life to be spared. ­Iphigenia will then be secretly taken away from Aulis, later to be reunited again with her family. Coster’s play, therefore, has no real dramatic climax; for the issue is not whether Iphigenia will be spared or not, but whether Agamemnon, who wants to defend his authority against priestly encroachments, will—temporarily— bow to the priesthood. This deliberative process in turn determines the development of the plot. Instead of giving a summary of the plot, I will therefore examine the different positions voiced by the different characters in the light of the political debate sparked off by the Arminian controversy.40 Coster’s play stands in a clearly defined and polemically construed relation to an earlier generation of classicizing biblical drama, which had appropriated the ­material of Euripides’ Iphigeneia in a genre of tragedy that staged the theological aporia of a God whose commands appear incommensurable with the dictates of justice and natural law.41 The plays in question are Buchanan’s Jephthes, sive votum tragoedia, written in the 1540s (although only published in 1554), when B ­ uchanan taught at College de Guyenne in Bordeaux, and staged there in a performance in which, possibly, the young Montaigne played a part; and Beza’s Abraham sacrifiant (1548), which can in many ways be seen as a response to Buchanan’s play. Buchanan’s Jephthes transposes Euripides’ tragedy about the sacrifice of Iphigenia onto the story of Judges in which Jephthah, returning victorious from the war against the Ammonites, vows to sacrifice to God the first thing that comes to greet him as he returns home—his daughter, as it turns out (Judges, 11: 30–40). The biblical story tells us little else but that the daughter, who is not named, agrees to be sacrificed, asking only for two months’ respite to lament her virginity. Buchanan, who calls the daughter ‘Iphis’, meaning, ‘strength’, as well as ‘only-born’, greatly highlights the conflict between Jephthah’s vow to God and his love for his daughter, by introducing the characters of Jephthah’s wife Storge (‘parental love’) and the Priest, who contest the sacrifice. Both Storge and the Priest reject the idea that a human sacrifice can be acceptable to God; the Priest by equating the divine law with natural law and right reason, and religion with ethics and moral virtue, and Storge by literally embodying the primal force of the love of parents for their children.42 It is interesting that Jephthah accepts the force of their arguments, yet cannot renounce the vow he holds as inviolable. The play, Shuger argues, thus ­‘exposes the tragic heteronomy of ethical consciousness and divine will’.43 The resulting conflict is only resolved through Iphis’s voluntary submission, a ­ self-sacrifice with strong christological overtones, which comes to dominate the 40  For a summary of the Iphigenia, I refer to Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 346–476. 41  See Deborah Shuger, The Renaissance Bible (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994), 128–66, 138–40, 154–5. 42 Shuger, The Renaissance Bible, 140–3. 43 Shuger, The Renaissance Bible, 143.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

111

final act to such an extent that it altogether eclipses the figure of the father in the play. Beza’s play takes up another story of a child sacrifice; God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but crucially focuses on the question of Abraham’s obedience, rather than that of sacrifice—the sacrifice which is, of course, forestalled at the ultimate moment. Unlike Buchanan’s Jephthes, Beza’s play is explicitly didactic, as the prologue of the play already makes clear, in its insistence that the audience identify directly with the subject matter, and in the emphasis it places on the exemplarity of A ­ braham’s faith.44 The whole play is suffused with a highly polemical theology of election that links predestination to covenant theology, and identifies the ­Reformed with the elect, and the elect with the seed or the bloodline of Abraham and Isaac. A strong narrative of secession, separation, and disinheritance runs through the play, as the play focuses both on external self-separation in highlighting’s Abraham’s abandoning of his ancestral land, and the division within Abraham’s family, between the legitimate son, Isaac, the son of the covenant, and Ishmael, the disinherited son, the castaway, who is described as a reprobate.45 Yet there is more. At the dramatic centre of the play, in the agonized monologue that precedes his decision to sacrifice Isaac, Beza’s Abraham gives several reasons why God cannot want him to do what he has commanded him to do, that reveal a deeper, half-hidden link between predestination and child sacrifice. As Abraham clutches at straws to convince himself that the voice from heaven must have been a diabolical inspiration or a dream, rather than an authentic command of God, his words echo the conventional topoi of anti-­ predestinarian argument. God surely does not require such cruel sacrifice, Abraham claims, for if he did, who would still pray to him? If Isaac is killed, God’s promises will have been false. If I kill my son, I will make God a liar, for when Isaac dies, the covenant is undone. Every time, however, Abraham draws back from the abyss of blasphemous doubt by insisting on the omnipotence of God, and by reminding himself of the folly of the creature attempting to pass judgement on its Creator: ‘las, est-il raisonable / Que moi qui suis pecheur tant miserable, / Viene à juger les secrets jugemens / De tes parfaicts et tressaincts mandemens? (720–4). The choice of the words ‘secrets jugemens’ may be accidental, yet this does not seem very likely. ­Rather, the polyptoton ‘juger/jugement’ draws out the ‘hidden’ judgement of God, the arcana of God’s eternal decree. Abraham’s internal conflict provocatively enacts a moment of radical religious doubt that is finally overcome by an acceptance of unconditional obedience. The monologue, and the play in its entirety, does not merely rehearse the arguments of predestinarian polemic; it enacts the argumentative strategy through which predestination was asserted, beginning with Calvin’s Institutes and followed by numberless works after it, by postulating it as a mystery that needed to be accepted in its terrifying grandeur. The willingness to accept that among those whom 44  Theodore Beza, Abraham sacrifiant (Geneva: Droz, 1967), Introduction, 15. 45  For these themes in Beza’s play, and other plays of the French Reformation, see Daniel Lord Smail, ‘Predestination and the Ethos of Disinheritance in Sixteenth-Century Calvinist Theater’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 23/2 (1992), 303–23.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

112

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

God’s eternal decree has predestined to eternal damnation will be children and infants had always been one of the emotional cruces of the controversy over predestination. When challenged on this point, Calvin had responded with a fierce defence of the transcendent majesty of God, and the inscrutability of his divine decree. Yet in the Institutes Calvin does not speak about the doctrine of predestination without acknowledging the vehement emotional responses it elicits from its  opponents. It is in this context that he uses the words later so often used against him ‘Decretum quidem horribile, fateor’. Calvin here proceeds, as Brian Cummings has argued, through the rhetorical figure of occultatio, which deflect the force of the opponent’s argument by acknowledging it, thereby accepting ‘the cost of admitting this truth even at the same time as fully asserting its certainty. Calvin includes the force of objection rather than deflects it; he understands the passionate response it elicits from its opponents; he is forced as if against his will to believe the fierce majesty of what he is expressing.’46 Neither Calvin nor Beza, nor any of their Contra-Remonstrant followers, argue that we should believe that unbaptized children will burn in hell; we should have faith that they are accepted within the covenant of faith. Yet such arguments were lost on anti-Calvinist polemicists, who adopted child-sacrifice as a curiously literal metaphor for absolute or unconditional predestination that sacrifices the innocent victim on the altar of an idolatrous, cruel doctrine. ‘Murder-predestination’ is indeed the term used in some of the anti-Calvinist literature. Is God a Moloch, Vondel’s anti-predestinarian poem ‘Decretum Horribile’ (‘Horror of Destruction’) asks? Interestingly, the question had earlier been raised by Storge in Buchanan’s Jephthes: if God accepts a human sacrifice, the Israelites will be indistinguishable from the Ammonites who worship Moloch.47 Coster’s Iphigenia, I argue, recognizes the challenge plays like those of Buchanan and Beza posed levelled at the audience/elect, yet turns the conventions of the genre inside out, by substituting child-sacrifice as a polemical trope before child-sacrifice as a theological crux, and supplanting tragic conflict with the tragicomedy of political intrigue. In doing so he integrated several themes and strands of anti-Calvinist polemic. The play deliberately hearkens back to a Lucretian reading of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, which introduces the poet’s attack on organized religion in De rerum natura. The Renaissance imagination had appropriated Lucretius’s account as an attack on false religion and superstition, for instance in Natale Conti’s Mythologia (1551; a book of which Coster possessed a French translation), which describes how the priests of antiquity led the people astray with their tricks and fictions, threatening those who would defy them with the wrath of the gods, or stirring up the people against them. During the Revolt, the idea that corrupt priests used violence and fraud to maintain a spiritual tyranny gained a heightened poignancy, as Polyxena and 46  Brian Cummings, ‘Shakespeare and Samuel Harsnett’, paper presented at the 500th Anniversary Conference, John Calvin and his Influence, Geneva, 24–27 May 2009. I am thankful to Brian Cummings for letting me use his paper. 47 Shuger, The Renaissance Bible, 142–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

113

Iphigenia were appropriated into a Protestant national martyrology. In Hooft’s tragedy Geeraerdt van Velsen (1613) the river god Vecht prophesies how the end of Spanish tyranny will see ‘The Iphigenias and Polyxenas delivered from altars stained with blood’ (Geeraerdt van Velsen, Act 5, scene 5, ll. 1519–20). In Coster’s Iphigenia, anti-Spanish imagery is reappropriated against those who aim to set up a new spiritual tyranny. By the early decades of the seventeenth century this was an allegation with a considerable pedigree. Both in Carel van Mander’s Description of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Wtlegghingh op den Metamorphosis Pub. Ovidii Nasoni, 1604), and in Hendrik Laurensz Spiegel’s Mirror of the Heart (Hert-spiegel 1614), the sacrifice of Iphigeneia is used as an exemplum of how superstition leads people away from reason and religion. A polemical, anti-Calvinist subtext pushes itself to the foreground here, as both Van Mander, an Anabaptist, and Spiegel, a Catholic with close intellectual and personal ties to Coornhert, explicitly emphasize the contemporary relevance of the story. The power-hungry zealots these texts portray have little in common with the ignorant, lazy, lecherous clerics of anti-Catholic satire, but tie in with the stereotype of the Calvinist preacher as a demagogue and rabble-rouser. A second element Coster introduces, moreover, is the association of Calvinism with pagan fatalism, and more specifically, with the cult of Diana, in Euripides, and elsewhere associated with child-sacrifice. In the opening scene of Coster’s Iphigenia, Achilles warns Agamemnon that the people accuse him of being an atheist because he opposes ‘the bitter commandments of Hecate’ (1.1.3–7). Hecate, of course, is one of the manifestations of Artemis or Diana. But she is also the threefaced goddess of sorcery and witchcraft, who appears at the three-forked road in the dark hours of the night; a satanical travesty of the Trinity. We find an earlier association of Contra-Remonstrantism with the cult of Diana in In the Play of the Oproar at Ephesus (Spel des Oproers tot Ephesien, 1610), a dramatized pamphlet in rhetorician’s verse written by Dierick Scabaelje (d. 1622), a minor Mennonite poet, that shows the birth of Coster’s tragedy from the spirit of theological polemics.48 Taking the text of Acts 19: 21–41 as his point of departure, Scabaelje shows Ephesus as a divided city, where a part of the population is ready to accept the message of the Gospel, but is confronted with the opposition of False Religion, who accuses the Apostles of introducing ‘novelties’, and from the silversmith Demetrio (Demetrius), who fears losing his livelihood. In line with anti-Calvinist polemic, Demetrio and False Religion are here backed by Faction, Sedition, Burning Zeal, and Persecution as the play comes to a climax with the denunciation of the Apostles as the crowd thunders ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’ (Acts 19: 34).49 The role of the town clerk, who calms the multitude, stressing that the Apostles and their followers are neither church robbers nor blasphemers, and that matters should be settled in a lawful assembly (Acts 19: 35–41), can be 48  Dirk Scabaelje, Spel des Oproers tot Ephesien (Ghedruckt tot Haerlem: By my Jacob Pauwels Houwaert, voor Daniel de Keyzer, Boekvercoper woonenden aen de Merct, [1614]) City Library Haarlem, 73 G 10: 2. 49 Scabaelje, Spel des Oproers tot Ephesien, fo. B5v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

114

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

seen as a an expression of approval of the policy of the States of Holland. Scabaelje, brother of the more famous Philip Scabaelje, who succeeded Hans de Ries as the leader of the Waterlander community, took more explicit aim at the doctrine of predestination in the pamphlet Play of the Dispute at Athens (Spel des gheschils tot Athenen, 1617), and also brought out a controversial text, the Short Explanation Concerning a Problem Touching Election (Corte ende clare aenwijsinghe van de sin/ meeninghe/ ende ooghmerck des H. Apostels Pauli in het negende Capittel zijnes brief tot den Romeynen, 1616).50 Although he does not appear to have been part of ­Coster’s Academy, we know that he was on good terms with Telle, and, possibly, Vondel.51 While his influence on Dutch literary culture may have been modest, his use of the cult of Diana as a metaphor would prove to be very successful, being employed by Coster, and later, by Vondel. Coster’s Iphigenia thus forges an association between Calvinism, pagan superstitions, and blood rituals. Even those in the audience for whom we cannot assume a familiarity with classical mythology must have understood how they were to see the ‘sacrifice’ of Iphigenia. Throughout the play, the sacrifice is presented as ‘murder’ or ‘butchery’ as well as an innovation, a foreign, idolatrous doctrine (1.2.221, 158, 282–3, 324–7). This becomes even clearer in the confrontation between the two parties in the first scene of the third act. Agamemnon takes Euripylus to task for spiritual arrogance: claiming to know the will of the gods, he argues, is tantamount to blasphemy (3.1.774–9).52 While Euripylus teaches that the Goddess must be ­appeased with Iphigenia’s blood, a true servant of God would teach that the deity abhors murder (3.1.840–4). ‘I teach Diana’s uncontaminated word’ is Euripylus’s only reply (3.1.845).53 Agamemnon challenges Euripylus’s claim to know the hidden will of Diana (3.1.887–8); with what right, he asks, does Euripylus assert this authority? Euripylus replies that as a herald of the gods, he does not need to heed time, place, or occasion to declare the wishes of the merciful gods. To which Agamemnon replies: ‘how so, “merciful”, your God takes pleasure in the death of innocents; then say, a God of vengeance’. Many, Agamemnon believes, would ­rather reject the gods altogether, than believe in such a God (1.3.889–95).54 50  Corte ende clare aenwijsinghe van de sin/meeninghe/ende ooghmerck des H. Apostels Pauli in het negende Capittel zijnes brief tot den Romeynen (Amsterdam: Nicolaes Biestkens, 1616). Dierick Scabaelje, Spel des gheschils tot Athenen (Amsterdam: Nicolaes Biestkens, 1617); Piet Visser, Broeders in de geest (Deventer: Sub Rosa, 1988), 64–5. 51 Visser, Broeders in de geest, 64–5. Telle’s sonnets can be found in Spel des Gheschils te Athenen, fo. A3r and the Corte ende clare aenwijsinghe, fo. A2v. 52 Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 254: ‘O ghy laat-dunckende, waerom laat ghy u lippen / Sulcke Gods-lastering zo reuckeloos ontslippen? / V stout beroemende dat dat u grof verstand / ’t Verborgen Goods begrijpt? en roemt u Godlijck? Want / Wat ghy zeght dat zeyd Godt, dat wild ghy moet men loven. / Wat is dat anders als God zelfs zyn eer ontroven?’ 53 Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 256: ‘Ghy leert den Volcke nu datmen de Goden moet / Te vreden stellen met Iphigeniaes bloet. / Hy leert recht anders, met naturelijcke reden, / Dat wy, zo veer als wy dees offerhande deden, / De Godheyt tergen met zo gruwelijcken moort. / Eur. Ick leer niet anders als Dianaas suw’re Woort.’ 54 Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 258: Aga. Door wien, wanneer, hebt ghy de nader tijng ghekreghen / Van die Godin als ick? wat meent ghy dat ghy zyt? Eur. K ben een ghezante Gods, die plaats, persoon noch tijt / Behoeft te vieren, om volmondich het begeeren / Der goedertieren Goon den Vollicke te leeren. Aga. Wat goedertieren toch? u God heeft een vermaack / In der onnos’len doot; seght dan een God

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

115

After Coster, it would be Vondel who would exploit the genre of victim tragedy for polemical purposes, most pointedly in his tragedy Palamedes (1625). In the years that followed he would experiment with the genre, gradually moving from a Senecan model to the biblical tragedy of Joseph in Dothan. In his pastoral tragicomedy Leeuwendalers (1648), written for the celebrations of the Peace of Münster, he returned once more to the trope of the forestalled child-sacrifice, this time not as attack on doctrinal controversy and sectarian violence, but as an allegory of forgiveness and reconciliation. 3.3  I P H I G E N I A A N D R E M O N S T R A N T E C C L E S I O L O G Y: THE EXAMPLE OF THE RESPUBLICA HEBRAEORUM Foregrounding Iphigenia’s anti-predestinarian subtext places the politics of the play in a clearer light as an intervention in the controversy over religious toleration, the relationship between church and state, and the magistrate’s ius circa sacra. By the time of the play’s first performance this controversy was nearing its climax. That Coster did not occupy a neutral position in these debates will be clear. In 1628, he was one of the signatories of a petition to the Amsterdam magistrate, asking for freedom of worship for the Remonstrants.55 A few years later, after the inauguration of the Remonstrant church, he would attend the Sunday services there.56 The catalogue of his library, auctioned after his death in 1665, offers another, tantalizingly rare, glimpse of his intellectual and religious preferences, characterizing him as an intellectual omnivore with a dilettante’s interest in history, ethnography, and the sciences. There is a substantial selection from the classics, ranging from Aristotle and Plato, Livy, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Juvenal, Cicero, Sallust, Tacitus, Lucan, Seneca, Lucretius, to Terence, Plautus, and Apuleius. Moral-philosophical and theological literature is strongly represented. In this category we find Augustine’s De civitate Dei, five volumes of Jerome, Thomas a Kempis’s De imitatione Christi, Erasmus’s Paraphrases in Novum Testamentum, Calvin’s exegesis of the book of Job, Calom’s 1633 edition of the complete works of Coornhert, and Spiegel’s Mirror of the Soul. A striking percentage of all Coster’s theological books consists in controversial literature. Here we find the work of Remonstrant theologians and polemicists including Uytenbogaert, Episcopius, Camphuysen, Poppius, Grevinchoven, and Slatius. In addition, there are several works by Grotius, a Remonstrant ­catechism, biographies of Uytenbogaert and Episcopius, a work titled Historical account of the Remonstrants, concerning the years 1618 and 1619, as well as a number of pamphlets from the same period, and The Life and Death of John of Oldenbarnevelt (1648). The other side is represented by Trigland’s History of the Church, and a book described as ‘Beza on the killing of heretics’ (De haereticis a civili magistratu van wraack. / Dies stekender veel in dat ongheloof bedoven, / Dat ‘s eer in gheen God als in sulcken God gheloven, / Ghelijck als ghy der een na u goetduncken smeet. 55 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 337 n. 101, 416. All names in Jan Wagenaaar, Amsterdam, in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten (Amsterdam, 1750–65), 497–8. 56 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 181.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

116

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

puniendis, one assumes).57 To present Coster, as some of his critics have done, as a detached observer, critical of the politics of Oldenbarnevelt as well as ContraRemonstrant intolerance, is therefore not only to misread the play, but also to ­ignore some important facts of Coster’s biography. Indeed, it is only against the background of the escalating situation, both locally, in Amsterdam, and in the Republic at large, that the play can be properly understood. The title-page of the Iphigenia, which quotes Exodus 4: 16 (‘Moses thou shall be Aaron’s God / Aaron thou shall be Moses’ mouth’), situates the play firmly in the context of the Erastian, Remonstrant analyses of the Hebrew Republic found in the work of Uytenbogaert, Grotius, and Cunaeus.58 In recent years, historiography has become more attentive to the fact that the myth of the Dutch Republic as the ‘New Israel’, rather than functioning as an unifying master-narrative of national identity, reflected the religious and political divisions which arose in the period of the Arminian controversy, being put to use to defend radically different visions of church, state, and society. As such it contributed to the intensification of division, rather than the fostering of greater unity—a fact that has been also noted about elect nation narratives in other national contexts.59 Although they are often cited in one breath, a world of difference, not merely in political and ecclesiological ­vision, but also in religious and literary sensibility, divides the plays of the Contra-­ Remonstrant rhetorician Abraham de Kooning from Joost van den Vondel’s Jerusalem Destroyed (Hiersualem verwoest, 1620), a play which maps the religious divisions described by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities on Dutch society in the aftermath of Dort. In the work of Dutch Hebraists in Leiden and Franeker, opposing views of the nature of the church and the relation between clergy and civil magistrate resulted in fundamentally different visions of the Hebrew polity. According to Constantijn l’Empereur, professor of Hebrew at the University of Leiden from 1626 to 1647, the example of the Jews of the Old Testament argued for the autonomy of the church. In his dedication of his edition of the Mishna tractate Middot, he ­reminded the States of Holland of their duty to protect the church and to uphold the canons of the Synod of Dort.60 In 1644 l’Empereur brought out an annotated 57  M. M. Kleerkoper, ‘Een vergeten catalogus – Catalogus Bibliothecae D. Samueli Costeri’ [1665] repr. in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde, 17 (1888). Kleerkoper noticed Coster’s interest in Remonstrant literature, Kleerkoper, ‘Een vergeten catalogus’, 12. 58  ‘Samuel Costers Iphigenia. Treur-spel. / Exod. cap. 4. vers. 16. / Moses ghy sult Aarons Godt zijn. / Aaron ghy sult Moses mondt zijn, etc. / Lactantius. / Homo dum vult videri nimis religiosus / Fit superstisiosus et delirat.’ (Amsterdam: Nicolaas Biestkens, 1617). 59  For the older view, which regarded the myth of the New Israel as a unifying force, see Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches (New York: Knopf, 1987), 68; Lea Campos Boralevi, ‘La respublica Hebraeorum nella tradizione Olandese’ in Politeia Biblica, special issue of Il pensiero politica, ed. Leah Campos Boralevi and Diego Quaglioni, 25/3 (2002), 431–63; Willem Frijhoff, ‘Religious Toleration in the United Provinces: From “Case” to “Model”’, in R. Po-Chia Hsia and Henk F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), 27–52; for a critique of this position, see Miriam Bodian’s ‘The Biblical “Jewish Republic” and the New Israel’, in Gordon Sochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger, and Meirav Jones (eds), Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought (Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press, 2008), 150–1. 60  Peter T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century: Constantijn l’Empereur (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 102–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

117

edition of Cornelius Betram’s De politia judaica tam civili quam ecclesiastica (1571), the authoritative Calvinist interpretation of the Hebrew Republic.61 The Remonstrants and their political supporters, too, regarded the Hebrew polity as normative, yet used it in support of a model of church–state relations that was Erastian and latitudinarian, and would exert a powerful influence on the debate on toleration in both England and the Dutch Republic.62 Many early modern Hebraists, as Eric Nelson has argued, viewed the Hebrew sources through the text of Josephus’s Against Apion, which had explained the form of the Hebrew politeia as a theocracy with God as civil sovereign.63 This meant that the Hebrew Republic recognized no distinction between ecclesiastical and civil legislation, as both civil and religious laws were in the hands of the highest civil magistrate, and that its exercise of religious legislation had the civic well-being of the Hebrew polity in view.64 Both sides of this argument can already be found in Erastus, whose works, as we have seen, were promoted by the opponents of Calvinist church discipline even before the outbreak of the Arminian controversy. In his Explicatio gravissimae quaestionis, utrum excommunicatio mandato nitatur divino an excogitata sit ab hominibus, Erastus defended the view that ecclesiastical and political authority were not separated, and that the Sanhedrin had jurisdiction over religious as well as civil affairs.65 Erastus’s argument aimed to show that the Hebrew state had never known excommunication. Although the magistracy did have the duty to punish those who transgressed the law of God, it did so only insofar as such transgression endangered peace and unity, and explicitly did not extend over matters of belief: ‘the power of restraining unclean and criminal persons was in the Magistrate, whose duty it was not only to punish these men according to the Law of God, but likewise to constitute all external religion, for not Aaron but Moses did this: God so commanding’.66 The first Remonstrant text that extensively engaged with the model of the Hebrew Republic was Uytenbogaert’s Treatise Concerning the Office of the Sovereign Magistrate in Church Affairs (Tractaet van’t Ampt der hoghe Overheyt kerckelijcke saecken, 1610). Uytenbogaert had written this work in response to critics like Gomarus and Donteclock, who accused the Arminians of undermining the authority of the church by appealing to the States of Holland to protect them from ecclesiastical censure. Ultimately, they argued, such procedures could only lead to the complete subordination of church to state. Uytenbogaert’s Treatise endeavours to counter these accusations. It sets out by outlining three models of the relation between the civil magistrate and the church: subjugation of the civil magistrate to the authority of the church (the ‘Roman model’); collaterality (the ‘Genevan 61  Van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies, 22–5. 62  See the lucid analysis in Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 88–127. 63 Nelson, Hebrew Republic, 89–91; a good guide to both sides of the debate is still Douglas Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration (Cambridge: CUP, 1938). 64 Nelson, Hebrew Republic, 91. 65  Ruth Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus (Lahr and Baden: Schauenburg, 1954). 66  Quoted in Nelson, Hebrew Republic, 94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

118

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

model’), in which church and civil magistrate stand next to each other, with the church having the highest authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and the magistrate in political affairs;67 and lastly there is the model which Uytenboagert claims is the only one that accords to scripture, and the only one which guarantees social and political stability: subjection of the clergy to a Christian magistrate, under God’s Word.68 Uytenbogaert’s real target, it will be clear, is not papal tyranny, but collaterality. Just as his opponents saw the Arminians’ ‘contempt’ for ecclesiastical procedure and appeal to the authority of the States as the radix omnium malorum, Uytenbogaert was convinced that no unity, peace, or stability could be expected as long as collaterality or evenhoofdigheid (the existence, next to each other, of two supreme authorities in one body politic) continued. ‘This collaterality’, he insisted, ‘must be abandoned, and must stay away’.69 Uytenbogaert’s analysis focuses on the conflicts that he claimed inevitably arose from collaterality. For while the clergy are, like everyone else, subject to the authority of the magistrates in all matters pertaining civil life, the magistrates themselves are, as members of the public church, subject to authority of the clergy, who have the power to censure and to excommunicate. Many of the powers which the Calvinist clergy arrogate, such as censorship and the prosecution of heretics, directly pertain to public order and will invariably lead to conflict with the civil authorities. In the following years, the Hebrew model would be developed further in Cunaeus’s De republica Hebraeorum (1617) and Grotius’s De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra (composed around 1617, published posthumously in 1647). It equally inspired the poets and playwrights associated with Coster’s Academy: Hooft and, somewhat later, Vondel, as well as Coster himself. In Hooft’s tragedy Baeto, a play about the eponymous prince of the Chatii, regarded as the founding father of the Batavian nation, one sees one civic foundational myth, that of the ­Batavian ancestors of the Dutch, subtly being inflected by another, that of the Dutch Republic as the New Israel. Baeto, having been eliminated from the succession to the throne by the plotting of his stepmother, who has also murdered his wife, decides not to pursue revenge, but to lead the part of the nation that is willing to follow him to a new homeland, an exodus that resonates both with Aeneas’s departure from Troy and with Moses leading the people out of Egypt.70 Yet when Baeto insists that the priests should head the procession, the high-priestess Zege­ mond corrects him: as the highest authority, he himself should guide his people, while the priests and priestesses should follow in the rear. The play, scheduled for the opening of Coster’s Academy, should leave no doubt that the ecclesiastical order of the Batavians did not differ in this respect from that of the ancient 67  On the papal model, see Uytenbogaert, Tractaet van’t ampt ende Authoriteyt van eener hoogher Christelicker Overheid in kerkelicke saecken (The Hague: Hillebrantz Jacobsz, 1610 [2nd edn]), 1–18, for the ‘Genevan model’, 18–63. On Uytenbogaert’s Treatise, see also Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration, 25–49. For the life of Uytenbogaert, see Hendrik C. Rogge, Johannes Wtenbogaert en zijn tijd ­(Amsterdam, 1875). 68 Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 66. 69  Rabbie, introduction in Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas (1613). Critical edn with English tr. and commentary by Edwin Rabbie (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 15. 70  P. C. Hooft, Baeto, ed. Fokke Veenstra (Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink, 1976).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

119

­ ebrews. Hooft also consulted Grotius for advice, although he did not in the end H follow his suggestion that the play should end with the inauguration of Baeto following the conditions of the Grand Privilege of Mary of Burgundy (1477)—not altogether incomprehensible in view of Hooft’s attempt to maintain a modicum of historical verisimilitude.71 By the time that Baeto had reached completion, the political situation in the Republic had deteriorated to such an extent that Hooft thought it prudent to withhold the manuscript from publication.72 Coster, a man of an altogether different temperament, took no such precautions, although it would appear that the first performance of Iphigenia took place indoors, for a select audience. The titlepage of the 1617 edition of the play reads ‘Samuel Coster’s Iphigenia / Tragedy. Exod. cap.4, vers. 16 / Moses thou shall be Aaron’s God / Aaron thou shall be Moses’ mouth, &c. / Lactantius / Homo dum vult videri nimis religiosus / Fit superstitiosus & delirat.’ The frontispiece to the play features an engraving which depicts the dangers of ‘collaterality’ in emblematic form. It shows two horses, identified as ‘the world’; the one on the left obedient, under the control of the sovereign, who carries both the whip of ‘iustitia’ and the bridle of ‘religi[o]’; the one on the right, carrying both sovereign swaying the whip and a clergyman holding the bridle, rebellious and bolting. Uytenbogaert’s analysis of the dangers of collaterality and Coster’s graphic rendering of the same idea focus on a contested point in Reformed thinking on the relation between church and state, that is no more resolved in the work of Gomarus and Trigland than it is in Calvin’s Institutes: how two powers, ecclesiastical and civil, each autonomous within its own sphere, can coexist in a polity without giving rise to conflict over mutual rights and competences.73 Yet the Remonstrants, in turn, never took up the challenge posed by the ContraRemonstrant claim that they misunderstood of the true nature of the church. To maintain that the Reformed are introducing collaterality is to confuse what it is to rule over a country, and to wield authority over a church.74 While the civil magistrate has the task of maintaining public order, upholding justice, and punishing evildoers, the church, whose king is Christ, is not of this world. It is a spiritual kingdom, the realm of grace.75 To give the civil magistrate authority over the church is to confuse the realm of power and the realm of grace. The radically different nature of these two realms, Trigland claims, neutralizes any danger of 71  Grotius to Hooft, 23 Sept. 1616, P. C. Hooft, Briefwisseling, ed. H. W. van Tricht (Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink, 1976–9), i. 273 (no. 97) and Hooft’s reply to Grotius, 19 Oct. 1616, P. C. Hooft, Briefwisseling, i. 274–5 (no. 98); Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en de Groot’, 56. 72  On this act of self-censorship Fokke Veenstra, ‘Hooft in de troebelen van het Bestand: Waarom hij zijn Baeto in portefeuille hield’, in W. Abrahamse, A. C. G. Fleurkens, and M. Meijer Drees (eds), Kort Tijt-verdrijf: Opstellen over Nederlands toneel vanaf circa 1550 aangeboden aan Mieke B. SmitsVeldt (Amsterdam: AD&L Uitgevers, 1996), 111–18. 73  See for this tension in Calvin’s Institutes Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: CUP, 1982), 122–4; Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration, 1–24. 74 Trigland, Kerckeclijcke geschiedenissen, 149. 75 Trigland, Kerckelijcke geschiedenissen, 448–9. Compare Trigland, Christelycke ende nootwendighe verclaringhe, 30–73, 30–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

120

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

c­ollaterality. While the public authority holds sovereign authority in political ­affairs, human authority over the church is by definition always subaltern, as its only sovereign is Christ. Indeed, the very nature of authority is different. The authority of the church is not a coercive force, like political power, but a serving power, and in that way it is closer to paternal authority than political power.76 Therefore there is no comparison between the way magistrates are subjected to the authority of ministers as members of the church, and the way the clergy are subject to the political authority of the magistrates.77 The magistrate has authority over the public exercise of religion, albeit this authority is by its very nature limited, but it does not have power over the church, for it has not received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Giving the magistrate power over and in the church would be to set it up as pope over the church, and would inevitably lead to constraint of conscience.78 Those who defend the magistrate’s right over the church ipso facto change ecclesiastical offices into political ones, subvert the Kingdom of Christ, and change religion into ‘ethical or political virtue’.79 Yet Uytenbogaert’s blueprint for a well-ordered Christian commonwealth follows this unitary model, with a divinely ordained sovereign authority, under God and bound by God’s Word, to which the clerical estate owes strict obedience.80 Uytenbogaert bolsters his argument with a host of proof-texts taken from scripture, Christian antiquity—in particular the examples of the Christian emperors who convened church councils and acted as arbiters and judges in religious controversies— as well as from the Reformers. Its foundation, however, is the Old Testament: God’s election of Moses as leader, prophet, priest, and judge of the Jewish people. God ordained Aaron’s investiture as high priest through the authority of Moses and with Moses keeping supreme authority, and his brother serving as his helper and instrument (Exod. 4: 12, 15–16). For Uytenbogaert, this is the foundational moment of the Jewish commonwealth, the character of which remained unaltered even after the institution of the Levitical priesthood. Indeed, Uytenbogaert strongly emphasizes the point that God’s command to Moses does not constitute an ‘extra­ odinaris’ case; rather it is a rule that has been kept by God’s people since the days of Moses.81 Nor has the coming of Christ changed the basic form of this church government, for ‘the correct ordering of worldly and spiritual authority has been instituted by God in the Old Testament, or rather from the beginning of the world’.82 This hasty addition seems to point to one of the weaknesses in Uytenbogaert’s ­argument, which Grotius, as we shall see, was aiming to remedy. For whether or not the church had been instituted in this way from its earliest beginnings, it could hardly be denied, as Contra-Remonstrants were quick to point out, that the church had often in its history been forced to govern itself, as when the highest magistrate

76 Trigland, Kerkelijcke geschiedenissen, 456. 77 Trigland, Kerkelijcke geschiedenissen, 457. 78 Trigland, Kerkelijcke geschiedenissen, 450. 79 Trigland, Kerkelijcke geschiedenissen, 459. 80 Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 67–134. 81 Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 70.   82 Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 83, 87.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

121

was pagan, or heretical, or, more recently, under Philip II, a persecutor of the church.83 Coster’s account of the proper division of power between worldly and spiritual authority follows Uytenbogaert’s Treatise very closely. Nestor, at his most didactic, gives an exposition of the dangers of having two powers in one state, before citing the Hebrew commonwealth (somewhat incongruously, in a Greek prince!) as the model of a properly instituted polity. The Jewish republic was founded on God’s election of Moses as leader, prophet, priest, and judge of the people, and Aaron’s investiture as high priest as his brother’s helper and servant, leaving Moses’ autho­ rity intact. While the ancient model did eventually fall into disarray, causing conflicts between kings and prophets, it was brought back to its first principles by King David, who reunited the two functions in one office (5.1.1629–45).84 The corollary of this vision of the body politic is that religious toleration falls under the discretion of the civil magistrate. Uytenbogaert gives a vivid description of the conflicts and confusion in the Dutch Reformed churches, before pointing to the only possible remedy: Whether such confusion will be ameliorated—as someone might say—when the magistrate, because it has supreme authority, will want to be informed and pass judgement? Not entirely, yet for the principal part: especially when it is god-fearing, and, rejecting the way of the killing of heretics (which I cannot under any circumstance tolerate) uses other means suitable to educate and ease the consciences, without external force and violence, of which we will come to speak at a different time.85 83 Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 24. 84 Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 285–7: Nes.: Een volck van Aulis af, zuydoostewaarts gheleghen, / Dat in Egypten lant met strenghe slaverny / Wel eertydts was gheplaacht, en is gheworden vry / Door eenen Moses, die ’r uyt de dienst-huysen leyde / Van Phar’o de Tyran, door veelderley verscheyde / Behendicheen, en heeft ses hondert duysent mans / Personen, veertich jaar door meen’gen suuren kans, / Door swaard, door pest, door dorst, door diepe water-stromen / Ghesleept, voor datse zyn int rechte lant ghekomen. / Om dit veelsinn’ghe volck te houden int bedwang / Van Gods en Werelts Wet, ging Moses dese gang. / Het opperste ghesach heeft hy selfs heel behouden: / Sijn Broeder Aaron, die ’y volkomelijck vertrouden, / Gaf hy het Priester ampt, door Goddelijck bevel: / Dat was gheen vreemdeling. En op dat ’t alles wel / Mocht in den lande gaan, so lang als hy ’t beheerde, / Most Aron spreken maar het gheen dat hy begheerde, / En dit ging taam’lijck wel dies Moses leven uyt; / Dan dese ordening nam na zijn doot een stuyt: / Want men begon terstont om de vooghdy te wryten, / Die toch ten lesten viel te beurt de Aronyten. / Met vallen, opstaan, en met groote moeyten wierdt / Dit hoofdeloose volck so langhe dus bestiert, / Tot dat haar raadsaam docht te kiesen eenen Koning, / Veel meerder met de naam, als daadt, in Is’rels woning, / De Koning, na den aardt der Koningen ghemeen, / Woud (als het reden lijckt) ’tghebieden heel alleen / Tot hem betrecken, sonder yemandt yets te vragen: / Maer des Prophetens last en kond dit niet verdraghen, / Die ’y neffens hem had, en hy maackten ’t so, dat hy / Niet meer verstreckte dan een doode schildery, / En ’tvolck dat kreech aan hem ten deele een misnoeghen, / Waar door ten lesten hem zyn vyanden versloegen. / Na dese David quam, een Man van groot verstant, / Die op een ander wijs regeerde ’t Jootsche Landt. / Wat deed’ hy dan? Maar hy (de vorighe ghebreken) / In staats beheersinghe wel hebbende doorkeken, / Sulcks dat hy hem verstont de saken allerley / Verstrecten de Propheet en Koning alle bey. / Dat was de rechte slach, en ’t waar voor lant en luyden / Van Godt te wenschen, dat de saken noch op huyden / So gingen; want dan soud noch erghe staat-suchts list, / Nocht Papen mis-verstant ons maken dese twist. / Een Paap kent al in roer nu stellen met zijn kallen, / En ’t oproer kennen zy niet stillen met haar allen: / En Agamemnon ’t is hier niet op sulck een voet / Te brenghen, dan alleen door een ghedwee ghemoet: / Dat is de middel, Vorst, daar door ghy sult betomen / Dit volck, en metter tijd u aansien weer bekomen. Compare Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 70. 85 Uytenbogaert, Tractaet, 60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

122

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Similar views can also be found in Grotius’s De imperio and would be further ­developed in De iure belli ac pacis (1625). Cunaeus’s De republica Hebraeorum (1617) offers another example of the way in which, in the fraught atmosphere of the ­Arminian controversy, the example of the Hebrew Republic was being put to political uses. Grotius had solicited Cunaeus’s advice on the Meletius, and he appears to have been similarly involved in the Ordinum pietas. Grotius, in turn, was involved in the genesis of the De republica Hebraeorum. In a letter to their mutual friend Apollonius Schotte, dated February 1615, Cunaeus, who by that time had been promoted to the title of doctor utriusque iuris, explained that he was working on a revision of the text, and that he planned to undertake a more extensive comparison of the Jewish and Roman legal system. Meanwhile, he was considering publishing book 3 of the text, which dealt with the Hebrew church, in advance. Grotius, he writes, has promised to send this part of the manuscript to Schotte for revision.86 In the end, De republica Hebraeorum appeared in 1617 printed by the Elzevier press in Leiden, and accompanied by a dedication to the States of Holland, which stated the political use, as well as the moral authority, of the Hebrew polity in no uncertain terms: For your inspection, most illustrious Members of States, I offer a republic—the holiest ever to have existed in the world, and the richest and example for us to emulate. It is entirely in your interest to study closely this republic’s origins and growth, because its creator and founder was not some man sprung from mortal matter, but immortal God Himself—He whose worship and whose pure service, you have adopted and now protect. You will see what it was, in the end, that preserved the Hebrew citizens for so long in an almost innocent way of life, stirring up their courage, nurturing their harmonious coexistence, and reining in their selfish desires.87

The introduction raises the theme of concord and its decline, which will be a recurrent concern throughout the work. Cunaeus locates the loss of concord in the period after Solomon’s death, when the kingdom split into two warring factions. Even at that moment, all would not have been lost, if it had not been for Jeroboam, a man ‘thoroughly versed in the shameful crimes men use to dominate each other’, ‘who corrupted the true religion with an empty superstition’.88 None too subtly, Cunaeus hammers home the contemporary parallel: ‘Many of your citizens have already split off into factions of one sort or another; and they have been fighting over these differences of opinion ever since they entered into a pointless conflict over obscure issues of religious doctrine which most of them do not even understand. Then the mob follows its own passions in one direction or another, and every day more and more people are caught up.’89 In his discussion of Israelite kingship, in book 1, chapter 14, Cunaeus argues the Erastian view that the Jewish commonwealth was a ‘priestly kingdom’, where kings ‘did not only govern in civil affairs, and military, but were presidents of religion 86  The letter is quoted in Eyffinger’s introduction (Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press, 2006), p. xxxiv. 87 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 3.   88 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, dedication, 5. 89 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, dedication, 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

123

and holy ceremonies’.90 Cunaeus finds additional proof for the priesthood’s subordination to the king in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, which speaks of a statute stipulating that the high priest should yield his place to sit to the king, and that he should stand in his presence.91 Yet Cunaeus goes one step further by linking the demise of this Erastian model to the decline of the Hebrew Republic. Corruption had set in after the Babylonian captivity, when ‘the injustices of the age’ gave rise to ‘a new scheme of government’ in which the Levites began to usurp the priestly office, and eventually, political authority, until ‘the arrogance and the pride of monarchic rule caused them to blur the difference between God’s place and man’s’.92 The priests ‘enjoyed themselves, or disposed of to others, all favour, wealth and power: the rest were Plebeians without honour, without authority’. Superstition followed on the heels of priestcraft: once the divinely instituted order had been lost, the Jews began to fight each other ‘over their conflicting interpretations of the Holy Book, and their disagreements about doctrine and matters of ritual’.93 The result was the emergence of sects and heresies: Men whose religion was excessively zealous split themselves into opposing factions, and once divided by a single mistake they disagreed on everything and came to be entirely at odds with one another. Now, for the first time, a great many people embraced the Sadducees’ insane idea that the soul like the body is mortal, and that after this life good and evil men receive neither rewards nor punishments. At the same time, the Pharisees (who were far too argumentative) used their imaginations to broaden the scope of divine law far beyond anything Moses had intended. After these two sects a third emerged, the Essenes; they scrutinized every aspect of religious purity with somewhat more care than the others, in accordance with anxious superstitions of their own.94

Cunaeus’s account of the religion of the ancient Hebrews resembles Grotius’s irenicist hermeneutics in its opposition of the essential articles of the faith to ‘ridiculous superstition’ that obsesses over ‘definitions’ and precise ‘formulas’.95 As in Grotius’s Meletius and Ordinum pietas, doctrinal assertion (the sickness of an inferior age, as Cunaeus calls it) is the root of all evil, leading to a loss of concord and ‘strife, anger, and a total free-for all’.96 Interestingly, it is just this nexus between religious fanaticism, civil strife, and the downfall of the Jewish state which Vondel dramatized in Jerusalem Destroyed. The need for toleration is the theme of the dedication of the play to former burgomaster C. P. Hooft, the man who had been Oldenbarnevelt’s most loyal supporter in Amsterdam. Vondel, for whom the final years of the Arminian controversy had been a political coming of age, embraced these issues with the ardour of one newly

90 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 58, I.xiv; see also Nelson, Hebrew Republic, 108–11, on which this section draws. 91 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 58–9, I.xiv; the same reference to Maimonides also in Grotius’s De imperio, VI.8, 19, pp. 304–5. 92 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 103, II.ix. 93 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 121, II.xvii.    94 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 121–2, II.xvii. 95 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 216, III.ix.    96 Cunaeus, Hebrew Republic, 216, III.ix.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

124

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

converted. It seems more than likely that, as well as Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, which critics have long recognized as a key source for the text, Vondel relied on Cunaeus’s De republica Hebraeorum in his first major act of support for the cause of the now defeated party. Coster’s Iphigenia, too, testifies to the same concerns. Indeed, the play opens with king Agamemnon’s defence of his own role as the sovereign arbiter in religious matters. Agamemnon sees his task as a fine balancing act: while he refuses to set himself up as judge of men’s consciences, thereby usurping God’s prerogative, he also does not intend to give licence to all so that they can preach whatever they believe (1.1.9–20).97 He believes that religious disagreement is in itself not insurmountable, if obstinacy did not prevent reconciliation. He nevertheless refuses to side with the majority view, since the other party perhaps honours God as well. Keeping the two parties balanced off against each other also forestalls the danger that they might unite against the ruler. History has shown that the interference of the clergy invariably produces confusion in the state (1.1.25–56).98 This view of history is endorsed by the chorus, which praise the ruler who maintains aurea mediocritas. The judges who have ruled ‘these lands’ from times immemorial have followed this rule, looking for the common welfare, and leaving the mind free from constraint. The clergy, however, despise this freedom and would rather lay down the law themselves. May God grant that we will never see them in power, it exclaims (1.4.352–71).99 As the plot against Agamemnon unfolds, the denunci97  Aga.: Dit zie ’k, dit ly ick niet, dat elck van Gode leere, / Den mensch int openbaar al ’t quaat dat hy begeere: / Dat was uytsinnicheyt, en zulck ontzint ghebroet / Zoeck ick te dempen met een yverich ghemoedt. / En dat my nu een hoop onrustighe ghezellen / Zoeckt tot haar Godsdiensts staat een harde wet te stellen, / IK en sta ’t haar nummer toe: maar ick stel haar ghemeyn / Een wet, ghehoorsaamheyt: alzo daar nu in treyn / Zo veel Godsdiensten zijn die weynich zoude scheelen / ’t En deed styfzinnicheyt, die niet zoeckt dan krackeelen. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 227–8. 98  Aga.: (-) Zulcx dat ick na myn oordeel . . . / ‘Tschier nodich acht te zijn tot ’s Lants en ’s Vorsten voordeel, / Wanneer hy in zyn Rijck heeft yveraren haat, / Dat hy die voed’, so sticht hy sich een vaste staat. / Daar hy, zoo ’y al te seer op d’ eene zyd wil hellen, / Zijn wereltlijck gheluck in groot ghevaar sal stellen. / De reden is, om dat de blinde yver van / ’T ghemeene Volck (die toch niet verder en ziet, dan / De neus haar lang en is) de gheestelijcke prachten / (Die ’t haar laat dencken oock) toerekent alle machten, / Ja toe-schrijft het ghewelt in Hemel en op Aardt. / Zelfs hier daar ghy my tot het heerschen kenden waardt. / En ’t gheestelijck dat zich dit achten moest onwaardich, / En ‘t volck bestratten dies: wat doet het? maar hovaardich / Tracht heb na grootheyt, daar ’t noch naulijcx aan genoeght, / Hoewel haar alderbest moey’lijcke kleynheyt voeght; / Kleynheyt, so zouden zy door rijckdoms dertelheden / Den volcke min als nu erg’ren met quade zeden. / Dat oock haar kleynheyt zy met moeylijckheyt vermengt / Is an belangt: want my nu driemaal al ghedenct, / Dat dese, doese niet heel waren overladen / Met stage slaverny in haar beroeping, traden / Haar parck te buyten, en z’en hielen gansch gheen maat, / Haar te bemoeyen met regeringe van staat, / Daar in zy zijn zo blint als blint gheboren mollen, / En wroetent al om met haar schriftelijcke grollen. / Ist dan geen nodich quaat voor ’t stadich Griecksche Rijck, / Dat ick haar stadich werck berey met haars ghelijck? / Want wast dat Mopsus niet met Calchas en verscheelden, / En dus belachelijck om raatseltgens krackeelden, / En dat zyt waren eens, ick denck zy zouden my / Ten strijd ontseggen om de Wereltsche vooghdy. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 228–9. 99  Chor: ’t Ken-teken vanden aertschen Heylich is / Bescheydenheyt, die niet doet by de gis, / Maer al met rypen raad, / Die middel-maat / In alle zaken hout: / En dat is ’theylich oudt / Des rechters, van dit Lant, bescheyden, / Van vvien vvy heul alleen verbeyden. / Die rechter stelt ’t ghemoet noch maat, noch vvet, / En midler tydt vvel op ’s Lants orbaer let. / Op deze vryicheyd / Een-zyicheyd / Der Kercken smaalt aleen, / Die gaeren anders gheen / Had by haer met der vvoon. Godt gheve / Dat

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

125

ations of the Greek priesthood become increasingly vehement. In the third act, the chorus returns to the division of power between the clergy and the magistrate in a bitter complaint about the state of affairs. The gods must be lenient, to allow their divinity to be mocked by priests who, instead of serving them, work for the ambitions of a prince. What follows is a whole catalogue of the sins of the priesthood who are denounced as atheists, hypocritical, and venal. They incite the mob as the wind stirs up the waters of the sea. Agamemnon, they insist, has no choice but to lower the anchor, for otherwise the ship of state will surely perish in this storm (3.4.1118–47).100 The chorus indeed has reason to be wary of the priesthood. In the following act, Euripylus uncovers the plot against Agamemnon to Ulysses. Whereas we have previously seen him avowing his loyalty to the sovereign, claiming to have no interest in political power, he now asserts that princes hold their power only by permission of the clergy. When Agamemnon continues to resist, he will provoke civil war, turning the country into a wasteland ‘where corpse on corpse does rot’ (4.4.1419– 30).101 Euripylus will use Achilles, who will be promised supreme command over the army, ‘although’, he assures Ulysses, ‘we mean nothing of the sort’, as the tool to oust Agamemnon (4.4.1452–5).102 Euripylus departs in triumph, leaving Ulysses, who had hoped to gain by Agamemnon’s fall, to curse the treachery of the priest (4.5.1456–60).103

niemant haer bestier beleve. / Woelichen hoop, rust onder de voochdy / Dyns rechters oudt, dien Godt de Heerschapy / Gaf over al ’t beleyt / Van Wereltscheyt. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 240. 100  Chor.: O goedertieren Goden zyt / Ghy zo langmoedich, dat ghy lijt / Dat uwe Godheyt vvort gheschelt / Ghelastert en tot spot ghestelt / Van Papen, die de vvil en vvensch / Veel meer van een staatsuchtich Mensch / Ghelieven (om haar veylicheyt) / Als uwe waarde heylicheyt? / ’tis Is vvaar, ick sulcken Priester ken, / Die nauvv in God of af-god en / Ghelooven: dan die luyden zyn / Zeer onghelijc haar eyghen schijn. / Door zulcke luyden vvordt om gheldt / Het landt in rep en roer ghesteldt; / Want ’t ringste deel van ’t volckje slecht, / Wort van haar qualijc onderrecht, / En in ghenomen, en eer lang / Zyn zy dan zelf der Vorsten dwang. / Ghelijc een Noorder storm de Zee / Bevveecht, bevveghen zy luy mee / De menschen door een yd’le droom. / Die teghen dese vvint en stroom / Opzeylen vvil, verliest zyn Schip, / Zyn lyf, zyn goedt, op eenen klip. / Van deze storm en baren vvort / Ghy Agamemnon nu bestort. / Stiert ’t ancker daarom na de grondt, / En ziet of ghy ’t of-ryen kondt, / Dat is nu veer de beste raat, / Voor ’t volc, voor u, en voor de staat. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 268–9. 101  Eur: Ick steldt wel al in roer. Het sal mijn niet ghebreken / Aan die macht, dat ick sal de klare Water-beken / Veranderen in bloedt, door moort, die man aan man / Bedryven sal, waarop daatlijck sal volghen dan, / So veer hy op zyn oude Vryheydt wil volherden, / Dat dese steden tot puyn-hoopen sullen werden; / De boomen galghen, en het woest onvruchtbaar veldt / Een Kerrick-hof, daar romp op romp rot, door ’t gheweldt / Van dese tong, die my een trommel sal verstrecken, / Om ’t Volck te ruyen op, dat ‘t harnas aan sal trecken / So ras ick ’t maar ghebied. Laat hy dat dencken vry, / Als ick spreeck, dat dan Godt spreeckt yverich door my. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 278–9. 102  Eur: En ick sal midlertydt Achilles hier van spreken, / Die ’k wijs sal maken dat wy ’t opperste ghebiedt / Hem gheven willen, schoon al meenen wy het niet; / Om ’tvoordeel sal hy sich op onse zyde gheven. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 280. 103  Ulys: Dat snood’ gheselschap is volkomelyck bedreven / Op allerley bedroch. Ick moeter nu me deur, / Dan waar ick die ick was, en stondet in mijn keur / Oft ick dit wederom mocht aangaan ofte laten, / Ick sweert, zy souden my so schoon niet weder praten. / Dan, laas! wat ist, ick merck te laat haar schelmery, / Want zy staan zelfs na ’tgheen dat zy beloofden my: / Dat is de Kroon op ’t hooft, die zy wel willen gheven, / Des dat die, diese draacht, naar hare wil moet leven. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 280.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

126

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

The toleration which Coster’s Iphigenia defends is, it shall be clear, a limited one, far removed from Coornhert’s plea for full liberty of worship, and is better understood as doctrinal latitudinarianism than religious toleration. The example of the Hebrew Republic could in fact be used to construct a wider argument of religious toleration, but this is a development which only takes place after Dort, as Remonstrant theologians such as Passchier De Fyne and Simon Episcopius began to ­articulate a theory of religious toleration. Coster’s Iphigenia firmly belongs to an early phase of Remonstrant apologetics, something which also becomes apparent when one compares its account of the role of the civil magistrate to that of Grotius’s De imperio. Interestingly, Coster’s Nestor appears to follow Uytenbogaert’s argument that the ius in sacra belongs to the magistrate under God, rather than that of Grotius, who argued that such a right had belonged to pagan emperors as well. Uytenbogaert expressly qualified his defence of the rights of the civil authority by insisting that this model only has validity in situations where the magistrate stands under God and is bound by his Word. Grotius understood that this argument created a flaw in historical narrative of the Tractaet, as well as, in the politicized atmosphere of the times in which some of the more outspoken preachers did not hesitate to accuse the magistrate of atheism, libertinism, or heresy, the potential liability it constituted.104 He therefore insisted that the civil magistrate’s power in ecclesiastical affairs derives from the fact that it possesses sovereign authority. The nature of sovereign authority is such that it does not tolerate division.105 Authority over religious affairs is of the same nature as that over civil affairs.106 Examples from the Old Testament and Jewish history do carry weight, yet Grotius takes pains to emphasize that God prescribed positive law to the people of Israel alone.107 There are, therefore, definite dangers in a too literal-minded interpretation of the example of the Hebrew commonwealth: ‘we must not always and everywhere apply arguments taken from the Levitical priesthood to preachers of the Gospel, since there is a wide gap between the two, both in the offices themselves and in their respective designations’.108 Grotius counters the orthodox argument that Christ is the head of the church with the argument that this statement can only be true in the figurative sense: ‘Whoever makes Scripture his judge has the right sentiment, but speaks in figurative language. For if we take the literal meaning of the words, Scripture is the norm 104  See on this point e.g. Donteclock, who argues that only a minority within the States of Holland professes the Reformed religion, ‘while some, following the teachings of Coornhert and Franck show little interest in it, and others are inclined towards an altogether different religion, such as that of the Papists, Lutherans, and Anabaptists. And I pass over these who do not eschew certain abominable sects.’ Donteclock, Overlegginghe, 31. 105  ‘Et sane eximi quicquam ab imperio summae potestatis ratio nulla patitur’: Grotius, De imperio, I.3, ll. 16, pp. 158–9; cf. Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration, 60, 64–5. 106  ‘His praestructis accedamus ad demonstrandam paritatem imperii circa sacra et circa res alias’: Grotius, De imperio, III.9, ll. 25–6, pp. 216–17. 107 Grotius, De imperio, III.3, pp. 208–9. 108  ‘Idque satis esse debet ad nos amonendos ne passim atque promiscue a sacerdotibus Leviticis ad Evangelii ministros argumentum ducamus, cum et in ipso munere et in modo personas designandi latum sit discrimen.’ Grotius, De imperio, II.5, ll. 3–8, pp. 196–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

127

for judgement, but nothing is ever its own measure.’109 Human actions do not follow from divine judgement unless human judgement is interposed.110 Where Uytenbogaert’s Treatise presented the passing of priestly authority from Moses to Aaron in relatively simple terms as an act of delegation, Grotius draws a sharp distinction between authority (imperio) and its subordinate functions (functiones): functions exist in two forms, subordinate but standing in a natural relationship to the thing to which they are subordinated, and those that are simply subordinate. The former contain some authority, the latter do not, and it is clear that Grotius sees the clergy as falling in this category of subordinate without authority.111 A further application of the distinction between persuasive rule, declarative rule, and constitutive rule to the powers of ministers and of the church as a body allows him to argue that, even though the church possesses constitutive rule through consent, neither church nor ministers possess that kind of rule which is constitutive through authority, or as it is termed ‘which intrinsically obliges by force of its superiority’.112 It is remarkable that, in outlining the ideal relationship between church and state, Coster chooses to follow Uytenbogaert’s Tractaet, rather than Grotius’s Ordinum pietas. Equally noticeable is the transmogrification in Coster’s play of politicoreligious controversy into satire, following a dynamic very similar to that described in Chapter 2. Uytenbogaert takes great pains to avoid giving the impression that he believes his opponents are deliberately aiming to introduce collaterality. He ­always treats his opponent, Gomarus, with tact and respect, and avoids ad hominem attacks. Of course, Uytenbogaert had little choice but to proceed carefully. Gomarus was an opponent to be reckoned with, and not someone who could easily be put into the corner as a Calvinist rabble-rouser. Uytenbogaert thus directs his attention to what he believes to be the flaws in his opponent’s argumentation, intending to demonstrate that, even though the Reformed claim their ecclesiology leaves the rights of the magistrate intact, it must nevertheless inevitably lead to collaterality. There is no place for such restraint in Coster’s Iphigenia. In part, this was due to the sharpening of religious divisions and the intensification of pamphlet polemics, to which the publication of Grotius’s Ordinum pietas had contributed in no small way. Yet the role of medium and genre in galvanizing religious controversy is no less significant. Coster’s adaptation of Euripides’ tragic plot transforms a tragedy 109  ‘Scripturam iudicem qui faciunt, recte sentiunt; sed figurate loquuntur. Nam exactam verborum rationem si sequimur, Scriptura norma est iudicandi; nunquam autem idem est sui regula.’ Grotius, De imperio, V.6, ll. 12–14, pp. 266–7. 110  ‘Summum Christi iudicium huic de quo agimus iudicio non magis repugnat quam eiusdem imperium summarum potestatum imperio; quod supra ostendisse satis est. Legislatio praemium poenamque aeternam vi sua secum ferens et ex ea lege ultima iudicatio solius est Christi. Medio tempore interfatur Christus per spiritum suum iudicio divino; neque tamen sequitur id iudicium actio humana nisi intercedente iudicio humano; quod iudicium, ut ad actiones privatas christiani cuiusue ita ad publicas actiones et privatas qua publico imperio reguntur, publicarum est potestatum et quidem summarum in summo gradu.’ Grotius, De imperio, V.5, ll. 27–9, pp. 264–7. 111 Grotius, De imperio, II.1–2, pp. 186–7. 112  ‘Imperativum vere regimen ex vi intrinseca supereminentiae suae obligat.’ Grotius, De imperio, II.6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

128

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

that ends with the messenger’s report of the Diana’s forestalling the sacrifice into a tragi-comedy in which one plot is foiled by a counterplot. While the Lucretian tradition emphasized the role of the false religion in the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, a theme steadily developed in the play’s anti-predestinarian subtext, the demands of plot and action propelled Euripylus into the role of stage Machiavel, whose machinations are foiled and brought to light. In this way, Coster’s portrayal of his Contra-Remonstrant opponents was shaped by the necessities of narrative and plot, just as much, or perhaps even more, as by the demands of Remonstrant polemic. Yet in its anatomy of Contra-Remonstrant spiritual and moral error, a set of oppositions is developed between truth and opinion, nature and custom, true knowledge and book-learning, that has great epistemological, ethical, and religious significance. 3.4   N AT U R A L L AW O R N AT U R A L T H E O L O G Y ? Throughout the play, nature, or rather ‘good nature’, is invoked as the ultimate normative standard. Opposite natural knowledge stands opinion, which is here virtually synonymous with error, and which is often called ‘evil custom’ (‘quade ghewoonte’). On several occasions, the play reflects on the dangerous consequences of ‘opinion’ and ‘habit’, both to truth, and to peace and stability. (1.1.71–88; 3.1.977–1004). The stubbornness with which people cling to once established ‘truths’ makes them blind to their errors of judgement, so that they become self-assured, quarrelsome, and intolerant. This is why the priests, in their mistaken belief that they are the heralds of the gods, believe they can lay down the law to their rulers and why they threaten those who do not listen to their commands with hell and damnation. Nestor explains how, in these times of religious division, opinion has overgrown truth. Much of the blame lies with the educational system, where teachers teach for mere gain, and pedantry is mistaken for true learning. Teachers simply pass on the knowledge they themselves have received, without looking at the natural capacities of the child. The learning with which they are equipped acts as a set of glasses, distorting or blocking the light of natural reason, and making all appear coloured blue to one, whereas another maintains that everything is green. In vain, Nestor appeals to Euripylus to take off his ‘glasses’ and see things with natural eyes (3.2.987–1004).113

113  Nest.: Want lichtlijck wort in school een kleyn verstandt bedroghen. / Dus gaat men daar me toe, blindlings wordt men besteldt / Ter school, by Meesters die de kind’ren maar om gheldt, / En niet uyt lust doen zien, en ziende doen haar staren / Op yets, daar zy voor heen gheluckich blint in waren: / Want dickwils staat daar med’ ‘t natuurlijck oordeel stil, / En men begaap het al door des gheleertheyts bril, / Die reuck’loos, sonder eens op het ghesicht te letten, / De Meesters op de neus daar van de kindren setten, / En na dat yeder een daar zo krijght by gheval, / Daar oordeelt hy dan na der dinghen kleur en stal. / Daar komt de twist van daan, want dese die sal leeren / Dat ’t alles geel is, en in teghendeel sal sweeren / Een ander wederom de dingen blauw te zijn, / Ghelijck als d’uwe zijn, alst wel gheeft wercken schijn: / Daer by wilt ghy noch niet Eurypylus ghedogen / Datmen u help’, en met naturelijcke ooghen / De dingen doe besien die ghy zo qualijck ziet. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 261–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

129

By making natural reason the arbiter of difference in religion, as well as in ethics, the doctrinaire obstinacy of the priests is shown to lie at the heart of the current troubles. The appeal to nature is harnessed in the service of the attack on dogmatic theology that constitutes the red thread linking Grotius’s Meletius and Ordinum pietas to Cunaeus’s De republica Hebraeorum. Nestor’s plea, moreover, at first sight seems to echo the argument, first articulated in Arminius’s Declaration of Sentiments and rehearsed time and again in Remonstrant polemic, that the confession and catechism are mere ‘human instruments’ and cannot be placed on a par with the Bible. Yet there are, of course, obvious differences. While the Remonstrants insist that the Bible should not be ‘fettered’ by human writings, they base such claims on the authority of scripture, not on nature. There is, however, a more directly polemical context for the appeal to nature and recta ratio, that shows how natural theology arguments developed in the irenicist, Erastian works of Grotius, Cunaeus, and Vossius, take on an altogether new significance when translated into a different context of vernacular ethics and anti-Calvinist satire. Behind Iphigenia’s obvious debt to Uytenbogaert and Remonstrant apologetics, we detect a different source of influence, which shaped and altered the reception of Arminian ideas. Distorting glasses as a metaphor for corrupt judgement, a figure of self-deception, is a familiar image from the ethical works of Coornhert and Spiegel. In this context, ‘glasses’ often figure as an attribute of ‘Opinio’—for example in the print False Opinion Ruins the World (‘De valse waan ruineert de wereld’), executed by Hondius after a design by Coornhert (Figure 7), which depicts ‘Stultus mundanus’ and ‘Opinio’ covering ‘Veritas’ with a cloak, while a shadowy figure on the left, ‘Medacium’ places a mask on her face. Both thinkers view self-knowledge as the basis of true wisdom, and see the process of attaining knowledge as a continuous testing of one’s judgement by the standard of right reason. Crucial to this ethico-epistemological project is the unmasking of falsehood and (self-)deception, and hence, the ability to see through false appearances, an endeavour in which Coster’s Iphigenia, in a very literal manner, partakes. The struggle between reason and (self-)deception and the unmasking of false appearances are ubiquitous themes in Dutch moral-philosophical literature of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, linking the ludic play of Erasmus’s hugely popular adage Sileni Alcibiades, political and religious satire, to the use of strategic doubt in the work of Castellio and Accontius.114 While Coornhert made direct use of Castellio’s polemical work, Spiegel preferred the moral-philosophical allegory of the spiritual voyage, which he employed both in his Mirror of the Heart, and in his adaptation of the Tabula Cebetis, a work traditionally attributed to Cebes, the disciple of Socrates, that was routinely printed as an appendage to the Mirror.115 The influence of Spiegel’s work in particular on seventeenth-century literature and moral philosophy is difficult to overestimate. He had been the spiritual and 114  Richard H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism, rev. and expanded edn (Oxford: OUP, 2003), 65. 115  See on the popularity of the Tabula Cebetis René van Stipriaan, Leugens en vermaak ­(Amsterdam: AUP, 1996), 178–81, 209–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

130

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 7  Hendrick Goltzius and Dirck Volckertz. Coornhert, False Opinion ruins the World (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

literary mentor of Hooft in his prodigal days, struggling to keep the light-hearted young poet, pulsum puellarum, on the right track. Yet Spiegel’s moral seriousness, as much as his ideas, left a clear mark on Hooft’s mature literary work.116 In the wider literary environment in which Hooft moved, Spiegel’s work continued to be much admired. The Mirror of the Heart was reprinted throughout the seventeenth century. Late in life, Vondel would still praise the work as one of the most profitable works of philosophy in the Dutch language.117 Even though the two central imperatives associated with the ethical project of Coornhert and Spiegel, self-knowledge and life according to nature, resemble Neo-Stoicism, it would be misleading to designate their philosophy as ChristianStoic. Both men were eclectic thinkers who grafted Stoic ideas onto a respectively Scholastic-Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic framework. Whereas Lipsius explicitly tried to write a confessionally neutral ethics, the works of both Coornhert and Spiegel have a strong polemical, anti-confessional edge that by and large has escaped the attention of critics such as Veenstra and Smits-Veldt. In both authors, moral philosophy sometimes appears as theology by other means. Spiegel, who despite his philosophical differences with Coornhert, shared many of his friend’s 116  Fokke Veenstra, Bijdragen tot de kennis van de invloeden op Hooft (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1946). 117  Geeraerd Brandt, J. van Vondels Leven (Maastricht: Charles Nypels, 1928), 19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

131

central concerns, also used moral philosophy for anti-Calvinist polemics, for ­example when he uses the Dutch word for original sin, erfzonde, to denote that package of false beliefs and habits which we have inherited (‘erven’) from parents, nurses, and teachers.118 It is therefore interesting to note that, when compared to the writings of Grotius, Vossius, and Cunaeus, the works of Hooft and Coster appear to give, if anything, wider scope to nature and the natural light of reason. In Meletius, Grotius had employed arguments derived from Cicero and Lactantius to argue that natural reason is able to bring mankind to the correct understanding of the nature of the deity. To know God, it is enough to know that he is, and that he rewards those who seek to please him.119 It was this appeal to a minimal religious consensus which came to play a fundamental role in the debate on religious toleration. Yet this did not alter the fact that there remained a clear distinction between knowledge of God, and right worship. For whereas reason could lead the way to the right knowledge of the supreme being, revelation was still necessary, since, as Vossius argued ‘the light of nature does not suffice for learning the true way of worshipping God’.120 Surprisingly, though, both Coster’s Nestor, and the high-priestess Zegemond in Hooft’s Baeto, argue that nature not only teaches mankind the existence of a bene­ volent, all-powerful deity, but also teaches how to know and worship this supreme being (Iphigenia, 1.1.71–5; Baeto, 2.379–502). Quite possibly, these stage priests serve a primarily polemical purpose: with their emphasis on virtue, obedience, and the praxis pietatis, they put the hair-splitting, faction-mongering Christian theologians to shame. But it is interesting, to say the least, that well before the emergence of Deism, the possibility that virtuous pagans could indeed be saved is opened, even if only in the imagination. Coster’s Iphigenia can be taken as another example of how the contours of Remonstrantism become blurred as soon as pro-Remonstrant apologetics are translated into vernacular polemics, especially when adopted by authors with their own intellectual agendas. While Arminius’s theology foregrounds the role of the intellect over the will, the chasm which separates him from anti-Augustinian thinkers like Castellio, Coornhert, and Spiegel is vast. Arminius nowhere denies unregenerated man’s depravity, or his inability to do or even will the good without God’s grace. Indeed, in the course of his polemical exchanges he came to put ­increasing emphasis on the depravity of the unregenerated will.121 Grotius was aware of the need to draw sharp demarcation lines around those ideas that could be tolerated within the Dutch Reformed Church, and this meant steering clear not just of Socinians and Pelagians, but of Coornhert as well. Coster, however, seems to have been unaware of this tension, or wilfully ignored it, and appears to have experienced no difficulty in combining a pro-Remonstrant polemic with a 118 Hendrik Laurensz Spiegel, Hert-spiegel, ed. Fokke Veenstra (Hilversum: Verloren, 1992), 69–78. 119  ‘. . . ut credatur esse Deus, deinde remunerari eos, qui ipse placere studeant’. Grotius, Meletius, §1. 120  Nicholas Wickenden, G. J. Vossius and the Humanist Conception of History (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 41. 121  C. Bangs, Arminius (New York: Abingdon Press, 1971), 337–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

132

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

moral-philosophical agenda based on the ideas of Coornhert and Spiegel. As if this was not enough, the play’s ludic engagement with the themes of deception and discovery, with the unmasking of falsehood and lies, invariably cause the play’s ethical didacticism to veer off into satire and, indeed, when the play came to be publicly performed (with the actor playing the priest Euripylus impersonating the popular preacher Trigland), to libel. To understand this aspect of the play’s performance and reception, we first need to look at the political developments in Amsterdam and the Republic in the climactic year 1617. 3.5   I P H I G E N I A A N D U R B A N P O L I T I C S : 1 6 1 7 It is hard to think of a moment more portentous in the history of the Arminian controversy than the summer months of 1617. In July, Maurits, who for a long time had backed the Contra-Remonstrants without wanting to appear to be heading for a collision with Oldenbarnevelt, finally chose sides openly. In July, the followers of the Contra-Remonstrant preacher Henricus Rosaeus took possession of the Kloosterkerk, only a few metres from the Advocate’s official residence. Two weeks later Maurits, who until then had attended Uytenbogaert’s sermons in the Hofkapel, publicly attended Rosaeus’s service in the Kloosterkerk.122 Meanwhile, growing disorder led the States of Holland to adopt new measures which, with hindsight, can be called a capital political error on the part of Oldenbarnevelt. In order to ensure the safety of pro-Remonstrant magistrates in towns where the Contra-Remonstrant opposition was particularly strong and where the local civic militias could not be relied upon, the States of Holland proposed a resolution that became known as the ‘Scherpe Resolutie’, which enabled the provinces to levy troops of ‘waardgelders’, hired soldiers who owed allegiance to the local magistrate, rather than to the States General or the Captain-General of the Union, the Prince of Orange. Against strong opposition, the resolution was adopted by the States General on 4 August 1617. Maurits protested against the decision to adopt Waardgelders in the strongest terms, calling it destructive of the Union as well as an affront to his person and honour.123 Over the years, the relationship between Maurits and Oldenbarnevelt had become strained to breaking point. Whether Maurits—despite his moments of doubt and distrust—truly believed that Oldenbarnevelt’s intentions were traitorous is a moot point. But it seems clear that, from about 1612 onwards, he had come to the conclusion that the enforced toleration of Arminianism had left the country internally weakened and divided and needed to stop.124 His own views on predestination were without doubt, orthodox—as were, for that matter, those of Oldenbarnevelt.125 But in contrast to Oldenbarnevelt, he believed the struggle 122  A. Th. Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau (Amsterdam: Aula/Bert Bakker, 2002), 257–8; Jan Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1960–72), iii. 487–90. 123  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 260–1; Israel, Dutch Republic, 441. 124  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 244–5. 125  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 254; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, 16–18, 727.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

133

against Spain, the cause of the Reformed religion, and the unity of the land to be inextricably linked. Throughout his life he would remain dedicated to a policy of Protestant interventionism, in which he was often willing to undertake more than Oldenbarnevelt, who primarily looked out for Holland’s interests, considered prudent.126 The period of the French noble rebellions against the regent, Marie de Medicis, drew these oppositions out into the open. Oldenbarnevelt was convinced that France, despite the fact that the pro-Spanish faction now held sway at court, would not abandon her Protestant ally. His political instincts proved him right, yet popular opinion resented the fact that support was given to the Catholic Queen and her corrupt, pro-Spanish advisers, against Protestant heroes like Bouillon and Condé.127 The period of the French troubles, from early 1614 up until the assassination of Ancre on 24 April 1617, roughly coincides with the failure of Oldenbarnevelt’s policy of enforced toleration, beginning with the ­Tolerance Resolution, leading to  the multiplication of local conflicts and the strengthening of the ContraRemonstrant opposition. The two conflicts fed into each other, as a substantial— and within the span of a few years decisive—segment of public opinion was convinced that Oldenbarnevelt’s pro-French policy had no other aim than to lead the country, via France, to Spain.128 In these years a number of powerful opponents had risen against Oldenbarnevelt and the States party including Zeeland, Amsterdam, and all those who for economic or religious reasons wished for a speedy resumption of the war with Spain. Maurits and his direct allies, such as the ex-diplomat François van Aerssen (1572–1641), who, since he had been removed from his post at the instigation of Oldenbarnevelt, had been the Advocate’s sworn enemy, and burgomaster Reinier Pauw, a convinced Contra-Remonstrant with a pitbull approach to politics, now set about the task of welding these disparate groups into a coherent block.129 The Amsterdam consistory and classis had from early on been active in organizing resistance to the church policy of the States of Holland, by providing moral and financial support to the Contra-Remonstrant churches under the cross, and organizing oppositional synods.130 In 1611, the election of the city council, the vroedschap had brought an almost entirely Contra-Remonstrant magistracy to power. Burgomaster C. P. Hooft, according to the rules due for re-election, was sidestepped, ­although he continued to plead the case of the States party in speeches that read as if they had been scripted by Grotius or Oldenbarnevelt. In the following years, Pauw’s hold over the city would be virtually unchallenged, as Amsterdam grew into the focal point of the opposition of the ‘good towns’ in the States of Holland. That the Remonstrants perceived the situation within the city as increasingly threatening 126  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 236, 276. 127  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 360, 376. 128  Van Deurssen, Maurits van Nassau, 270; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 372–3, 392–3. 129 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 208–9; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 496, 583–4. On the letters between Pauw and the Prince of Orange: Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 28; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 248–9. 130 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 186, 214–24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

134

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

may come as no surprise. Hooft’s speeches give a vivid impression of the climate of suspicion and paranoia that held the city in its grip. Already in his Brief Discourse on the Present State of this Country (Somier discours op den tegenwoordigen staet vanden Lande, ende misverstanden daerinne ontstaen, 1611) Hooft had pointed an accusing finger in the direction of the Contra-Remonstrant clergy, who were, he claimed, aiming for a change of government: To which in particular some of our own seem inclined, who, in public sermons, with utmost vehemence and mighty exclamations, agitate for the changing of the sovereign government of the land and the installation, in the place of the current one, of a princely or a monarchical government, wishing that there may be found a Ehud or Gideon for that purpose.131

Later, as the net was closing on Oldenbarnevelt and his collaborators, Hooft sent out another warning in his Considerations on the changing of the government, or the accepting of a Prince (Bedenkinge op het veranderen vande Regieringe, ofte aennemen van een Prince, 1617). The oration rehearses the stock arguments of early modern republican discourse, contrasting the instability and corruption of monarchies with the stability, longevity, and political virtue of republics like Venice and the Swiss Confederation.132 But when it comes to examples of the instability of monarchical rule, Amsterdam’s Nestor turns to the Old Testament, rather than to classical or contemporary history. There are many examples, he claims, of kings and princes who have forgotten themselves: Gideon, Jephthah, ‘who, when he had obtained a great victory over his enemies, the children of Ammon, killed and sacrificed, because of his ill-considered promise, his own daughter’, as well as Samson, David, Absalom, Adonias, Joram, and Ehud.133 Yet despite Contra-Remonstrant predominance, Amsterdam also hosted a vocal Remonstrant minority. In 1613 we first hear of a certain Dierick Cooman, who was said to speak ‘much malice’ against the ministers, ‘which greatly perturbed the congregation’. A woman named Reymbrecht Hendrikxs was accused of having said that the Contra-Remonstrants made God into a tyrant.134 But the mainstay of Remonstrantism in Amsterdam seems to have been a group within the regent patriciate, men like Laurens Jacobsz Reael, the father-in-law of Arminius, Grotius’s

131  ‘Waertoe insonderheydt schijnt te inclineren eenen vande onsen, dye in openbaere predicatien opdt alderhoochste en met grote exclamatien arbeyden tot veranderinge vande Souveraine Regieringe vanden lande, en, in plaetse vande tegenwoordige, een princelycke ofte monarchycke regieringe op te rechten; met wensinge van eenen Iehu often Gedeon daertoe re mogen vinden.’ C. P. Hooft, Memoriën en adviezen (Utrecht: Kemink & zoon, 1871, 1925), i. 1–34, 19. 132  C. P. Hooft, Memorien en adviezen, i. 154–66. 133  ‘Soo ist oock daernae met Jepthach gegaen, doen hij grote victorie tegen zijne vianden, den kinderen Ammon verkregen hebbende, ter oorzaecke van zijn onbedachte belofte zijn eygen dochter ombrach en opofferde.’ C. P. Hooft, Memoriën en adviezen, i. 154. 134  Hendrikxs was soon readmitted to the Lord’s Supper, while Cooman remained under suspicion, and his name does reappear frequently in the acts of the consistory, finally appearing on the list of those whom would be severed from the body of the church; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 234.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

135

nephew Joost Brasser, and Rem Bisschop, brother of the Remonstrant leader Simon Episcopius.135 Amsterdam, with its concentration of printing houses and bookshops, was inevitably drawn into the fray of the pamphlet war. Much of the Contra-Remonstrant propaganda appeared from the presses of Maarten Brandt, bookseller ‘in the Reformed Catechism’, who brought out the works of Trigland, as well as the pamphlets and almanacs of Vincent van Drielenburgh. This somewhat curious figure who attacked prominent Remonstrants like Barlaeus (‘the knight of Lucifer’), and brought out several almanacs which identified Uytenbogaert as the ‘Pope of The Netherlands, Gilles van Ledenberg, secretary of the States of Utrecht as ‘Pope of Utrecht’, and Oldenbarnevelt as ‘Pope of Holland’, and, indeed, an Antichrist, had the bad luck to provoke the ire of Telle, who, with his customary bravado, demolished Drielenburgh’s reputation, calling him ‘Pope of all Fools’.136 Yet the relative impotency of censorship measures to curb Remonstrant pamphleteering did not mean that the magistrates would condone any public Remonstrant activities. Amsterdam’s intransigent stance was once more made clear when, in April 1616, the States of Holland sent a delegation to Amsterdam in a final desperate bid to win the city over to the Tolerance Resolution.137 In his Oration, Grotius reiterated the points that he had stated in the Ordinum pietas and the Tolerance Resolution. The only way to prevent a church schism, Grotius stressed, was to draw and police the boundaries within which a consensus on the essentials of the faith could be maintained. Preaching or discussion of controversial matters such as the dogma of predestination should therefore be forbidden.138 After Grotius had finished, the presiding burgomaster, Gerrit Witsen, replied that ‘their lordships had taken note’, while the rest of the councillors kept a stony silence. At this point, another member of the delegation, the Dordrecht Bailiff Hugo Muys van Holy, tried to pacify the Amsterdam magistracy, reminding them that those of Dordrecht had initially been of the same opinion as the city of Amsterdam, and had yet allowed themselves to be persuaded. He too was rebutted: Amsterdam would make her opinion known at the next meeting of the States. Implementing the Resolution was impossible, if for no other reason than that the population would never accept it.139

135  In a request asking the Remonstrant church in Leiden to send a minister who could preach for the Remonstrant community at Amsterdam, we find the names of a number of prominent citizens, such as Jacob Laurensz Reael, Rem Bisschop but also, interestingly, Reinier Telle. All names in G. Brandt, Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen, in en omtrent de Nederlanden (Amsterdam: Jan Rieuwertz, Hendrik en Dirk Boom, 1677–1704), ii. 477–8. On the ‘elitist’ character of the Amsterdam Remonstrant church, see Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 181–2. 136 On the polemics between Telle and Drielenburgh, see Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam i. 245–7. 137  Henk Nellen, Hugo de Groot (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007), 181–2; Evenhuis, Ook dat was ­Amsterdam, i. 228–9. 138  For the text of Grotius’s oration see Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 438–56; a description of the background and an analysis of the text in Florian Mühlegger, Hugo Grotius: Ein christlicher Humanist in politischer Verantwortung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 308–60. 139 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 456–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

136

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Politically, Grotius’s attempt to win over the magistrate was a dismal failure. Nevertheless he decided to stay in the city for another week, later explaining in a letter to Vossius that he had found more political friends there than expected.140 In August of that year Grotius returned once more to Amsterdam, where he struck up new acquaintances with members of the literary establishment. The playwright Gerbrand Adriaensz Bredero, whose social sprezzatura more than made up for his humble origins, was among the first to befriend Grotius, to whom he dedicated his tragedy Rodderick and Alphonsus.141 In a letter to Hooft, he reported the meeting in excited terms.142 Shortly afterwards he accompanied Grotius on his first visit to the castle at Muiden. It seems to have been on this occasion, which Hooft commemorated in his sonnet Lofty soul, that the two men became more intimately acquainted.143 It may seem like something of a miracle that the much-plagued and chronically overworked official still had time to dedicate to literature, but when in October of that year he succumbed to an illness, he had time to enjoy the Warenar, an adaptation of Plautus’s Aulularia. Grotius sent the manuscript back to Hooft, expressing his thanks—the play, he claimed, rivalled or even excelled its original, and he had read it with such pleasure that it had contributed in no small amount to his recovery.144 Hooft also asked Grotius’s opinion on his tragedy Baeto, which was now nearing completion. Seeing Grotius’s efforts to mobilize support—political and literary—in Amsterdam, it would seem likely that he, through Bredero and Hooft, would also find Coster among his allies. A project like the Nederduytsche Academie would undoubtedly have appealed to him. That Grotius indeed did meet with Coster is suggested by a number of letters written from exile, in which he asks Vondel—with whom he became acquainted much later—to convey his best wishes to their mutual friends, always singling out Hooft and Coster in particular.145 In the following months the situation continued to deteriorate, making it clear that Amsterdam would not be spared the riots that would characterize the ‘year of violence’. In Amsterdam, disturbances erupted in February, even before the crisis reached its climax in the summer months of 1617. Initially, the Remonstrants in Amsterdam had been able to attend the services of Simon Goulart, minister of the Walloon community, who inclined towards Arminius’s view on the doctrine of predestination. The consistory attempted to dissuade Goulart from preaching on the subject, and when he showed no inclination to do so, insisted on his dismissal. 140 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 182–3; Mieke Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en de Groot’, 55 n. 15. 141  G. A. Bredero, Treurspel van Rodd’rick en Alphonsus, ed. C. Kruyskamp (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1968), dedication to Grotius, 71–3. 142  P. C. Hooft, Briefwisseling, i. 271 (no. 95). 143 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 183; Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en de Groot’, 51–2. 144 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 184; Grotius to Hooft, 14 Jan. 1617, P. C. Hooft, Briefwisseling, i. 294–5 (no. 108). 145  J. F. M. Sterck, Vondelbrieven uit de XVIIe eeuw aan en over de dichter (Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 1935), 17 Aug. 1632, ‘Ick bidde doe myne dienstelycke gebiedenisse aen de goede vrunden, insonderheit aen myn Heer de Drossaerdt Hooft, dien ick ten hoogsten ben geobligeert ende aen d’Heere Doctor Coster’, and d.d. 5 juni 1635, ‘hiermede wil ick endigen en u E. met myn heer Hooft: Doctor Koster en alle andere van dien slach alle voorspoed wenschen.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

137

The Remonstrants now started to look for someone from outside. At this point, the rumour that the Remonstrants were organizing private conventions had started to spread, and before long the first pasquils were posted, threatening that it would get nasty for the Arminians.146 On 12 February a Remonstrant service was held in a storehouse which had been rented for that purpose by Rem Bisschop. In the charged atmosphere, with a group of Contra-Remonstrants gathered outside, a tumult arose. The preacher fled into a neighbouring bakery, ‘The Little Rooster’, where the baker’s assistants had to protect him from the furious crowd. The following week, more menacing pasquils appeared, and that Sunday no meeting was organized, for fear that things would get out of hand. Small bands of ContraRemonstrant agitators patrolled the streets, looking for Arminian gatherings. When these were not found, a crowd marched to the Singel, where, according to burgomaster Hooft, who was an eyewitness to the event, they ‘cast menacing looks upon the houses of my lord Overlander, and then also to [that of ] Rem Egbertsz. Bisschop, Arendt Pieters, Vander Burch, Huich Jansz., my own, and eventually also on that of burgomaster Witsen’.147 The bailiff and his men managed to keep the crowd at bay but did not receive any instructions from the burgomasters and therefore finally left. This was perceived as a silent fiat, and the crowd started pillaging the house of Rem Bisschop. Bisschop, his wife, and children had managed to make a safe escape, but by the time the forces of order finally arrived, the house had been completely looted. Contrary to custom in house-pillaging, which was a symbolic, punitive exercise, in which theft was strictly forbidden, many of the valuables and possessions were carried off ‘as if they had been given over as booty’, a sign, perhaps that the Arminians, as crypto-papists and hispanophiles, were no longer considered as fellow citizens.148 The behaviour of burgomasters Pauw and Witsen was sharply criticized. Hooft chastised the Contra-Remonstrant ministers for stirring up the people, and the burgomasters for violating their office oath by failing to protect their citizens’ life and property.149 Seeing the crucial role Amsterdam played in the developments in Republic, it is hardly surprising that Iphigenia not only provides a commentary on the religious and political controversy, but also contains many direct, topical allusions to the people and events of 1617. The identification of Agamemnon with the States of  Holland seems uncontroversial, as does the identification of Calchas with 146 Anon., In-houdt van eenighe brieven aangaende de beroerten binnen Amsterdam onlangs voorghevallen. Met een discours aan alle goede patriotten (1617). 147  ‘Ende is alsoovoorts omtrent halff negen uyren dye voors. Troupe, meestal jonck manvolck, maer oock eenighe volwassen manspersonen daeronder sijnde, sonder eenigen tegenstandt, dat ick hebbe gemerckt, tot in mijn gebuyrte aengecomen, met grote verwoetheydt haer ogen slaende eerst op de huysinge vanden heere Overlander, en voor vervolgens op Rem Egbertss. Bisschop, Arendt Pieters. vander Burch, Huich Janss. van mij selven en laetstelick ook op des burgemeesters Witsens huysinge’. C. P. Hooft, Memorien en adviezen, i. 74. 148  On the punishing of acts of theft during ritual house-lootings, see Rudolf Dekker, Holland in beroering (Ambo: Barn, 1982), 87–8. In the case of the looting of Rem Bisschop’s house, one of the participants called out: ‘the sheriff has left, the house and everything in it has been given over to us’. Dekker, Holland in beroering, 89. 149  C. P. Hooft, Memorien en adviezen, i. 69; for an account of the Remonstrant conventicles and the following riots, see Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 237–41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

138

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Uytenbogaert. The identification of the Greek princes Protesilaus and Palamedes poses more difficulties. They make no appearance in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis, and play only a minor role in the Iliad. To an early modern audience they would be known, if at all, through the post-Homeric works of Dictys and Dares and from Ovid’s Heroides. Yet Coster gives them considerable prominence, placing the most vehement attacks on the Greek priests in the mouth of Protesilaus. Yet while Protesilaus’s outspokenness provokes the ire of Euripylus, it is Palamedes who is viewed as the more dangerous opponent. ‘If only we could eliminate him’, Euripylus confides to Ulysses, ‘things would undoubtedly go better’ (4.4.1393–5).150 It is possible to view Protesilaus as standing for the group within the States of Holland which was steering towards an open confrontation with the Contra-Remonstrants, effectively thwarting Oldenbarnevelt’s more cautious policy. Yet the allusions to the enmity between Ulysses and Protesilaus and Palamedes (Palamedes had famously unmasked Ulysses’ madness by placing his son Telemachus in the furrow, Protesilaus had defied his prediction that the first soldier to set foot on Ilium’s shore would be killed, 2.1.498–545) make it appear likely that Coster created these characters with certain individuals in mind. Protesilaus might stand for Grotius, who is identified in a later poem as ‘the Dutch Protesilaus’.151 The identification of Palamedes is confused by the later identification of Palamedes with Oldenbarnevelt in Vondel’s eponymous play of 1625. Should we resist the temptation to back-project Vondel’s Palamedes unto Coster’s play, or did Vondel perhaps create his masterpiece by developing an idea first suggested by Coster? However it may be, the events of 1618–19 inevitably came to shape the reception of Coster’s play, a point to which I shall return in the following chapter. In the edition of the play which appeared in 1626, Coster enlarged Palamedes’ role, by giving him some of the lines which had earlier belonged to Agamemnon. In addition, he put Euripylus’s veiled threat between quotation marks, drawing the reader’s attention to the passage.152 Ulysses, described by Coster in the dedication of the play as an ‘ambitious prince’, is the archetype of the scheming Machiavel, who uses religion as an instrument to further his own ambitions. François van Aerssen may be seen to qualify as 150  Ulys: Toch Palamedes is ons meerder inde weegh, / Die barst niet uyt, maar seyt zyn woorden wel so sneegh, / En spits, en weet zijn doen veel looser te besteken: / Indien ick ken aan dien sal ick my ’t meeste wreken. Eur. Ja, ’t waar wel orbaar dat hy met een deel aan kant / Gheholpen wierd, en dat het maar naar eens verstant / Beleydt wierd’ na mijn sin, dan souden hier de saken / Door de veelhoofdicheyt niet meer op ’t hollen raken. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 278. 151 Anon., Tranen der Seyn, over ’t vertrecken der Hollantschen Protesilaus. Mitsgaders, d’Omhelsing van de Maes op sijne commste (s. a.). 152  While Smits-Veldt agrees that the appearance of Palamedes might have made people more eager to look for similar allusions in the Iphigenia, she nevertheless insists that Coster did not intend to write a similar kind of play. She is willing to concede that after the appearance of Palamedes, Coster gave Iphigenia’s Palamedes a more prominent role, giving him some of the lines that had originally been spoken by Agamemnon. But she downplays the importance of this intervention, rejecting the idea that Eurypylus’s remark about the desirability of getting rid of Palamedes should be seen a reference to the fate of Oldenbarnevelt. In 1617, when Coster wrote his drama, she claims, such a turn of events could not be foreseen; only afterwards, perhaps, could a reader (re)read these lines with an eerie sense of recognition. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 330–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

139

a candidate for the part. In view of Iphigenia’s rootedness in urban, Amsterdam, as well as national, politics, and the proximity of the play’s production and performance to the riots of 1617, Burgomaster Pauw seems a more plausible candidate. Exposing Amsterdam’s most powerful man as a scheming demagogue was a daring move, but it needs to be remembered that the first performance of the play took place behind closed doors, before a carefully selected audience of Remonstrants and Remonstrant sympathizers. When the play was publicly performed in 1621 Pauw had lost much of his influence. In Euripylus we recognize all the stereotypical traits of the Contra-Remonstrant preacher of anti-Calvinist pamphlet polemics. Yet here, too, a closer identification is possible, especially when one accepts the identification of Ulysses as Pauw, and Calchas as Uytenbogaert. Behind the sinister character of the Greek priest lurks the imposing figure of Trigland, the undisputed leader of Amsterdam’s Contra-Remonstrant faction, a close associate of Pauw, and one of Uytenbogaert’s main opponents. In 1630, when the political and religious balance of power in Amsterdam had shifted in favour of the Remonstrants, Iphigenia was performed once more, this time with the tacit support of the magistrate. This time, the actor playing Euripylus was dressed in such a way that, in the words of Brandt, ‘he resembled Trigland like a drop of water, and everybody knew who he was’.153 In Thersites, finally, we recognize another Remonstrant bogey-man: the illiterate fanatic, who does not understand the complexities of the doctrinal dispute, but who is convinced that his priests are divine oracles, and that everyone who dares to contradict them should be forcibly silenced. After a heated exchange between Protesilaus and Thersites, Agamemnon rebukes him for his presumption in thinking that he can judge in matters of which he is completely ignorant; rather than a counsellor, Thersites is the fool of the play (3.1.806–10).154 It is not the first time that those in higher places have made use of lunatics to bawl and bellow what propriety forbids them to say or write themselves. The allegation closely echoes the words of Barlaeus, who, provoked by the vitriolic attacks of Van Drielenburgh, had called it an outrage that the Amsterdam consistory had stooped as low as to make use of the services of this ‘insolent, raving madman’.155 Telle, as we have seen, had taken up the gauntlet, and it is difficult to read Agamemnon’s lines without being reminded of Telle’s dismissal of Van Drielenburgh as the ‘pope of all fools’.156 Relatively unproblematic is the identification, faute-de-mieux, of Achilles with Maurits. From early 1617 onwards, if not earlier, it had become clear that the Remonstrants had little good to expect from the Stadtholder. While Maurits would 153  Anon.,‘Versoeck, tot antwoordt van Een Otter in’t Bolwerk’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 361–4: ‘Trigulandus wesen, Door baart, Gelaet, van Preeck en Lesen’, cf. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 339. 154  Aga.: Ghy onbeschofte kyver, / Wt kleyne wetenschap rijst u so groten yver, / Dat ghy al blindelings, en gansch met gheen belul / Zo uyt-vaart, dat ghy schijnt veel eer de geck van ’t spul, / Als in dees’ hooghe noot een raads-man te verstrecken. Prot.: Men heeft somtyts van doen zodaan’ghen slagh van gecken, / Om door dat volck zo ongheleerd en onbeschaamd / Iet uyt te buld’ren dat een groter niet betaamt. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 255. 155 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 245–6; Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 420. 156 Telle, Contraremonstranten Kerf-stock (1617), fo. A2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

140

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

only take sides in July, after the occupation of the Kloosterkerk, the situation must still have given rise to considerable alarm in Remonstrant circles. Iphigenia clearly reflects these anxieties. While the most powerful leader of the army, with whom, it is immediately made clear, the power lies, is certainly no villain like Ulysses, his behaviour throughout the play is rather ambiguous, an ambiguity that Coster appears to maintain deliberately. In the first act, he appears sincere enough. When he discusses the situation with Agamemnon, he makes his abhorrence of the sacrifice very clear. Nevertheless, his behaviour is regarded as suspicious by other characters in the play. The second act opens with a discussion between Achilles and Protesilaus. When asked by Achilles why he questions the truthfulness of his words, Protesilaus explains that many in the army believe him to be in league with Ulysses, because Iphigenia has been brought from Mycenae under the pretext that she would marry Achilles. Achilles claims to have no knowledge of the scheme, and at first seems inclined to do what is possible to stop Ulysses from executing his plan (1.1.551–4). Yet when Protesilaus explains that the Greek leaders should unite to defy the clergy, his reaction is remarkably defeatist. The clergy, he maintains, are impossible to control; they obey no other authority than their own. It is Achilles’ lack of fighting spirit that triggers another of Protesilaus’s patriotic outbursts. Yet Achilles remains sceptical. He even reproaches Protesilaus for his vehemence, saying that he, too, seems to forget the golden mean. To this the astonished Protesilaus replies ‘are you making a mockery? My vehemence is less offensive to them than your ridicule’ (2.2.639–42).157 During the first exchange between the two opposing camps, when Nestor, Euripylus, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Palamedes, Protesilaus, and Thersites all take part in the debate, Achilles keeps silent up until the very end, when he counsels that, for the sake of peace and tranquillity, the customs of the land should be respected, even when there is error in them. God dwells where there is peace. Knowing how to feign, and bide their time, has always been a virtue of princes (3.1.1040–51). Agamemnon responds that he would have expected such advice from Menelaus, inviting us to see, perhaps, in this character Maurits’s cousin, the staunchly Reformed Willem Lodewijk. Yet that Achilles counsels him to agree to murder astonishes him, especially because Euripylus can hear what he is saying. Knowing that he will not face opposition from Achilles, he will never be persuaded to give in (3.1.1054–59).158 157  Prot.: Is dat verdedeging, of is het der me gecken? / ’K meen mijn ghebulder haer min quetst als u ghespot. / Achilles die besluyt hier me dat zy ’t ghenot / En eyghen voordeel dan voor alle dinghen wenschen. Coster, Iphigenia, ii.249. 158  Ach.: Daarom ist noodich, dat nu mannen van beleyt / Weer hellen an die zy, op dat het onbescheyt / Van ‘t redeloose Volck door hare wijsheyt worde / Gheleyt en af-gheleyt van die’r tot oproer porde: / Dats ’t werck van wijsheyt die dat volck leyt byder handt / Met ’t saam d’eenvoudighen, die ’t oogh op haar heeft, want / Eenvoudicheyt die ’r toch alleen niet ken bestieren, / Volcht ’t doen dies kloeckarts, die om rust, gewoonts manieren / Instell’ghen Godes acht, oft schoon ghewoonte zot / Wat dwaalt, hy volgt, en speelt, daar vreed is daer is Godt. / So moetmen doen, dat zijn in noot des Princen krachten, / Dat hy ken veynsen, en gelegentheyt verwachten. Aga.: Achilles zoudt ghy my dan tot dit veynsen raan? Ach.: Jaa’k, anders zie ‘ck daar ons nu qualijck redden aan. Aga.: Dat Menelaus is tot sulcken raadt gheneghen, / En nieuwt my niet, maar dat Achilles my me teghen / In dese saken valt, en raat my tot een moort, / Dat vreemt te meerder daar ’t Eurypylus noch hoort, / Die wetende

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

141

This procedure is repeated at other moments in the play, when mise-en-scène and dramatic plot undercut what individual characters say. When Achilles eventually does side with the priests, Calchas is at pains to emphasize that the prince himself is not to blame, for his long record of service to the country testifies that he is not a traitor (5.2.1686–94). Yet at this point, the audience actually knows more than Calchas, who is ignorant of Euripylus’s plot to promise Achilles supreme command over the army. Dramatic irony here serves to turn Calchas’s praise to blame, and leads the audience to concur with Protesilaus, who vents his anger and disbelief at the prince’s defection (5.2.1695–8).159 Indeed, after the coup of 1618 and the trial and execution of Oldenbarnevelt, Coster sharpened his criticism of Maurits. In all editions of the play from 1621 onwards, the fourth scene of the fifth act was expanded to accommodate a final settling of accounts. Now, Clytemnestra explicitly takes Achilles to task with the words ‘Achilles, who art of divine ancestry / whereto brought thee ambition and idolatry?’ (5.4, added between 1744 and 1745).160 This outcome of events could of course not be foreseen in 1617, as it would have rendered Calchas’s counterplot futile. Even so, it seems hard to deny that Achilles’ actions are presented in a very unfavourable light. To argue, as Smits-Veldt does, that the experience of religious division brought Coster to the conviction that the powers of the Stadtholder should be extended, in order to restore unity, not only goes against the grain of everything we otherwise know of Coster, and the intellectual milieu in which he moved, it also goes against the grain of the play.161 For whenever Agamemnon shows his more autocratic side, he is immediately checked by Calchas and Nestor. The only sustained plea for one-man rule comes, in fact, from Ulysses (4.4.1402–7). That the evil genius of the play, the instigator of the troubles, is here presented shedding crocodile tears about the loss of unity among the Greeks, should make the spectator and reader wary. For Iphigenia not only evokes the ludic themes of deception and discovery, of masking and unmasking, it actually performs them in dramatic form, in showing how ‘the hypocrite plays his character’ on stage. A seventeenth-century audience, to whom the association of the stage with the uncovering of false appearances was habitual, would be well warned not to take Ulysses’ words at face value. While the play has sometimes been claimed to rehearse arguments from Lipsius’s Politicorum seu civilis doctrinae libri sex (1589), for example in Calchas’s advocacy of dissimulation as a form of Lipsian prudentia mixta, such claims do not hold ’tverstant van u en uws ghelijcken, / Ghesteven wort dat hy een voet-stee niet zal wijcken. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 265. 159  Cal.: Ja Vorst, na dat de dingen staan. / Want van Achilles hebt ghy toch niet goets te hopen. / Die ’m nu ten lesten door het onbeschaamd’lijck lopen / Van dien Euripylus, gheuytert heeft, en hy / Verklaart hem t’eenemaal op Menelaus zy. / Ghelijckwel moet ghy noch hem alles goets vertrouwen: / Want ’t Legher sonder hem niet blyven ken behouwen, / En hy en is niet valsch, ghelijck ons allegaar / Syn trouwe diensten zyn ghenoechsaam openbaar. Prot: Achilles op haar zyd? Al hadmen ’t my ghesworen, / ’K en had het noyt ghelooft, want ick hem hebbe horen / Dat vollick lasteren, gheen uur gheleen, so seer / Als yemant doen mach. Wel ’k gheloof nu niemant meer. Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 288. 160  Cly.: Achilles, ghy die sijt van Goddelijck geslaght, / Waer toe heeft afgoods-dienst en staetsucht u gebracht? / Achilles! waerom moet Iphigenia lijden? Coster, Iphigenia, ii. 290. 161 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 444–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

142

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

up to closer scrutiny. The attempt to wed a Remonstrant ecclesiology to a Lipsian, prudential approach to politics, centred on the figure of a powerful monarch, creates a whole series of conundrums that arise from the attempt to combine two distinct and incompatible intellectual paradigms. Thus, for example, Agamemnon’s refusal to let everyone preach whatever he pleases has been viewed in terms of Lipsius’s distinction between fides and confessio. In the Politica, Lipsius had argued that religious division in the state is dangerous to social and political stability, and should therefore not be tolerated, but that those who hold differing religious opinions can be allowed to do so, as long as they keep them private.162 In the context of 1617, however, the distinction between fides and confessio is hardly helpful. For neither in Coster’s Aulis, nor in the Dutch Republic, is the situation one of two religions in one state, but of religious division within the existing church, while all the efforts of the Remonstrants and their political allies in the States of Holland hinged on proving that both persuasions could be tolerated in one church. For the Remonstrants, being allowed to hold divergent opinions on the disputed doctrines in the privacy of their homes, without being able to confess them publicly, would be unacceptable; it would be tantamount to admitting that they were not a church, but a sect. Lipsius’s distinction is in fact designed to neutralize the problem of liberty of conscience, a liberty to which Coster’s play consistently appeals. Indeed, Coster’s play does not view the function of sovereign authority in Lipsian terms as the defence of the power of the state, but in a more traditional sense, as the defence of the liberties of the subject (1.4.352–83). Advocating the need for strong, central authority, or even one-man rule, is hard to square with the fact that the argument for toleration for the Remonstrants was dependent, in Uytenbogaert as much as in Grotius, on the ius in sacra of the individual provinces. A reading of the Iphigenia which endorses this view of provincial sovereignty can be deduced as the only logical consequence of Coster’s partisan role in the Arminian controversy. Coster’s intellectual preferences, as far as they can be deduced from his book collection, provides extra ammunition for this view. His library contained editions of all the great works of Roman jurisprudence, the Digestae, the Codex Justiniani, and of canon law, as well as humanist commentaries such as those of Brissonius and modern works, such as Grotius’s De iure belli ac pacis, as well as the Defence of the lawful Government of Holland.163 His interest in reason of state literature, however, seems to have been limited, for in this category we find only Clapmarius’s Arcana rerum publicarum and Guez Balzac’s Le prince. The only works by Lipsius he seems to have possessed are his editions of Tacitus and Seneca. If we are to assign a formative influence on Coster’s political ideas, I would therefore suggest Grotius, rather than Lipsius. As the intellectual architect of Oldenbarnevelt’s religious policy, it was Grotius’s political and ecclesiastical views that Coster had to confront. He did so in a way that demonstrated that he supported the 162 Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 444. 163  M. M. Kleerkoper, ‘Een vergeten catalogus: Catalogus Bibliothecae D. Samueli Costeri [1665]’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde, 17 (1888).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Poets on the Offensive

143

­ rinciples on which this policy was founded, even if he also counselled prudence, p and warned against the possible dangers of civil war. After Grotius’s banishment, his supporters continued to work for his rehabilitation. Coster continued to take an interest in Grotius’s work: he acquired a copy of the De iure belli ac pacis, and of his Latin tragedy Sophompaneas—the only play by a contemporary author in the catalogue. Rather than an advocate of a strong sovereign authority under the rule of one man, Coster, it can safely be surmised, was a supporter of the sovereignty of the States; one of those men who saw the Dutch Republic as a republic in the true meaning of the word, and who believed such a constitution to be superior to that of a monarchy. His readings of the classics, of Tacitus, Suetonius’s lives of the emperors, and Curtius’s account of the conquests of Alexander the Great, will have furnished him with copious examples of the dangerous consequences of the accumulation of power in the hands of a single individual. There is nothing in the Iphigenia to support the view that Coster favoured a monarchical constitution, or even, for that matter, a constitutional monarchy. In his dedicatory poem to Hendrik Storm’s 1619 translation of Lucan’s Pharsalia he would state his views in the clearest possible terms when he wrote ‘How proud rulers’ highest law / stands in battle’s outcome withal / not in reason, as he will hear / who lends Lucan’s glorious works an attentive ear’.164 Coster wrote these lines in 1620 and they are certainly shaped by the experience of Maurits’s coup. But they also testify to a deeply entrenched conviction that monarchy and rule of law are incompatible. There is no reason to believe that Coster ever changed his views on the matter. With the succession of Frederik Hendrik, after the death of Maurits in 1625, the Remonstrants could breathe more freely, as persecutions gradually subsided. But Coster must have continued to look upon the position of the Stadtholder as an anomaly within the Dutch constitution. The attack of Willem II on Amsterdam in 1650 undoubtedly steeled him in his distrust of the house of Orange. His last literary production—or at least one that is ascribed to him—is the so-called Dialogue ­between Samuel Coster and Conrad, a short, satirical poem on Willem’s failed ­attempt to take the city by force. Willem’s sudden and unexpected death, only three weeks later, must have seemed a divine deliverance. Resentment against ­Willem’s authoritarian behaviour, and the feeling of having barely escaped yet ­another coup d’état, for once united the regents of Holland against the house of Orange. The Stadtholder lost the right to appoint army officers, as well as his voice in the selection of candidates for the urban magistracies. After the powers of the Stadtholder had thus been curtailed, the Great Convention was called. After long and difficult deliberations in which Holland encountered strong opposition, especially from the traditionally Orangist province of Zeeland, it was decided that henceforth the individual provinces would decide whether or not to appoint a 164  ‘Hoe dat der trotser vorsten alderhoogste recht / Alleenlijk bestaat in de uytkomst van het gevecht / En inde reden niet, dat sal die wel bemercken / die maar leest met op-sicht Lucanus grootse Wercken’, in Hendrik Storm, M. Annaeus Lucanus van’t borger oorlogh der Romeynen, tusschen C. Iulium Caesarem ende Gn. Pompeius Magnum (Amsterdam: By Michiel Colyn, Boeckvercooper op ’t Water, A◦ 1620), fo. B2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

144

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Stadtholder. With Willem dead and his son, who had been born after his father’s death, an infant, this meant that the office of Stadtholder was left vacant in all provinces except Groningen and Friesland, where the position had long since been held by a member of the house of Nassau. Under the leadership of Johan de Witt, who was appointed Pensionary of the States of Holland in 1653, Holland continued to steer a course that strove to maintain Holland’s traditional dominance in the States General, whilst upholding the principle of provincial sovereignty. During the peace negotiations after the first Naval War with England, she consented to a secret clause upon which Cromwell had made his acceptance of the treaty dependent: the Act of Seclusion that barred members of the house of Orange from the Stadtholderate of Holland. Holland’s high-handed action caused dismay in the States General, and even within the province, some towns, such as Haarlem and Enkhuizen, continued to oppose the Act of Seclusion with all their might. For Johan de Witt it was an occasion to state and justify his ideas about the benefits of a republican constitution. Coster, as we know from the auction catalogue, kept a copy of De Witt’s Justification of the Act of Seclusion.165 He must have been among those who welcomed the inauguration of what the adherents of the States party would come to call the period of ‘True Freedom’. He would live long enough to see it flourish, and died before witnessing its demise in 1672. 165  Kleerkoper, ‘Een vergeten catalogus’, 300.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

4 The Spectre of Civil War Literary Reactions to the Death of Oldenbarnevelt In 1610 Oldenbarnevelt had written to his associate Gilles van Ledenberg: ‘The man who works for the common good and the glory of God alone, cannot fail.’1 No single other line, perhaps, in all of the Advocate’s voluminous correspondence, characterizes the man better than this, both in his essential integrity on matters of principle, and in his inflexibility and fundamental inability to understand the motives of his opponents. This chapter follows the events surrounding the fall of Oldenbarnevelt and the expulsion of the Arminians after the Synod of Dort and their treatment in the pamphlet literature. Because the circumstances of the political takeover, the trial, and the execution gradually gave rise to two incompatible accounts of the government and constitution of the Republic, a chronological narrative that traces the sequence of events is required to understand the development of political argument. Beneath party-political divisions, a structural parallelism between the pamphlets against Oldenbarnevelt, and those against the Prince of Orange generated by his fall, pushes itself to the surface. In both cases, a legal and political analysis of tyranny was supplemented by a more openly libellous rhetoric that was intended to incite and spur into action. This is  particularly the case in the literature defending the Advocate, in which the ­dramatic narrative of the trial and execution of the elderly statesman galvanized political argument. Oldenbarnevelt’s tragic death furnished his supporters with the charismatic appeal they had so sorely lacked while he was still alive. In the eyes of the adherents of the States party, the execution of Oldenbarnevelt became the Republic’s foundational crime, a direct attack on the sovereignty of Holland by the Stadtholder. Controversy over the Advocate’s death thus tended to flare up whenever the constitution of the Dutch Republic became the subject of political debate. The same holds for the literature against the Prince of Orange, produced in the period between 1619 and 1623, culminating in Slatius’s notorious tyrannicide pamphlets. Here, the examination of a wider discursive field of ephemeral literature, including libel verse, elegies, and lamentations, as well as commonplaces and translations of classical texts, demonstrates how Slatius’s analysis of Maurits’s 1  ‘Die vast gaet ende allenlijck Godes eere ende ’s Lants welvaren voorheeft, overwint alle swaricheden’, Jan Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1960–72), iii. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

146

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

‘tyranny’, albeit not his solution to it, was shared by a far larger group who viewed the events of 1618–19 as an unconstitutional attack on the liberties of the land. 4.1   P U B L I C O P I N I O N I N T H E ‘ Y E A R O F V I O L E N C E ’ The crisis of 1617–18 laid bare all the weaknesses of the Republic’s political system. Not only had Oldenbarnevelt’s church policy led to schism in the R ­ eformed Church, it had left the country on the brink of institutional anarchy. The compartmentalization of authority, which had worked so well in the 1590s, when Maurits and Oldenbarnevelt had cooperated in good understanding, now struck back with a vengeance as the Republic’s political and judicial apparatus came to a halt. In France, the adoption of the Scherpe Resolutie gave rise to the rumour that the United Provinces had split. In reality, the situation was more one of institutional paralysis, as both in the States General and in the States of Holland, majority decisions were taken which the outvoted minorities refused to acknowledge as legal.2 In Oldenbarnevelt’s view, the actions of the urban magistracy against unruly Contra-Remonstrants were purely political decisions, in which the local authorities should have free hand. When citizens who had been exiled or had lost their citizens’ rights tried to appeal to the Hof van Holland or the Hoge Raad, these organs were faced with a ‘handsluiting’ of the States—an order to refrain from interference. The Hof van Holland and the Hoge Raad did launch a formal complaint against this breach of due process, and the controversy over ‘handsluiting’ played a key role both in the anti-Oldenbarnevelt pamphlet literature, and in the trial itself.3 The last factor which contributed to the fall of Oldenbarnevelt’s regime was the mounting popular unrest, caused in part by the slump in textile prices, manifesting itself in the rise of a militant popular Contra-Remonstrantism in towns like Leiden where the urban textile workers, consisting for a large part of Flemish immigrants, confronted a staunchly pro-Remonstrant regent patriciate.4 It was in Leiden that rioting erupted and the magistracy had to erect spiked barricades to protect the town hall from the populace—barricades that were soon nicknamed ‘Barnevelt’s teeth’, and gained an iconic status as a symbol of Oldenbarneveldist oppression.5 The deteriorating political climate also manifested itself in the intensification of the pamphlet debate in which allegations of treachery, tyranny, and subversion of the Reformed religion were now levelled directly at Oldenbarnevelt himself. In the churches under the cross, the Advocate was likened to the Egyptian Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Uzziah.6 Once the person of the Advocate came under direct attack, there was only one outcome. Indeed, the fact that the most damaging pamphlets appeared between late 1617 and 1618, in step with the political campaign that would lead to the Advocate’s fall, suggests that 2  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 515.    3  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 464, 506. 4  Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 436–8. 5 Anon., D’Arminiaensche Schans te Leiden (s.a.). 6  A. Th. van Deursen, Bavianen en slijkgeuzen (Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2010), 303.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

147

they were, if not directly commissioned by the architects of the takeover, at least exploited for political purposes.7 Two pamphlets that appeared early in March 1618 deserve special mention here. The first of these, the Necessary and Animated Discourse (Nootwendich ende Levendich Discours), rehearses the Contra-Remonstrant arguments concerning the political and religious controversy, yet stands out because of the direct way in which it challenges Oldenbarnevelt’s dominance over the States of Holland. Through his hold over the Gecommiteerde Raden, a body which had usurped the authority of the States, the Advocate ruled through the States like the Pope rules through his cardinals. Bypassing the traditional organs of Holland’s lawful government, he took all decisions in his ‘rear council’ consisting of his creatures and devotees, in the same way as he placed pensionaries in the towns to keep the burgomasters in check, and to ‘arrange everything as that great pensionary sees fit’. A follow-up to the Necessary discourse came soon afterwards with the Spanish counsel, or, how the United Netherlands may best be brought back under the King of Spain (Spaenschen Raedt, hoemen de Vereenighde Nederlanden alderbest wederom sal connen brengen onder ’t gebiedt van den Coningh van Spangien).8 Compared to the later pamphlets, the tone of the Spanish counsel is still moderate, yet its contents are inflammatory, as it aims to give substance to the old allegations that Oldenbarne­ v­elt would deliver the country to the Spanish enemy. The first part of the pamphlet consists of advice given by Lipsius, Erycius Puteanus, and Campanella, to the Archdukes and the Spanish King respectively, on how to bring the Northern provinces back under Spanish control. First, a truce was needed to soften the enmity of the Dutch against their sovereign overlords, and to stimulate dissent which was now kept in check by the war effort. Religion, as Lipsius in particular stressed, was a key to foment discord. Then the Prince of Orange had to be eliminated, after which reconquering the rebellious provinces would be an easy task. Oldenbarne­ velt’s actions, the author maintains, are entirely in line with these prescriptions. The necessary course of action, to the author, is equally clear: the convention of a National Synod to end religious division, and the restoration of the Prince to his legitimate position.9 From Hoorn, Robbert Robbertsz took up the gauntlet in defence of Oldenbarne­ velt with his Hoorn’s Trumpet against the ungrateful Danckaerts of the Spanish Counsel of the city of Amsterdam, together with a May-flower, risen from Barnevelt (Hoorns Basuyn teghen de Practijcque des ondanckbaren danckaerts van de Spaenschen raedt / der Stede van Amsterdam, met een Maybloem uyt Barnevelt op-geresen, 1618), which attacked Contra-Remonstrants and the Prince of Orange head on. ‘For we 7  According to Slatius, the pamphlets were commissioned to prepare for the arrest of the Advocate and his supporters, [Henricus Slatius], Christalijnen Spieghel (1619), sig. C4r, 23. 8  [François van Aerssen?], Nootwendich ende Levendich Discours . . . over onsen droevighen ende periculeusen staet . . . om teghen die vileyne boecxkens, Weegh-schael, Reuck-appel, Vraegh-al, &c. ghelesen te worden (s.a.); [Francois van Aerssen?], Spaenschen Raedt, hoemen de Vereenighde Nederlanden alderbest wederom sal connen brengen onder ’t gebiedt van den Coningh van Spangien . . . (1618). 9  For this synopsis of the Necessary Discourse and the Spanish Counsel, I have relied upon Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 565–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

148

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

predestinati’, Robbert ventriloquises, ‘. . . want to exalt the Prince of Orange, to raise him on a mountain and show him all the kingdoms of the world, and offer him sovereignty, as long as he agrees to worship our new God of Geneva, and fall at the feet of the Calf.’10 The pamphlets generated considerable public interest, both within the Republic and with foreign observers. Rumour had it that François van Aerssen had had a hand in their composition. Realizing the damage they would do to his reputation and to the cause of the States party, the Advocate set himself to write a refutation. While Oldenbarnevelt’s Remonstrance was able to refute some of the most obvious falsehoods, it was unable to undo the damage. Indeed, his attempt to prove the absurdity of the allegations by giving a long list of his services to the country caused considerable aggravation.11 In the following month, the tone became more menacing. In June, another pamphlet, Provisional Uncovering of Various Things in the Remonstrant of the Lord Advocate of Holland and West-Vriesland (Provisionele Openinge. Van verscheyden ­saecken, gestelt in de Remonstrantie van den Heer Advocaet van Hollandt ende WestVriesland, 1618), appeared, again—but this time with more plausibility—attributed to Van Aerssen.12 This pamphlet accused Oldenbarnevelt of attempting, with the aid of a league of eight cities, to change the country’s constitution from a free arist­o­ cratic republic into an oligarchy.13 With this aim, Oldenbarnevelt had driven through the Truce, fomented religious division, and attempted to diminish the reputation of the Prince of Orange. The author has nothing but scorn for the claim that measures against the Contra-Remonstrants have been taken to maintain the authority of the States, for everyone knows that this specious term refers to nothing else but Oldenbarnevelt’s own prestige and authority.14 Holland, the author claims, should stop acting as if the fortunes of the Republic depend on her alone.15 The 10  ‘Wy seggen ende wy blijvender oock by ghelijck als den dief by de bast / dat wy gepredestineerden alleen de ware Gereformeerde Religie zijn / die den Prince van Orangien aenghenomen heeft te beschermen / desen Prince behoortmen sijn voetstappen alleen te volgen / desen Prince willen wy sijn Authoriteyt oprechten / als Stadt-houder ende Gouverneur Generael / ende wy willen hem verheffen en stellen op een seer hoogen berch / ende toonen hem alle rijcken der werelt / en wy willen hem souvereyn Heere ende een Meester over alles maken / wil hy maer voor onsen nieuwen Godt van Geneven neder vallen ende het kalf Moses aenbidden /. . .’ [Robbert Robbertsz le Canu], Hoorns ­Basuyn teghen de Practijcque des ondanckbaren danckaerts van de Spaenschen raedt / der Stede van ­Amsterdam, met een Maybloem uyt Barnevelt op-geresen (1618), sig. A2r. 11  The English ambassador called it a work full of ‘both indiscretions and puerilities, besides being the subject of discontent he will give them both at home and abroad’. Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 574; see also anon., Gulden Legende van den nieuwen St. Jan ([1618]), f B2r, p. 11, cf. f C34, p. 22. 12  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 589. 13  [Francois van Aerssen?], Provisionele Openinge Van verscheyden saecken, gestelt in de Remonstrantie van den Heer Advocaet van Hollandt ende West-Vriesland (1618), sig. A3v. 14 [Aerssen], Provisionele openinghe, sigs. A4r–v, 7–8, cf. sig. D2v, 28. 15  ‘Dan daer en oprechte Unie is / en behoort het eenen lidt niet te trotsen op zijn macht boven d’ andere leden. T’ behoort maer een lichaem te wesen / tot welckes berscherminghe elck lidt gewilligh contribueert. Want gheeft d’een meer middelen, d’ander beschermt ende belet de revieren: de derde gheeft sijn landen ten besten / en vanght het gheweldt der vyanden op sijn steden / en Sijn Excellentie doet daer toe sijn wijs ende cloeck beleydt: ende also brenght een yder het ghene de Generaliteyt noodich is.’ ‘There where a true union exists, one member should not pride itself on its might above the other members. It should be but one body, for the protection of which each willingly contributes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

149

pamphlet takes aim at the foundation of Oldenbarnevelt’s tolerance policy, the ius circa sacra of the provinces, arguing that only a National Synod can judge about the opinions of the Remonstrants.16 The Remonstrants and their supporters have abused article 13 of the Union of Utrecht for their own purposes. The Union was drafted in a period in which both freedom and religion stood in peril, and it was unacceptable that, now that all provinces confessed the same religion, it should be used to subvert religion.17 It is in its denunciation of the way in which the Oldenbarnevelt regime has subverted due processes of law that the pamphlet is most ­insistent. ‘Why is it’, the author asks, ‘that they so much emphasize “authority” in the resolutions and propositions of the States of Holland and West-Friesland? It is a matter of some dubiousness in a free Republic.’18 In particular the practice of ‘handsluiting’ provokes him to a righteous anger, compared to which the remonstrances and apologies of Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius sometimes sound hollowly legalistic. In the past four years, many citizens of modest means have been fined or deprived of their citizen- or militia-rights, without the possibility of having their grievances redressed. In a free state, he reminds his audience, ‘the right of the lowliest citizen should be equally well defended as that of my Lord Advocate’.19 Not authority, but justice should be the mainstay of legitimate government.20 In reaction to the Provisional Uncovering the States of Holland issued a safeguard, placing Oldenbarnevelt under the direct protection of the States, in a futile attempt to stem the tide. With the arrest of the Advocate, on 29 August 1618, came the release of all the repressed hatred. Now the Contra-Remonstrants’ time to mock their adversaries had come. The engraving The Righteous Sieve (see Figure 8) shows Justitia, enthroned in the heavens, whose sword is connected through strings to a large sieve, operated by the ‘Power of the States’ (Mogende Macht) on the left, and ‘Strength of Nassau’ (Nassouwsche Kracht) on the right, who winnow Oldenbarnevelt and his accomplices, depicted tumbling to the floor in a confused pile. The image is of biblical provenance, alluding to the many loci in the Old and New Testament that liken God’s separating of the wicked as the winnowing of the wheat from the chaff (Ps. 1: 4; Isa. 41: 16; Jer. 15: 7; Matt. 13: 30; Luke 3: 17). Particularly galling to the Remonstrants was the way in which the print represented the Prince’s coup d’état as the result of harmonious cooperation between the States and the House of Orange, a fiction of legitimacy symbolized in the appropriation of the Republic’s motto, Concordia res parvae crescunt, as the adage of a punishing, providential its own. For this one has more means; the other protects and guards the rivers. A third one sacrifices its lands, and intercepts the violence of the enemy in its towns. His Excellency gives his sage and brave policy; and thus everybody contributes what the Generality needs.’ Provisionele openinghe, sig. E2v, 20. 16  Provisionele openinghe, sig. G2v, 52. 17  Provisionele openinghe, sigs. G2r–G2v, 51–2. 18  ‘Waer toe isset dan / dat men dus seer om de autoriteyt roept / in propositien / in schriften / in de vergaaderinghe van de Ed. Mog. Heeren van Hollandt en Westvrieslant? T’is een seacke vol bedenckens in een vrye Republijcke . . .’ Provisionele openinghe, sig. G3r, 53. 19  ‘Want oock de alderminste burgher soo wel moet voorghestaen worden in syn gherechticheydt / als mijn heer den Advocaet, Provisionele openinghe, sig. B4v, p. 16. 20  Provisionele openinghe, sig. G3r, 53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

150

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 8 Anonymous, The Righteous Sieve (1618) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

151

justice (Eendracht maeckt macht).21 The Remonstrants reacted with indignation. Telle responded with a pamphlet which pointed out, with some sarcasm, that a sieve usually sifts the good grain, while the chaff is blown away.22 The Remonstrants’ response came with one of the best known prints of the controversy, which would grow out into an enduring icon of Dutch satirical culture. On Holland’s Latest Transformation (‘Op de jongste Hollantsche transformatie’) (1618) (see Figure 9) shows Arminius and Gomarus putting their arguments for their cause in the balance. The balance has tilted to the left, Gomarus’s side, because, as the accompanying poem by Vondel explains, the Prince of Orange has added the weight of his sword to Gomarus’s ailing cause.23 Throughout the rest of the century, ‘On the Balance of Holland’ (‘Op de waeg-schaal van Hollandt’), as the print became popularly known, continued to be reproduced, alluded to, and quoted.24 Yet the Balance was itself a reworking of an earlier Reformation print featuring, in a strikingly similar configuration, Luther and his supporters versus the Pope and his cardinals. The balance tilts to the right, to the Word, against which the papal bulls, indulgences, and rosaries carry no weight whatsoever. The iconicity of the later print derives to no small degree from the way it exploits the rhetoric of the earlier image and turns it against itself, exposing the unholy alliance of spiritual authority and military power as a betrayal of sola Scriptura, the central message of the Reformation, captured visually through the substitution of Calvin’s Institutes and Maurits’s sword for Luther’s Bible on the balance’s scales. Another exceptionally vitriolic pamphlet appeared under the title The Golden Legend of the New Saint John; Or, a Brief Account of the Nobility, Virtues and Deeds of master John of Barnevelt, one time Advocate of Holland and West-Friesland (Gulden Legende van den Nieuwen St. Jan. Dat is: Cort verhael vande Edeldom deuchden ende handelinghen van Meester Jan van Barnevelt ghewesene Advocaet van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt, 1618).25 The Golden Legend, an insidious mixture of truth, lies, and innuendo, brought the libel pamphlet to a new level of sophistication and demonstrates, perhaps more clearly than any other work of the period, the mechanisms of the politics of slander. The first part of the pamphlet, relating the ‘nobility’ of ‘master John’, aimed to demolish the noble status and good standing 21  On the ubiquity of this Ciceronian maxim in Dutch political thought, see Martin van Gelderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), passim. 22  [Reinier Telle], Retortie ofte wedersteeck, ghegheven met de smadelijcke sift by eenighe bittere Calvinisten ende calumniateurs, in figuren af-ghebeeldet en met figuren ende met rymen beduydet (. . .) ([1619]). 23  ‘Gommer en Armijn te Hoof, / Dongen om het recht geloof, / Yeders in-gebracht bescheijt / In de VVeech-schael vvert geleijt. / Docter Gommer arme knecht / Haddet met den eersten slecht / Mits den schranderen Armijn / Tegen Bezam, en Calvijn / Ley den Rock van d’Advocaet, / En de Kussens van den Raet, / En het breijn dat geensins scheen / Ydel van gesonde reen, / Brieven die vermelden plat / ’tHeylich recht van elcke Stadt. / Gommer sach vast hier en gins / Tot so lang mijn Heer de Prins / Gommers syd’ die boven hing, / Trooste met sijn stale Kling / Die so svvaer vvas van gevvicht, / Dat al ’t ander viel te licht. / Doen aenbad elck Gommers pop / En Armijn die kreech de Schop.’ Vondel, WB i. 789–90. 24  Arthur Weststeijn shows how the title-page of Pieter de la Court’s Consideratien van Staat, ofte Polityke Weeg-schaal (1661) quotes the engraving. Weststeijn, Commercial Republicanism in the Dutch Golden Age (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 93–6. 25 Anon., Gulden Legende.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

152

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 9  Joost van den Vondel, Op de Waeg-schael (1618) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

of Oldenbarnevelt’s family, a myth which the advocate had cultivated with anxious care. Thus, the author set out to bring to light the obscure, not to say dubious background of the family. Oldenbarnevelt’s father, who indeed seems to have been a somewhat volatile character, is portrayed in full colours as a half-wit, known in that town as ‘Gerrit the simpleton’, who ended his days, as the author gleefully relates, ‘living very poorly in the dunes’.26 Oldenbarnevelt’s wife, whom he married only for her inheritance, is the offspring of an incestuous union of brother and 26  ‘Sijn Groot-Vader laten nu wij rusten: maer dat sijn Vader is gheweest van kleynen aansien / met namen Gerrit / of Gerritgen Slecht ist tot Amersfoort ende in Goylandt noch wel bekent / die om een leelijcken doodtslach seer schandelijck begaen / hebbende moeten vluchten hem in de Duynen seer maghertjes heeft moeten gheneren.’ Gulden legend, sig. A2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

153

sister (Gulden Legende, sig. A3r, p. 5). The rest of the Advocate’s family are likewise dragged through the mire, bringing the author to conclude: This is the reputable nobility of master Jan van Barnevelt, Knight, &. his father a murderer; his wife born from incest; his brothers, the one filthier than a swine and falser than a dog, the other a miser, a drunkard and an enemy of the true Religion; his sisters notorious harlots; and his sons debauched felons.27

Having no family honour or reputation to fall back on, Oldenbarnevelt’s rise can only be explained by a voracious ambition. To satisfy this lust for power, dominance over political life was not enough: Oldenbarnevelt, according to the author a declared atheist, was determined to extend his rule in church affairs as well, for which purpose he fomented the Arminian faction, ‘converted Uytenbogaert’, and began the repression of the true Reformed Church (Gulden legende, sigs. A4v–B1r, pp. 8–9). Indeed, what the Advocate strives for is the creation of a new Caesaropapism, for the purpose of which he has availed himself of the pens of Grotius and Uytenbogaert (Gulden legende, sigs. 12v–13r, pp. 12–13). Oldenbarnevelt has all the characteristics of a tyrant: pride, avarice, nepotism, and corruption. His ‘moderation’ is a hollow word, for he will use his eloquence only as long as he sees fit, and after that cruelty and tyranny are the order of the day (Gulden legende, sig. B4v, p. 15). He has used his influence to curtail the power of the Prince, depriving him of his legal rights, hoping, eventually, to drive him out of the country (Gulden legende, sig. B1r–v, pp. 10–11). He has usurped the powers of the States, and conducts correspondence with foreign heads of state as if the authority of the country rested with him alone. On the proper constitutional order, the author of the Golden Legend is less clear. While the Brief and Necessary Discourse had attacked the way in which Oldenbarnevelt, through his hold over the Gecommiteerde Raden, has usurped the power of the States of Holland, it did not question the principle of States sovereignty. The constitutional position of The Golden Legend seems closer to the position towards which Maurits himself seems to have inclined: namely that sovereign authority in the Dutch Republic was divided between the provincial States and the Generality.28 Yet in the more openly pro-Orangist pamphlets, such constitutional niceties seem to have been tantamount to a view in which it was alright for the States to occupy themselves with the running of the country’s day-to-day affairs as long as they remembered that the highest power rested with the Prince. Such, at least, seems to be the message of an engraving on the title-page of the Golden Legend, which depicts Oldenbarnevelt as an idol from which the symbols and ­insignia of power flow forth. The caption reads ‘It is an intolerable yoke when the servant grows higher than the master’ (Gulden legende, sig. A1r). 27  ‘Dit is den treffelijcken Adel van Meester Jan Barnevelt / Ridder etc. Sijn vader een doodtslager / sijn wijf in bloedschande ghewonnen / sijn Broeders / den eenen vuylder als een varcken / ende oneerlijcker als een hondt / den anderen een gierigaert / suypert / ende vyandt van de ware Religie. Sijn susters bekende hoeren/ en sijn soonen geweest gedebaucheerde fielen.’ Gulden Legende, sig. A45, p. 7. 28 Israel, Dutch Republic, 447.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

154

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Both pamphlets, therefore, describe Oldenbarnevelt’s rule in terms of usurpation, yet while one provides a political argument, the other employs a more openly libellous rhetoric.29 Indeed, what is striking is the element of rhetorical, idiomatic, and iconographical unity of these pamphlets and the engravings adorning them, which in turn points to the tenuousness of the boundaries between pamphlet, pasquil, libel verse, and cautionary tale. This is particularly obvious in the collections of libel verse, in which the fall of the hated Advocate was invariably cast in the terms of sin, transgression, and punishment.30 4.2   T H E T R A G E D Y O F J O H A N VA N O L D E N B A R N E V E LT: TRIAL AND EXECUTION After the political takeover of 1618, Maurits was faced with a number of pressing issues: bringing the religious disputes to an end, consolidating the new regime, and, perhaps the most difficult task, bringing the leaders of the defeated party to justice. Anything less than a conviction on account of treason or crimes against the state would call into doubt Maurits’s actions of the last months, which had been, after all, from a constitutional point of view, dubious—not only going against ­ordinary governmental practice, but forming a direct infringement of the principle of provincial sovereignty and the privileges and liberties of the towns.31 The most pressing problem was the selection of a judicial organ competent to pass judgement. The arrest of Oldenbarnevelt had provoked consternation in the States of Holland. Even the towns of the Contra-Remonstrant opposition had qualms about an intervention of the States General in their jurisdiction. In normal circumstances, the ius de non evocando guaranteed that a citizen was not to be extradited to a higher court, but tried before his ‘natural judges’: usually the sheriff’s court of the town in which he or she was a citizen. Both as a citizen and a statesman, Oldenbarnevelt’ss family and supporters maintained, his case should be heard by the States of Holland.32 It was these points—the violation of the ius de non evocando, the failure to honour the safeguard, and the juridical incompetence of the 29 The Brief and Necessary Discourse also contained veiled personal attacks on Oldenbarnevelt: a foreigner, a man of questionable origins, whose parents, wife and children all had a dubious reputation. The author says he will leave the task of dispelling this ‘legend’ to someone else—an invitation which the author of the Golden Legend had duly taken up. 30  A number of these anti-Oldenbarnevelt songs have been brought together by Louis Peter Grijp and Ensemble Camerata Trajectina on Bavianen en slijkgeuzen (1995, Globe 6031). 31 A Th. van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, (Amsterdam: Aula/Bert Bakker, 2002), 73; Israel, Dutch Republic, 452–3. 32  It was of course wishful thinking on the part of Oldenbarnevelt’s supporters to believe that Maurits would allow Oldenbarnevelt’s case to be decided by one of the judicial organs of Holland. Yet, as Oldenbarnevelt’s family pointed out in their request to the States of Holland, it would not have been without precedent: in 1587, a case of high treason had been decided before the court of Leiden, with assistance of judges of the Hof van Holland. Anon., Request aen de Eedele Grootmogende HEEREN, mijn Heeren De Staten van Hollant ende West-Vrieslandt. Van weghen de Huysvrouwe ende Kinderen vanden Heere van Oldenbarnevelt, Heere van Berckel, &. Door een liefhebber der Nederlantsche Regeeringhe, maer niet des Paus. (1619), 5; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 667.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

155

States General—which would recur time and again in the remonstrances of the Advocate and his family, in the pamphlet literature generated in the wake of the execution, and, somewhat later, in Grotius’s Defence of the lawful government of  Holland and West-Vriesland (Verantwoordingh van de wettelijcke regiering van Hollant ende West-Vrieslant, 1622).33 The States General proceeded to appoint a committee that would conduct the interrogations and draft the formal accusation in preparation of the trial. Although the selection of the examiners aimed at establishing an equitable division between Holland and the other provinces, Maurits nevertheless considered it prudent first to effect another purge of the States of Holland. When the four delegates from Holland were chosen, they included two of Oldenbarnevelt’s sworn enemies: Burgomaster Reinier Pauw and the Sheriff of Dordrecht, Hugo Muys van Holy.34 With the committee complete, the interrogations began on 15 November. The ­interrogators set out to draft the ‘intendit’, a formal accusation on the basis of which the judges would have to reach a verdict, a long and arduous process that would take nearly six months to complete. Thanks to the eyewitness account of Oldenbarnevelt’s servant Jan Francken, we are well informed about the last months of Oldenbarnevelt’s life.35 In the seclusion of his cell, Oldenbarnevelt would complain of the strict regime under which he was kept, yet towards his examiners, his attitude was stoical. Despite the long, taxing interrogations, after which he often went to bed immediately, the 71-yearold demonstrated considerable moral and physical stamina, an attitude derived from an unshakable conviction in his integrity and the correctness of his actions, which nevertheless did not win him favour with his examiners.36 The other prisoners fared less well. Gilles van Ledenberg took his own life, in the hope that by avoiding death on the scaffold, his family would be spared the forfeiture of his goods.37 The strict regime also took its toll on Rombout Hogerbeets, the pensionary of Leiden who, after four months of imprisonment, began to show signs of mental instability, but who nevertheless mustered the courage to ask for a revision of the verdict when his sentence was read out to him.38 Only Grotius seems to have clung to the illusion that, once he had managed to persuade his examiners of his innocence, his services to the country would again be taken into consideration.39 More 33  Request aen de Eedele Grootmogende HEEREN, passim; Grotius, Verantwoordingh van de wettelijcke regiering van Hollant ende West-Vrieslant Midtsgaders eeniger nabuyrige Provincien,sulcx die was voor de veranderingh, gevallen inden Iare 1618 (Paris, 1622); Geeraerdt Brandt, Historie van de rechtspleging gehouden in den jaaren 1618 en 1619 ontrent de dry gevangene heeren. Mr Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mr Rombout Hoogerbeets, Mr Hugo de Groot (Rotterdam: bij Barent Bos, boekverkooper, 1710), 50–2. 34  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 640, 644–8. 35  Jan Francken, Warachtige Historie van de Ghevanckenisse/bekentenisse/leste woorden ende droevighe dood van wylen heer Johan van Olden-Barnevelt, Ridder/heere tot Berckel/Roderijs/etc. ([Amsterdam: Joris Veselaer], 1620). 36  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 660–1. 37  Henk Nellen, Hugo de Groot (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007), 250; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 642–3. 38 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 41, 286–8; Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 244; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 675. 39 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 231–3, 235.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

156

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

incriminating for the man who would later grow to become the States party’s most eloquent defender was the rapidity with which he abandoned his mentor and patron. When one of the judges presented him with ‘evidence’ of Oldenbarnevelt’s treason, Grotius not only accepted such ‘proofs’ at face value, he also gave his own account of a number of the Advocate’s policies that he had found suspicious, but which, with hindsight seemed to make sense to him. Only in his Apology would Grotius complain that Oldenbarnevelt’s treason had been falsely presented as already proven.40 Since the trial was conducted according to extraordinaris procedure, the ­defendants had to respond directly to the examiners, without the assistance of a  lawyer and, a fact complained about bitterly by both Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius, without being given access to relevant documents, and denied ink and paper.41 While political considerations might have their place, such strictness does not help to place the trial in a favourable light, especially when viewed in the light of the harsh, sometimes downright inquisitorial, behaviour of some of the examiners.42 Another problematic point of an extraordinaris case was that it could only lead to a conviction on the basis of a confession, if needs be extracted on the rack. The central point in Oldenbarnevelt’s case was the accusation of treason. This was a point on which the defendant, the examiners knew, would never yield. Yet the use of torture was equally perilous. A too heavy-handed treatment of the prisoner would make the judges, and, by implication, Maurits, look cruel and vindictive. The possibility that the old man would not survive an interrogation on the rack could not be discounted, or that he would maintain his innocence even under torture, in which case a turnabout in public opinion could be expected.43 In the end, the charge of treason would be dropped from the sentence altogether, something for which the champions of the Advocate would not cease to heap reproaches on the judges. On 6 February 1619, the States General appointed a jury of twenty-four judges. Some of the delegated judges, like Adriaen Junius, and Nicolaas Cromhout, were former supporters of Oldenbarnevelt and had to be coaxed into taking up their task.44 Others were opponents of the Advocate, like the burgomasters of Delft, Leiden and Alkmaar, Van Santen, Brouckhoven and Schagen, and finally, François van Aerssen. Oldenbarnevelt’s family challenged Pauw, Muys van Holy, and Aerssen as judges, but the States of Holland vindicated the reputation of Pauw and Muys 40 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 237–9; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 689–91. 41  Grotius contests the legality of an extraordinaris procedure in cases where the status of the facts is debatable, see Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 153–4. About lack of access to documents: anon., Request, 7; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 650–1. Grotius was later to make the same argument, stressing that even under extraordinaris procedure, a defendant should be allowed what is needed for his defence. Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 154–5. 42  Reinier Pauw, Hugo Muys van Holy, but also Voogt the delegate of Gelderland, the registrar Pots, and fiscal Silla are often mentioned in this context; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 640–1, 648, 653, 662. Grotius complained that he was often interrupted, was given no chance to defend himself with arguments, and was being ‘deceived, threatened and pressured’, Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 234; Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 155–7. 43  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 650.    44  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 681.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

157

van Holy.45 Van Aerssen declined to take up a seat as judge, but continued to act as an intermediary between the judges and the Prince. In these final months, the political situation once more took a turn for the worse. During the trial, the pamphlet war had continued unabated. In the same period, the petition of Oldenbarnevelt’s family was published in two editions. There were riots and disturbances in Remonstrant towns and villages. The unrest reinforced doubts about the stability of the new regime. As the English ambassador Dudley Carleton saw it, many prominent men who believed that ‘as long as the heads of this faction remain, there will be no assured peace either in this church or state’.46 Yet while the Prince and his supporters were becoming more and more convinced about the political necessity of a death sentence, the possibility that the execution of the sentence could be avoided was still kept open. Such a solution— which appears to have been what Maurits hoped for47—would have required either an admission of guilt by the ­defendant, or a plea for grace by his family. Attempts at mediation through Willem Lodewijk and Louise de Coligny failed, as Oldenbarnevelt’s family chose to stand firm with the defendant in maintaining his innocence.48 Only a week later, the judges agreed on the sentence. The accusation of high treason was dropped, but Oldenbarnevelt was declared guilty on most other points, including crimen laesae majestatis and crimen perturbationis reipublicae. Preparations for the execution began straight away, and three ministers, Lamotius, Beyerus, and the already mentioned Walaeus, were summoned to assist the condemned man on his final night. Walaeus accepted on the condition that he would not have to minister to his friend Grotius, should the death sentence be pronounced against him too.49 Oldenbarnevelt was informed of his sentence on the evening before his execution, while he was busy drawing up another remonstrance. After having written a letter of farewell to his wife and family, he heeded Walaeus’s appeal to consider his spiritual welfare. Interestingly, all ministers agreed that the condemned made ‘a very beautiful confession’. He nevertheless refused to confess his sins in a way that might be construed as a renunciation of his ecclesiastical policy.50 Oldenbarnevelt spent much of the last night of his life talking to Walaeus whom he seems to have liked well, and who was genuinely moved by the old man’s misfortune. He asked Walaeus to intercede with Maurits, asking him to protect his children. Maurits granted the request, on the condition that the children ‘behave well’. He declined a final chance to ask for mercy.51 In the early hours of the following morning, he was led before his judges where his sentence was read out to 45 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 57–9; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 684. 46  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 687. 47  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 273–4; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 710. 48  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 274–5; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 708–9, Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 157–8. 49 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 123. 50 Francken, Warachtige Historie, 66–9; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 728, 738. 51 Francken, Warachtige Historie, 65–6; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 730–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

158

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 10 Claesz Jansz Visscher, The Execution of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1619) ­(Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

him. When he understood that his family’s possessions were declared forfeit, he was unable to control his anger. The judges, he declared, had put down many things in his sentence that they could not have extracted from his confession. He  had thought that his life and blood would have satisfied ‘the Lords States General’, and that they would leave his wife and children his possessions, adding, ‘is this the compensation for the forty-three years of service I have done the country?’52 He was led away, and brought to the scaffold that had been hastily erected at the Binnenhof (see Figure 10). Oldenbarnevelt played his final act well. He needed the support of Francken to mount the scaffold, but standing there to face the crowd, he showed no outward sign of fear. He reminded the public that he had always lived as a good patriot, and would die as such. He knelt down, pulled the blindfold over his eyes, and told the executioner not to tarry.53 As the blood spouted from the arteries of the severed neck, soaking the sand and dripping through the planks of the platform, the people who had up till that moment kept a deadly silence rushed forwards, dipping handkerchiefs and pieces of cloth in it, some undoubtedly as a ghastly souvenir, others perhaps, as one bystander was heard to say, ‘to keep it until it be avenged’.54 For a seventeenth-century public, conditioned to see the fall of the mighty as a cautionary tale, death on the scaffold was the final, tragic spectacle. But if a public 52 Francken, Warachtige Historie, 79. Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 741. Grotius was likewise to maintain that the sentence contained many points to which the defendants had never pleaded guilty. Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 158. 53 Francken, Warachtige Historie, 79. 54 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 216; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 746.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

159

execution was the manifestation of the state’s sovereign power, it was also the ­moment where it showed itself most vulnerable, for the dramaturgy of death was liable to appropriation by those it was intended to punish as well as by those it was supposed to warn and edify.55 Indeed, almost immediately after the execution, it became clear that the new regime was facing difficulties in controlling the narrative of the execution. The sentence against Oldenbarnevelt and his collaborators was published and distributed throughout the land. Yet the verdict itself was controversial.56 The charge of crimen laesae majestatis was only added to the sentence a year after the verdict had been pronounced, as Grotius was quick to point out in his Defence.57 The charge of crimen laesae majestatis divinae could only be decided upon after the Synod of Dort had outlawed Arminianism. It was moreover, a charge that was in bad odour because of its earlier use in heresy trials, and which would soon be resigned to oblivion again. A few days after the execution, the States General sent a letter to all the provinces stating that the judges had made known that there had arisen serious suspicions of high treason, but that they had wished to spare the defendant an interrogation on the rack due to his advanced age. The evidence such as now existed constituted a kind of ‘semi-proof ’ (semi-proeve).58 A juridical absurdity, and, as Van Deursen has pointed out, a curious form of reasoning—to condemn a man to the scaffold because he might not survive the rack!59 Even more problematic was that the victors of 1618 never answered the challenges about the illegality of the trial levelled at them by the defendants. In their consistent emphasis on the sovereignty of the States, backed up by historical argument, as well as the appeal to the Unie van Utrecht, and their equally consistent denial of the juridical competence of the States General, Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius formulated a constitutional position to which their opponents never furnished an adequate response.60 The advocates of the States party, however, would never cease to come back to these fundamental points: Grotius in his Defence of the Lawful Government of Holland and West-Vriesland; the author of the History of the 55  Thomas Laqueur, ‘Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions 1604–1868’, in A. L. Beier, D. Cannadine, and J. Rosenheim (eds), The First Modern Society (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), 305–56; Peter Lake and Michael Questier, The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven: Yale University Press 2002), pp. 229–80. 56  SENTENTIE uyt-ghesproocken ende gepronuncieert over Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, gewesen Advocaet van den Lande van Hollant ende West-Vrieslant: en geexecuteert den dertienden May Anno sestien-hondert negentien/stilo novo, op ’t Binnnen-hof in ’s Graven-Hage (The Hague, 1619). The text of the sentence, with commentary in [Roeland de Carpentier] Historie van het Leven en Sterven van Heere Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Ridder, Heere van den Tempel, Berckel, Rodenrijs, Gewesen Advocaet van Hollandt, Etc. ([Rotterdam: Johannes Naeranus], 1648), 262–80, see also ‘Eenige opmerckingen, memorien, notitien, ende consideration tegens den inhoudt van de pretense, ende gansch ongefondeerde, Sententie, op den 13 May 1619 tegens den Heere Johan van Olden-barnevelt, ( . . . ) in ’s Graven-Hage gepronunceerd, ende ten selve dage, op ’t Hof aldaer met den Sweerde geexecuteert’, sigs. aaa1r–kkk 4v. 57 Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 162. 58 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 220–2; Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 272; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 749–50. 59  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 272, see also Grotius’s scathing remarks in the Verantwoordingh, 280. 60  On the sovereignty of the provinces: Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 1–14; on the illegality of the arrest, 133–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

160

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Life and Death of Lord Johan of Oldenbarnevelt (Historie van het Leven en Sterven van Heere Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Ridder, Heere van den Tempel, Berckel, Rodenrijs, Gewesen Advocaet van Hollandt, Etc, 1648); and finally the Remonstrant historian and biographer, Geeraerd Brandt, in his History of the Legal Proceedings Held in the years 1618 and 1619 (Historie van de Rechtspleging, gehouden in den jaaren 1618 en 1619 ontrent de dry gevangene heeren, Mr Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mr Rombout Hogerbeets, Mr Hugo de Groot).61 It may very well be true that the regime which Maurits’s coup put in the saddle did not feel the need to counter the allegations of usurpation and illegality, b­ ecause, fundamentally, it believed it had left the Republic’s constitution untouched. It had taken the emergency measures to prevent the country from sliding off into chaos and to restore the Reformed religion, after which political life could resume its normal course. Yet such a view of events left the question of the legal basis of the procedures against the leaders of the defeated party unanswered, a void which was to make itself felt more painfully, as the figure of the Prince of Orange loomed large behind the twenty-four judges. This was the second trump card of the defeated party, one that fitted seamlessly with the accusation of illegality and legal irregularities. The partiality of the judges, Oldenbarnevelt’s advanced age and infirmity, and the severity of the prison regime, which was maintained even during the last night of his life, resurface time and again in the literature generated by Oldenbarnevelt’s fall, from the earliest Remonstrant pamphlets to the eyewitness account of Jan Francken, to Grotius’s Justification, to Carpentier’s Life and Death of Lord John of Oldenbarnevelt, and, finally, Geeraert Brandt’s History of the Legal Proceedings. Most historians nowadays agree that the execution of Oldenbarnevelt, although not a judicial murder, was Maurits’s Pyrrhic victory.62 While the way in which the Prince of Orange had terminated schism in the church, and had prevented the country from sliding into civil war, earned him much praise within the Republic, public opinion in most other countries, with the exception of England, looked unfavourably on the execution of the elderly statesman.63 Politically as well as militarily, the years after Oldenbarnevelt’s death proved a disenchanting experience. The dead are free from fortune, it is said. Maurits, on the other hand, during the last years of his life was faced with military failure, deteriorating economic and political circumstances, and rapidly declining health. Inevitably, perhaps, the execution of Oldenbarnevelt left a stain on his reputation. Immediately after the execution and for decades after his death, friends and sympathizers began to propagate the myth of Oldenbarnevelt, the father of the fatherland, who had died on the scaffold as an innocent man. Indeed the case of the States party, as it had been formulated by 61 Grotius, Verantwoordingh, 1–4, 133–9; [Carpentier] Historie van het Leven en Sterven; Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 3–4, 67–8, 243–4. 62  Most extensive on this question Jan Den Tex, ‘Le Proces D’Oldenbarnevelt (1618–1619) fut-il un meurtre judiciaire?’, Legal History Review, 22/2 (1932), 137–68, but see e.g. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation (London: Penguin, 2004), 378; W. Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata (Leiden: Brill, 1994), ii. 145. 63 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 228–30; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 751–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

161

Grotius, Uytenbogaert, Barlaeus, and Vossius, was strengthened by the experience of defeat. It forced its adherents to reformulate and restate their principles, it gave the anti-monarchical element in their thinking an extra edge, and, it drew new emotive vigour from the drama of Oldenbarnevelt’s death. Indeed, it has been noted that, in some circles, the Advocate was more popular in death than he had ever been during his lifetime.64 In the immediate aftermath of the execution, Oldenbarnevelt’s party—or what was left of it now that its leaders were dead, imprisoned, or in exile,—was silenced, although the silence was certainly not absolute. In the days following the execution, pasquils were spread in The Hague, which called for a ‘new Brutus’.65 Much of the pamphlet literature produced after the death of the Advocate was animated by the idea that ‘murder will out’, the archaic-providentialist assumption that the blood of an innocent victim would not go unavenged. There would be no rest for the perpetrators before, by human or divine justice, satisfaction had been paid for the crime.66 This logic of retribution speaks from another engraving printed the same year. It carried a picture of the Advocate, accompanied by a poem, lauding his many services to the country, and where, for the first time, he is called a ‘martyr to the state’. Surrounding his portrait are the ‘NAMES of the twenty-four delegated JUDGES of the advocate Johan of Oldenbarnevelt, whom the French ­ambassador called ASSASSINS’. For which each of them has enjoyed twenty-four hundred guilders.67 In his Short and Truthful story. . . . about the Troubles in the Church (1620) the Contra-Remonstrant burgomaster Frederik de Vrij complained how the banished Remonstrants attempted to keep the country in turmoil by distributing ‘seditious, calumniating, mendacious books’.68 In the following, I will examine four of such ‘seditious books’, which are representative of the genre with its stock tropes and images: the Songs of Sorrow (Iammer-liedekens ende riimen, voor desen in Hollant gestroyt en gesongen), the Elegies about the Wretched Murdering of the Noble and Renowned Hero Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (Truer-Dichten over het jammerlijck Om-brenghen des Edelen ende wijd-beroemden helds Johan van Oldenbarnevelt), the Lacryma Lacrymarum, or, Tears shed over the Death of Johan of Oldenbarnevelt (Lacrymae Lacrymarum, Dat is / Traenen der Traenen ghestort over den doot des Edele Heer Iohan van Oldenbarnevelt), and the Lamentation about the Death of the noble Lord Jan van Oldenbarnevelt (Clacht-Liedt Over den Dood van de E. Heere Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mitsgaders een Clacht-Dicht over den verdruckten staet van Holland).69 The Songs of Sorrow and the Elegies show a number of similarities that 64  Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 777, 781. 65  J. Wille, ‘Het Moordpasquil’, in J. Wille, Literair-historische opstellen (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1963), 171 n. 2. 66  Lake and Questier, Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat, 28–40. 67 Anon., Namen der vier-en twintig gedelegeerde rechters van den advokaet Johan van Oldenbarnevelt ([1619?]). 68  Quoted in Wille, ‘Het Moordpasquil’, 161. 69 Anon., Iammer-liedekens ende riimen, voor desen in Hollant gestroyt en gesongen (1620); TruerDichten over het jammerlijck Om-brenghen des Edelen ende wijd-beroemden helds Johan van Oldenbarnevelt . . . ([Antwerp: Abraham Verhoeven], 1620); Lacrymae Lacrymarum, Dat is/Traenen der Traenen

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

162

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

suggest they have been brought forth by the same author. Both are indeed commonly ascribed to Slatius. They carry an identical printer’s mark and are printed in the same, elegant font. To all appearances they seem to have been meant to substitute for the more ephemeral plano or two-leaf pamphlets. Their contents, too, are similar: the Elegies contain an ‘Epitaph’, a sonnet, a song, a chronogram, and a Latin echo-verse. Gathered in the Songs of Sorrow are a ‘Lamentation’, an ‘Eight-Liner’, a ‘Prophecy’ (in fact more a rhyming pasquil against Pauw, Aerssen, and Muys van Holy than a poem), a distich, a rhyming ‘Dialogue between Brutus and Holland’, a ‘Five-Liner’ and two more Latin poems. On the verso side of the title-page, both pamphlets carry Latin quotations, mainly taken from the plays of Seneca. The publisher of the Songs of Sorrow has been identified as Slatius and, everything considered, it seems likely that he also had a hand in the publication of the Elegies. Somewhat simpler in form is the Lacrymae Lacrymarum, a fourpage pamphlet that combines a laudatory poem on Oldenbarnevelt with a bitter ‘Song in praise of the Synod of Dort’. The Lamentation is a somewhat curious literary product, containing two long poems that are particularly striking for their overheated rhetoric and gruesome imagery. Both poems are, moreover, printed both in Dutch and in French—an indication that it was at least believed that the poems would find a market among Oldenbarnevelt’s French supporters. The poetry commemorating the death of Oldenbarnevelt takes up the themes of the two engravings. The Advocate’s name and fame are extolled into the skies. He is praised as the ‘image of virtue’, the ‘phoenix of our land, the miracle of Europe’ (Lacrymae, sig. A2v); heralded as the father of the fatherland, indeed as the very ‘life and soul of the state’ (Iammer-liedekens, sig. A4). The poems praise his wisdom and prudence, and enumerate his achievements in steering the country on  a steady course throughout the war with Spain, winning her the respect of neighbouring nations and princes. Oldenbarnevelt maintained the Republic’s laws and privileges, and, finding a country ravaged by war, restored it to wealth and prosperity. When Leicester tried to usurp Holland’s sovereignty, he defended it, and championed the honour of the Prince of Orange (Lacrymae, sig. A2r, Truer-dichten sig. A2r–v). Not only have the liberty and privileges of the Netherlands been violated, liberty of conscience itself has been downtrodden. In his lifetime, Oldenbarnevelt had been the church’s ‘strong fortress’, but now that he has been murdered, she has been deprived of her protector, and her flock faces persecution. The ‘New Song in Praise of the Synod of Dort’ rehearses all the grievances the exiled Remonstrants harboured against the Contra-Remonstrants, beginning with the ‘fraudulent proceedings’ at the Synod of Dort. For there, in flagrant breach of earlier promises that had assured the Remonstrants that they would be treated fairly, their ministers had been placed under arrest, condemned ‘without any dispute’, and exiled from the land. Nor are the authorities spared criticism: ‘Fie, you ghestort over den doot des Edele Heer Iohan van Oldenbarnevelt . . . (1620); Clacht-Liedt Over den Dood van de E. Heere Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mitsgaders een Clacht-Dicht over den verdruckten staet van Holland . . . (1620).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

163

earthly gods / What so emboldens thee / To mistreat God’s loyal heralds thus miserably / And through your placards without pity / Over God’s people, frank and free / set up conscience-tyranny?’70 For the author, the Contra-Remonstrants’ behaviour at the Synod furnished the ultimate proof that their teaching is contrary to God’s word, for when, he asks, did Christ’s flock ever have recourse to deceit and violence to serve them as a test of truth? In fact all these things merely serve to lead the people astray, so that the Contra-Remonstrants can force through their doctrine of predestination. Finally, the author provides the Synod’s answers to the five points of the Remonstrance, together with a refutation (Lacrymae, sigs. A3v–A4r). Without exception, the songs and poems stress the monstrous ingratitude that brought an old man to the scaffold as a reward for a life of service to the state, and contest the legitimacy of the trial in the strongest possible terms. The poems denounce the twenty-four judges, as ‘traitors of our law, / our liberty’s foes’ (Truerdichten, sig. A2v). Driven by envy, malice, ambition, and greed, they had condemned an innocent man, like ravenous tigers satisfying their lust for blood (Clacht-dicht, sig. A2r). Because the poems identify Oldenbarnevelt with the prosperity and libe­ rty of the United Provinces, they describe the execution as an act of frenzied self-destruction. Thus, the Lamentation decries the judges as cannibalistic parricides (Clacht-liedt, sig. A2v), who are left to the vengeance of God. Neither do these poems refrain from attacking the Prince of Orange. While the Truer-dichten tries to shift the blame, accusing François van Aerssen of having poisoned Maurits’s mind with lies (Treuer-dichten, sig. A1v), most poems see the execution as Maurits’s attempt to establish his tyranny (Clacht-liedt, sig. B1r–v). To persecute the noblest and most virtuous citizens has always been the behaviour of tyrants, as the examples of Nero and Tiberius demonstrate (Clacht-liedt, sig. A3v). Indeed, as the Latin quotation from the verso of the title-page of the Elegies warns, it is a common trait of tyrants to envy the wise and the virtuous, and to rage with impunity against those who deserve most praise: Qui terret, plus iste timet; sors ista tyrannis / Convenit; invideant claris, fortesque trucident / Muniti gladiis vivant, septique venenis: / Ancipites habeant artes; trepidique minentur (Claudian, Panegyricus de Quarto Consulatu Honorii Augusi, ll. 290, in Treuer-dichten, sigs. A1v, A2v).71 The poet of the ‘Epitaph’ goes furthest in elaborating the comparison with Nero: ‘As Maurits with delighted eyes / (like a Nero) looked on to see / His father’s unmerited demise’ (Treuerdichten, sig. A2v).72 In the Songs of Sorrow, Slatius is even more emphatic in his insistence that tyranny is incompatible with justice, faith, and piety: ‘Sanctitas, pietas, fides privata bona sunt: qua juvat, reges eant’ (Seneca, Thyestes, in Iammer-liedekens, 70  ‘Foy u ghy aertsche goden / wat maeckt ghy heee so stout / dat ghy Godts trouwe Boden / so jammerlyck benout? / en door u Placcaeten stranck / over Gods volck vrij en franck / invoert Conscienty dwanck?’ Lacrymae lacrymarum, sig. A3r. 71  ‘Whoso causes terror is himself more fearful; such doom befits tyrants. Let them be jealous of another’s fame, murder the brave, live hedged about with swords and fenced with poisons, dwelling in a citadel that is ever exposed to danger, and threaten to conceal their fears.’ 72  ‘Daar Maurits met lust (als een Nero) / selfs aansagh / hoe gants onverdient syn vader kreegh de slagh’, Truer-dichten, sig. A2v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

164

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

sig. A1v).73 There is no limit to princely ambition; no treachery they would shy away from, no crime they would not commit: ‘Pro regno velim patriam, penates, coniugem flammis dare / Imperio precio quolibet constat bene’ (Seneca, Phoenissae, 661–3, in Iammer-liedekens, sig. A1v).74 Small wonder that Slatius, in his first song, a contrafactum of ‘courante Piccarde’, or ‘ Where is now my liberty’, asked his audience ‘Where is now our liberty / overthrown utterly / through the Hun’s tyranny’ (Iammer-liedekens, sig. A2r).75 4.3   ‘ T H E L O R D I S A N AV E N G E R OV E R T H O S E W H O OPPRESS THEIR BRETHREN’: THE ARMINIAN EXILES A N D T H E R H E TO R I C O F P E R S E C U T I O N A month after the execution of Oldenbarnevelt, the Synod of Dort was concluded, a fact which in the eyes of both Arminians and the Advocate’s supporters forged the two events together—a link that would continue to shed a dubious light on the proceedings of both occasions. Vondel’s ‘Chronogram on the Death of Oldenbarne­ velt’ thus begins with the words ‘Quid sentire putas omnes, CALVINE, recenti de scelere, & violatae fidei crimine? ’ In Vondel’s view, the blood of the Advocate sealed the canons of Dort.76 The Genevan delegate Jean Diodati appeared to concur, punning that the ‘canons of Dort had shot off the Advocate’s head’.77 In satirical vein, a drawing by Cornelis Sanftleven (1621) (Figure 11) combined visual jokes with elaborate puns to mock delegates and the authorities which sustained them. The delegates are represented as church owls, one wearing spectacles, busy scribbling the Acta of the Synod under the gaze of the calf (Calvin), while the mousing cat on the windowsill, Hugo Muys van Holy (muis = mouse), is keeping a close eye. The rooster Bogerman meanwhile victoriously crows ‘persecuti[o]’. The Synod of Dort marked not merely the last act in the bitter conflict between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, it was a manifestation of the unity of Reformed Protestantism in a period when, with the beginning of the Thirty Years War, the future of the Reformed Churches on the Continent again seemed under threat.78 The delegates from the Reformed Churches in Germany, Switzerland, and the Genevan Academy, England and Scotland, were therefore more than a merely symbolic presence. Their participation in the debates help to give shape to the 73  ‘Honour, virtue, faith are the goods of common men; let kings go where they please’. 74  ‘For sovereignty I would fain give country, home, wife to the flames. Sovereignty is well brought at any price.’ 75  Waer is nu ons Vrijheydt, / Die gantsch ter neder leydt / door des Mofs tyrannighheydt/ Hy heeft se verjaaght en ons gheplaaght / en al sijn lust/ Staat alleen in ons onrust.’ 76  Vondel, ‘JAER-GETYDE van wylen HEER JOAN van OLDENBARNEVELT, Vader des Vaderlandts’, WB iii. 341–3, 341. 77  Nicholas Fornerod, ‘“The Canons of the Synod Had Shot Off the Advocate’s Head”: A ­Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dort’, in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (eds), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 185. Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 712. 78 MacCulloch, Reformation, 378.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

165

Figure 11 Cornelis Sanftleven, Satire on the Synod of Dort (1621) (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

eventual formula of the Canons of Dort, As such, it testified to the arduousness of attempting to define consensus within a tradition that harboured within itself a diverse spectrum of opinion, and the challenges posed by the need to reconcile the sometimes conflicting demands of unity and the assertion of orthodoxy. That the compromises that needed to be made for this purpose did not satisfy everybody will be clear. ‘There was’, as one unsympathetic critic had it, ‘a great deal of wash and Fucus, of daubing and paintry used at the drawing up of the Canons touching

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

166

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the several articles, to make them look of the same complexion.’79 In return, doctrinal definition galvanized the debate on grace and free will elsewhere. From this perspective, Nicolas Tyacke has argued that the Synod of Dort was ‘at least to an extent, responsible for the creation of an Arminian party in England’.80 That this should be so might seem surprising. Even before the beginning of the Synod, the fortunes of those with Arminian sympathies in England were on the wane. The English delegates to the Synod, George Carleton, Bishop of Llandaf, Joseph Hall, Dean of Worcester, John Davenant, Master of Queen’s College, Cambridge, and Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex College, and the Scotsman Walter Balcanquahall were Calvinists, and had been selected as men who could be trusted to execute the King’s commission to help restore the unity and purity of the Reformed Churches in the Republic. At the same time James, who liked to style himself as a peacemaker within the Protestant churches, endorsed the proposal by Pierre du Moulin to draw up a common confession on the basis of which negotia­ tions could be opened with the Lutherans. It was, needless to say, not always possible to attain a clear condemnation of Remonstrantism without accentuating the difference between Reformed and Lutheran dogmatics. On the crucial questions of regeneration, and in the debate on the extent of the atonement, the English delegation therefore tended to steer towards cautiously worded formulations that avoided alienating Lutheran opinion.81 Other delegations of theologi exteri had different religious and political agendas. The supporters of the Herborn theologian Johannes Piscator advocated a particularly strong interpretation of God’s active role in reprobation, a viewpoint that was condemned by the majority of the Synod, although some praised Piscator’s ‘heroic spirit’. The delegation of the church of Bremen was without doubt the most inclined to regard some of the heads of the Remonstrance with sympathy. The Genevan delegation, in line with the city’s self-image of having a guiding role in relation to the other Reformed Churches, campaigned strongly to have the Remonstrants condemned for undermining the safety of church and state. Yet this by no means meant that they supported the Contra-Remonstrants in every question of doctrine.82 Thus, in an oscillating movement between doctrinal clarification and ecumenical sentiment, the sessions of the Synod dragged on for months, as the delegates debated the articles of the Remonstrance. The treatment of the Remonstrants proved to be a divisive issue. Many, including the English members, objected 79  Laurence Womock, Arcana Dogmatum Anti-Remonstrantium, or the Calvinists’ Cabinet unlocked, in An Apology for Tilenus against a pretended vindication of the Synod of Dort, 53, quoted in Peter White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 184. In this light, MacCulloch’s description of the proceedings at Dort as ‘uncompromising ultra-Calvinism’ is debatable. MacCulloch, Reformation, 378. 80 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 87. Compare however White, who argues that ‘as a result (of the debates at Dort) the thrust of English theology was confirmed as a middle way, a way that concentrated on fundamentals and avoided extremes, but nevertheless was comprehensive’. White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 202. 81 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 179, 202. 82  Fornerod, ‘Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation’, 208–10, 214–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

167

to the fact that they had been summoned to appear as citati.83 In his oration of 7 December, which was peppered with less than respectful allusions to the Prince of Orange, Episcopius protested about the way in which the Remonstrants had been stigmatized as schismatics and disturbers of the church, and about the way the delegations had been selected.84 Despite strong pressure to submit their objections in writing to the five points of the Contra-Remonstrants, the confession, and the catechism, the Remonstrants remained firm in their defiance: they were only willing to do so if the measures against the Remonstrant ministers were rescinded and if the Synod would allow for a fair and equal debate, with the Word of God, rather than confession or catechism, taken as guiding line. Their intransigent attitude caused dismay, even with the more sympathetic foreign delegates. Eventually, an order of the States General enjoining the Remonstrants to comply with synodal procedure brought matters to a head. With an appeal to conscience, the Remonstrants refused. On 14 January, Bogerman dismissed the Remonstrants in an outburst of anger. The five articles of the Remonstrants were to be judged in their absence. On the first topic to be debated, election and reprobation, consensus was reached with relative ease. The Remonstrant position of election ex praevisa fide was unequivocally rejected. But the strict supralapsarianism of Gomarus did not find any adherents, and his intransigent attitude on this point won him the criticism of both the British and the Genevan delegations.85 More contentious was the question of the limits of atonement, over which a number of the delegations were internally divided. Violent controversy erupted when Matthias Martinius of the Bremen delegation defended the view that Christ should be regarded as the Fundamentum electionis. Hereupon Gomarus threw down his glove and challenged Martinius to a duel. Even though the session ended with prayers, ‘zeal and devotion had not so well allayed Gomarus his choler, but immediately after Prayers he renewed his challenge’.86 The incident was one of the many related in Hales’s Golden Remains, a source eagerly seized upon by Remonstrant apologists like Brandt, as well as English anti-Calvinists, a fact that has done much to damage the reputation of the Synod.87 Although the official standpoint of British division was that of limited atonement, a minority led by Samuel Ward advocated hypothetical universalism, which maintained that the atonement was sufficient to save all men, although its redemptive and efficient powers were limited to the elect, a position which was shared by the delegation from Bremen, but opposed by others, notably the Genevans. 83 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 182; W. Verboom, De belijdenis van een gebroken kerk (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2005), 202–3; cf from a Remonstrant perspective, G. J. Hoenderdaal and P. M. Luca, (eds), Staat in de vrijheid: De geschiedenis van de remonstranten, (Zutphen: Walburg Press, 1982), 44–8. 84 Verboom, De belijdenis van een gebroken kerk, 202; Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 225. 85  Fornerod, ‘Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation’, 209–10; Verboom, De belijdenis van een gebroken kerk, 221, 215; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 185. 86 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 187. 87  On this effect, see Anthony Milton, ‘A Distorting Mirror: The Hales and Balcanquahall Letters and the Synod of Dort’, in Goudriaan and Lieburg, Revisiting the Synod of Dort, 135–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

168

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Diodati reproached Ward and Davenant for their impudence, and groaned about the level of theological speculation: ‘Je ne fu jamais en travail plus ennuyeux’.88 Surprisingly, perhaps, the moderates this time got their way. The discussion of the third and fourth articles, on grace and free will, caused fewer problems, and for once allowed the delegates to make common front against the new Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. Likewise perseverance proved, by comparison, less divisive. The demands of providing pastoral solace for believers also functioned to mitigate the sterner expressions of doctrinal precision. On the fraught issue of the reprobation of young children, the perceived need to alleviate the fears of parents brought the delegates to introduce a qualification into the discussion of the election (or non-election) of children that was eventually codified as article 17 of the Canons of the Synod of Dort. It was a small concession that would surely not satisfy a Mennonite or a Remonstrant, as it was still maintained that, because of original sin, all children of mankind were justifiably damned to eternal death, and that infants and children before the age of reason can be said to be either elected or reprobated. Yet some comfort was offered by the promise of scripture (Gen. 17: 7; Matt. 19: 13–14; Acts 2: 39; and 1 Cor. 7: 14) that the children of believing parents are comprehended in the covenant and are sanctified in Christ, and can therefore be assumed to be saved.89 When a clause concerning the election of children was omitted from the draft of the first article, Swiss delegate Johannes Breitinger remarked: It surprises us that nothing has been stated or explained about the election and reprobation of children. It appears to us that we need to take particularly into account the viciousness wherewith the Remonstrants make the doctrine of predestination hated by expectant women. Truly, there is hardly anything (according to experience) that can touch the parents, especially the female gender, more painfully—in both respects—than when they listen to discussions about the salvation or reprobation of their little one. Therefore, those who, perhaps on good grounds, give room for a  moderate and clear canon, do not give bad advice, as it will not only combat the doubt of believing parents regarding their children but also the viciousness of their opponents.90

The draft text of the article, with its repeated corrections, additions, and omissions, registers the tension that the topic evidently raised, as does the tortuous syntax of the final clause of the article: Tantum abest ut opiniari debeant nonullos ab uberibus matrum abripi et in gehennae damnationem aeternam [praecipitari].91 88  On the hypothetical universalism of Ward, and its relation to the ideas of Overall, see White, Policy, Predestination and Polemic, 189–91; Fornerod, ‘Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation’, 211–13, 213. 89  On the debates on the predestination of young children at Dort, see Erik A. De Boer, ‘“O, Ye Women, Think of thy Innocent Children When They Die Young”: The Canons of Dort (First Head, article seventeen) Between Polemic and Pastoral Theology’, in Goudriaan and Lieburg, Revisiting the Synod of Dort, 275–85. 90  Quoted in De Boer, ‘O Ye Women’, 282. 91  ‘It is not true that it must be accepted that several are snatched from their mother’s breasts and [cast] into hell.’ De Boer, ‘O Ye Women’, 283.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

169

In this way, many months went by before at last, in April 1619, the Synod drew to a close with ‘common consent and subscription in public’ to the canons.92 For the Remonstrants, the conclusion of the Synod meant acquiescence or exile. They were condemned as disseminators of false doctrine and disturbers of state and church. The British delegation protested against the harshness of the proceedings against the Remonstrants, which had been decided upon without the knowledge of the foreign delegates: We were never made acquainted with it before the very instant in which it came to be read, and because the delegates must not be stayed from their going to The Hague, therefore all the synod must say Amen to it; between the forenoon and the afternoon session, there was strange labouring with the Exteri for getting their consent to it; yet we meddled not with it; all I can say, me thinketh it is hard, that every man should be deposed from his ministery, who will not hold every particular canon; never did any church of old, nor any Reformed Church, propose so many articles to be held sub poena excommunicationis . . . None of us have the Canons yet, neither shall till the Estates have approved them.93

Yet the Contra-Remonstrants were hardly to be moved on this point. Remonstrant ministers who continued to refuse to subscribe to the Canons of the Synod were given the choice to sign the ‘armistice treaty’ (‘Acte van Stilstand’), allowing them to live as private citizens, or to face exile. Only one of the members of the delegation, Henricus Leo, could be persuaded to sign. In the purges that followed the Synod of Dort, about two hundred Arminian ministers were deposed, of which eighty were banished, while a slightly lesser number signed the ‘armistice treaty’.94 The banished preachers were transported on carts to the border town of Waalwijk from where they moved on to the Southern Netherlands, and later on, to France, and Northern Germany. In exile, the Remonstrant leadership began the construction of what had now become the Remonstrant church under the cross. Under the guidance of Episcopius, a confession was drafted. Yet although the Remonstrant confession stressed that its authority was not absolute, but that it rather served as a point of orientation, this still went too far for some members, including prominent figures like the poet Dirk Rafaëlsz Camphuyzen, who would never submit to it.95 Shortly after the conclusion of the Synod, the States General issued a placard prohibiting giving aid or assistance to recusant Arminians. Civilians attending clandestine Arminian services, or providing shelter for them, risked heavy fines or forfeiture of property, while citizens who reported such illegal activities would receive financial rewards. The loyalty of the Arminian congregations to their ministers as well as the solidarity among neighbours and citizens were severely tested. Many officers of the law, who stood to gain most financially from each conviction thus ensured, executed their orders with exemplary zeal. Particularly in the first years after the issuing of the placard, Arminian dissenters thus faced serious risks. 92 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 99. 93 Hales, Golden Remains, 152–3, quoted in White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, 200. 94 Nijenhuis, Ecclesia Reformata, ii. 145. 95  Hoenderdaal and Luca, Staat in de vrijheid, 47–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

170

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

A number of Remonstrant ministers nevertheless defied the edicts, preaching at clandestine gatherings, sometimes demonstrating considerable daring in defying the placards, as in the case of Paschier de Fyne (1588–1667).96 For many years this son of a refugee from Walloon Flanders led an itinerant existence, preaching at clandestine meetings, turning into one of the most eloquent proponents of the Remonstrant cause, and an advocate of religious toleration. His many disguises and numerous escapes from the authorities made him something of a legend. In the winter of 1624 he visited a number of South Holland towns, preaching on the ice of lakes and canals, using a sleigh to reach the next place of safety, guarded by his flock, who followed him on skates, a feat that earned him the nickname ‘het ijsvogelken’, or ‘the kingfisher’ (the pun is untranslatable, the Dutch word ijsvogel meaning literally ‘ice-bird’). Others, like Carolus Niëllius (1576–1652) and Eduardus Poppius (1576–1624), the preacher-publicist from Gouda, were captured and imprisoned at Loevesteijn. Poppius died there after a few years; Niëllius was to be released in 1631.97 To justify their course of action and to counter the anti-Arminian propaganda coming from the Contra-Remonstrant printing presses, a printing house was established in Antwerp. Responsibility over the Remonstrant propaganda machinery was initially given to Slatius, a gifted polemicist, but, as the Remonstrant leaders were to learn to their misfortune, a man of fiery temperament and dangerous ideas. Inevitably, the repression of the Remonstrants generated its martyrology. As had happened with an earlier generation of Protestant émigrés, and later with the ­Contra-Remonstrant recusants, the experience of exile and persecution was shaped into a narrative designed to console and comfort the congregation, strengthening them in the belief of being members of the Church of Christ, suffering at the hands of a persecutory authority. For obvious reasons, one of them being its close association with militant Calvinism, the Remonstrants shied from using the language of elect nationhood. Thus, their writings do not contain the familiar apocalyptic imagery that envisaged the persecuted minority as doing battle with the forces of the Antichrist, and their opponents as the dragon of the Book of Revelation. Instead, they rather emphasized the element of the imitatio Christi, drawing on the link between Christ, who had died an innocent victim, and his followers, who, taking up the cross after him, had suffered for their refusal to leave the true faith.98 Persecution thus became a trial, a test of faith, allowing the believer to follow the example of their Saviour. To counter persecution with violence was contrary to the example of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament. A church that persecuted was, by necessity, a false church. The pamphlet literature of this period depicts the afflictions of the Remonstrant communities in a highly emotional coloratura. That the persecution of the Remonstrants in the years after the Synod of Dort was hardly comparable to that of the 96  On De Fyne, see J. van Vloten, Paschier de Fyne, naar zijn leven en schriften (Den Bosch: Gebr. Muller, 1853). 97  Hoenderdaal and Luca, Staat in de vrijheid, 45–6. 98 Paschier de Fyne, Nieuwe-jaer gheschenck/vereert aan alle Remonstrantsghesinde/soo wel predikanten als toehoorders etc . . . (1625), sigs. A2r, A2v–A3r, A4v–B1r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

171

Protestants under the Duke of Alba was a fact that most Remonstrant authors preferred to ignore. Like their Calvinist opponents, they now espoused a ‘narrow’ definition of liberty of conscience, interpreted as the duty to honour God as their conscience demanded, and the right to exercise the true religion without fear of persecution. But the existing pamphlet literature reflects the whole spectrum of ideas on the subject, including those that move towards a broader, more inclusive notion of toleration. In their attitude towards the authorities, the Remonstrants’ position was not without ambiguity. Preachers admonished their flock to humility, patience, and forbearance. The wrongs suffered had to be patiently endured, vengeance was to be left to God. Thus interiorized, the experience of exile and persecution was cast as a trial from which the church, and also the individual believer, would emerge cleansed and purified. On the faithful rested the heavy responsibility not only to bear the injustice to which they were subjected with equanimity, to forgive their adversaries, but also to show through their example that theirs was the true faith, theirs the true church of Christ. This involved not only constancy and fortitude in the face of manifold temptations—not least that of apostasy—but also a neverending labour of introspection and self-improvement. As Passchier de Fyne reminded his readers in his New Year’s gift to all those of the Remonstrant persuasion (Nieuwejaer gheschenck//vereert aan alle Remonstrantsghesinde, 1625): ‘you know well indeed that it is not truth, but living that truth that makes a Christian, for what helps it if you know truth, if by that truth you are not liberated from sin?’99 ‘Remember, also,’ he warns, ‘that the eyes of your opponents are fixed upon you, and that nothing so much detracts from the truth than if those who profess it are seen to lead unchristian lives. Be your transgression ever so small, they will find a way to make a beam out of a splinter. Beware that whatever you do wrong, it will reflect badly on the entire brotherhood’ (Nieuw-jaer gheschenk, sig. B4r–v). Not only sin, even the semblance of evil should be avoided. De Fyne urges his flock to look at themselves, to consider how they have lived during the last year, and to better their ways: Therefore, have we been not one inch better than our persecutors, let us in this New Year excel them in good deeds: let us through our virtue compel them to say: indeed, those people are better than we are, let us live in such a way that they when seeing our lives may say, it is true they are Arminians, but nevertheless they are people with whom we can engage freely, because they are truthful in their words, just in their deeds, and very god-fearing in all their actions . . .100 99  ‘Beneffens dat / so ist oock nodig / niet alleen ten opzichte van de Waeheyt / maer oock selfs ten opzichte van u eyghen selfs: want ghy weet immers wel dat niet de waeheydt /maer het beleven van dien een waer Christen maeckt / want wat helpet dat ghy de waerheyt weet soo ghy door de waerheyt niet van zonden vry ghemaeckt wort?’, Nieuw-jaer gheschenck, sigs. B3v–B4r. 100  ‘Daerom dan hebben wy in het voorleden Jaer niet een hayr beter gheweest als onse vervolghers / zoo laet ons haer nu in dit Nieuwe Jaer met weldoen verre overtreffen: laet ons haer door onse deughden dwinghen te segghen / voorwaer dit volck is beter dan wij zijn, laet ons soo leven / dat sy onse leven ziende / segghen moghen / het is waer / het uijn Arminianen / maer evenwel het is een volck daermede men vryelick mach handelen / want sy zijn waerachtich in hare woorden / rechtvaerdich in hare handelinghe ende seer Godtvresende in alle haer doen en laeten’, Niewe-jaer gheschenck, sig. C1v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

172

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

But this homiletic discourse was not bereft of political implications. Liberty of conscience, once more, was the pivot that transformed the Remonstrant ministers from shepherds into critics of the policies of the Dutch regents and their Calvinist advisers. Passchier de Fyne’s Fraternal caution: In which is depicted the misery of our dear Fatherland (Een broederlicke vermaninge: Wwaer invertoont wort, d’ellende onses lieven vaderlants, 1624) offers a good example. The sermon addresses itself to the magistrates, the clergy, and the common people of the Netherlands, Remonstrants as well as Contra-Remonstrant. De Fyne enumerates the misfortunes that have befallen the country in recent years: the doubtful prospects of the war, the Spanish soldiers on Dutch soil, the severe winter that made the great rivers freeze up, as if God had provided the enemy with ‘a bridge of ice’ to enter the country, and the pestilence ravaging the land.101 All these disasters should have warned us that we have angered the Lord, and that his long-suffering mercy has finally turned into wrath. In the example of Germany he has sent us another, even more terrifying warning—and yet we do not listen. There is no doubt that it is our division, our internal strife, and lack of Christian charity that have provoked the Lord’s ire. For it is only a few years ago that we have seen how our teachers have quarrelled with their colleagues, how they have scorned, condemned, and banished them; how sheriffs and soldiers have disturbed the church meetings of their fellow citizens, beating them, imprisoning them, yes sometimes even shooting at them; and how the common people have despised, scorned, and defamed each other; how people have betrayed their neighbours, invaded and looted their houses, robbed them, treated them as enemies to the state (Een broederlicke vermaninge, sig. A2r). While the pamphlet is addressed to all the inhabitants of the Netherlands, it soon becomes obvious that the homily is primarily intended for the persecutors of the Remonstrant community. Enjoining the regents to open ‘the secret rooms of their heart, and let tears of repentance flow freely’, he reminds them of the sins they one day will have to pay for: Remember how many god-fearing people you have evicted from their peaceful homes, and dragged out of the land as disgraced . . . Oh, how many artisans will have to do without meat, this butchering season; how many without turf, this cold winter, in order to pay the sheriff as your harsh placards demanded. Remember, beloved friend, what a pre-eminently learned and pious man you let die in the dungeon of Loevesteijn, and how many innocent prisoners are still there to languish in a slow death. . . . Is that not harsh, my lords? Will such inhuman harshness please the merciful God? Would that meek lamb Jesus not avenge himself for such deeds? My Lords I beseech you: take note, for the Lord is an avenger on those that mistreat their brethren.102 101  [Passchier de Fyne], Een broederlicke vermaninge: Waer invertoont wort, d’ellende onses lieven vaderlants. Mitsgaders de middelen om de zelve voor te komen (1624), sig. A2r–v. 102  ‘Gedenkt he vele vrome luyden / ghy uyt haere vreedsame huysen gestootē / en als onwaerdige ten lande henen uytgesleept hebt: Och hoeveel arbeyts-luydē hebbē inden slachtijt het vleesch / en inde kouden winter uwe Schouten de boeten te betalen! Gedenckt / lieve gedenckt doch / wat een uytnemend geleert / en vroom man ghy inden Louvensteinschen kercker hebt laten stervē! Gedenct hoe veel onschuldige vrouwen / en hoe veel onnozele kinderkens ghy oorsaecke gheeft / om tot God inden hemel te schryen! Niet alleen / om dat ghy haer nu ooc / zonder oorszake / van hare mannen ende vaderen fruckt / ende tegen den kouden winder op den dijck jaeght.Is dat niet hart myn Heeren?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

173

‘Therefore’, he continues, ‘refrain from such unchristian (and here in Holland ­unaccustomed) harshness, in order that at that great day of judgement, your oppression will not be quitted with oppression.’ ‘Indeed it is true, my Lords, that you are called gods here on earth, but you will die as men, and perish as tyrants, David says in psalm 82.’103 Like the Fraternal Caution, the Silver-gilt Needle to lift the scales from the eyes of the Dutch regents (Silvere vergulde naelde bequaem om af te lichten de vliesen van de oogen der Hollantsche regenten), written a year later in 1625, admonishes the regents and magistrates of the Republic to act in awareness that the eyes of the Almighty are upon them, and that the day is imminent in which they themselves will be held to account for their deeds. At the same time, the pamphlet also offers advice to every good patriot. The author, as is made clear from the title-pages, has placed his hopes on a spiritual conversion as befell Saul on the road to Damascus, but such a conversion left wanting, he is willing to furnish a pamphlet for a fishhook to lift the scales that are now impairing the regents’ vision. Moreover, the author continues, because needles to operate on eyes are sensitive instruments, I will use a very short one; explaining in three concise point why religious persecution and the constraint of conscience is contrary to the welfare of the land, to reason, and to the word of God (Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. A3v). Starting with the first point, which, as the author must have been aware, had always weighed heavily with the urban magistrates, the author takes it for a known fact that religious persecution has been the cause why the mightiest cities of Europe have been undone, while the cities where people were left free to exercise their ­religion have flourished. Indeed, it is the main cause why Flanders and Brabant have been depopulated, while Holland has seen its population wax, its cities grow and its trade, agriculture, and crafts prosper, as anybody who has lived in Holland for the last forty or so years can testify (Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. A3v–4r). To this economic argument, which from the earliest periods of religious persecution onwards had been part of the standard armour of defenders of religious toleration, Passchier de Fyne adds the argument of national character. The Dutch, having for a long time lived in freedom, and having enjoyed liberty of conscience, which they hold to be their greatest treasure, will never acquiesce to have their liberty curtailed (Silvere vergulde naelde, sig. A4r–v). Discontent will lead to ‘evil murmurings against the regents, evil counsels and mutinies’; for some, he adds, have not correctly learned that oppression must be defeated through patience: This will make the regents of the land fear those whom they should most of all trust: this provides her with uneasy sleep and makes her think that under each stone is hidden a snake that will sting her: brave lions will become like fearful hares, for he Zal sulcke onmenselicke hardigheyt dien vriendelickē God wel behagen? Zoude dat zachtmoedige Lam Jesus hem over zulcke daden niet wreken? Myn Heeren / ick bidde het u / neemet doch ter herten / want de Heere is een wreker over alle die haren naesten qualic tracteren / 1 Thess. 4-6.’, Broederlicke vermaninge, sig. A2v. 103  ‘Het is waer / ghy wort hier Goden genaemt / myn Heeren: maar ghy sult sterven als menschen, ende als Tyrannen te gronde gaen, seyt David inden 82. Psalm.’, Broederlicke vermaninge, sigs. A2v–A3r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

174

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

who inspires many with fear, will have to fear many. A courageous prince, who has seen a hundred thousand men in armour, will, when addressed by four or five women instantly raise the bridge of the castle moat and call the soldiers to arms, immediately thinking that there might be a Debora, a Jaël, a Delilah or a Judith with her maid among them.104

In 1625, only two years after the attempt to assassinate the Prince of Orange, these were audacious words, and De Fyne indeed quickly returns to the conventional imagery of patriarchal rule, stressing that the regents, when allowing each the free exercise of their religion, will be truly loved and regarded as the fathers and the protectors of the people (Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. B1r). Even more compelling is the scriptural argument for non-persecution. Christ commanded his followers to pray for their persecutors, not to be persecutors themselves (Silvere-vergulde naelde, sigs. B1v–B2r). That those who patiently suffer persecution follow the example of Christ is obvious, ‘but whose example they [the persecutors] follow, I leave to the judgment of those who understand the meaning of verse ten of the second chapter of the Revelation of John’ (Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. B2r). ‘In the entire Bible . . .’, De Fyne stresses, ‘you will find no true child of God that has made anyone suffer because of religion, but that the pious have suffered at the hands of the wicked for the maintaining of their religion.’ The persecutors find themselves in the company of Cain, Esau, the Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, while ‘under the register of the persecuted, you will find a devout Abel, a strong Jacob, a faithful Moses, a pious David, a zealous Elias . . . and finally, you will see an innocent Jesus Christ as a leader of murderers hanging at the cross between two murderers’.105 In the peroration, De Fyne challenges his audience to imagine themselves before the heavenly tribunal, and to remember that ‘the Lord whom we serve is an Avenger over 104  ‘Dit doet de Regenten des lants/ dach en nacht vreesen voor die ghene / daer sy aldemeest op behoorden te vertrouwen: het maeckt haer eenen rusteloze slaep / ende doet haer dencken / datter onder elcken steen een Slange verborghen leyt / die haer steecken sal: moedighe leeuwen wordē als vreesachtigē hasen: want wie veel menschē doet vresen / die moet hem voor veel menschen vresen. Een kloeckmoedighe Prins / die wel hondert duysendt mannen int harnas gesien heeft sal / door t aensprcken van vier / of vijf vrouwen / terstont de brugghen van ‘t hof op doen haelen / en het krijgsvolck in wapen doen stellen / denckende terstont / datter eene Debora / een Jael / eene Delila / eene Judith met hare dienstmaeght onder is.’ Zilvere vergulde naelde, sig. A4v. 105  ‘Tot overvloede sal ick noch verhalen het ghene den autheur van de Zilvere Naelde verhaelt, te weeten / datmen inden gantschen Bijbel / vant begin tot den eynde niet en vint / dat een recht kint Godes / ymant om saken van Religie / lijden aengedaen heeft: maer / wel dat de vrome van de boose om het voorstaen van hare Godesdienst geleden hebben: en hy toone het oock met exempelen van ’t begin / tot den eynde des Bybels: want hy seyt / ghelyck het de waerheyt is / dat ghy onder het register der verdruckers sult vinden / eenen Cajum die wt den Duyvel was / eenen verworpen Esau / eenen verstockten Pharao / eenen onghehoorsamen Saul / eenen godloosen Achab / eenen hoovaerdighen Nebucad-nezar / met noch een deel boose Jooden / die Abrahams name droeghen / ende des duyvels wercken deden: ende dat ghy daerenteghen onder het register der verdruckte sult vinde / eenen gheloovighen Abel / eenen stercken Jacob / eenen ghetrouwen Moyses / eenen vromen David / eenen ijvrighen Elias / ghy sult daer eenen Misha in de gevancknisse / eenen Jeremiam onder het gewulfte van de stades-poorte / en eenen Daniel in den Leeuwen kuyl zien legghen / drie stantvastighe jonghelinghen in een gloeyenden oven zien werpen: ende in somma / eenen onschuldighen Jhesum / als een overste der moordenaren / tusschen twee moordenaren aen ’t cruys zien hanghen / en ghelyck als het van Moysi tijden / tot den tijt Jhesu Christi toe geghaan heeft / also heeft het oock van Christi tijden / tot desen tegenwoordighen dach toe gegaen’, Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. B3r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

175

those who oppress their brethren I. Thess.4.6.’ Very soon, those whom they have persecuted will give evidence against them: and there you will have to account for yourselves, the ministers who to maintain their teachings of Dort have urged you to this oppression of their fellow-brethren will be all too busy with themselves, and it will not suffice that one says: it was the placards of their Lordships, and the other: it was the advice of the ministers; but each and everyone will be requited justly for what he will have done here.106

4 . 4  B RU T U S TO H O L L A N D : V E N G E A N C E AND TYRANNICIDE Outspoken though he was, De Fyne stopped short of challenging the legitimacy of the new regime. However mistaken the regents might be in their policy of religious persecution, nowhere does De Fyne question their right to rule: they will be held to account, but by the Lord, not by their subjects. Remonstrant political thought never moved from passive disobedience into active defence of the true church against the enemies of God. In advocating resistance to the tyrannical new regime, the exiled Remonstrants and their political sympathizers therefore had recourse to language that had earlier sanctioned the resistance against the Spanish King: that of the defence of the liberty and privileges of the free Netherlands. No Deborah, Jaël, or Judith was to arise from the Remonstrants’ ranks. But at least one man was willing to take on the role of Brutus, styling himself as the avenger of the liberty of the oppressed Netherlands. Three pamphlets published between 1619 and 1623, The Cristal Mirror (Christalijnen spieghel, 1619), The Reveille-Matin (De Morgenwecker, 1620), and the Bright-shining Torch (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, 1623) called for the overthrow of the tyrannical regime and, eventually, for the assassination of the Prince of Orange.107 Slatius has been identified as the author of both the Cristal Mirror and the Bright-shining Torch. While there are questions concerning the authorship of the Reveille-Matin, this pamphlet too, is usually ascribed to Slatius. He was the only pamphleteer who would advocate tyrannicide as the right of every free-born Dutchman. 106  ‘ende daer sult ghy alleen voor u selfs rekenschap moeten gheven / de Predicanten / die om haare Dortsche leere staende te houden: u.l. tot dit verdrucken haerder medebroederen aenraden / sullen dan selfs al te veel te doen hebben met haer selven / het en sal niet gelden / dat dē eenen dan seyt / het was der Heeren Staten Placcaet / ende den anderen het was der Predicanten raet: maar een ygelick sal dan rechtvaerdichlick vergolden worden na het geene hy hier selfs sal gedaen hebben.’ Silvere-vergulde naelde, sig. B4r. 107  [Henrdrik Slatius], Christalijnen spieghel, waer in men naectelijcken kan zien, wie t’zedert eenighe jaren herwaerts inde Provintie van Hollandtmde hooghheydt, rechten, privilegiën en vryheden hebben gevioleert . . . of wie de rechte auteurs zijn van alle divisie, scheuringe, twist, tweedracht en andere ongevallen (1619); [Hendrik Slatius], Morgen-wecker, aen de oude en ghetrouwe Batavieren, met een remedie teghen haere slaep-sieckte (1620); [Hendrik Slatius], De klaer-lichtende fakkel, om de verduysterde ooghen der Batavieren ende ingesetenen deser Vereenighde Nederlanden zo toe te lichten, datse ter degen mogen zien het ghevaerlicke perijckel ende uytersten noot onses lieven vaderlands: ende daer beneffens de heylsame remedie daer toe nodigh (1623).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

176

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Dutch historiography has downplayed the conspiracy against Maurits’s life, o­ rchestrated by the sons of Oldenbarnevelt, Willem and Reinier, in which Slatius came to be involved. For, despite all the alleged clumsiness of its execution, the episode nevertheless signals the potential for violent dissent marking the aftermath of the Arminian controversy. Nor is it warranted to describe Slatius as an isolated fanatic. As the literature here examined shall demonstrate, there is an undeniable continuum between the defences of the government of the States of Holland, published during, and after Oldenbarnevelt’s trial, including Grotius’s Defense of the Lawful Government of Holland and West-Vriesland and Slatius’s tyrannicide pamphlets. Slatius’s pamphlets adopted the defence of the liberties and privileges of the Netherlands but dressed this defence in the language of militant patriotism. Slatius’s argument simultaneously looks backward to the struggle against Spain, of which he incessantly reminds his readers, and breaks new ground in casting resistance against this new, home-grown tyranny as the duty of every good patriot. Yet even this radical argument grew out of a literary culture of politicized reading, translating, and commonplacing of classical texts, that mined the work of Seneca and Tacitus for arguments about the nature of tyranny, and scoured the text of Lucan’s Pharsalia for parallels between the fall of the Roman Republic and the demise of Dutch liberty. Slatius’s first pamphlet, the Cristal Mirror, in which can be clearly seen who in the province of Holland and Zeeland since a few years have violated the sovereignty, rights, privileges and liberties, appears to have been written and published shortly before the execution of Oldenbarnevelt. He asks the reader to devote ‘an hour or two’ to the arguments he will bring forward in defence of those now in prison, claiming he is spurred on by his love for truth and fatherland, and the defence of those unjustly accused and suffering oppression (Christalynen spieghel, 4). Throughout his argument, Slatius maintains the two principles that formed the juridical basis of the policy of the States of Holland: first, that the States of Holland possess full sovereignty, and that Holland’s sovereign rights extended over religious as well as political affairs, including doctrine as well as church order. To this purpose he adduces the much disputed article 13 of the Union of Utrecht (Christalynen spieghel, 2). In this light we can follow his argument as he progresses to give a concise and apparently dispassionate (but needless to say extremely partial) account of the origins of the religious troubles that aims to vindicate Oldenbarnevelt’s church policy (Christalynen spieghel, 4–19). Stressing the moderation, reasonableness, and legality of Holland’s actions throughout, Maurits’s unauthorized disbanding of the Waardgelders is made to stand out in stark contrast. Slatius emphasizes the illegality of the intervention, sanctioned by magistrates who had been appointed for that purpose alone (Christlynen spiegel, 21). Moreover, ‘as one disease often follows another’, this flagrant breach of Holland’s rights and privileges was soon ­followed by a second, as the States General ‘without previous legal information or resolution and without the knowledge and even less without the consent or wish of the High Mighty Lords of the States of Holland’ ordered the arrest of Oldenbarnevelt and his collaborators (Christalynen spiegel, 22). After venting his indignation about the harsh treatment of the prisoners, held in custody for six

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

177

months, and deprived of contact with friends and relatives, Slatius continues to challenge the legality of the jury set up for the trial. As Oldenbarnevelt’s family had  done, and Grotius was later to repeat with great emphasis in the Defence, Slatius contested the authority of the States General in this matter. Both as inhabitants of the province of Holland, and as functionaries of the States of Holland, the latter was the only organ qualified to judge the actions of these men, and he concluded that these men had been ‘with force deprived from her competent judges, in violation of all law, liberty and privileges’ (Christalynen spiegel, 22–3). It could be expected that such an overt violation of privilege would arouse popular indignation, and it was precisely to prevent this that the States General published the placard which spoke of the suspicion of high treason, thus making official the evil rumours that Oldenbarnevelt’s opponents had been spreading in books, pasquils, and sermons. Thus fooled, ‘given an apple to play with’, nobody protested when two time-honoured privileges, namely the ius de non evocando and the right that nobody will be tried by a jury consisting of his enemies, to which William of ­Orange had appealed against the execution of Egmond and Horn by Alba’s Blood Council, were trodden underfoot (Christalynen spieghel, 23–4). After having refuted the justifications given by the States General for the extraordinary measures taken, he continues to pass a scathing judgement on the magistrates brought to power by Maurits’s coup and on the judges appointed in Oldenbarnevelt’s jury, of which the delegates from Holland consisted almost entirely of the Advocate’s enemies (Christalynen spiegel, 27–8 and 29–30). The prisoners, says the author, have often been accused of having disturbed fomented religious division, but he asks his audience to consider on whom this accusation should really fall: on those who with the Resolution have tried to quell dissension through moderation and mutual toleration, or on those who have tried everything to sabotage the Resolution, who have incited the populace to disobe­ dience, fomenting the spreading of libellous books and pasquils and bringing the magistrates into suspicion by calling them ‘villains, traitors, Spaniard-lovers and heretics of the worst kind’ (Christalynen spiegel, 32–3). Likewise, the accusation that Oldenbarnevelt and his followers have undermined the union of the provinces rebounds on their opponents. For while the Advocate and his good patriots have always honoured the boundaries set by the Union of Utrecht, while maintaining Holland’s sovereign powers as defined by that Union, they have acted in flagrant breach of them, making a sovereign province subject to the other provinces, much to the delight of the poorer provinces, that can now deal with the Dutch milk cow as they see fit (Christalynen spieghel, 34–5). As his argument reaches its climax, he warns the Hollanders of the dangerous precedents the present political course will set. The decisions of a sovereign body to employ soldiers for their safety and protection have been rescinded, its policies reverted, the safeguard promised to Oldenbarnevelt by the States of Holland on 22 June violated, all actions that will make her lose her credit and good reputation among her neighbours as a country whose government is unstable, whose policies cannot be relied upon, and whose promises and oaths can be revoked. The Dutch Republic, he warns, is in danger of becoming the pariah of Europe. Shifting to a different

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

178

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

register Slatius threatens that the Lord avenges himself on those who have violated or broken a safeguard, as we know from the story of the Gabaonites and the seven sons of Saul (Christalynen spiegel, 37–8). The pamphlet concludes on a note of defiance. I have written this pamphlet, the author asserts, to hold up a mirror in which can be seen the current state of the country. ‘I know that those who think that they have won the game will mockingly ask us, as King Philip asked the Lacedaemonians: “So what will you do now?” To which we will then give them the reply of the Lacedaemonians: that we will do nothing but die like men, for it is only through this that we have learned that we are free Batavians and nobody’s slaves: holding it for an immutable rule that nobody will have to become someone else’s slave, who is resolved rather to die.’108 The pamphlet thus carries a strong warning against the dangers of tyrannical rule combined with an appeal to resistance. Slatius, it will be clear, did not ‘radicalize’ in the years following the execution of Oldenbarnevelt. When he was tried and executed for his role in the attempt to assassinate the Prince of Orange, the Remonstrant leaders were quick to dissociate themselves from him. They had never consented to, or approved of, the publication and distribution of libellous of seditious books, they claimed, and had severed all ties with Slatius in 1621. For Trigland, however, this simply would not do. The seeds of the conspiracy, he wrote, had been sown much earlier, with the spreading of poems, songs, and pamphlets calling on the people to avenge the death of Oldenbarnevelt.109 And indeed, most of the arguments that make up the core of the Reveille-Matin of 1620 and the Bright-shining Torch of 1623, are already present in the Cristal Mirror. The difference is one of tone and emphasis, rather than anything else. The Cristal Mirror appeared when Oldenbarnevelt’s fate had not yet been decided. The cause of the States party, although desperate, was perhaps not entirely lost. Slatius at least hoped to persuade the middle groups, ‘the reasonable people’, as he himself called them (Christalynen spiegel, 40). In this context, an all too explicit attack on the Prince of Orange would be imprudent and counterproductive. Yet he does not hesitate to declare that the course the present government has taken will lead to slavery worse than ever experienced under Spanish rule. The magistrates who by their support have legitimized Maurits’s unlawful coup d’état have, like Esau, squandered their birthright: that is, the rights and freedoms of the land, without which the inhabitants are nothing but miserable slaves, and have this and nothing else to expect; to live in perpetual fear, misery and oppression, and to be tormented by those ravenous harpies and rapacious birds, who deem the common good less important than their own, and who seek 108  ‘Ick weet wel dat eenighe die nu meenen ‚t spul ghewonnen te hebben / al spottende ons vraeghen/ ghelijck de Conigh Philippus de Lacedaemoniers vraeghde: wat sult ghy luyden nu doen? Maer wy gheven daer weder op der Lacedemoniers antwoordt: Dat wy anders niet en sullen doen dan Man-haftigh sterven / door dien wy alleen gheleert hebben vrye Bataviers / ende niet slaven van anderen te wesen: houdende voor eene vasten regel / dat hy niet en behoeft eens anders slaef te worden / die geresolveert is liever te sterven: Segghende met Seneca, Durum invisum, grave est servitia ferre. Christalynen spiehel, 40. 109  Wille, ‘Het Moordpasquil’, 163–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

179

nothing else than that through which they will become rich, powerful and mighty lords.110

While he attacks the disbanding of the Waardgelders and the changing of the magistrates, Slatius refrains from criticizing the Prince’s personal motives. Ostensibly, this is a technical argument about legality: about laws, liberties, and privileges. With the death of Oldenbarnevelt, such an analysis was no longer adequate. The tyranny which Slatius had predicted in the Cristal Mirror had become a reality, and in order to overthrow it, stronger means were needed. In order to convince his compatriots to take up arms and reconquer their native freedom, he would have to demolish Maurits’s reputation so thoroughly that the reverence most people still felt for a member of the house of Orange would be utterly banished. In contrast to the Cristal Mirror, which defended a States party view of provincial sovereignty, the Bright-shining Torch, to Illuminate the Darkened Eyes of the Batavians so that They May See the Dangerous Extremity of Our Dear Fatherland, focuses on Maurits’s tyranny. The constitutional point of departure is based on the Statist view that the legitimate role of the Stadtholder was that of the highest functionary of the States (De klaer-lichtende Fakkel, sig. A1r). Any attempt to change the balance of power was an act of usurpation, with the Stadtholder abusing his military powers to set up a dictatorship. This was an allegation that the supporters of the Prince would deny with all their might. And indeed, there is little to suggest that Maurits ever harboured such designs. The allegation, in fact, seems to have offended him deeply, for in his conversation with Walaeus, on the night before Oldenbarnevelt’s execution, he told the minister that one of the few things for which he could not forgive the Advocate was that he had accused him of trying to obtain sovereignty.111 But as the Contra-Remonstrant party never set out its constitutional views in a coherent way as the States party had done, such assertions of constitutional orthodoxy were likely to be called into doubt. Claims that the drastic measures of 1618 had been undertaken to protect the liberties and privileges of the country were contemptuously dismissed. Comparing the coup d’état to a rape, Slatius scornfully exposed the absurdity of such excuses: ‘For this would be the same as raping a virgin and telling her, “I have done this without harming your honour and chastity”’.112 Neither should one be fooled, the Bright-shining Torch argued, by people who maintain that the perilous state of the country’s affairs, the unity of land, or the protection of religion legitimated such emergency measures. For, all too often, such arguments are but a pretext to change the constitutional 110  ‘Ja en dan vintmen der oock / die om een schotel moes met Esau haer eerste gheboorte verkoopen/ dat is de rechten en vryheden vanden Landen sonder welcke de inghesetene niet anders syn dan een hoop ellendighe slaven/ die altydt niet anders en hebben te verwachten dan in geduurige vreese/ kommer en overlast te zitten en gequelt te worden van die vratige harpijen en grijpvogel / die ’t alghemeen minder achtende danhaer particulier / niet anders en soecken dan t’ghene daer door zy rijck, machtigh en tot groote Heeren mochten worde.’ Christalynen spieghel, 26–7. 111  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 280; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 731. 112  ‘Ende om te enemael te bethoonen datmen alle inghesetene voor sot en te spot hout / seytmen datmen dese veranderinge doet/ latende de rechten / Privilegien en vrijheden deser Landen onvermindert / even als ofmen een eerbaere maeght schende en verkrachte / en tot haer seyde dat hebbe ic gedaen onvermindert uwe eere en Maeghdom.’, Christalynen spieghel, 30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

180

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

arrangements of a state and set up a tyranny. The Duke of Alba and King Philip himself, the Cristal Mirror argued, used exactly the same pretext; for these are ­indeed the excuses with which ‘private plots and passions are decked out’ (Christalynen spieghel, sig. D4v). This is exactly the point of departure of the Reveille-Matin for the Old and Loyal Batavians, with a Remedy for their Sleeping-Sickness, which appeared one year later, in 1620. There are reasons to suspect that the author of the Reveille-Matin is not Slatius, but for present purposes, the similarities between the pamphlets are at least as interesting as their authorship. Both find their point of departure in the situation depicted in the Cristal Mirror but, moving beyond the strictly constitutional argument of that pamphlet, draw out the political consequences of Maurits’s coup d’état. Both pamphlets emphasize that it was the Prince’s desire to obtain sovereign authority that had led to the disastrous events of 1618–19. As the author of the Reveille-Matin explains bitterly: ‘I will commence with that valorous and loyal deed of the Prince of Orange in the deceitful capturing of Brill, as well as the unheard of changing of the magistrate at Nijmegen, deeds never before done or even contemplated in these (until now) free provinces.’113 To this purpose, the Prince has fanned the fires of religious division, which allowed him to interfere, and to settle the dispute through the use of the sword. He has convened the Synod of Dort, where only those who carried favour with the Prince were allowed to speak, and which has led to the cruel repression now exercised against the Remonstrants. He has killed or imprisoned the country’s most loyal servants (Morghen-wecker, sigs. A2v–3r). Again, we notice the identification of Oldenbarnevelt with the liberties and privileges of the country. Instead the Prince surrounds himself with the likes of Marquette, Duivenvoorde, and Van Aerssen, all of whom are subjected to scathing criticism. The analysis given by the Bright-shining Torch is fundamentally the same, ­although it treats the abuses of Maurits’s tyranny in far greater detail. The later pamphlet also stresses that the prince had from his earliest youth wanted to achieve supreme power, to which purpose he had tried to obtain the support of Queen Elizabeth (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. A1v). Seeing this strategy thwarted, he had resorted to other, more devious means. In view of Maurits’s resounding victories in the decades between 1588 and 1598, a period in which he conquered more than thirty towns and fortresses, establishing his reputation as the most successful army commander of his time, Slatius here makes a rather precarious move in trying to cast doubt on his reliability as a military leader. In Slatius’s account, Maurits used his powers of command to wage covert opposition against his superiors, the States General. As it served his interest to let the war drag on indeterminately, he opposed all policies that would have brought it to a speedy conclusion. He squandered men and money on useless sieges, often ignoring or contravening the orders of the States, and did everything in his power to obstruct the conclusion of the Truce, 113  ‘Mijn aenvang sal wesen vande trouwe en valereuse daedt des Princes van Orangien door het bedrieghelijck innemen vanden Briel / als oock het onbehoorlijck versetten van de Magistraet binnen Nimmegen: daden die noyt in onse eertyts vrye Provintien gheschiet / ja noyt ghedacht en syn.’ Morgen-wecker, aen de Oude en Ghetrouwe Batavieren, sigs. A2r–B3v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

181

saying that all who favoured a truce with the Spaniards were traitors (De klaerlichtende fakkel, sigs. A1v–2r). When the Truce had been concluded against his wishes, he had demanded that a standing army of over 30,000 men, ‘a thing never before seen in a country not at war’, would remain in the field, with which, like a second Julius Caesar, he would make himself master of the Republic. During the Truce, he had continued to keep the country in turmoil by fomenting religious division, and by setting up the populace against their rulers, making them suspicious of the Advocate in particular (De klaerlichtende fakkel, sig. A2r–v). A completely negative account of Maurits’s military achievements would not find much credibility with the average reader, and therefore Slatius seems to be willing to concede a little to his critics, thereby cunningly drawing attention to the contrast between Maurits’s successful early years, and his later, apparent, failure. It is true, he agrees, that he has obtained some notable successes, but these should rather be attributed to his advisers and to the officers and soldiers serving him in the field. Now that he has become ‘old, proud and wilful’, he continues, ‘we have suffered great defeats and losses’ (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. C1r). To what miser­ able state Maurits’s tyranny has reduced the Netherlands is recounted in full d ­ etail: military failure, economic malaise, an increased tax-burden, lawlessness, and favouritism. Even the Republic’s allies have been alienated by the policies of the Prince’s advisers. Already we can see how merchants and artisans leave the country to set up their business elsewhere. If nothing is done about this situation, the country will become depopulated, leaving it an easy prey for the Spaniards (De klaerlichtende fakkel, sig. C1r–v). With Maurits’s military exploits cast in a dubious light, Slatius has a relatively easy task in performing a thorough character assassination. For if we are to suffer having a prince rule over us, as he puts it, then it would be easier to bear, if in that prince there was some piety, some virtue to be found (De klaerlichtende fakkel, sigs. A4v–B1r). But Maurits’s nature is thoroughly depraved. Even though he pretends to be wholly attached to the Contra-Remonstrant cause, he is in fact an atheist, a stoic, and a fatalist. He rarely goes to church (he prefers to spend his time in brothels) but when it is necessary that he is seen there, you will find him either asleep, or gaping at beautiful women (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. A2v). Maurits’s character has all the flaws usually attributed to tyrants, and, it would appear, no redeeming qualities whatsoever. One of his most notorious traits is his pride and obstinacy. Pity the man who dares to go against his judgement, for whoever thus provokes the Prince’s wrath will be showered with insults and curses so horrendous it surpasses the imagination. His greed, too, Slatius maintains, is well known. He has amassed fortunes, but is so mean that his entire entourage consists of down-andouters; people whom he can keep content with a penny. ‘Treachery and perjury are  his craft, in which he acquired such mastery that it would seem that pope Alexander VI or some other godless tyrant had been his teacher.’114 Treachery, 114  ‘Meyn-eedigheyt em trouwloosheyt is by desen een ambacht / daer hy zo goeden meester van is / als of hy’t by den Paus Alexander de zeste / oft anderen goddeloosen tyran gheleert hadde: (. . .)’, De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. B1v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

182

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

moreover, from which we have suffered the consequences: as when he broke his oath to the States of Holland and the States General, stirred up the population against their lawful magistrates, violated the guarantee promised to Oldenbarnevelt, and, in flagrant breach of the privileges of the land, appointed the twenty-four judges that were to condemn Oldenbarnevelt (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sigs. B1v–2r). Maurits’s sexual escapades, which were indeed somewhat of an embarrassment even to his most loyal supporters, are related in great detail. This, Slatius claims, is his main obsession, the one pursuit of which he never grows tired, and if nature is found wanting, he will have his doctor prescribe him pills and potion so that he can ‘play the brave hero in Venus’s field’ (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. B1v). His appetite is voracious, and without any limits—pox-ridden prostitute or chaste burgher daughter, they all have to give in to his depraved desires. His cruel, merciless, and ungrateful nature he has amply demonstrated, Slatius continues, in his treatment of the Remonstrants, and in the ingratitude and cruelty he showed towards Oldenbarnevelt. This, he concludes, is the Prince, drawn from life: ‘these are his true colours. Anyone who says otherwise, does not know the man’ (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. B2v). To give sovereignty, of which we have declared the King of Spain forfeit, to this man, would literally be to jump ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’.115 In both the Reveille-Matin and the Bright-shining Torch, the struggle against Spanish tyranny is used as a rhetorical strategy of obloquy, aimed to shame the Dutch out of their dull-minded acquiescence in the loss of their liberty. Freedom won at such a high cost, the author urges, cannot possibly be squandered so cheaply. The Dutch must take up arms to reconquer their liberty or accept the infamy of being called ‘a nation born for slavery’ (De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. A1r). The fact that our ancestors fought valorously for their liberty only doubles our shame, if we so carelessly lose it again. Thus, the Bright-shining Torch asks: What then, do you think, loyal Batavians, of this man who aims for your sovereignty, and that by such dangerous, shameful and tyrannical means? Yes; he is the one who has now cast the yoke of slavery around your neck. Will you still suffer this man to play the count and to lord over you, where your ancestors would suffer less from their hereditary lord? It is, forsooth, no honour, but the gravest obloquy that you, having freed yourself from slavery, fall into another of a worse kind. A slave is not free because he has changed master.116

Yet behind this rhetorical appeal to the recent past looms another, almost equally powerful, narrative, that of the fall of the Roman Republic. Both the Bright-shining 115  Dat zijn dan de rechte verwen van desen Prins. Wie anders van hem gevoelt / kent den man niet.’, De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. B2v. 116  ‘Wat dunct u dan nu / ghy vrome Batavieren / van dien man / die na uwe Souvereyniteit staet / ende dat door zo schadelicke / schandelicke ende tyrannige middelen? Ja hy ist die u alreede het jock der slavernie om den hals geworpen heeft. Sult ghy noch langer lijden dat desen over u zo graffeert ende den meester speelt / dat uwe voor-Ouders minder van uwen Erfheer niet hebben willen lijden? Ten is voorwaer / geen eere / maer de hooghste schande / dat ghy u zelven de Spaenschen slavernie, quijt maeckende / daer en tusschen in een erger vervalt. Een Slaef is daermede niet vry dat hy van meester verandert.’, De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. C4v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

183

Torch and the Reveille-Matin compare Maurits’s coup with Caesar’s attack on Rome (Morghen-wecker, sig. A2r–v). It is history, not constitutional argument, moreover, that furnishes Slatius with his most powerful argument for the incompatibility of one-man rule and political liberty: Or is it a head that you seek for? What ‘head’? Is it not your hands that should help you? Let the body be in turbulence, and there will surely emerge a head. Remember that God is your head, and that, because He is just, he will not withhold His blessing. Where has one ever seen a faction or gathering-together of the populace, where there did not, in due time, emerge a head? Many are the countries and cities who, having risen against their tyrants, have chased these without a head. Never was Rome in more secure state, than when the people freed itself—without a head.117

From Roman history Slatius also takes the idea that the status of the body politic and that of the individual are inextricably linked. The status of free political agent, both of the body politic as well as that of the individuals comprising it, is therefore dependent on the capacity to defend that liberty through force of arms. Interestingly, it is a neo-Roman concept of political liberty that emerges at the linch-pin of Slatius defence of tyrannicide.118 To be free is to be a political agent sui iuris. Or, as the Bright-shining Torch has it: ‘Then alone are you truly free, when nobody is master over you, and you belong to yourself, and not to anyone else’.119 If we do not take up arms to regain our liberty, the author of the Reveille-Matin warns, we are worse than Turks, for they can only be ruled by force, while we accept the yoke voluntarily (Morghen-wecker, f B4v). There are, he continues, no valid reasons for us not to take up arms: ‘Scripture itself teaches us it, therefore, if we do not do it, whose fault shall it be? Nobody’s, indeed, but our own. It is either that we will have to remedy this, or we will lose the name with which we were born, that of free Batavians, something which I will never believe to be true.’ Therefore, the author concludes: ‘Take a stand . . . embrace fortitude, cast private considerations aside, and rid yourself of the tigers who hate and destroy you: gird yourself with the valorous lion’s tail, so that we may conquer our base slavery and may, at last, cry out libertas.’120 117  ‘Of ziet ghyluyden op een hooft? Wat hooft? Sijnt niet uwe handen die u helpen moeten? Laet eerst het lichaem woelen / daer zal haest een hooft sich vertoonen. Denckt dat God u hooft is / ende dat hy uwe zake / omdatse zoo rechtvaerdigh is niet en zal onghezegent laten.Waer heeftmen oyt factie of t’zamen loopinge van Gemeente ghesien daer niet metter tijt een hooft van opgeworpen is? Verscheyden Landen ende Steden sijnder die tegen hare Tyrannen opstaende / de zelve verdreven hebben zonder hooft. Noyt was Rome in zekerder staet gestelt / dan wanneer de Gemeynte haer zelven / zonder hooft / in vryheyd stelde.’, De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. D2r. 118  Quentin Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), 1–57. 119  ‘maer dan zyt ghy eerst recht vry / wanneer u niemandt en vermeestert / wanneer ghy u zelfs ende niet eens anders en sijt.’ De klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. D1r. 120  ‘De Schriftuere selfs onderricht het ons / so wy’t dan niet en doen, aen wie is de schult? Aen niemant voorwaer als aen ons / ’t welck of by ons gheremedieert werden / of sullen verliesen den Naem die ons aengebooren is van vrye Batavieren / ’t welck ick nimmermeer geloove: Vanght dan aen, omhelst kloeckmoedigheyt / stelt particuliere consideratien aen een syde/ ende maeckt u quijt de Tyghers die u haeten ende vernielen: Omcinghelt u metten genereusen steert der Leeuwe / om te mogen overwinnen onse vuijle slavernye / ende dat wy middlertijd moghen uytroepen LIBERTAS’. Morghen-wecker, sig. B4v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

184

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Remonstrant pamphlet literature, as we have seen, viewed the Advocate’s fall through a prism of Senecan and Tacitean reason of state maxims. Slatius’s pamphlets extend the classical analogy further, holding up the example of the fall of the Roman Republic as a dire warning to the Dutch. The ‘seamless fit’ between the analysis of Maurits’s coup and the ensuing call for tyrannicide constitutes the pamphlets as radical speech acts, as they attempt to shame the Dutch into the taking up of arms against the Prince of Orange, while promising immortal glory to the loyal patriot willing to assume the role of Brutus. Here, I believe, we can discern a strong influence of the rhetoric of Lucan’s Pharsalia, a text which in the context of the political events of 1618–19 was being put to new, more explicitly polemical uses. In his Writing the English Republic, David Norbrook has demonstrated how Lucan’s text could be used to articulate a nascent discourse of opposition, which on occasion touches upon the foundations of monarchical authority.121 While the influence of Lucan’s epic on Dutch political culture still stands in need of further research, there are good indications that in the climacteric years between 1619 and 1623, Pharsalia helped to nurture and shape a climate of opposition that would lead some to draw the ultimate conclusion. This conclusion—tyrannicide—would undoubtedly have horrified Grotius, who nevertheless played a crucial role in the revival of interest in Lucan’s poetry. While Lucan already enjoyed some popularity at the universities, buoyed up by the general vogue for Silver Latin literature, it was Grotius who pointed to the political value of the work of this ‘aristocratic, freedom-loving poet, hater of tyrants’.122 In 1614, he brought out an edition of the Pharsalia, a project to which he would come back at different stages of his career, and which would have a great impact in the Republic, as well as across the Channel.123 Yet it was the political crisis of 1618–19 which galvanized this republican reception of Lucan, since for many of the Remonstrants and their political allies the events of those years presented a terr­ifying parallel to the fall of the Roman Republic. For those Remonstrants who saw the prevailing of might over right sealed by what they could only see as a travesty of a Synod, Pharsalia’s most frequently quoted lines ‘Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catonis’ (‘The victorious cause pleased the gods, but the vanquished pleased Cato’, 1. 128) must have held a particularly bitter resonance. Imprisoned at Loevesteijn, Grotius, who would always maintain that he had been deprived of the right to defend himself, worked on a Latin translation of ­Euripides’ Phoenician Women, a tragedy about civil war and fratricide, but also a play in which the theme of parrhèsia, free speech, plays a pivotal role. Without the right of free speech, Polyneikes explains to his mother Iocasta, a citizen is reduced to the condition of a slave, ‘compelled to serve, against your nature’ (ll. 386–94).124 Blaeu seems to have taken up this theme, by bringing out a new edition of Grotius’s Pharsalia (1619), a text, it needs to be remembered, animated by a concern to 121  David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 23–62. 122 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 157–8.   123 Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 41–2. 124  Michel Foucault, Parrèsia (Amsterdam: Parrèsia, 2004), 24–5. In a letter to Reigersberch Grotius wrote that an exile’s worst burden was being denied the right of free speech. Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 268–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

185

counter the rewriting of history by the victors, and to reinscribe the dissident voices that monarchical authority is aiming to suppress.125 However this may be, it is hard to disagree with Spies that ‘an edition in that year, of that text, prepared by a man who is at that moment imprisoned for life at Loevesteijn, can only be seen as a political protest’.126 Yet the process did not stop with Grotius’s Latin edition. Already in 1616, a member of the Amsterdam regent patriciate, Hendrik Storm, advocate-general of the Amsterdam Admiralty, had brought out a Dutch translation of the first six books of the Pharsalia. The prolegomena of the book include a dedication of the work to the members of the Amsterdam Admiralty by the author, a poem by G. V. Elburgh, and two sonnets by Telle and Bredero.127 As the author later explained, the difficulty of Lucan’s Latin and his own dissatisfaction with the work made him abandon it after the first six books. The events of 1618–19 must have impelled him to take up his pen again, for in 1620, Storm’s translation of all ten books of the Pharsalia appeared, this time with extensive prolegomena, including poems by some of the leading members of the Amsterdam literary establishment— Vondel, P. C. Hooft, Coster, Nicolaes Voocht, and Nicolaes van Wassenaer—that provided the text with an interpretative framework of a decidedly anti-Orangist, if not republican character.128 Of importance, too, is Storm’s dedication of his text to all five colleges of the Admiralty. These bodies, although nominally under the control of the Prince of Orange, functioned as strongholds of provincial particularism.129 The genesis of this translation in the milieu of the Amsterdam admiralty gives this already highly topical text additional polemical clout, for it was through this body that many of the regent families ousted after Maurits’s changing of the law, including those of Hooft, Reael, and Overlander, maintained a toe-hold in urban politics, using it to oppose the policies of the Prince, as well as to thwart the coalition of Reinier Pauw.130 In his dedication Storm himself minced no words about Lucan’s importance for the Dutch. The Pharsalia may not be the most reliable account of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, but its defects are compensated by the poem’s copious ‘good sentences and warnings’ (my italics).131 Not all of the dedicatory poems are as 125 Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 30. 126  Joost van den Vondel, Twee zeevaart-gedichten. Hymnus ofte Lof-Gesangh, over de wijd-beroemde scheeps-vaert der Vereenighde Nederlanden (1613)/Het Lof der Zee-vaert (1623), ed. Marijke Spies (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandse Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1987), i. 61. 127  Hendrik Storm, De eerste ses boucken vanden voortreffelycke ende seer vermaerden Poeet Marcus Anneus Lucanus van ’t Borger Oorlog der Romeynen, tusschen Gaius Iulius Caesar ende Gneus Pompeius Magnus (Amsterdam: by Michiel Colyn Boeckvercooper op ’t Water, 1617), sigs. *4–**2v. 128  Hendrik Storm, M. Annaeus Lucanus van’t borger oorlogh der Romeynen, tusschen C. Iulium Caesarem ende Gn. Pompeius Magnum (Amsterdam: By Michiel Colyn, Boeckvercooper op ’t Water, 1620). 129  Hans Crum, ‘De relaties van de “Pharsalia”-vertaling van Hendrik Storm met de Amsterdamse admiraliteit’, Spektator, 9/4 (1979–80), 348–60, 358. 130  Crum, ‘De relaties’, 357. 131  Hendrik Storm, ‘Aen de Edele, Erentfeste, Hooghgeleerde, Wyse, Voorsienighe seer discrete Heeren de Gecommiteerde Raden der Amiraliteyt der fijff Collegien, residerende inde respectieve Quartieren van Holland, Zeeland ende Vriesland’, Storm, Van’t Borger oorlog der Romeynen, sig. A4r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

186

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

explicit as Storm in stressing Lucan’s political utility. Hooft’s sonnet, for example, stresses Storm’s translation as a cultural achievement, connecting it to Lucan’s ‘Liber­tas ultra Rhenam recessit Germanum bonum’ (7.431–6).132 Storm’s translation is thus presented as the culmination of this ‘translatio libertatis’ that enables Lucan to speak in the tongue of ‘Dutch liberty’.133 More topical, however, are the poems of Vondel, Coster, Voocht, and Van Wassenaer. Vondel’s poem stays closest to the text of Pharsalia in its tragic view of Roman history, as it muses on the apparent futility of the founding of a free state and the conquest of an empire, if liberty is squandered through internecine strife. Borrowing the imagery of suicide and auto-mutilation that pervade both Pharsalia and the pamphlet literature generated by Oldenbarnevelt’s death, Vondel describes the Roman people plunging the sword that once kept foreign nations in awe into their own entrails, and ‘carrying, with blood-stained hands, longed-for liberty to her grave’. Few poems capture the ­atmosphere of Pharsalia as well as this early work of Vondel, yet few, also, are more polemical than the second strophe which concludes, with barely repressed anger, ‘a soldier’s lust for power cost many a hero’s life’.134 In comparison to Vondel, Coster’s poem sounds restrained, as it presses home the more fundamental republican argument that the power of monarchs is based on force, not on law or reason. Coster’s friend and colleague, the medical doctor Nicolaes van Wassenaer, like Coster a Remonstrant sympathizer,135 offers what is perhaps the strongest indictment of tyranny, in which the allusion to Oldenbarne­ velt’s execution is difficult to miss: Saevire gaudet in bonos tyrannide / Hinc funeri addit funus, sceleri scelus (‘The tyrant rejoices to rage against the virtuous / therefore he adds burial to burial, crime to crime’).136 Lines like these seem to be gathered out of the lamentations and mourning songs that appeared after the Advocate’s execution.137 Crum’s interpretation, which sees the translation as alluding to the tragic death of Oldenbarnevelt, but at the same time refraining from criticizing the Prince of Orange, seems unconvincing. In Crum’s analysis, the preliminaries of the translation warn against the dangers of civil war. If tensions in the Republic were to mount even higher, he argues, Maurits would be forced to intervene, and 132  P. C. Hooft, ‘Op de verduytschingh van Lucanus, door den Heere Storm’, Storm, Van’t Borger oorlogh der Romeynen, sig. B1r. 133  P. C. Hooft, ‘Op de verduytschingh van Lucanus’, sig. B1r. 134  I. V. Vondele, ‘Op den Burgher-krijgh der Roomeren’, Storm, Van ’t Borger oorlogh der Romeynen, sig. B4v: ‘Wat voordert Brutus deughd dat zy den Dwingelanden / Wt haren zetel ruckt, en breeckt de troonen af, / En sticht een vryen Staet, nae datse nu den staf / Tarquin gheweldigh heeft ontwronghen t’zijnder schanden: / Als ’t Romulynsche volck zijn eyghen inghewanden / Gaet rijten met het Stael dat eertijts wonden gaf d’Uytheemschen vyand, en gaet draghen na het graf / d’Erlanghden vrydom met vermenghde en bloed’ghe handen? / De staet-sucht eens soldaets was veler Helden dood, / En Roome een hart ghelagh, als ’t aensagh en most lijen / Dat Caesar met Laurier omvlochten op zijn Koets / Keerde uyt de slachtingh van soo braven burgherijen / Als oyt Italien had ghestooft in haren schoot, / En won den Scepter met verlies van zoo veel bloedts’. 135  Crum, ‘De relaties’, 354. 136  Nicolaus a Wassenaer, ‘In Lucanum Rhytmo Belgico editum’, Storm, Van ’t Borger-krijgh der Romeynen, sig. B2v. 137  Indeed, in view of the depth of feeling against Maurits, Crum’s cautious remark that, although in 1619 Maurits had come to enjoy supreme power, we can hardly see him as a tyrant of the kind described by Van Wassenaer, seems a little out of place. Crum, ‘De relaties’, 354.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

187

that would mean the end of Dutch liberty.138 This, however, is somewhat incongruous. Or rather, it would have been an accurate analysis of events if the work had been published in 1617, the year when the Republic seemed to be on the brink of a civil war. In 1620, Maurits had intervened and, although the means through which this had been done was deplored by many, the political crisis that had threatened to destabilize the Republic had been brought to an end, the danger of civil war averted. Rather than warning against the dangers of civil war, Storm’s Pharsalia translation criticizes the events of 1618–19 as an assault on the liberty of the Republic. The poets introducing the work do not speak with one voice, nor are they all equally vehement in their denunciation of Maurits’s unconstitutional actions. The prudent Hooft seems to build in an element of caution, when he speaks of Lucan’s ‘all too free verse’. Yet almost all contributors stress the fact that it is the ambition of the powerful that breaks the constraints of the law. What these poems offer is not a plea for unity and concord, but a warning to stand guard against those who oppress law and liberty. Two of the poems, those of Vondel and Van Wassenaer, go beyond a denun­ ciation of tyranny to predict the end that will befall all tyrants. Vondel does this in an indirect way. After his apparently defeatist reflections, he evokes the image of Caesar returning to Rome in triumph, crowned with the laurel-wreath, ‘won at the cost of so much blood’. The imagery of triumph paradoxically draws attention to the dictator’s imminent demise, for as an attentive reader of classical history would remember, it was shortly after he had attained the summit of power that Caesar was slain. What Vondel leaves to the imagination of the reader, Van Wassenaer ­explains through the inexorable working of Fortune, who crushes one man under her wheel, and lifts the other to the sky. The tyrant obtains supreme power, and for a while, reigns with impunity. The people, once in favour of the dictator, now ­bitterly regret the loss of liberty. Eventually, in the figure of Cassius, an avenger arises, and the tyrant is slain.139 These poems push the rhetoric of tyranny to its limits, and it is only through recourse to an impersonal prophetic voice that they can ­escape being construed as openly seditious. Or perhaps, in some circles, they were perceived as being exactly that. Vondel was taken by at least some of his opponents to be the author of Slatius’s Brutus to Holland—the poem calling for the assass­ ination of the Prince of Orange—an allegation which Vondel vigorously denied.140 It is here, then, that the rhetoric of the Cristal Mirror, the Reveille-Matin, and the Bright-shining Torch can be understood in what, in a different context, has been termed ‘the climate of the Pharsalia’.141 For Slatius’s pamphlets deny that the choice between tyranny and tyrannicide leaves an alternative route open. Indeed, the rhetorical force of these pamphlets is derived to a large extent from a glorification 138  Crum, ‘De relaties’, 355. 139  Nicolaus a Wassenaer, ‘In Lucanum Rhytmo Belgico editum’, sig. B1v. 140 Vondel, ‘Op een moortpasquil, by een ander gedicht, en moetwilligh op mijnen naemen gedruckt’, WB ii. 756; Wille, ‘Het Moordpasquil’, 159. 141  Denise Carabin, Les Idées stoïciennes dans la littérature morale des XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2004), 640.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

188

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

of resistance, a desire for republican heroics, even—one feels tempted to say, ­especially—when it ends in failure or death. To kill a tyrant, or, by being killed by him, maintaining one’s liberty intact, is the only honourable course of action of a free man; it is the ultimate test to prove him worthy of the liberty he possesses. It is this contempt of death that makes a free man rise above the tyrant, shown by the Lacedaemonians’ resolve to die, rather than to submit to a king, or, in Lucan’s poem, in the heroism of Pompey’s general, Domitius Ahenobarbus, who, spurning Caesar’s clemency, ‘Victus totiens a Caesare, libertate salva perit’ (Though conquered so often by Caesar, he died without losing his freedom’).142 Lucan wrote his poem under Nero’s rule and committed suicide after his involvement in a plot against the emperor had come to light. As an epic, Pharsalia is suffused by a tragic awareness that liberty, and the republican virtues that sustained it, belong to a past that is irretrievably lost. Slatius does not share Lucan’s tragic vision, but what the overheated rhetoric of his pamphlets aims to convey is the sense that the Dutch have reached their moment of truth, in which they have to vindicate their liberty, or face, like the combatants of Pharsalos, the reproaches of their descen­ dants. It is therefore not by coincidence, I think, that the figure of Brutus plays such an central role in Slatius’s work, as he does in Lucan’s Pharsalia, where he forms an imaginary ‘trait-d’union’ between the foundation of the Roman Republic, and the prophesized vindication of Roman liberty. In Pharsalia’s narrative, it is this symbolic ‘resonance’ that defines the role of Brutus, and it is to this purpose that Lucan makes him prowl the battlefield, disguised as a common soldier, with the intent of taking Caesar’s life—a prefiguration of the events of 44 bce (7.587–96). Yet, the poet warns him, your time has not come, Caesar has not attained the heights of power, ‘and therefore he has not earned from destiny so glorious a death. Let him live to reign and then let him fall victim to the dagger of Brutus’ (7.595–6). A similar resonance had accrued to the figure of Brutus through the pamphlet literature of the Revolt against Spain. Usually it was William of Orange who was cast in the role of Lucius Junius Brutus, who, moreover, was portrayed as consul, a neat example of how Roman history was tailored to support a constitutional view of the rebellious provinces as an aristocratic republic, defended by a consul/Stadtholder.143 Yet this corpus of literature also contains many instances of texts in which Brutus stands as an example for all loyal patriots. Some of these pamphlets explicitly praise Lucius Brutus, others Marcus Junius Brutus, the tyrannicide. In some cases, the distinction between the two is somewhat confused, as for example with the author who speaks of ‘Lucius Iunius Brutus, who had killed Tarquinius Superbus’.144 Another pamphlet, denouncing Philip’s tyranny, declares that it is little wonder that there are now ‘so many men like Brutus and Collatinus to be 142  Quotations from De bello civile are from the Loeb edn: Lucan, The Civil War (Pharsalia), tr. J. D. Duff (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978); here 7. 602–3. 143  Marijke Spies, ‘Verbeeldingen van Vrijheid: David en Mozes, Burgerhart en Bato, Brutus en Cato’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10/1 (1994), 141–58, 151–2. 144  Pieter Antoon Marie Geurts, De Nederlandse Opstand in pamfletten, 1566–1584 (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Veght, 1956), 275.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



The Spectre of Civil War

189

found in these lands’.145 Here, the Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos, a text known to Dutch audiences through the acts of Aggaeus of Albada of the peace talks at Cologne (1579) and through the partial translation of Frans, brother of the more famous Dirk, Coornhert, town clerk of Amsterdam, can be indicated as a possible source.146 In the third question of the Vindiciae, the example of Brutus is discussed in the section that treats ‘Those who are bound to coerce tyrants without title’.147 This kind of tyrant can be resisted by any private person (privatus quislibet), and neither the Julian law on high treason, nor the laws against sedition are valid here. ‘On the contrary’, the author of the Vindiciae argues, ‘the law on tyrannicide applies in this case. It honours the living with rewards and the dead with epitaphs and statues, as it honoured Harmodius and Aristogiton in Athens, and Brutus and Cassius in Greece, whom it rewarded with bronze statues by public decree; and also Aratus of Sicyon, because they had freed the country from the tyranny of Pisistratus, Caesar, and Nicocles respectively’.148 Slatius’s appropriation of this figure serves as a reminder of the relative ease with which conventional tropes and figures of resistance theory could be incorporated into a language of militant patriotism; that moment, dreaded by contemporaries, when not one but ‘many Brutuses and Collatinusus’ arose to protect the liberties of the land, and thereby, their individual freedom. It is to this purpose, also, that Slatius dwells so extensively on Maurits’s moral ‘depravity’. To deal with his subjects’ possessions as he sees fit; to abuse his wife or daughters with impunity, was the typical behaviour of the tyrant, and sexual slander was part of the rhetoric of tyrannicide. Yet Slatius’s catalogue of the Prince’s escapades also serves a very concrete purpose: to warn his audience that not only liberties and privileges, but the honour and chastity of wives and daughters are at stake. At the end of his catalogue of Maurits’s excesses, he asks his audience to ‘consider what this lecherous Heliogabalus would not dare to do if he was once to make himself an absolute lord’.149 The poem with which Slatius had concluded his Songs of Sorrow, ‘Brutus to Holland’, demonstrates to what extent ‘Brutus’ and ‘patriot’ had become synonymous. The poem is styled as a dialogue between Brutus and Holland, with Brutus declaring himself willing to sacrifice ‘goods, life and blood’ to liberate the country from the oppressor, and asking the Batavians to erect a statue in honour of his memory. Holland replies that her hero will not be forgotten and reminds him that, even if his attack were to miscarry he, like Scaevola, will see 3,000 men rise up to complete his mission.150 With the publication of the Bright-shining Torch, a point of no return was reached. In that same year, Slatius became involved in the conspiracy against 145 Geurts, De Nederlandse opstand in pamphletten, 295. 146 Geurts, De Nederlandse Opstand in pamphletten, 142. On the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, see Gelderen, Political Thought, 154–5, 159–60, 210, 270–1, 272, 269–75. 147  Vindiciae, contra tyrannos. Or, concerning the legitimate power of a prince over the people and the people over a prince, ed. George Garnett (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 148–54. 148  Vindiciae, contra tyrannos, 150–1. 149  ‘Welc exempel alle vrome Inghesetene behoorde te doen aenmercken / wat desen geylen Heliogabalus niet en zoude derven bestaen / indien hy hem zelven eens absoluut meester hadde ghemaect’, Klaer-lichtende fakkel, sig. B1v. 150  Iammer-liedekens, sig. A4v.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

190

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Maurits. Instigators of the plot were the sons of Oldenbarnevelt, whose bitterness over the death of their father was increased by what they regarded as Maurits’s breach of his promise not to harm the interests of the Oldenbarnevelt family. The conspiracy was nipped in the bud; the conspirators were arrested before their plans could be brought to execution. Oldenbarnevelt’s younger son, Willem van Stoutenburg, who had been its mastermind, followed his father onto the scaffold. Reinier Groenevelt, the Advocate’s eldest son, fled to the Southern Netherlands, where he eventually became rittmaster in the service of the Archdukes. One of the stories that grew up around the conspiracy told how Oldenbarnevelt’s wife pleaded with Maurits to spare her son’s life. When asked by the Prince why she had not made use of this possibility before, to save her husband, she replied ‘because my son is guilty, my husband was not’.151 For the Remonstrants the episode was little short of a disaster, for just as the atmosphere had begun to feel slightly less chilly, and persecutions began to abate, public opinion turned against the Remonstrant with full force.152 Slatius, in whose home the weapons had allegedly been hidden, fled, but was captured at Coevoorden. Hoping to save his life, he furnished a full confession with a recantation of his errors, which included a strong denunciation of  Remonstrant ‘falsehoods’. This saved him from the rack, but not the death-­ sentence. Upon this realization, he wrote a public refutation of his confession, which his wife, Berendina Telle, managed to smuggle out of jail. Even on the night before his execution, he continued to argue in defence of the view that any individual is allowed to take a tyrant’s life. In a final letter to his wife, he urged her to bring their children up as good Christians, and to imbue them with a hatred of Calvinists. He was beheaded; the hand that had written the Bright-shining Torch was lopped off, the body displayed on the rack. Yet there was to be a final, grizzly epilogue to this story of revenge and counter-revenge. After the execution, the body of Slatius was stolen and buried in secret. The burial must have been somewhat of a hasty job, for a few days later, a farmer ploughing his land, thinking to have found a treasure, exhumed the coffin with the decapitated corpse. The farmer informed the local bailiff, who decided that the body should be transported back to The Hague. To the Contra-Remonstrants, the burial of Slatius was yet another example of the evil tricks the Remonstrants were capable of. An engraving by Claes Visscher shows every episode of the story in gruesome detail, accompanied by ­rather gleeful commentary. In the centre, three men are depicted dragging the corpse back to its proper place. Above them, a bat holds a pamphlet with the title Brightshining Torch between its spread-out wings. The inscription reads: ‘whose light incites to sin, will win revenge as reward’.153

151  Geert J. Jansen, Het stokje van Oldenbarnevelt (Hilversum: Verloren, 2001), 72; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 731. 152  Van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau, 286–7; Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, iii. 777. 153  Claes Visscher[?], Slatius komt uijt het graff. En vaert op daer hy voer af (1623).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

5 Victim Tragedy and Vengeance Vondel’s Palamedes (1625) Had he carried Holland under his heart With travail Till the last of his weary years; To satiate traitorous steel With his blood? To fatten crow and raven on his goods? (Vondel, Palamedes)

Vondel’s tragedy Palamedes (1625) stands at the culminating point of the literature generated by Oldenbarnevelt’s death. It gained its author (see Figure 12), almost overnight, lasting fame and notoriety, earning him the admiration of the Remonstrants and their sympathizers as well as the enduring hatred of the ContraRemonstrants, and leading to a warrant for his arrest on charges of lèse majesté. As the cap-stone in the myth of Oldenbarnevelt the martyred pater patriae, Vondel’s play has always occupied a special place in the canon of Dutch seventeenthcentury literature. In this chapter, however, I will situate Vondel’s tragedy in the wider discursive framework of pamphlet literature generated by the Advocate’s fall, to argue how the play takes up and integrates the themes and tropes of the political and religious controversy, and organizes them around the theologically loaded idea of the sacrifice of the innocent victim.1 In order to appreciate fully the extent of Vondel’s extraordinary daring in exploring the limits of political allegory, the play must be placed within the atmosphere of nervous self-censorship dominating the early years after the Synod of Dort.

1  A good introduction to Vondel’s work is offered by the collection of essays by Jan Bloemendaal and Frans Willem Korsten, Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679): Dutch Playwright in the Golden Age  (Leiden: Brill, 2012). A recent biography by Piet Calis, Vondel, het verhaal van zijn leven (1587–1679) (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 2008) offers a narrative account of Vondel’s life, but is less strong on the religious and intellectual context of his work. Geeraerdt Brandt’s account, first published in  1682 at the end of Vondels Poëzy of Verscheide gedichten, still offers a wealth of information and anecdote.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

192

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 12  Govert Flinck, portrait of Joost van den Vondel (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

5 . 1  S I L E N C E A N D C E N S O R S H I P The ineffectiveness of censorship measures against pasquils, libels, and song printed in the Southern Netherlands did not mean that repression within the Republic was entirely without consequence. With the Contra-Remonstrant purges in full swing, it was ill-advised, to say the least, to appear as a Remonstrant sympathizer or a ‘Barneveldist’. At Leiden, Barlaeus was deposed as vice-regent of the Collegium Theologicum. Vossius, too, was dismissed from the regency, and was forbidden to teach even privately. In the following year, he was summoned to appear before the Synod of South Holland to give account for the Historia Pelagiana. Yet unlike Barlaeus and Episcopius, who were unceremoniously sacked, he retained his salary, and was soon allowed to return to teaching rhetoric. Despite this relatively lenient treatment, he sorely felt the injury of being intellectually gagged. Cunaeus, too, was called to account for the Sardi venales and De republica Hebraeorum.2 In 1619 and 1620 the new professors at the Leiden theology faculty collected a corpus of disputations that would come to function as a comprehensive treatment of Reformed dogma, the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. Walaeus’s inaugural oration functioned as a ratio studii to the new programme.3 Even in this time of renewed Reformed self-confidence, the legacy of a decade of theological strife was still 2  Henk Nellen, Hugo de Groot (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007), 251; Nicholas Wickenden, G. J. Vossius and the Humanist Concept of History (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 8, 22; C. S. M. Rademaker, Life and Work of Gerardus Johannes Vossius, (Assen: Van Gorcume, 1981), 129–33. 3  Peter T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

193

t­angible. After having discussed catechesis and dogmatics, Walaeus tackles the proper way to venture upon the exposition of scripture. Many students these days, he claims, are so afraid of falling into heresy that they prefer to stick to the reading of commentaries rather than to read scripture independently. Such fears are not without ground, he concedes, but the risk can be reduced substantially by following the traditional hermeneutical rules, by applying the analogia fidei, and comparing the result of one’s studies with the opinions of the scholars who have always been regarded as orthodox by the church.4 In this political and intellectual climate, many authors in the Republic thought it wiser—at least for the moment—to keep their peace. The best-known case of literary self-censorship is that of Hooft, who withheld his Baeto, completed in 1617, until well after the death of Maurits and the consolidation of Frederik Hendrik’s regime in 1626. Hooft did not abandon his friend or disavow his political ideas. Behind the scenes he added his weight to the lobby that worked for the possibility of Grotius returning to the Netherlands.5 In public, however, he kept his silence. A letter to Adriaan van Blijenburgh, dated 22 April 1622, gives us a rare glimpse of an unusually outspoken Hooft, venting his bile against the Contra-Remonstrant clergy, who were at that time stirring up rumours against him and contested his patronage rights over the villages of the Gooiland. Van Blijenburgh had approached Hooft asking him for the manuscript of the Hypocrite (Scheinheilig 1617–8), Hooft’s adaptation of Aretino’s l’Ipocrito. Hooft obliged willingly, drawing out the all-too-obvious parallel between the stage hypocrites and their counterparts in the churches. Hooft complains that his opponents, secure in their victory at Amsterdam, seem to think they can play with him as a cat with a mouse. Still, the cat should not think that she will now have the cheese to herself, he says grimly, ‘I believe the master of the house to be wiser than that’. The letter ends with an injunction—in Latin!—‘this letter is guilty of heresy: deal with her in our ancestral way’.6 Self-censorship was the tactic deployed by Hooft, which enabled him to weather the storms of 1617–19, while so many of his colleagues had to bow or break. Typically, it was a strategy for which Vondel had little patience. He urged Hooft to come forward with the Baeto, likening his self-chosen silence to a literary decapitation.7 In order to understand the genesis of Palamedes it is important to analyse the development of Vondel’s poetical, as well as religious and political views, a question 4 Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies, 56. 5  Mieke Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en de Groot’, in J. Jansen (ed.), Omnibus Idem (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997), 60–2. 6  P. C. Hooft, Briefwisseling, ‘Hanc ego quasi haereseos ream condemno, puniendamque more majorum censeo. Nec gratiae locus sit. atque iterum vale’,.ed. H. W. van Tricht (Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink, 1976–9), i. 442–5 (no. 183). 7 Hooft, Briefwisseling, ii. 233–4 (no. 474). I agree with Veenstra’s interpretation of Vondel’s dream about the decapitation as an allusion to Hooft’s self-censorship, although I disagree with his translation of the term kluchtig (lit. farcical) as ‘ridiculous or nonsensical’. Zieleman’s interpretation, translating kluchtig as funny, or, rather, demonstrating wit, seems more to the point. Fokke Veenstra, ‘Hooft in de troebelen van het Bestand’, in Mieke B. Smits-Veldt et al. (eds), Kort Tijt-verdrijf (Amsterdam: AD&L Uitgevers, 1996). 114; G. C. Zieleman, ‘Vondels dichtbrief “aen myn heer den Drost van Muyden”’, Spiegel der Letteren, 36 (1994), 41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

194

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

particularly urgent in view of the poet’s apparent silence in the period stretching the years between the execution of Oldenbarnevelt and the publication of Palamedes. Marijke Spies has urged for caution when trying to assess Vondel’s political views before the publication of his Praise of Navigation (Lof der Zeevaart), a poem published in the Blaeu’s Zeespiegel, a book with sea-maps and information for sailors, captains, and ship-owners, first published in 1619 and, due to great popular demand, republished in 1623.8 Assessing Vondel’s position in the early 1620s is hampered by the contested dating of some of Vondel’s satirical poems. It would nevertheless appear that these years constituted a formative period in Vondel’s ­development as a poet that was accompanied, and perhaps also propelled, by a change in his religious orientation.9 Up until at least 1619, Vondel had been a member of the Brabantine chamber of rhetoric the White Lavender. Religiously he was still attached to the Mennonite faith in which he had been brought up, becoming a deacon to the community of Waterland in 1616. In the following years, however, he fell prey to a ‘languishing illness’, which, in the words of Brandt, ‘Much debilitated him, wearied his spirits and made him long for death’.10 In October 1620, to all appearances unable to fulfil his duties, he asked to be released from his office of deacon.11 In these years the poet also struck up new literary friendships with Hooft, Daniel Mostart, Laurens Reael, and Anthonis de Hubert, ‘and others poets and connoisseurs of that art who held literary gatherings’.12 After his Latin studies, Vondel soon also began to take lessons in Greek and logic with Daniel de Breen, who had served as a secretary to the Remonstrant delegation at the Synod of Dort.13 With Hooft, contacts seem to have run via Justus Baeck, who in 1623 became Hooft’s brother-in-law by marrying Magdalena van Erp, sister of Hooft’s wife Christina.14 With the families Baeck and Reael, relations seem to have been more intimate. When Vorstius visited Amsterdam in 1622, it was Reael who arranged a safe haven in Vondel’s house, and Vondel who escorted him to Hoorn, from where he left for Friedrichstad.15 During the year 1625, Brandt writes, Hooft, Reael, and Vondel met almost daily to work on a prose translation of Seneca’s Troades, which Vondel then put into verse under the title Amsterdamse Hecuba.16 8  J. van den Vondel, ‘Lof der Zeevaart gheheylight Den Edelen, Erentfesten, Gestrengen, Manhaften, Wysen, ende Voorsienigen Heere, Lavrens Reael, Voor desen Oppervooghd, en eenigen Beheerscher vande Oost-Indien.’, in De werken van Vondel, ed. J. F. M. Sterck et al. (Amsterdam: Maatschappij voor Goede en goedkope Lectuur, 1927–40), ii. 431–55. 9  For a highly informative account see Marijke Spies’s introduction to J. van den Vondel, Twee zeevaart-gedichten, (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandse Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1987), i. 40–63. 10  Geeraerd Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven (The Hague: Charles Nypels, 1928), 21. 11 Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 21, Vondel, ‘Gebedt, Uytgestort tot Godt, over mijn geduerige quijnende Sieckte, Anno 1621’, in De werken van Vondel, ii. 409–10. On Vondel’s melancholy, see K.  Porteman, ‘ “Aensiet de Swackheyt dan van uwen armen dichter” Een lectuur van Vondel’s “Gebedt” ’, in K. Porteman (ed.), Uut goeder jonsten: Studies aangeboden aan prof. Dr L. Roose (Leuven / Amersfoort: Acco, 1984), 115–30. 12 Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 19; P. Leendertz, junior, Het leven van Vondel (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1910), 67–8. 13 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 82.   14 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 66–7. 15 Leendertz, Leeven van Vondel, 73–4. 16 Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 19–20; Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 86–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

195

Vondel also attended the soirées at the home of the ageing Roemer Visscher and his two gifted daughters, Anna and Maria. When, in 1620, Roemer Visscher died, Maria Tesselschade took over her father’s role in hosting these evenings, which continued until her marriage to Alard Krombalck in 1623. To all appearances Vondel thrived in this new habitat. In Praise of Navigation, Vondel presents himself as having found a new ‘home’ in this circle of poets and art-lovers. The poem, dedicated to Laurens Reael, was an intervention in the debate about the East India Company’s policy in the Indies. Vondel spoke out in favour of the pacific trade policy advocated by Laurens Reael, and was critical of the aggressive policy of conquest proposed by Jan Pietersz Coen. As during the debates in the period of the Truce, the conflict over Dutch overseas trade was bound up with political and religious divisions. Reael was a Remonstrant, and his brother, Jacob Reael, secretary of the Amsterdam Admiralty, was among those members who would be cut off from the church in 1623. Coen, on the other hand, was a Calvinist of the hotter type, in whose mind the Dutch cause was best served by an expansionist trading policy, defended by military means. Here we see the same politico-religious alignment that had first propelled Adriaan Pauw to oppose Oldenbarnevelt. Reael o­ bjected to Coen’s policies, which had led to the destruct­ ion of inland trade, and had caused a diplomatic row with the English over the massacre at Amboina (1622). The controversy sparked off a pamphlet exchange, to which Vondel added his weight, cautioning his audience to desist from plunder, not to stain the Christian faith through the exercise of violence, and offering them an ideal (or rather idealized) Grotian vision of commerce as an instrument for the advancement of friendship among the nations, rather than a cause for war.17 Vondel styled the poem as an imaginary sea-voyage, the invocation of Reael serving to ensure that his ship will not swerve from the right course. On returning to familiar shores, however, it is not Reael, but Hooft, who welcomes the voyager back, calming the waves, guiding him back to the harbour of Amsterdam, where at last the poet discerns his friends, gathered in the poet’s true home, ‘Roemer’s blessed house’.18 The religious views reflected in Vondel’s poetry of these years show a similar taking of sides. According to Brandt, Vondel’s sympathy for the Remonstrants was aroused when he saw how they were forcibly repressed.19 Undoubtedly, Vondel’s proximity to Reael must have been of importance, although one could also think of the influence of men like Hooft, Daniel de Breen, or Petrus Scriverius. Yet we should be wary of making Vondel, as some of his biographers have done, a rather uncritical follower of the men he admired, something against which his whole later career, including his conversion to Catholicism, seems to argue.20 The distinction 17  On the echoes of Mare Liberum in Lof der Zeevaart, 421–6, see Vondel, Twee zeevaart-gedichten, i. 70. 18  ‘Hier open ick mijn reys in ’t saligh Roemers huys / Wiens vloer betreden word, wiens dorpel is gesleten / Van Schilders, kunstenaers, van Sangers en Poëten’. Vondel, ‘Lof der Zeevaart’, WB ii. 455. 19 Brandt, J. van Vondel’s Leven, 20–1. 20  I therefore find the argument that Vondel’s interest in the Remonstrant cause post-dates the resolution of the crisis, and should be ascribed to the influence of people like Hooft and Reael, as has been argued by Leendertsz, less than convincing. Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 83, 90–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

196

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

between Vondel’s ‘Mennonite period’, and his later ‘phase’ as a Remonstrant sympathizer is perhaps of subordinate importance when trying to track Vondel’s political views. There is of course ‘On Holland’s Latest Transformation’, reprinted several times during the seventeenth century, and as late as 1681 still said to be in everyone’s hands. And there are other indications that Vondel, already in an earlier phase of the controversy, had grown highly critical of Maurits’s actions.21 However this may be, the early 1620s witnessed an intensification of Vondel’s activities as a polemicist. In 1620, Vondel made his contribution to the preliminaries of Storm’s Pharsalia, and possibly brought out the ‘Beggars’-Vesper, or Sick-Comfort for the Twenty-four’ (‘Geuse-Vesper of Siecken Troost.Voor de Vierentwintigh’).22 In the following years he would delineate his politico-religious position with increasing precision. In 1622 he took a stand in the old debate on the haec religionis / haec libertatis ergo of the Dutch Revolt. With his ‘Dedication to the States of the United Netherlands, on the statue of Prince William’s grave’, that depicts the Prince of Orange as the protector of Dutch liberty, he firmly aligns himself with the ‘Haec libertatis ergo’ of Leiden, as opposed to the ‘Haec religionis ergo’ of the orthodox Calvinists.23 When on 9 October 1622, Vorstius died, Vondel produced an elegy, praising the theologian as a hero who had ‘swept the Genevan idol from the altar’, and chained Cerberus (read: Calvin) to the gate of hell, but had been forced to flee from his enemies, like Jacob for Esau.24 In the same year, he wrote three poems in honour of Erasmus. The ‘Memorial of Desiderius Erasmus’ (‘Gedachtenis van Desideer Erasmus’, 1622) appears to be an playful response to Scriverius’s quest for an image of Erasmus, which quotes the epigram of Dürer’s famous 1526 engraving ‘SGM JQEISSX RTCCQALLASA SA DEINEI’: ‘His writings will show a better portrait’ (also taken up in Quentin Matsys’s 1519 medal) and hails Erasmus as the triumphant hero of the Republic, who had single-handedly 21  See Arthur Weststeijn’s analysis of Vondel’s well-known collection of animal fables, the Vorsteliike Warande der Dieren (1617), in Weststeijn, Commercial Republicanism in the Dutch Golden Age (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 116–17. 22  WB iii. 639–40.There is no consensus about the composition or publication of the ‘Beggars’Vesper’. Although Sterck’s edn places the poem in 1631, the year of ‘Decretum horribile’, most authors nowadays accept 1625, the year of the appearance of Palamedes. Muller offers some arguments for a dating around 1619–20: J. W. Muller, ‘Wanneer zijn Vondel’s Palamedes, Geusevesper en Transformatie geschreven?’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde (1931), 285–311. 23  Vondel, ‘Opdraght der afbeeldinghe van prins Willems graf, aen de Staten der vereenighde Nederlanden’, WB ii. 412. 24  ‘Nu rust hy, die versmaed in ballingschap moest leven; / En bonsde van’t Altaer, den Af-god van Geneven, / Dien grouwel, die ’t vergift schenct uit een goude kroes, / En ‘t lieflijck aenschyn Gods, afschildert als de Droes; / Als hy d’aflooting, van soo meenig duysend Stammen / Ter helle stuurt, en pijnt, met eindeloose vlammen: / Na datse zyn tot quaed genoodsaect buiten schuld: / Op dat, quansuis, haer maet rechtvaerdig werd vervult. / Dit kon geleerdheyds Roem, niet lijden sonder straffen / Als hy den Cerberus driehoofdig hoorde blaffen; / Dies smeede hy ketenen, op dat hy temmen mocht, / Den uitgelaten vloeck van’t lasterlijck gedrogt. / Der hellen afgrond woed, en staet geweldig tegen, / Braect dampen uit syn kolck, die hemel-hoog gestegen, / Beswalcken dick de lucht; op dat ’t genade-rijck, / Dees goedheid niet, gemeen, bestrael een yegelijck. / De Vorst, nu afgestreên, gedwongen te vertrecken, / Voor broeder Esau vlucht, en kiest uitheemsche plecken: / En volgt des waerheids spoor, op ’t redelijcke pad: / Geeft God syn ziel: syn lijf de Vrederijcke stad.’ ‘Lyck-dicht, Op ’t overlijden van D. Coenradus Vorstius, Gewesen Professor der H. Godheydt, tot Leyden’, WB ii. 426–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

197

defeated the barbarian hordes.25 ‘On the Bronze Statue Recently Raised in Rotterdam in Honour of the Great Erasmus’ (‘Op het Metalen pronck-Beeld onlangs te Rotterdam Opgerecht tot Eere vanden grooten Erasmvs’), printed at the end of the preface of a Dutch translation of the Colloquia joins in the celebration of the new statue by Hendrik de Keyser commissioned by the town of Rotterdam, and erected in 1622 despite the opposition of the Contra-Remonstrant ministers.26 The ‘Memorial’, moreover, not only praises Erasmus for his scholarship and his efforts to restore the Latin language; it also hails him as a model theologian: peaceable and averse to dogmatics, who kept the mean between Scylla and Charybdis.27 As so often, closer scrutiny reveals Vondel’s poetry to be more polemical, and more theologically literate, than critics have been willing to allow. The events of 1619 seem to have shaken Vondel to the core, provoking feelings that increased, rather than abated in the course of the following years. Already in 1622–3, his fiery anti-Calvinism and his dislike of Maurits must have been well enough known for the allegation that he was behind a libel poem calling for the assassination of the Prince to have at least some plausibility, and for Vondel to feel the need to defend himself against such charges with the poem ‘On a murder-libel, written by someone else, and wilfully printed under my name’: ‘One dares to print under my name / That I want to deprive Maurits of his life / To serve the Batavians, for the honour of a statue / I lay the blame with hate, who has let me in for this.’28 As Wille has 25  Together with the Leiden professor Paulus Merula, Scriverius had gathered a precious collection of biographical and auto-biographical documents, the Vita Erasmi (1607), of which an expanded edn was republished in 1615. On this work, see Paula Koning, ‘De twee levens van Erasmus in Leiden: Petrus Scriverius en Paullus Merula als biografische beeldvormers’, De zeventiende eeuw, 27/1 (2011), 37–48. On the Dürer engraving and its inscription, see Brian Cummings, ‘Erasmus and the Invention of Literature’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 33 (2013), 43–4. De Werken van Vondel, ii. 415–17: ‘O hooghgeleerde Schryver, / Wat quistghe tyd en yver, / Om op te doen ’t geen levendigh gelijckt / Den grooten Desideer, die niemand wijckt. / Hou op van printesiften. / Een stapel wyse schriften / Is d’afdruck van den held, die eeuwigh leeft, / En d’aerdboôm met de pen verovert heeft. / Syn pen dreef voor sich heenen / Wt Rome en wt Athenen / ’t Barbarisch heyr, een’ schandelijcken hoop, / En oneer van den Christelijcken doop.’ 26  WB ii. 418: ‘Wat wijsheyt Latium en Griecken hield besloten / Begreep gantsch Christenrijck so haest ERASMVS quam, / En gaf met zynen naem aen’t Hollands Rotterdam / Een naem, vermidts hy was uyt haren schoot gesproten. / Zy, als de Nood het licht voor hem had afgeschoten, / Noch ’t rottende gebeent’, noch ’t stuyvende assche nam: / Maer rechte een steenen beeld. / De Nijd spoog vyer en vlam, / En socht geweldigh hem van ’t Outer af te stoten. / Dan laes! Geleerdheyds pronck sich keert aen nijd noch spijt. / Geen graf zijn Faem bestulpt. hy heldert met de tijd. / Zijn krans groent onverwelckt, en bloeyt in afgunst veyligh. / Die onlangs was van steen nu glinstert van metael. / En so de Nijd sich steurt aen dese pracht en prael / So gietmen licht van goud den Rotterdamschen HEYLIGH.’ 27  Vondel, ‘Gedachtenis van Desideer Erasmvs Rotterdammer. Aen den heer Peter Schryver’, WB ii. 415–17: ‘De Dooling krijght een schaemrood aengesicht. / Syn siele walght van’t werren. / Se kiest geen’ dop voor kerren. / Al wat sy op den vasten grondsteen bouwt / Is dier gesteent, fijn silver, en rood goud. / Hy sticht vervalle steden / Door Godgeleerde zeden / En tempering van wetten, glad hersmeed / Met syne tong, die diamanten kneed. / Om pays is al syn bidden. / Voorsichtigh houd hy ’t midden, / En staerooght op ’t Apostolijck gestarnt, / Daer hier Charybd en ginder Scylle barnt. / De Roomsche myterkroone / Haer’ allerliefsten soone / Erasmus stadigh met ontvouwen schoot / Milddaedigh tot d’eerwaerdighste ampten nood.’ 28  Vondel, ‘Op een Moordpasquil’, WB ii. 56: ‘Men durf op mijnen naem uit haet in druck uitgeven / Dat ick Mauritius berooven wil van ’t leven, / Ten dienst des Bataviers, om d’e d’eere van een beelt. / ’k Vergeef de schult den Haet, die my dit heeft gespeelt’. See also Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 91.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

198

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

pointed out, the only libel poem making mention both of Brutus and a statue is Slatius’s ‘Brutus to Holland’, printed in the Songs of Sorrow. In 1623, the year of the attempt on Maurits’s life, two years before the publication of Palamedes, Vondel was—deliberately—identified as the author of a notorious murder-libel against the Prince of Orange. The problem of Vondel’s ‘silence’ in the years following the execution of Oldenbarnevelt and the Synod of Dort thus disappears under closer scrutiny. The sonnet to Storm’s Pharsalia-translation, and, perhaps, the ‘Beggars’-Vesper’, testify that Vondel reacted almost immediately to the events of 1618–19. His poems on Erasmus and his elegy on Vorstius with their anti-orthodox subtext show him as a sympathizer to the Arminian cause, to which his own beliefs corresponded quite closely during these years.29 Such a positioning is affirmed by the dedications of Vondel’s major works of this period, which are all addressed to leading members of the pro-Remonstrant patriciate, like burgomaster C. P. Hooft, the dedicatee of Jerusalem destroyed, who, although now deprived of real political influence, was still considered a moral authority by many, and Laurens Reael, the dedicatee of Praise of Navigation. Thus, in a move both provocative and self-protective, he emphasized the ties linking the poets of the Blaeu circle to the regent patriciate, while at the same time stepping forward to present himself as the most vocal spokesman for this group. 5 . 2  ‘ V E N G E A N C E , P O L I T I C A L FA C T I O N S , AND SANGUINARIA CONSILIA’ It was therefore probably not by accident that Vondel was to be the poet who would dramatize the death of Oldenbarnevelt in a tragedy that would earn him instant fame and notoriety. According to Brandt, Vondel was approached by the alderman Albert Coenraetsz Burgh who, despite the fact that he had obtained his position in the Amsterdam magistracy as a result of Maurits’s intervention, saw the execution of the advocate as a gross injustice. When Vondel answered that the time was not yet ripe, Burgh replied: ‘then do it under another name’.30 The famous ‘Amersfoort edition’ of the play (Rotterdam, 1705), which contains many explanatory notes by Brandt, suggests that Vondel was prompted to write a tragedy about Palamedes by Oldenbarnevelt’s son-in-law, Cornelis van der Myle. The material, from which Mr. Vondel made the tragedy titled Palamedes was first drafted in prose by the specialist of history and literature Johannes Meursius, professor at the University of Leiden, on the express request of Mr. Van der Myle, son-in-law to Barnevelt, and thereafter put in rhyme by Vondel who, being at that time still inexperienced in the Greek histories, has described several things obscurely and confusedly.31 29 Vondel, Twee zeevaart-gedichten, i. 51.    30 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 92–3. 31  I. Vondelens Palamedes, introduction.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

199

That Vondel must have received some help in dealing with the Latin, and especially the Greek sources, is indeed apparent from the introduction, which, apart from offering the reader an interpretative key to the play, quotes or summarizes a host of lesser-known Greek and Roman authors, with whom it is unlikely that Vondel, who was at this point in time only beginning his study of the classics, was already familiar. Throughout 1625 Vondel worked on the text of the Palamedes. Legend has it that, while he was working in his study, his wife called out that the Prince lay dying, to which Vondel replied ‘let him die, I will sound his funeral bells’.32 On 23  April Maurits died, and in October of the same year, Palamedes, or innocence murdered appeared from the presses of Calom (Figure 9). The play immediately caused a stir. Friend and foe alike seemed surprised by the audacity of Vondel, who had brought out the play under his own name. A  letter from Nicolaes van Grevinckhoven to his colleague Peter Cupus, at that time imprisoned at Loevesteijn, dated 27 November, indicates the speed with which copies of the play had made their way to the Remonstrant community of Friedrichstadt. The tone of the letter is one of jubilant, almost breathless enthusiasm: Honourable, prudent and pious D. Petrus Cupus, loyal servant Christi and prisoner of the Lord at the castle of Loevesteijn. Recently we have acquired some copies of a tragedy, Palamedes, made by J. Vanden Vondel, printed at Amsterdam: praise to such spirits, utinam Romam trecentos tales haberet! The whole procedure against the L[ord Advocate], is therein related ad vivum, and denounced for a parricide etc., but if this will be allowed to pass, and that man to get away with it unharmed, it will be much.33

Others, however, were more cautious. In a letter to Vezekius, Niëllius stressed the need for caution: in Rotterdam, orders have been renewed to disturb Remonstrant conventions and arrest Remonstrant preachers ‘for when Israel’s deliverance from captivity in Egypt was near, Pharaoh’s cruelty waxed greater’: This does not make me afraid: but I am more concerned about the publication of Palamedes; of which many lords will take great offence, and will consider it as another shining torch, very much like the fiery column that stands before its title. The poem, I think, is weighty and full of meaning. Sed an satis prudenter an satis pie, et an fructuose huiusmodi dentati scripti nunc temporis in lucem emittuntur vehementer dubito. Nostri Calchantes shall know well how to abuse this against us and against our whole cause, to goad the Regents on to all severity, as if all of us aspire to nothing else but vengeance, political factions and sanguinaria consilia. And with this the others will attempt to 32 Brandt, J. van Vondels Leven, 22; Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 94–5. 33 ‘Waerde, voorsienige, godtvruchtige D. Petrus Cupus, getrouwe dienstknecht Christi, ende gevangene in den Heere, op ’t slot van Loevestein. Onlangs hebben wij bier becomen eenige exemplaren van een treur-spel, Palamedes, gemaeckt bij J. vanden Vondel, gedruckt tot Amsterdam: lof moeten sulcke geesten hebben; utinam Roma trecentos tales haberet! de gansche procedure tegen den H(eer Advocaet), wert daerin ad vivum verhaelt, ende wtgekreten voor een vadermoorderie etc.; maer sal dat so door den beugel mogen, ende comt die man onverseert daerop, ’t sal veel sijn.’ Nicolaas Grevichoven to Petrus Cupus, 27 Nov. 1625. J. F. M. Sterck, Vondelbrieven uit de XVIIe eeuw aan en over de dichter (Amsterdam: Wereldbibliothek, 1935), 36–7; J. H.W. Unger, ‘Vondeliana (IV) Palamedes’, Oud Holland, 6 (1888), 51–67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

200

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

cover all harshness that is used against us. And it shall be heard said that this is the signal of a new conspiracy. I would rather see that from our side, only peaceful, mild and pious writings were brought forth. For I cannot see what good, for our good cause, or for the benefit of the fatherland will be obtained by increasing discord and animosities. They are great enough already. Nec tamen respiciendum erat quid adversarii audire mereantur, quam quid nos loqui deceat. Yet we cannot prevent that the people, who are outside, cry out what they see fit.34

One month later, again in a letter to Vezekius, Niëllius shows himself primarily relieved that nobody would believe that the play had been written by a member of the Remonstrant community, ‘for they would have taken that very ill of us’. Yet, he writes, I am very much surprised that Vondel has dared to attach his real name to the Palamedes, as he so boldly and aggressively attacks the judges in the preface, and in the rest of the work, sparing neither Agamemnon nor others. I was thoroughly convinced that the name of the author and the printer had been fabricated, being unable to imagine that anyone would dare to claim such writing for his own.35

He finds it highly surprising that Vondel has been allowed to get away with it, an indication, perhaps, that the times are changing. In the meantime all this publicity has only served to make people more eager, so that the printer had to bring forth a second issue as the first had sold out. Meanwhile, Niëllius writes, ‘a new edition, without name of place or printer, has already been sent to me from Gorcum by Adriaen Helmichsen, together with the Hecuba of the same author, that has nothing similar to Palamedes in it, and this second edition is in  a smaller font, but taken word for word from the Amsterdam copy. . . . I 34  ‘Den Eerw. Godts. seer geleerde M. Vezekio, gevangene Jesu Christi op Loevesteyn. Ick denck dat U. E. al verstaen heeft dat die van Rotterdam wederom last ontf angen hebben van de vergaderingen to stooren ende de Predicanten to vanghen. Doe Israels verlossinghe wt de Aegyptische slavernij seer nabij was, begost Pharao sijne wreetheijt te vermeerderen. Dit en brenght mij gheen groote schrick en: maer ben meer becommert over het wtgeven van Palamedes; daer veele Heeren haer grotelijks in sullen stooren, ende sullen ’t achten voor een tweede brandende fackel, gelijck oock de vurige colomme voor op den titel staat. Het poema dunct mij tref felijck ende sinrijck gedaen. Sed an satis prudenter an satis pie, et an fructuose huiusmodi dentata scripta nunc temporis in lucem emittuntur vehementer dubito. Nostri Calchantes sullen dit seer tegen ons en onse gantsche sake misbruijcken, om de Regeerders op to wecken ende tot alle hardigheijt aen to hitsen. De Rechters van Palamedes een vreese aen jagende, alsoff wij alle te samen niet als wraecksucht, politique factien ende sanguinaria consilia en respireerden. En hiermede sullen de anderen alle de hardigheijt willen bedecken die men tegen ons gebruijckt. Ende men sal roepen dat dit een voorbode is van nieuwe conspiratie. Ick soude liever sien, dat van onse zijde niet dan vreedsame, sachtmoedighe, stichtelijcke schriften wtquamen.Want ick niet en can sien wat goets noch voor onse goede sake noch tot voordeel  van ’t vaderlandt daer mede wtgerecht wordt, dat men tweedrachten ende verbitteringhen ­vermeerdert. Die meer als groot genoech sijn. Nec tamen respiciendum erat quid adversarii audire mereantur, quam quid nos loqui deceat. Doch wij en connen niet verhinderen,dat de luyden, die buijten sijn, wtbersten wat haer belieft 1.’ Carolus Niëllius to N.  Vezekius, 9 Nov. 1625, Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 34–5. 35  ‘Ick ben seer verwondert geweest to verstaen, dat Vondelen sijn rechte naem voor Palamedes heeft durven stellen, daer hij in praefatione so grof f ende tastelijck de Rechters aentast, ende in het geheel werck noch Agamemnon noch andere en spaert. Ick meende ganschelyck dat de naem van den autheur ende drucker gefingeert waren, mij niet connende inbeelden, dat ymant soude durven sulcken schrift voor het sijne bekennen.’ Niëllius to Vezekius, 12 Dec. 1625, Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 37–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

201

have sent it back to the book-seller, so that he should not think that I approve of such writings’.36 The printing history of the Palamedes appears to demonstrate the relative impotence of censorship laws in the Dutch Republic. For while the book was prohibited and ordered to be taken out of the shops, no less than seven editions of the play would appear in the following months.37 In November, Nicolaas van Reigersberch wrote to Grotius to inform him about a play, published in Amsterdam, wherein recent events were nakedly revealed. As the play is prohibited, he claims, I have not been able to get hold of it, but later he seems to have obtained his copy, writing to Grotius that the play was well made, and read by many.38 Soon, a warrant for Vondel’s arrest was issued by the Hof van Holland. Ominously, the author was charged with lèse majesté. Had he been extradited to The Hague, Vondel could have expected a harsh sentence, exile and forfeiture of goods, or even death.39 Believing his life to be in danger, Vondel fled to the house of his sister Clementia (Clemensken), who received him less than cordially, blaming him for his writing mania. ‘I will tell those people the truth more sharply’, he replied, and penned a few more poems, which he eventually burned at her request, something which he later regretted.40 Feeling unwelcome in his sister’s home, Vondel took refuge at the house of Laurens Baeck, whose family took him in, as he was later to write, ‘when friends and family turned their back on me’.41 Here he decided to wait until the storm had died down. The Amsterdam authorities, meanwhile, were divided on how to proceed. Adriaan Pauw, son of Reinier Pauw, insisted that Vondel should be handed over to the Hof van Holland. For the burgomasters, however, this would be too flagrant a breach of the town’s privileges. As Andries Bicker declared: ‘if our citizens are extradited to The Hague, what is there still to do for us here?’42 Despite the pressure from Pauw, the decision was taken to try Vondel before the court of Burgomasters and aldermen. To his good fortune, he had sympathizers among the aldermen, such as Gerrit Dircksz van Beuningen, Dirck Tholinx, a brother-in-law of Hooft, and Jacob Jacobsz Hinlopen, for whose marriage Vondel had written an epithalamium. One of the aldermen, however, the Contra-Remonstrant Jan Gijsbrechtsz de Vries, found a fine far too mild a punishment, and was supposed to have said that ‘if I had the legal means to do it, Vondel would not do it again’, for which 36  ‘Want omdat de exemplaeren van de eerste druck over al naerstigh opgesocht sijn, so beef t men ’t nu ten tweeden mael op de perse geleyt, ende de tweede druck sonder naem van plaets of drucker, is mij alrede van Gorcum door Adriaen Helmichsen toegesonden met de Hecuba van den selven autheur, die niets in en heeft, dat met Palamedes gemeenschapSterck, beef t, ende dese tweede druck is cleijnder letter, maer van woordt to woorde nae d’Amsterdamsche copije voltrocken, ende staet noch daer voren de selve copere plaet. Ick hebbe se aen den boeckvercoper wederom gesonden, opdat hij niet en meijne dat ick sulcke schrif ten approbeere.’ Carolus Niellius to M. Vezekius, 12 Dec. 1625, Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 37–8. 37 Vondel, WB ii, Introduction, 17. For an overview of all Palamedes edns, see J. H. W. Unger, Bibliografie van Vondels werken (Amsterdam: Frederik Muller, 1888), 36–44. 38 Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 35.    39 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 96. 40 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 99. 41  Vondel, ‘Danckdicht aen Jacob Baeck, Rechtsgeleerde’, WB ii. 390–2; Brandt, J. van Vondel’s Leven, 25. 42 Vondel, WB ii, Introduction, 17, Brandt, J. van Vondel’s Leven, 24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

202

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Vondel was later to reward him with a nasty epitaph.43 In the end, he was sentenced to a fine of 300 guilders which, although a substantial sum, was a mild punishment—a ‘whipping with a fox’s tail’, as was said. One of Vondel’s friends, Cornelis Gijsbertsz Plemp, coined a Latin epigram in which he poked fun at Vondel’s ‘missed opportunity’ to get rich by ingratiating himself with Maurits.44 In a second poem, Plemp contrasts the reward received by Pauw with the 300 guilder fine incurred by Vondel—it is strange, the poet muses, how unequally similar deeds are rewarded: both had elevated Barnevelt’s head; one through the cutting steel, the other through resounding verse (with a play on the dual meaning of sustulit: to elevate, to take off/take away).45 Yet Vondel, he elsewhere writes, should rest assured, if writing Palamedes has cost him 300 guilders, he should sell the fame of his work to Seneca, he would pay more for it.46 Another laudatory poem by an author named Q. D. C. V. praises Vondel’s intrepid ascension on the ‘slippery stairs’ of true knowledge to the summit of eternal fame. In all your poems, the author claims, I have found things that touch true religion, but Palamedes, ‘the pearl of your poems’, is singled out for particular praise. Even though the ministers have taken offence at the work and are inciting the people against him, Vondel should not be daunted, for a clear conscience, a constant mind, can be assailed, but can never be harmed by envy. Thus, Vondel, the physi­ cian of his country’s ills, is enjoined to continue his work: ‘Scratch open old sores, make bandages for the wounds’. If he will incur the hatred of the wicked, the ­favour of the virtuous will also grow, for ‘what grows in truth eventually bears the most beautiful fruits’.47 The poem allows us to catch a glimpse of the backlash that followed the publication of Palamedes. The play, we read, was denounced as an impious libel, an ­offence to the pious, ‘a stench of polluted waters’ and a ‘most noxious weed’. Poems and ballads against the book and its author soon appeared. Some of them, such as the crudely debasing ‘Joost Wails for his Grandfather’ (Bestevaer, or grandfather, an affectionate epithet sometimes used by the supporters of the Advocate, occurring frequently in Vondel’s poems on Oldenbarnevelt) deliberately seek to deflate the 43 Leendertz, Leven van Vondel, 100. 44  ‘AD JUSTUM VONDELIUM / Mauritio Locuple cum posses esse tragoedus / Jure trucidatum, Juste, notando / canem.Ter centum nummum jacturum, morio, mactans Berneoveltiaden in Palamede, facis’, WB ii, Introduction, 19. On Vondel’s friendship with Plemp, see J. F. M. Sterck, Oud en nieuw over Joost van den Vondel (Amsterdam: De spiegel/Mechelen: Het Kompas, 1932), 107–17. 45  ‘Cur Pavo pretium florenos mille ducentos? / Berneoveltiadis sustulit ille caput. / Contra Vondelio cur aufert mulcta trecentos? / Berneveltiadis sustulit iste caput. / Quis (malum!) hic est error causa diversus eadem? / Sustulit ille secans ferro; iste levans sermon diserto, / Atque Sophocleis vel supra astra sonis / Haud parili meritis pensantur praemia lance; / Sunt bona saepe malis; sunt mala saepe bonis’, WB ii, Introduction, 19. 46  ‘Scripta Vondelio pereunt Palamede trecenti / Vendatur Senecae fama ea; pluris emet’, WB ii, Introduction, 20. 47 ‘Krab oude zeeren op: maeck playsters tot de wonden, / Vermeedert booswichts haat? Der vroomen gunst ook / groeyt / ’t draagt verr’ de schoonste vrucht, ’t geen door de warheyt bloeyt’, Anon., Aen den E.E. Welgeleerden Joost van den Vondelen, betreffende syn Palamedes (1625); also in Apollo’s Harp, 140.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

203

play’s high-sounding claims about the loss of liberty and justice, by pointing out its author’s crass pecuniary motives: Vondel had hoped to write a real prize-winner, a saucy play that would earn him three times as much as his shop. Now that he is rewarded with a 300 guilder fine, he wails crocodile’s tears, complaining that the liberty of the land is lost. Yet the ignorance of people is such that they swallow whatever flows from this poet’s pen—let Vondel but fart, the Arminian will say ‘Amen’.48 More menacing is the tone of ‘The Reformed Momus, to I. V. Vondel about his Palamedes’, a twelve-couplet ballad signed by ‘Momus the chimney sweeper’. Momus is here brought to the stage in his dual nature as god (or in this reading, demon) of deception and scourge of deceivers, and in this function ‘Momus the chimney sweeper’ unmasks Vondel the deceiver. It is all too obvious, Momus claims, that Palamedes allowed you to ‘stab at hearts, insult the teaching of Christ, and stain the honour of our land’.49 The ballad employs the familiar tactic used to discredit the Arminians and their political supporters, by accusing them of complicity in the conspiracy of 1623. ‘Your Palamedes’ son’, the poet threatens, ‘who did he intend to murder’? The ballad is conspicuously inter-textual, quoting ‘On Holland’s Latest Transformation’, and alluding twice, at the beginning as well as at the end of the poem, to the ‘statue’. In doing so it touched a sensitive spot. In the introduction to the play, Vondel had defended the authorial decision to have Palamedes honoured with a statue in the temple of Themis with an ­appeal to poetic licence. The author of ‘The Reformed Momus’ exposes this element of ambiguity as downright duplicity, connecting the fictitious statue to Slatius’s ‘Brutus to Holland’ and thus rekindling the old accusation that Vondel was the author of the notorious ‘murder libel’.50 This was exactly the backlash which the Remonstrant leadership had feared. Niëllius’s concerns that people would believe the play to be another Bright-shining Torch were thus far from ­unfounded. Contra-Remonstrant polemicists were only too eager to draw out similarities—real or imagined—between Vondel’s play and the murder pamphlets of Slatius. 5.3   M A S K I N G A N D U N M A S K I N G : M A C H I AV E L L I A N P L OT T I N G A N D T H E L I B E RT I E S O F T H E L A N D Like Coster’s Iphigenia, Vondel’s Palamedes exploits the imagery of masking and unmasking for political purposes. Whereas the fabula of the play is a pièce-à-clef, a highly topical allegory on the death of Oldenbarnevelt, its preliminaries thematize the idea of allegoresis, using allegory to explain allegory. Vondel sets out 48  ‘Soo dat hy oock op rijm een veest intween gingh legghen, / ‘k Wedd’ d’ Arminianen daer op souden AMEN segghen.’ Anon., Joost huylt over sen Bestevaer (Amsterdam, 1625). 49  ‘Eerts-aerdighe Poët, / hoe treflijck kont ghy speelen / Met uwen Palameed / Steken nae herten keelen / Beschimpen Christi Leer / Bekladden ons Lands eer; / Dit kondt ghy niet verheelen.’ Den Gereformeerden Momus aen I.V.VONDELEN Op zynen Palamedes (1625), sig. A1v. 50 Anon., Den gereformeerde Momus aan I.V. Vondelen op zijnen Palamedes (Amsterdam, 1625).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

204

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

by emphasizing the general applicability of the Palamedes story, making him an exemplar of the virtuous statesman who falls victim to hatred and slander. But the fiction of universal exemplarity becomes increasingly difficult to sustain: From among the ancients the Greek Palamedes, whom we bring unto the Dutch stage, can stand as testimony: For as he, under the false accusation of having nego­ tiated with the enemy and having taken bribes, made hateful to the common people, and, to the loss and destruction of all Greece, had been so treacherously murdered by Agamemnon and Ulysses, so have his innocence and justice, after the lies and calumnies had been dispersed, worked to the disgrace and destruction of his murderers and executioners . . . (ll. 1–35)51

The knowledge that posterity would honour their names, Vondel continues, has been of no little solace and comfort to the just and the virtuous, enabling them to weather storms and tribulations with constancy, as is shown by the example of ‘patient Socrates’, who, when condemned and sentenced to death ‘because he thought differently about the Greek gods’, said that he comforted himself with the example of Palamedes, who after his death, was honoured more than Ulysses who had unjustly taken his life’ (ll. 49–58). For anyone to whom the analogy Palamedes-Socrates-Oldenbarnevelt is not yet apparent, Vondel further elucidates the significance of Palamedes: As my tragic muse was desirous to write something remarkable, she chose Palamedes, a man highly praised by Greek and Latin authors. Diogenes Laërtius testifies in the life of Socrates that Euripides, that sage poet and divine tragedian, in bringing his Palamedes on stage, thus veiled, reproached the Athenians their murderousness in the killing of Socrates. (ll. 65–73)52

Propped up by his classical sources, Vondel takes the opportunity to vent his anger at the death of Oldenbarnevelt freely, translating into verse some lines from Philostratus’s Heroicus: You have, o Greek horde! in your fury Murdered the sweet-sounding nightingale A muse whose counsel was sought in all A sage who never caused misfortune And wholly blindfolded indeed Through the insolent mendacity 51  WB ii. 620: ‘Onder de overoude kan hier van getuygen de Griecxsche Palamedes, dien wy op het Neerlandsche tooneel brenghen: Want na dat hy so schendigh onder het decxsel van met den vyand ghehandelt, en penningen genoten te hebben, by ’t gemeene volck hatelyck gemaeckt, en door Agamemnon en Ulysses, tot eene onherhaelijcke schade, en bederf van gants Grieckenland vermoort was, soo heeftsijne onnooselheyd, en oprechtigheyd, na het verdwynen der logenen, en lasteringen hoe langs hoe meer, tot schande en verstroyinghe sijner beulen, en moordenaeren . . .’ 52  WB ii. 621: ‘Als myne treursangeres toghtigh was om yet wat treffelycx te rijmen, soo heeftse Palamedes uytgepickt, een’ man die by Griecxsche, en Latynsche schryvers soo hoogh geroemt word. Diogenes Laërtius getuyght in het leven van Socrates, dat Euripides, de wyse dichter, en Goddelycke treurspeelder, sijnen Palamedes op het tooneel brengende, die van Athenen hunne moordadigheyd, gepleeght in het ombrengen van Socrates, bedecktelyck aldus verweten heeft: Ektanet’ ektanete tan pansophon tan ouden algunousan adona mousan.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

205

Of a cruel tyrant’s hostility Committed such an accursed deed. (ll. 77–84)53

Even when appealing to his tragic muse, Vondel could not touch upon the death of the Advocate without resorting to polemics. That the figure of Oldenbarnevelt loomed large in Palamedes’ shadow, is evident, too, from the way in which Vondel treats his sources, carefully selecting them to fit a narrative in which the military despot Agamemnon/Maurits plays a decisive role. Although there is a consensus, Vondel writes, ‘that Ulysses and Diomedes were the villains responsible for setting this trap, it is worth mentioning what Dictys testifies: namely that Agamemnon was not ignorant of it, for he cherished the supreme command of the army, while the majority wished to be ruled by Palamedes, and said openly that the supreme command should be his’ (Voor-reden, ll. 150–8).54 ‘The same Dictys’, he continues, ‘elsewhere writes that the Greek princes cursed Agamemnon, and turned away from him, because he refused to give back to the priest of Apollo his daughter Chryseis, who he abused for his base lusts, and also because Ulysses and Diomedes, not without his advice, take note had murdered Palamedes, who was so well-loved and popular with the army’ (Voor-reden, ll. 157–62).55 If the Introduction to Palamedes aims to evoke Oldenbarnevelt through Palamedes, the Contents do so in an even less covert way. Palamedes is here depicted as a prince whose wisdom and prudence have made him indispensable to the Greek leaders. But as he was stern, and inflexible in protecting the sovereign powers, charters and liberties of princes and towns, he could yet not tread so carefully, that Agamemnon would not deceive himself into believing that his honour was somewhat detracted from, or not enhanced as it should be, by this man, which made him resentful of him, and, perceiving this, the priests, and Calchas in particular, tried to nourish this resentment in Agamemnon, because the people believed themselves in no mean way offended in matters that concern the religion and their position and status. (Inhoud, ll. 7–15).56 53  WB ii. 622: ‘Ghy hebt, o Griecksche schaer! Verstoort / Den soeten nachtegael vermoort; / Een’ Sanggodin, in all’s versocht, En wys, die geen verdriet aenbroght: / En hebt geblinddoeckt altemael, / Door d’onbeschaemde logentael / Eens wreên tirans vol bitterheyd, / Bedreven soo vervloeckt een feyt.’ The reference is to Flavius Philostratus, Heroicus. 11: [ja≠] ]≈si peirhåmse| mhq›p{ ja≠ maide¥ sa’sa dqreiam. 54  WB ii. 625: ‘Immers watter van is, Ulysses en Diomedes worden na het alghemeen ghevoelen voor de schelmen gh houden, die desen aenslagh gebrouwen hebben: waer by aenmerckenswaerdigh is het geen Dictys getuygt, datter waren die seyden: dat Agamemnon niet onkundigh was van desen aenslagh, uyt liefde die hy hadde tot het veldheerschap; en om dat het meestendeel van Palamedes begeerde geregeert te wesen, en opentlijck uyt seyden, dat hem het opperste ghebied toe-quam.’ 55  WB ii. 625: ‘De selve Dictys schrijft elders: dat alle de Griecksche vorsten Agamemnon vervloeckten, en van hem afweecken, om dat hy Apolloos priester Chryses sijne dochter, die hy wellusts halven misbruyckte, weygerde, en oock om dat Ulysses en Diomedes, niet sonder sijnen raed, let hier op, hadden vermoord Palamedes, die in den heyre so bemind, en aengenaem was.’ 56  WB iii. 631: ‘Maer alsoo hy ghestrengh, en onbuyghelijck was, in ’t voorstaen van der vorsten, en steden hoogheden, handvesten, en gherechtigheden, soo kon hy; ’t soo8- nau niet micken, of Agamemnon liet sich duncken dat sijne eer door desen man of eenighsins ghequetst, of niet na behooren ghevoordert werd, waer door hy eenen afkeer van hem kreegh: het welck de priesters,en wichelaers, en insonderheyd Calches, ghewaer wordende, sochten dien onlust by Agamemnon te voeden, alsoo sylieden sich in saken die den Godsdienst, en hunne hoogheyd en hayligheyd betroffen, niet weynigh ghequetst hielden’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

206

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

To sustain the parallel, Vondel inevitably needs to take liberties with his sources. While Dictys’s history of the Trojan War describes how Palamedes was thrown into a well and stoned to death by Ulysses and Diomedes, in Vondel’s tragedy it is the people, incited by Calchas and his priests, who execute Palamedes. As Elida Szarota has pointed out, the description of Palamedes’s stoning calls to mind the martyrdom of St Stephen57 As a figure for Oldenbarnevelt, St Stephen, who had attacked the Sanhedrin, calling them ‘men uncircumcised of heart and ears’ and accused them of having murdered the Messiah (Acts 7: 2–56), was particularly apt. Yet the image of a stone-throwing mob has another more direct association which historians have failed to pick up, but which contemporaries were unlikely to miss, namely that of the Contra-Remonstrant mobs, whom Vondel in the Rumbling Pot of the Walk called ‘St Stephen’s Beggars’, throwing stones to break up Remonstrant church services.58 In the pamphlet literature, ‘Zealot’ and ‘Pharisee’ are often used as tropes for the Contra-Remonstrants, encapsulating many of the reproaches levelled at them by their opponents: clinging to the letter of the law and blindness to the higher law of charity, intractability, zeal, hypocrisy, and seditiousness. In his poetry, Vondel had used, and would continue to use, such stereotypes. But in the Palamedes, the central role of Calchas and his priests in the execution of the hero equally serves to underline the role of the Contra-Remonstrants in bringing about Oldenbarne­ velt’s death. The dramatic climax, which here precedes the tragic climax—the execution of the sentence—brings these different strands together, as the frenzied mob cries ‘yes’ to Thersites’ question, ‘Should Palamedes the traitor die?’, and Calchas turns to the judges with the words: ‘This is the voice of God / Now, you judges, lend your ears, and accept the people’s will / or incur the wrath of the Gods’ (4.3.1754–8).59 The satirical, and indeed libellous, element of Palamedes has been recognized from the moment its text saw the light of day. The allusions to Maurits, Van Aerssen, the judges, the attack on the Calvinist clergy and the doctrine of predestination were simply too obvious, and indeed, as we learn from the notes in the ‘Amersfoort edition’, many people, including Reinier Pauw and Jacob Trigland, felt personally offended.60 One can only imagine with what eagerness contemporaries, friend and foe alike must have nosed through the book, hunting for more scandalous and titillating allusions to the events of 1618–19. The ‘Amersfoort edition’, while canon­ izing the play as a key work of the Oldenbarnevelt-myth thus also met a distinct need in furnishing the first authoritative key to the play, as well as comments ‘taken down from the poet’s own words’. The passage in which the compiler of these

57 Maria Elida Szarota, ‘Vondels Palamedes’, in Szarota, Künstler, Grübler und Rebellen (Bern/ Munich: Franken Verlag, 1967), 274–85, 285. 58 Vondel, Rommel-pot vant hane-kot, WB iii. 115–23. 59  WB iii. 724: Thers: Wat seydter ’t leger toe? koomt geef uw oordeel dra / Sal Palameed de landverrader sterven? Rey: Ja. Calches: Dat is de stemme Goods. ghy rechters neyght uwe ooren, / En stemt met uw’ gemeent, of vreest der Goden tooren. 60  I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 54, 74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

207

notes, Geeraerdt Brandt, elucidates the way to read the play, is revealing and ­ deserves to be quoted in full: There are two characters in this play, who beyond any doubt personify one man: Palamedes the Advocate, Agamemnon, the Prince, whom he . . . makes say things that touch on the times of the Greek Palamedes, something which also happens in all the other characters, who each embody more than one [character]. Ulysses here personifies two persons, first the Lord of Sommelsdijk, François van Aerssen, as the most crafty, the most deadly enemy of the Advocate and second, one of the Regents; for we know that he was never a member of that jury. Through Diomedes the Poet has wanted to show several people, Count Willem Lodewijk of Nassau, the Lord of Duiven­ voorde, and simultaneously one of the Regents. Thersites means Gerrit Beukelsz. van Zanten, of Delft, one of the judges. Through Nestor the least partial members of the jury members are depicted, in particular the Councillor Adrianus Junius. The twentyfour are here represented by four. In Ajax he represented the Lords of Schagen and Asperen, who worked for the advocate’s cause, and tried to liberate him; through Oates his children and kin, who sought to save him, through Calchas and Eurypilus, the most fiery Contra-Remonstrant ministers, who, as the Poet thought, with insults and calumnies, did everything in their might to make the Advocate hated and bring him down. Through the chorus of Peloponnesians and Ithacans, he gave voice to the enemies of the Advocate, the Contra-Remonstrants, and through the chorus of the Euboeans, to the Remonstrants. Through Priam, Hecuba and the chorus of Trojan virgins, the Archdukes Albertus, Isabella, and furthermore the entire Spanish party, enemies of Holland and of the United Netherlands, are drawn. Megaera and Sisyphus were infernal demons, who supplied Oldenbarnevelt’s enemies with the means, with which they could eliminate him.61

The explanatory footnotes to the ‘Amersfoort edition’ are not always accurate and, indeed, sometimes simply incorrect. Yet more than in factual accuracy, their interest lies in what they tell us about the reception of the play, and the way it shows Palamedes to be a consummately inter-textual work. While the play elevates the cheap print spawned by the crisis of 1617–18 and the execution of Oldenbarne­ velt to a higher level, it is nevertheless in this polemical literature that the play is  rooted. A careful reading of the text yields a myriad of allusions, references, and quotations. Like the Iphigenia, it also comprises the rhetoric and imagery of anti-Calvinist polemics and anti-predestinarian satire, of legal texts such as Oldenbarnevelt’s Remonstrance, and the song and elegies in memory of Oldenbarnevelt. Frequently they refer to visual material, to prints and engravings like Holland’s latest transformation, the Righteous sieve, or to the realm of oral culture and to the numerous stories, legends, and fables generated by the trial and its aftermath, and for which Palamedes, and the explanatory notes of the Amersfoort edition, sometimes appear to be the only source. Another important source is Coster’s Iphigenia. While Palamedes takes up many themes, ideas, and even names, from Coster’s play, the reception of the Iphigenia was shaped by Vondel’s play, as well as vice versa. Not only did Coster alter the division of spoken text in the editions of 1626 and 1630, giving the role of Palamedes more prominence; it would appear that, under the 61  I. v. Vondels Palamedes, fos. **3–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

208

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

influence of the controversy sparked by that play, readers started to read Iphigenia retrospectively as alluding to the trial of Oldenbarnevelt. In a copy of the quarto edition of 1617, a seventeenth-century hand has written down the following identification:62 Achillis Agamemnon Uytenbogaert/Calchas Menelaus Protesilaus Thersites Gomarus/Euripylus Palamedes Nestor Chorus of Greeks Ulysses Iphigenia Clytaemnestra Diana

the Prince the States General Remonstrants doubters Cromhout Ledenberch judges Contra-Remonstrants Bernevelt Mouser Ambass. France Hollanders Aerssen, Muys and Pauw the Batavian virgin ancestral virtue false religion

As in Coster’s Iphigenia, finally, the play moves beyond direct topicality in employing dramatic and structural devices to outline different political, religious, and legal positions, using the opposition between Palamedes’ constancy and integrity and the devious plotting of his enemies to expose the reason of state arguments that had been used to break law and custom during Oldenbarnevelt’s trial. As in Coster’s Iphigenia, Ulysses plays the role of the stage Machiavel, the plotter whose machinations set off the chain of events that will lead to the death of Palamedes. Like all the opponents of Palamedes, he is driven by private passion, for he has long harboured a bitter grudge against Palamedes, who exposed his feigned madness, and so obliged him to take part in the expedition to Troy. He feels his reputation diminished by Palamedes, whose tact won him the support of the Thracians, with which the starving Greek army could be fed, while Ulysses had to return empty-handed—an allusion, probably, to the downfall of Aerssen’s diplomatic career, and his subsequent animosity towards Oldenbarnevelt. Vengeance, indeed, seems to be the primary emotion that unites Palamedes’ ­enemies against him, as both the priesthood and the commander of the army seek to satisfy their thwarted ambitions by exacting revenge on the man who has stood in their way. Yet among Palamedes’ opponents, Ulysses stands alone to the extent that he knows and understands the motives of others. Ulysses’ superior perceptive powers, characteristic of the stage Machiavel, allow him to predict that the plot against Palamedes will succeed. Ulysses knows when time and occasion have come to strike, as both the commander of the army and the priesthood are on his side (2.2.449–54), and a smear campaign has undermined Palamedes’ credit and reputation (2.2.486–7). He knows, moreover, that a trial will mean a death sentence, 62  Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, ethicus didacticus (Groningen|: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1986), 343–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

209

for Agamemnon will choose the judges, and his word will override law and custom. Ulysses predicts that Agamemnon will resort to reason of state arguments to force through an illegal sentence, and indeed does so in words that Agamemnon will almost literally repeat. In Agamemnon, Vondel has drawn a Machiavel of an even more sinister nature. Palamedes has always been loyal to Agamemnon, and even defended his rights against usurpers (an allusion to the period when the orthodox Calvinists supported Leicester against Maurits), yet, as Ulysses explains, it is not in the commander’s nature to remember services rendered, while an affront or insult incurred ‘strikes deep roots in his vindictive heart’ (2.2.573–7). Palamedes’ authority and influence are so great that Agamemnon imagines his own to be diminished by it, and for this he has sworn to avenge himself on Palamedes, even if it would mean ‘confounding heaven and hell’ (2.2.503–16). Unlike Ulysses, who is dependent on his cunning, Agamemnon pairs the craftiness of the fox with the force of the lion. Only recently he had threatened Palamedes that he would ‘pulverize’ him (Maurits had allegedly used these words during a quarrel with Oldenbarnevelt).63 Particularly revealing, however, is the explanation of Maurits’s rancour against his counsellor: It was Atreus who first subverted the ancient laws of the Greek towns The son desires the fruit of these documents And hopes to graft his laurel shoot unto that tree But Palamedes’ eye has uncovered his ways Is ready for him, and stands guard before he can stir. Therefore the commander’s wrath rages Vengeance that, to bring him down, Abuses the old hatred of the Greek army’s priests Servants of Fate, and fatal necessity. (2.2.577–85)64

The notes in the Amersfoort edition give the following commentary: ‘This refers to the transferring of the authority of count of Holland to Prince William, proposed in the year 1584, but prevented by his death. Of which the sealed letters and undersigning of the cities are still existent: furthermore he means to say that Prince Maurits, vying for that power, was thwarted by the Advocate, and that this was the origin of the Prince’s wrath.’65 Knowing the true nature of Agamemnon’s ambitions, the arguments with which he tries to cloak them are shown to be utterly deceitful. As in Coster’s Iphigenia, Agamemnon shows a tendency to overstep the legal constraints placed upon his power, and often needs to be called into line by Nestor. Agamemnon’s justification that the urgency of the situation warrants extraordinary measures is unconvincing, as the audience knows that Palamedes’ conspiracy is a sham, and

63  Jan Den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt (Haarlem: Tjeen Willink, 1960–72), iii. 745. 64  WB ii. 665: ‘ . . . ’t was Atreus die voorheen / By opdraght onderkroop ’t oud recht der Griecxsche steên. / De Soon vlamt op de vrucht van dese parckementen, / En hoopt syn lauren telg op dese boom te enten: / Maer Palamedes oogh syn gangen onderschept, / En is voor hem gereet, en waeckt eer hy sich rept, / Dies raest ’s krijgsvorsten Wraeck: die om hem te betrapen, / Misbruyckt den ouden haet der Griecxsche legerpapen, / Bedienaers van de nood, en noyt verbeden dwang.’ 65  I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

210

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

because we suspect that Agamemnon knows this, too—a suspicion that is eventually borne out by Agamemnon’s own words (ll. 1629–31). The legal case which the plotters prepare for Palamedes thus occasions a debate about the foundations of justice, law, and political authority. When Ulysses and Diomedes produce a forged letter of king Priam, addressed to Palamedes, Ajax immediately suspects that Palamedes has fallen victim to a plot. Nestor also warns Agamemnon not to give faith to such accusations until they have been thoroughly checked and verified. As Agamemnon attempts to force matters through, accusing Nestor of endangering ‘the common good’, the following stychomythia ensues NESTOR  I support no evil acts, but fear to shed innocent blood AGA.  You do not fear to endanger the State through your leniency NESTOR  The judge who spares many evil-doers to save one innocent soul from the sword, acts justly AGA.  No kingdom can survive in that way NESTOR  In that way it can last forever Justice builds a kingdom’s walls Where violence and iniquity cast them down From every drop of blood of one oppressed, And condemned by treacherous steel, a thousand rancours sprout. They burst out for revenge, whose sword, once drawn, is slow to return to its sheath. He who sheds sacred blood provokes Nemesis. Take heed, And touch not this Hydra. Easy is it to strike off a head But the trial is to destroy the root entirely When the neck breeds many more than one head AGA.  My judgment does not differ from yours herein I kneel for the throne of Themis, as my deeds do show It would be madness out of hatred and malice to bend the law I will not do anything unlawful through lack of consideration Who against the commonalty and the sovereign authority Has not committed any shameful, honourless deed Is not in danger of his life (3.2.854–76)66

How much faith we should lend to these words will become apparent during the interrogation of Palamedes, when only Nestor’s moderating influence prevents the Greek commander from using torture to extract a confession from the accused 66  Nestor: Ick voe niet quaeds, maer vrees onschuldigh bloed te storten Agamemnon: Ghy vreest niet eens den staet door slapheyt te verkorten. Nestor: De rechter handelt wijs, die veel quaeddoenders spaert, / Om eene onnoosle ziel te vryen van het swaerd. Agamemnon: Soo kan geen ryck bestaen. Nestor: So kan het eewigh duuren, / Gerechtigheyd die bout de koninglycke muuren: / Daer onrecht en geweld palaysen ommeruckt, / Van elcken druppel bloeds des geens dieme’ onderdruckt, / En doemt door ’t schendig stael, ontspruyten duysend wrocken, / Die barsten wt tot wraeck: wiens sweerd eens wtgetrocken / Keert langsaem in syn’ schee’ / die hayligh bloed vergiet / Terght Nemesis. / Sie toe, en roer dese hydra niet. / ’T is licht een hoofd gevelt in reuckeloosen tooren: / Maer kunst is ’t, let hier  op, den wortel gants te smooren / Wanneer den hals in plaets van een veele hoofden teelt. Agamemnon:Mijn oordeel van het uw hier inne niet verscheelt. / Ick kniel voor Themis throon, myn’ daeden dat betuygen, / ’T waer dolligheydt het recht wt haet en nyd te buygen. / Ick sal niet wetteloos bestaen door onbescheyd. / Wie tegens ’t algemeen, en d’oppermajesteyt / Sich selven schandelijck, nocht eerloos heeft vergrepen, / Die loopt geen lyfs gevaer. Palamedes, WB ii. 679–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

211

(3.5.1221–50). Yet the full extent of Agamemnon’s perfidy is unveiled only at the very last moment when, ostensibly, he shows his merciful side. When Oates begs the king not to hand his brother over to a jury that consists of his mortal enemies, Agamemnon grants him the right to select another jury member. Oates names Nestor, and Agamemnon agrees ‘that Nestor joins his wisdom to the other three, so that in these proceedings nothing unfair may happen out of anger or partiality’. Then, turning away from Oates in an aside to the audience, he gloats about the prospect of his enemy’s imminent demise: They believe they can undermine our doings through crafty guiles But it is the last gasp; the Euboean’s death throes The plot has been so carefully stitched together and crafted in all That he will not walk away from it, it will cost him his head, The blade will sever it, no matter whether one thinks it right or wrong. If the court were to remain silent, I would cast it a tongue of silent gold. I am tired of that guardian, that head with a hundred eyes And Argos hates Argus, even if it was only for the cow,67 That grazes up to her belly in a fresh clover field. I see, I see, the executioner drawing the sword from its sheath There he stands, the old dog, trembling before the blow There lies his grey pate; the country’s ex-head. (4.2.1646–60)68

Throughout the play, plotting is associated with dissimulation, treachery, and the violation of promises, legal precedent, law, and constitution. The dramatic opposi­ tion between Palamedes and his enemies thus serves to underscore a political division, and Vondel’s Palamedes here aligns with the pamphlet literature in portraying Palamedes/Oldenbarnevelt as the protector of the liberties and privileges of the land: ‘the tongue, mouth and shield of liberty’ (4.1.1448). As in Coster’s Iphigenia the question of the correct exercise of political power lies at heart of the political differences. On this occasion, however, it is not the sovereign’s ius circa sacra that is at issue, but the question whether the sovereign’s power is above the law. Agamemnon claims that, as king, he is not accountable to anyone. Nestor counters that he is accountable to the people, for whose benefit the office of kingship was created (3.2.930–4). The fact that Vondel was bound to depict Agamemnon as a king might create the impression that he advocated a form of constitutional monarchy. This is however not the case. In spite of the obvious difficulty of translating a States party conception of provincial sovereignty in a Greek setting, it is made 67  The cow is a conventional emblem for Holland. 68  ‘Sy wanen ons het werck met listen t’onderkruypen / Maer ’t is de doodsnack, ’t sijn d’Eubeërs laeste stuypen. / De saeck is so doornaeyt, en so beset in all’s / Hy raeckter eer niet af, ’t en kost hem sijnen hals. / De kling die moeter deur, het sy men ’t recht of krom schout: / Ja eer de rechtbanck sweegh ick goot een tong van stom goud: / Dat honderdoogigh hoofd, die wachter ben ick moe / En Argos Argus haet alwaer ’t maer om de koe / Die tot den buyck toe treed in frissche klaverweyde. / Ick sie, ick sie den beul ’t swaerd trecken uyt der scheyde: / Den ouden hondsvot vast staen zidderen voor den slagh: / Daer leyd de grijse kop, ’s Lands uytgedient gesagh.’ Palamedes, WB ii. 719. The Amersfoort edn here reads: ‘these are the very words, which, it is said, Maurits spoke when he saw Barnevelt on the scaffold, awaiting the mortal blow’: I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

212

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

evident that the fundamental conflict concerns the liberties of the Greek towns. If the commander’s power exceeds the limits that have been placed on it, Palamedes argues, it will inevitably lead to a confusion between private possession and common good, and to despotism and the violation of ‘Greece’s ancient laws’ (3.4.1103–14). That Palamedes’ fear is far from unfounded becomes apparent during the exchange between Palamedes and Agamemnon in the following scene which, although not the dramatic climax of the play, is the climax of the conflict on which the fate of the protagonist depends. Palamedes refuses to plead guilty to the charges of treason levelled at him, and, when threatened with torture, warns Agamemnon against the illegality of his actions. Now, for the first time, Agamemnon openly shows his contempt for the laws and liberties of the land: ‘No prince at war cares in the least for anyone’s right, or law’. The privileges, Agamemnon argues, are the ruler’s gift, ‘the ruler orders their return’ (3.5.1203–8). ‘In vain, then’, Palamedes replies, ‘have we boasted, in vain did we wage war to protect them.’ Even your father, he reminds Agamemnon, often said that privileges were of no use, if a citizen could not enjoy them—‘oh you wretched, subjected Greeks!’ (3.5.1209–15). This infuriates Agamemnon even more, as he retorts: ‘We are on enemy soil: my wish, my desire is the law of all Greeks. If anyone thinks my voice but a feeble sound, my sword will make it resonate’ (3.5.1216–18). The allusion, it will be noted, is to ‘On Holland’s Latest Transformation’.69 Vondel’s portrayal of Agamemnon as a power-hungry despot and usurper is daring. Quite a few people in Oldenbarnevelt’s entourage appear to have harboured suspicions that Maurits had ambitions to become sovereign, or that the ContraRemonstrant clergy wanted to promote him to such a position. Oldenbarnevelt, as we have seen, had nevertheless been reluctant to admit as much, and Maurits’s stung reaction suggests the sensitivity of such accusations. Grotius, in his Apologia, the Latin translation of the Defence, had prudently chosen to pass the topic over. Only in the clandestine pamphlet literature, in tracts like the Reveille-Matin and the Bright-shining Torch and, indeed in Palamedes, do we find Maurits drawn ‘in his real colours’ as an aspiring military despot and a subverter of the Republic’s laws and liberties.70 Throughout Palamedes, echoes of the pamphlet literature can be detected. Agamemnon’s own words are utterly damning as they show how he uses the military situation as a pretext to free himself from the constraint of the 69  Agamemnon: Geen oorloogsvorst sigh keert / Aen yemands recht of wet. de vorsten vol en droncken / d’Handvesten nu en dan de Griecxsche steden schoncken: / Hy neemtse diese gaf den volcke in eygendom: / ’t Is heerengift, een heer die eyschtse wederom. / Indiense ons dienstigh sijn, wy willen datse spreecken: / Maer swijgen, soose ons ’t hoofd met tegenstribben breecken. Palamedes: Men heefter dan vergeefs vaeck oorlogh om gevoert / Vergeefs ’t aenpalend rijck sijns nabuurs om beroert, / En ydel op gestoft. uw vader in sijn leven / Sprack dickwils: waer toe ’t recht in parckement geschreven, / Met letters rood van goud, gestarckt met heerlijck wasch: / Wanneer geen burger oyt des sellefs vruchten las, / Nocht deel had aen ’t genot. och overheerde Argiven! Agamemnon: Wy staen op ’s vyands boôm, myn willen, myn believen, / Is aller Griecken wet. acht yemand myne stem / Een’ krachteloosen galm, myn degen geeftse klem. / Nu antwoord op ons vraegh. hier geld geen tegenstreven. Palamedes, WB ii. 697. 70  I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

213

laws. The identification between Oldenbarnevelt and the laws and liberties that we encountered in the pamphlets, as well as in  the elegies and lamentations, is repeated in Palamedes, where the protagonist warns that not he, but the free state of the Greeks, is the real victim of the conspiracy (3.4.1133–8). Against the Machiavellian plotting of his opponents, the Stoic fortitude and constancy of Palamedes stands out in stark contrast. In its depiction of the hero’s agon, his isolation, and the incapacity of his friends to help him, the play shows its debt to Seneca’s Hercules furens, yet in Palamedes the opposition created has a didactic, as well as a dramatic, function in delineating two different attitudes to politics. When Palamedes first appears on stage, he has a strong premonition of the evil that will befall him. During the night he dreamt that the crumbling walls of Troy came down upon him, crushing him to death. He knows that all kinds of rumours are being spread around him, and he justifies his actions to the audience in words that, as Brandt already noticed, echo Oldenbarnevelt’s Remonstrance. The hero is characterized as a peace-loving prince, whose primary concern is the welfare and prosperity of the people. While his fortitude and valour are beyond dispute (at  Abydos, we are told, he risked his own life and sustained serious injuries, 1.1.133––5, an allusion to Oldenbarnevelt’s role in the effort to lift the siege of Haarlem), he freely acknowledges that he, alone among the Greek princes, had always preferred peace over war, exerting himself for the conclusion of a truce and the settlement of the conflict through peaceable means; not because of the goodwill he bears the Trojans, as his enemies now say, but because he knows how heavy a burden war lays on the population (1.1.15–34). Not only has he secured the physical security and material welfare of his people, he has also welcomed and cherished refugees, ‘robbed of hearth and home’. Whereas in his opponents the appeal to public duty serves only to cloak private motive, Palamedes’ words speak of a complete identification with the common good: ‘the freedom of each I hold as dearly as my own’. Knowing that in the eyes of the world he has already been judged as guilty, he appeals to the inner tribunal of his conscience (1.1.157–67). Palamedes’ second monologue rehearses, in rhetorically amplified form, the argument of the opening scene. About to appear before Agamemnon and his future judges, Palamedes resigns himself to his death: Now come, slanderers’ lies, I know my innocence. Come, rancour ripe, come vengeance duly-threatened. My conscience and my good cause are my support I walk towards my death: that it may help the people When I sacrifice my blood to the state. (3.5.1046–50)71

When we situate Vondel’s Palamedes in a wider field of polemical literature generated by the trial and execution of Oldenbarnevelt, the question of whether we should classify the play as as victim tragedy or martyr-drama, as Szarota has maintained, or 71  ‘Koom lasters logentael, ick ken my selven vry. / Koom overjaerde wrock, koom langgedreyghde wraecke. / Ick steun op myn gemoed en op myn’ goede saecke. / Ick stap mijn’ dood te moet: sy streck’ ’tgemeen tot baet, / Als ick mijn bloed vergiet ten offer voor den staet.’ Palamedes, WB ii. 694.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

214

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

whether it is, as the play’s editor, Wijngaards, has claimed, the element of satire which prevails, is shown to be untenable.72 The play’s self-conscious intertextuality does not detract from its essentially dramatic character, and it is in the polemical literature, which itself often employed a tragic idiom, that we first encounter the idea that Oldenbarnevelt died as martyr to the state. 5.4  T H E D E S T RU C T I O N O F T H E T E M P L E : T H E S Y N O D O F D O RT A N D T H E D E AT H O F O L D E N B A R N E V E LT In its depiction of the Greek clergy, Palamedes gestures backward to the anti-­ Calvinist satire of the preceding decade and to Coster’s Iphigenia in particular, and forward, to Vondel’s satirical poetry of the later 1620s. In the dialogue between Calchas and Eurypilus in the third act, one finds the first adumbration of the caricature of the minister with flowing beard and gown and thundering voice, who mistakes pomposity and self-importance for gravity and dignity. Yet on the whole, anti-Calvinist invective is used sparingly, so that it ties in with the dénouement of the plot. Only in the fourth act, when Ajax and Oates have to look on powerlessly while their friend and brother is about to be delivered to his enemies, does Vondel open the valves, allowing Ajax to vent his anger by recounting the unedifying tale of Calchas’s life (4.1.1502–96). The story is told in essentially the same way as in Iphigenia, albeit that the main villain here is Calchas, rather than Eurypilus. Only a couple of years had passed since Coster had staged his controversial play before an audience of ‘people of all sorts’, and undoubtedly words such as ‘turncoat Trojan’ still had a familiar ring to them. Trigland in any case was convinced that this passage contained several direct allusions to his life and career.73 Yet the danger the priesthood presents is no less clearly evoked than in Coster’s play. Indeed what is unveiled about the role of the priesthood in Palamedes’ trial— which at that point is still pending—is utterly damning. When Eurypilus voices his concern that Palamedes—a man of experience and a gifted orator—might still escape punishment (3.2.997–8), Calchas reassures him: the priests will exert their influence to ensure that his enemies will be set over him as judges. Palamedes’ life will be turned upside down and inside out, and old rumours will be resuscitated, dressed up with the suspicion of ‘massacre, treason, and perturbation of the land’ (3.2.1005–6). ‘In his sentence’, he continues, will be written: How boldly he dared to lay his hands on religious matters And, in severing one, cut through all the state’s bonds, Confounding the army with a divided language, Giving birth to a monster, a Hydra of differences 72  Szarota, ‘Vondels Palamedes’, 279–80; J. van den Vondel, Palamedes, ed. N. C. H. Wijngaards (Zutphen, s.a.), Introduction. 73  Ajax describes Calchas as having been born in a village close to a ‘lake’ (Leck) (l. 1510). ‘Hereby, the poet intended the lek, that is, lake, of Geneva, but Triglandius’, the Amersfoort edn explains somewhat sneeringly, ‘believed that it was a dig against at his own person, because he had been a schoolmaster at Vianen at de Lek.’ I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 54.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

215

Of necessity, possibility; of compulsion or will And demands, that in this commotion only his litany Should be heard; through the constraining of the Church, and the compulsion of priests Indeed, giving laws according to which the servants of the altar, Heavenly God-free people, should rule themselves And endorsed the difference between necessity, and compulsion And gave innovations support through authority, Refusing an official assembly of priests, Surrounding his tent with foreign, armed soldiers, Even against the wishes of the commander; and a thousand things more. (3.2.1007–20)74

The alliance between the Contra-Remonstrants and the Prince of Orange is shown to be very much a marriage of convenience. It had once been Palamedes who had defended Agamemnon’s honour and authority when the priests maligned him as a man of disreputable origins.75 Now, however, their hatred of Palamedes has driven them into each other’s arms, and, as the plot against Palamedes gradually unfolds, we see Ulysses’ prediction, that the vengeance of Agamemnon, combined with the hatred of the clergy, will cost Palamedes his head, come true. Palamedes follows Iphigenia in using the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a metaphor for the Contra-Remonstrant doctrine of predestination. Both Ulysses and Palamedes himself evoke his role in preventing the maiden’s sacrifice, and explain it as one of the reasons why the priests hate him. It does so, moreover, in words that once more seem to echo Iphigenia. Most characters in Palamedes invoke Jupiter, Apollo, or, in the case of Palamedes himself, Themis, the goddess of Justice; Calchas, Eurypilus, and their followers, are devoted to Diana. Yet the goddess is herself ­imagined as an instrument of a more powerful force that rules the universe: fate. By making the priests worshippers of a heathen, to all appearances, Stoic fatum, Vondel was able to tap into another source of anti-Calvinist satire which caricatured the orthodox Reformed as modern-day Stoics, whose warped interpretation of God’s providence served primarily to absolve themselves from any kind of wickedness or sin. The objections against the doctrine of predestination, voiced already in the sixteenth century by authors like Coornhert, and drawn in hyperbolic caricature by Telle and Slatius as being conducive to sin, hypocrisy, and atheism, are fully borne out in the play. Calchas is fundamentally an atheist, like his father, who persuaded a woman to commit adultery by assuring her that the stories about Hades are but 74  Calchas: Syn vonnis boven aen sal in het voorhoofd voeren: / Hoe dat hy driest bestond het haylige aen te roeren, / En brack met eenen band ’s rycx banden altemael: / Het heyr verwarrende met een gedeelde tael: / Beswangrend’ een gedroght, en Hydra van geschillen, / Van nood, gebeurlijckheyd, van moeten, en van willen: / En eyscht’ in dit geschrey, dat slechts syn bovensang / Alleen sou zyn ghehoort, door kerck, en priesterdwang: / Ia wetten gevende, waer na dat d’outerknechten, / Een hemelsch Godvry volck, sich souden moeten rechten: / En steef het onderscheyd van noodigh, en van nut: / En streckte door gesagh der nieuwigheden stut: / Afslaend een wettige Versameling van papen, / brengend’ om zyn tent vreemd krygsvolck in de Wapen, / Selfs buyten ’s Veldheers last: en duysend dingen meer. Palamedes, WB ii. 686. 75  As the Amersfoort edn explains, these lines allude to the way the Calvinist supporters of Leicester slandered Maurits, because he was the son of a religious turn-coat and a dissolute woman, I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

216

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

fables and old wives’ tales (4.1.1535–40). Again, like Coster in his Iphigenia, Vondel uses the plot—again in the double sense of dramatic plot and the ‘plotting’ which sets the action in motion—to unmask the Contra-Remonstrants as vindictive fanatics, zealots, hypocrites, and lechers, or, even better, to have them unmask themselves. At the same time, the dramatic plot also transcends the level of antiContra-Remonstrant stereotype. That Vondel attacks the doctrine of predestination in the chorus of the second act is well known.76 The scene, however, is not an isolated fragment, inserted to pep up the play with a dose of satire. Rather, it ­anticipates the sacrifice of Palamedes in the same way as the prediction of the fury Megaera in the second act anticipates the prophecy of Neptune that ends the play. Using the interrelated imagery of the satanic cult, the bacchanal, and the destruction of the temple, Vondel weaves a web of associations that links predestination to the death of the hero, the destruction of the common good, and the devastation of the land. The atmosphere of doom and imminent ruin for which Palamedes’ monologue has set the tone is intensified in the second act, with the appearance of Megaera and Sisyphus, and the unfolding of the diabolical plot against Palamedes. All this takes place during the night, when Euripylus leads his followers to worship ‘triplefaced Hecate’. They invoke the Goddess, whom they ask to watch over the sons of Atreus, and protect the army from the treason of those who have been bribed with Trojan gold, to safeguard the old religion and the priests who defend it, and to ward off all ‘novelties’ (ll. 607–54). Then, at Eurypilus’ bidding, they turn towards Fate, worshipped as the force that has created the universe and maintains it. What follows is a violent caricature of the Calvinist doctrine of providence. In chapter 18 of book I of the Institutes, Calvin rejects the view of those who hold that God does not actively will evil, but merely allows or permits it. Angels and man do naught but what has been decreed by God, he asserts. To speak of allowing or permitting does not only oppose scripture, it also flatly contradicts God’s sovereignty (Institutes, I.18.135–41). Vondel, with the zeal of a true polemicist, seizes the first part of this argument, ignoring Calvin’s exposition why God can do so without incurring any taint of evil, and has the chorus draw the ‘logical’ conclusion that, if evil is a manifestation of the divine will, evil must be good. For the hymn to fate that follows takes the form of a paradoxical laudation: an account of the genesis of evil, moving from the primordial crime (Saturn castrating Uranus), to ever-rising excesses of violence and depravity (Pasiphaë copulating with the bull, Tantalus serving the meat of his son as a banquet for the gods). At the rhetorical climax, the laudation moves away from classical mythology to invoke a gruesome image of a cannibalistic blood cult: That the African both cruel and strong Built a church from human heads And that his temple priest had 76 H. W. Konst, Fatum, fortuna en providential Dei in de Nderlandse Tragedie 1600–1720 (­ Hilversum: Verloren, 2003). J. van den Vondel, Palamedes, Introduction, 34, Szarota, ‘Vondel’s Palamedes’, 279.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

217

A skull for his censer: And before he said his prayers Lit a torch of human fat And with the pretence of holiness poured Purple human blood instead of wine And sacrificed, as a burnt offering to the gods Half-living human innards Human entrails half While a human intestine girds His body with human a tough human pelt, His sacrificial robe and finery: And sang, and howled without measure From parchments filled with crimson writ Entranced with inner zeal: And made echo every line A chorus of savage murderers Whose weapon was neither sabre nor sword But jaw- or thighbone: That Tantalus still foully stained With murder fresh dared to serve The flesh of his son at the banquet of Jove Did not happen by chance; But by inalterable decree! (2.697–72)77

The savage barbarian, ostensibly a counter-image of the Christian, is shown celebrating a perversion of the mass, where blood is sacrificed and incense is burned from human skulls. Contra-Remonstrantism is a perversion of Christianity which makes God the author of sin, and turns the sacrifice of Christ into a heathen blood ritual. Yet behind the doctrinal and eucharistic tropes lurks a more directly poli­ tical allusion, identifying the African as the Moor/Maurits.78 The jawbone, rather than just an arbitrarily chosen ‘primitive’ tool, is the weapon with which Samson, the Old Testament hero to whom Maurits was often compared by his admirers, massacred the Philistines. But the allusion which reverberates through the fragment is not aimed at Maurits alone. The cannibalistic mass and the ‘parchment filled with crimson writ’ inevitably call to mind the elegies and lamentations, and the poems against the Synod of Dort’, whose canons, in Vondel’s own words, had been sealed with Oldenbarnevelt’s blood. Vondel himself played no small role in codifying this imagery. When satirizing the Synod in his poetry, Vondel often employed the idiom of the carnivalesque, ridiculing the Synod as an assembly of 77  ‘Dat d’Africaen soo wreed als sterck, / Van menschen hoofden boude een kerck, / En dat sijn tempelpriester had / Een doodshoofd tot sijn wieroockvat: / En eer hy noch gebeden sprack, / Een menschenongeltoorts ontstack, / En plengde met een heylgen schyn / Paers menschenbloedt in plaets van wyn: / En offerde, den Goon tot brand / Halflevend menscheninghewand: / Terwyl een menschendarrem sluyt / Om’t lijf syn taeye menschen huyt, / Syn offerkleed en feestcieraed: / En song, en schreeude sonder maet, / Wt parckement vol bloedrood schrift, / Verruckt door innerlijcke drift: / En deê weergalmen op elck vaers / Een rey van woeste moordenaers / Wier wapen, swaerd noch kortelas, Maer kakebeen of schinckel was: / Dat Tantalus noch vuyl bemorscht / Van versche moord, opschaffen dorst / Het vleesch sijns soons op Iovis disch: / Niet by geval gebeurt en is: Maer onontworstelbaer bescheer!’ Palamedes, WB ii. 670–1. 78  F. W. Korsten, Sovereignty as Inviolability (Hilversum: Verloren, 2009), 119–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

218

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

drunkards, and the Synod’s proceedings as a long, protracted bacchanal. Alternatively, he presented it as a congregation of bloodthirsty ogres, presided over by a diabolical spirit. Usually, however, he fused the two idioms.79 The chorus resonates through the play, and its imagery of blood sacrifice is taken up again in the scene of Palamedes’ execution. Vondel’s careful choice of imagery forges a link between the ‘archpriest’ of the chorus scene, and Calchas, the archpriest of the Greeks; and between the ‘chorus of savage murderers’ and the frenzied mob that stones Palamedes to death. In the dialogue between Oates and Ajax we hear how Calchas’s father would train him in the arts of augury and witchcraft, taking his son to the three- or seven-forked road to practise his craft at midnight (ll. 1511–18).80 After his shameful expulsion from Troy, Calchas ingratiated himself with the Greek army commanders by foretelling the imminent fall of the city, explaining how in a vision he had seen the gods turning against the city, abandoning her altars (ll. 1544–82). As in the Iphigenia, the story of Calchas’s (in Iphigenia, Euripylus’s) defection from Troy is used to shed doubt on Trigland’s motives in leaving Leuven, and exchanging the Catholic for the Reformed faith. Yet it is not by chance, I believe, that Vondel employs the image of the city deserted by its gods and given over to destruction. The passage calls to mind the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, the dramatic climax of Jerusalem Destroyed, and simul­ taneously, a metaphor for the elect nation abandoned by their God. In the fifth act, when the messenger brings the news of Palamedes’ death, the image of the destroyed temple is taken up again, this time as the theatre in which the final act of Palamedes’ tragedy will be acted out: Thus he walked, bravely and with composed posture Surrounded by the crowds, enclosed by troops of soldiers, He set his step to Ida’s high woods. A hill rises there at the foot of the mountain That rises slanted like a stage, on whose lofty crested peak A church dedicated to the Sun, with rich offerings adorned, Served, when the fleet lowered anchor, as a beacon for the sea As, not long ago, the God there proudly stood guard with a torch Whose golden gleaming flame seemed to light a real fire And illuminate the man’s vision with daylight. Now that fair building lies desecrated and destroyed Its sacred stones, heaped up in piles, Bemoan and lament its former holiness. 79  ‘Soo ras d’Aertslastertong van ’t huychelaers Synode / Den aard des Duyvels, Gode / Aenteegh, en had Gods Naem, tot suyvering van haer saeck, / Gebrandmerckt, op haer’Kaeck: / Ontbrack’er ’t segel, om die gruwel kracht te geven, / Met quisting van het leven, / En afgemartelt bloed der allervroomste borst: / Daer Helsche Wraeck naer dorst.’ ‘Iaergetyde van wylen Heer Ioan van Oldenbarnevelt, Vader des vaderland’, WB iii. 341–2, cf. ‘Amsterdamse Kakistorie of muytschool, aen alle geestelijcke doel en dronckvaers, liefhebbers van brassende klassen, en eewich durende slemp-sinoden’: ‘Tap-vol, op Doele-ton geseten, / Lants beedlers vraacht, die ’t volck opeeten / Wat vetst’en slimste logens zijn? / Of bloedt ook smaeckt gemengt met wijn?’, WB iii. 298–9. 80  The sieve, bones, and cymbal are the traditional attributes of the sorcerer, although the sieve also alludes to the ‘pettifogging’ (in Dutch, literally, ‘sifting letters’) of which the Contra-Remonstrants were often accused by their opponents. There is probably an intended allusion to the ‘Righteous Sieve’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

219

Our soldiers’ malice was unleashed in that divine splendour, And burned and incinerated all. The arch priest stood silent, And laughed at the pillage of Phoebus’ sanctuary, And grinned, when he saw how the dregs of men, with impunity Made a spectacle of the Phrygian Deity This erstwhile holy and elect place Now, after the soldier’s mayhem, a spit-out curse Damned for parricide, with horrendous words Writhes with people (5.1892–1913)81

The allusion, I think, is hard to miss, as Vondel weaves all his poetical strands together, and the stones of Apollo’s ruined temple, with its Christian imagery of salvation and illumination, are turned into the murder weapons with which Palamedes is stoned to death. Now, at the dramatic climax of the play, we see Palamedes, prepared to take on his martyr’s role, at his most heroic and at the same time at his most human, while his enemies, surrounding him, degenerate into monsters: He, with the help of his servant, resigned to his fate, and weary, Prepared himself for death, and undressed until the waist Half-naked, in the height of his suffering Gave his servant leave, who sadly stepped aside, After his last service. There stood virtue adorned With true innocence, grimaced, and howled at By vicious monsters. The fiendish warriors From humans degenerated into leopards and tigers Deprived of reason, possessed with vengeance And frenzied rage, were overcome with a craving thirst For the divine blood. (5.1.1955–65)82 81  Bode: Soo ging hy moedigh, en met voegelijck gebaer: / Bedrommelt, en bestuwt van krygslien, en van trossen, / vorderde syn tred na Idaes hooge bossen. / Een heuvel ryster aen den voet des berghs, die schuyn / Groeyt als een schoutooneel: van wiens verheve kruyn / En toppunt, als de vloot werp ’t ancker in dese haven, / Een’ kerck de Son gewyt, geciert met rycke gaven, / Verstreckte een’ baeck in zee: vermits de Godt, die korts / Voor d’ooster gevel braef te pryck stond met een’ torts: / Wiens goude flonckervlam natuurlyck scheen te lichten, / En dagh te senden op der menschen aengesichten. / Nu leyd dat schoon gebou geschonden, en ontsloopt, / En d’haylge steenen hier en ginder opgehoopt, / De voorige heerlyckheyd besteenen en beschreyen. / Ons’ krygsvolcx moedwil in die Godenprael ging weyen, / En brande en blaeckt’et al. D’aertswichelaer stond stom, / En loegh om ’t plonderen van Phebus heylighdom, / En grenickte, als hy sagh, hoe ’t schuym der menschen vayligh / Een schouspel maeckte van den Phrygiaenschen Hayligh. / Dese eertyds een’ gewyde en afgekeurde plaets / Nu een verspogen vloeck, na ’t woeden des soldaets / Ten vadermoord gedoemt, met grouwelycke woorden, / Vast grimmelt van het volck, dat swart van allen oorden / Hier dringt, en t’samenschoolt, en Idaes steylheyd leeft / Van menschen, daer de bergh een open uytsight heeft / Op desen heuveltop: ontallyckheyd van sielen / In syn’ Cypressen, en geboge tacken krielen, En beven in de blaên. Palamedes, WB ii. 731–2. 82  Bode: Hy met sijn dienaers hulp, getroost, en wel te moe, / Bereyde sigh ter dood, en tot de middel toe / Ten halven lijve naeckt, in ’t uyterst van sijn lijden, / Sijn’ lijfknecht oorlof gaf, die treurigh trad ter sijden, / Na d’alderjongsten dienst. daer stond de Deughd geciert / Met ware onnooselheyd, van ’t leelijck ongediert / Begrenen en begrimt. de beestelijcke krygers / Van menschen nu veraerd in luyperden, en tygers, / Van reedlijckheyd ontkleet, beseten van de wraeck, / En felste Rasery, beving een grager smaeck. / Na’et Goddelijcke bloed. Palamedes, WB ii. 733–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

220

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 13 Cornelis Sanftleven, frontispiece of Vondel’s Palamedes (1625) (engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

Describing how Palamedes collapsed under the stones that rain down upon him, the messenger compares the enraged mob to the frenzied Maenads who murdered Orpheus and tore his body asunder (ll. 1980–4). The scene is quoted in the frontispiece engraving by Cornelis Sanftleven (Figure 13), which shows Oldenbarnevelt/ Palamedes surrounded by ferocious animals: a lion, a leopard, three wild boars, a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

221

wolf, an ox, and a multi-headed dragon wearing a crown, symbolizing James I. The culmination of these horrors finally comes in a blood libation for which the chorus scene in the second act has prepared the ground: Many dipped moistened pieces of cloth in the blood And wrung them out in wine, and drank it with a curse And jubilantly called to the inhuman feast Their brothers-in-arms of that same God, and fuming-spirit. (5.1.1989–94)83

As Palamedes’ murderers are compared to Maenads, Wijngaards is probably correct in identifying ‘that same God, and furious spirit’ as Bacchus, the god of wine and drunken revelry.84 Yet in Dutch, the word ‘tuymelgeest’ (furious spirit) also carries strong overtones of religious ‘enthusiasm’, usually taken in the pejorative sense as the zeal of sectarians. A comparison with the passage from Vondel’s ‘Amsterdam’s Cacistory or Mutineer-school’ (1630) shows that the ‘tuymelgeest’ here simultaneously alludes to the spirit presiding over the Synod of Dort, and, perhaps, following this line of argument, not merely that of the Synod, but that of the godless zeal of the Contra-Remonstrants. Not the drinking of blood, but the act of stoning is depicted in Rembrandt’s The Stoning of St Stephen (1625), now in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Lyon, that has been seen as alluding to the death of Oldenbarnevelt (see Figure  14).85 While ostensibly taking place in a different setting, the painting offers a striking visual parallel to the death of Palamedes. A heavenly light falls on the central scene of the canvas, where St Stephen has fallen onto his knees, arms outstretched while the heavens open, as a man towering above him prepares to crush his skull with a large rock. The movement of the arm of the figure behind him suggests that the first stone has already been thrown, that we are watching the killing as it happens, not as it is about to happen. It is interesting that Rembrandt’s painting seems to follow the account of Vondel’s messenger almost literally (or is it the other way around?): the first stone hits the victim in his back, making him fall to his knees, the second one crushes his skull. A vertical axis running from the rock in the central figure’s hand to the head of Stephen connects to the church in the distance, on the top of the hill. In the background, two groups of spectators, some of whom are dressed as clergymen, with fur-lined tabards and berets, watch over the scene. The central group that surrounds the seated figure of an official, who is usually identified as Saul of Tarsus, strongly suggests the complicity of both civil and spiritual powers in the murder. In the foreground, the imposing figure of a military commander, dressed as a Moor or a Turk in a 83  Bode: Veel dooptender in ’t bloed de vochtbesweete doecken, / En wrongen ’t uyt in wyn, en soopen ’t op met vloecken, / En nooden juychend tot d’onmenschelycke feest / Hunn’ spitsbroers van dien God, en selven tuymelgeest / Gedreven en geraeckt. Palamedes, WB ii. 735. The Amersfoort edn here has ‘Handkerchiefs dipped in Barnevelt’s blood, wrung out in wine and drunk in triumph’ I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 68. 84  J. van den Vondel, Palamedes, 144. 85  Gary Schwartz, Rembrandt: His Life, his Paintings (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1985), 36.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

222

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Figure 14  Rembrandt van Rijn, The Stoning of St Stephen (1625), Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon) © MBA Lyon–Photo Alain Basset

splendid blood-red gown, and riding a magnificent black steed, looks on. His face is half turned away from us, his gaze fixed on the figure of Stephen, and we can only make out a profile with a long, aquiline nose, a turban, and a beard. From the shadows, next to the man on horseback, emerges another man with his arm raised to throw a stone whose body traces the boundary of the diagonal that divides the light-flooded central scene from the shadows in the foreground. The painting thus thematizes the idea of spectatorship, and problematizes the distinction between seeing and acting. Inevitably, though, we are reminded of how Maurits was said to have watched Oldenbarnevelt’s execution without being seen. Like the presence of the African in the chorus, the presence of the man on horseback disturbs the balance of the scene, creating an impression of two protagonists rather than one, in a dramatic opposition that mirrors the chiaroscuro effect. The identity of the stone-throwers, however, is somewhat mysterious. Why is the man in the foreground shown in contemporary dress with breeches, doublet, and a silk sash, while the other executioners are shown half naked, in shirts, and loin cloths? And why does Rembrandt’s self-portrait appear among the faces in the crowd? What does emerge from the scene is a strong sense of collusion, if not collective guilt. The stoning of St Stephen, like that of Palamedes, is presented as a collective act, for which the whole people will have to pay dearly.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

223

5.5   PA L A M E D E S S E E K S R E V E N G E : T H E P O E T A N D T H E P E R S E C U TO RY I M A G I N AT I O N In the second act Megaera had predicted how the murder of Palamedes will lead to civil war that will ‘link the misfortunes of Troy to those of Argos’, and her words are borne out by the prophecy of Neptune, who foretells the end that will befall the Greek princes. While Palamedes hopes that by his death civil war may be prevented, the mechanisms of providential punishment are shown to fall outside the reach of human agency. Here, however, we encounter the same ambiguity in the distinction between divine vengeance and human revenge that we earlier encountered in the pamphlet literature. For while the elegies and poems praised Oldenbarnevelt as a martyr to the state, who forgave his enemies, leaving vengeance to God, they often in the space of a few lines, denounced his judges in terms so violent that they can hardly be interpreted differently than as incitement to revenge. Reading Palamedes, one gets the impression that Niëllius’s fears that the play would be found full of ‘vengeance, political factions and sanguinaria consilia’ were perhaps not entirely unfounded. To understand how Palamedes deals with the complexities of revenge in a framework determined by human agency and divine providence, we have to return once more to the imagery of martyrdom and to the blood metaphors so abundantly present in the play which, when studied more closely, appear to yield a fundamental ambiguity. Already in the closing lines of the opening monologue Palamedes is styled as a martyr. His stance as martyr calls to mind the pelican, a symbol for Christ, who nourishes his young with his own blood. But the animals that Palamedes has nurtured on his own blood are, throughout the play, compared to ravenous animals, or bloodthirsty savages. The pelican has nurtured a nest of crows and ravens. Palamedes’ willingness to shed his blood here thus also functions to draw our attention to the disparity between the death of Palamedes and the sacrifice of Christ. A citation from Theocritus, at the end of the sonnet at the preliminaries of the play, asks: ‘Where can gratitude be found? / Raise dogs and wolves / that they will devour you ferociously’. In a similar vein, the ‘Beggars’-Vesper’ had asked: ‘Had he carried Holland / under his heart / With suffering / Until the end of his care-worn days / to satiate treacherous steel / with his blood? / to fatten up crow and raven on his goods?’86 No crimes are expiated by Palamedes’ death, no redeeming powers to be expected from his blood. Rather, Vondel uses blood metaphors in the way that the elegies and lamentations had done, as a reminder that God never ­allows murder to go unpunished. There certainly exists a boundary between Christian-Stoic ideas about providential justice, and the more archaic notion that ‘blood will out’, but in Palamedes, the line is a very fine one indeed. The Oldenbarnevelt lore which developed in the decades after the trial often rehearsed the argument

86  ‘Hadt hy Hollandt dan ghedragen, / Onder ’t hart, / Tot sijn afgeleefde dagen, / Met veel smart, / Om ’t meyneedigh swaert te laven, / Met sijn bloet, En te mesten kray en raven, / Op sijn goet?’ ‘Geusevesper’, WB ii. 339–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

224

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

that murderers, even when they appear to escape their punishment—which so obviously seemed the case with Oldenbarnevelt’s judges—cannot hide from the wrath of God, or from the accusing voice of their conscience. Many of the twentyfour judges, it was claimed, had been denied a good death, having died suddenly and unexpectedly.87 According to Brandt, Jan Francken insisted to have proof that by the year 1624 seventeen of the twenty-four judges had died an unnatural death, all cases which he had carefully ‘documented’, but the papers, he said, had been stolen from him.88 It was rumoured that Maurits, in the last years of his life at times fell prey to a melancholic torpor, in which he despaired of his salvation, saying he knew for certain that he was doomed. During one of his sleepless nights, Brandt relates, as the Prince was sitting by the fireside, sparks landed on his gown. When a servant came rushing to extinguish the smouldering flames, the Prince muttered ‘let it burn— God has forsaken me’.89 Visions of the execution haunted his imagination. Brandt, who again claims to rely on information from inside the Prince’s household, writes how, in the weeks after the execution, the servants needed to change the Prince’s sweat-drenched bed linen three times a night. Another story told how the Prince, terror-struck by a vision of Oldenbarnevelt’s severed head lying on his table, called out to his page, ‘Get rid of that head! Do you not see that head, by God, do you not see that head?—get rid of it!’90 Amselmus Zwalmius, one of the few judges who had wished to take his seat in the tribunal, lost his mind and died a miserable death. Gerrit Beukelsz Van Zanten, the man who had allegedly offered to ‘tear the Advocate to pieces with his teeth’, fell drunk into a waterway near Delft called Devil’s Hole, and died a few days later.91 Of Hugo Muys van Holy it was told that he was eaten up by the worms that came crawling out of his festering body as he lay dying, producing a stench so unbearable that nobody dared to go near him. According to Brandt, he had been so universally despised that only a few people were prepared to bring the coffin to the grave, and it was said that the Devil had stolen the corpse from its coffin; ‘a mendacious fable’, but one that nevertheless ‘testified real hatred’.92 In his ‘Beggars’-Vesper’, Vondel had used the metaphor of the accusing blood to remind the twenty-four of the ineffaceable nature of their crime, using rhythm and repetition to evoke the ineluctable welling of the blood and the pangs of remorse that no human force can stifle: ‘Avarice and cruelty / that drew the sword / fiercely from its sheath / Now appeased / lament: How can riches and blood content / Oh how remorse unrelenting / Gnaws at our inner heart. / Be content, get ministers / East and West / Go, and seek from Reformed saints / Solace and salvation / It will

87  Geeraerd Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging (1710), 257–8. 88  Brandt gives little credence to this story; according to his count, twelve of the twenty-four were at that time still alive. Brandt, Histoie van de Rechtspleging, 257. 89 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 252. 90 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 252–3, see also I. v. Vondels Palamedes, 72–3. 91 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 258. 92 Brandt, Historie van de Rechtspleging, 258.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



Victim Tragedy and Vengeance

225

not do, the Lord comes pounding / with his Word / Nobody can stop / murder’s fonts from resurfacing.’93 The parallels between ‘Beggars’-Vesper’ and Palamedes are manifold. Both works are, in turn, connected to the elegies and lamentations generated by Oldenbarnevelt’s death. Yet to define the poem and play as satirical fails to do justice to the depth of the poet’s commitment to Oldenbarnevelt’s case. Almost forty years later, in 1657, Vondel, an old man now himself, wrote a poem on Oldenbarnevelt’s cane that had supported the Advocate on his way to the scaffold. It was to be his last poem on Oldenbarnevelt’s death, a literary monument to a man who, at the moment of its publication, had been dead for several decades. The poem in fact seems to arise from a need to commemorate, to keep alive, not to allow the passing of time obliterate the memory of what had happened. The poem’s status as a literary relic has attracted the attention of many historians, although few have commented one of its most remarkable aspects, the extent to which it speaks of the poet’s intense identification with Oldenbarnevelt.94 The poem, with its rhythmically repeated consonants, is itself an echo, evoking the sound of the ticking cane, dying away in the last line, as the poet concludes wistfully ‘Now you support my poems still’. While the poem shows that, over the years, Vondel’s anger and dismay had not abated, it also demonstrates an unflagging commitment to the memory of Oldenbarnevelt. Indeed, the political and religious course that Vondel had taken in the years 1619–20 would, as we will see in the next chapter, determine his political and religious stance throughout the following decade. In 1625, however, we see a very different kind of poetic identification; one in which, through the voice of Palamedes, Vondel appropriates the inner voice of the murderers’ guilty conscience. Thus Palamedes begins with what is perhaps one of the most peculiar and disturbing poems of Dutch seventeenth-century literature: Not seven years had passed, when Palamedes’ ghost Came roaming through the judges’ tents at night Who rose alarmed their hair upright And saw a shade pale and battered His beard blood-encrusted, his voice weak and hoarse Who, they asked, in the dark comes to terrify us so? By torchlight, said he, I read your verdict from these pages Who delivered me innocent to the mob They shuddered with fear They did not flee, but flew, Hither and thither, from the smouldering of his gaze 93  ‘Weest te vreen, haelt Predikanten / Oost en West / Gaet en soeckt by Dortsche santen / Heyl en troost: / T’is vergeefs, de Heer koomt kloppen / Met sijn Woort / Niemandt kan de wellen stoppen / Van die Moort / BESLUYT / Spiegelt, spiegelt u dan echter / Wie ghij zijt / Vreest den worm, die desen rechters / ’T hart afbijt / Schent uw handen aen geen vaders / Dol van haet / Schendt geen Vroomen voor verraeders / Van den staet.’ ‘Geusevesper’, WB iii. 640. 94  On ‘Het stockske van Oldenbarnevelt’ as a literary relic, Geert J. Janssen, Het stokje van Oldenbarnevelt (Hilversum: Verloren, 2001), 73, 89; René van Stipriaan, Het volle leven (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2002), 52–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

226

Literature of the Arminian Controversy He pursued them, and left a bloody stain where he tread Until dawn’s broken haze Banished haunting’s grisly, horrid dread And found the parricides worn-out with regret.95

The folios (Dutch, blaeren, with the double meaning of ‘wounds, injuries’) from which Palamedes reads the judges their sentence are of course those of the play i­tself. Like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Vondel uses theatre, the form of poetry most apt to work on the imagination through identification, to rouse a guilty conscience from its slumbers. Yet while Hamlet stages a play to corroborate the ghost’s accusation, to find irrefutable proof of his uncle’s guilt, Vondel summons Palamedes’ ghost to remind the judges of their guilt, and imminent punishment. Vondel terminated Chronogram with the words Alta mente repostum, and indeed, what strikes the reader is the accusing, unforgiving nature of Vondel’s poems on Oldenbarnevelt. As time would not efface the Advocate’s fame, neither would it wipe out, they seem to repeat over and again, the crime of his enemies. The conscience to which these poems give voice is not the reproaching, self-accusing faculty that leads the sinner to remorse and repentance; it is a punishing conscience, a conscience that acts as a nemesis, embodied in the ghost of Palamedes. In the four-line poem which ends the play, any semblance of allegorical distance between Palamedes-Oldenbarnevelt is again forcibly collapsed, as the play terminates with the lines: ON BARNEVELT: This is Grandfather, of whose virtue the centuries will not remain silent. He made his enemies’ hair stand up When, unmoved, he appeared at the court of law His enemies drank their death from his innocent blood.96

Vondel’s opponents charged that his Palamedes had erected a statue for the man they considered a traitor to the true Reformed religion, to the house of Orange and to the state. Vondel had, of course every right to reject accusations that he was inciting sedition, as the author of ‘Brutus to Holland’ had done. Palamedes, a play that seemed to be oscillating dangerously between tragedy and blood libel, nevertheless appears to have contained more subversive potential than the author himself would have been willing to admit. 95  ‘Ten leed geen seven jaer, of Palamedes schaeu, / By nacht, de tenten ging der Rechteren doorwaeren: / Die resen op verbaest met opgeresene hayren, / En sagen daer een schim mishandelt blond en Blaeu / Sijn baerd hing dick van bloed: sijn, keel was schor, en flaeu. / By toortslicht, sprack hy, ick uw’ straf lees uyt dees’ blaeren: / Die myne onnooselheyd ten roove gaeft aen ’t graeu. / Sy zidderden van schrick, sy vlooden niet, sy vloogen, Dan ginder, dan weer hier, voor ’t branden sijner oogen. / Hij stapte hen na, en liet een bloedvleck waer hy trad: / Tot dat de schemering des dageraads ontloocken, / D’ ancxstvalligheyd verdreef van ’t naer, en yss’lyck spoocken, / En vond de vaderbeuls door ’t knaegen afgemat / THEOK. Idacharis es ti potherpei.Threpsai kai lukides, threpsai kynas, hoos ty phagoonti.’ ‘Klinckert’, WB ii. 618. The text of the ‘Klinckert’, together with Vondel’s ‘Chronogram’ and ‘Beggars’-­ Vesper’ appears in the Historie van het Leven en Sterven, LLL1v–LLl2r. 96  ‘Dit ’s Grootvaâr, van wiens deugd geen eeuwen zullen zwijgen, / Hij deê zijn Rechters zelfs het hair te berge stijgen / Toen hij ter vierschaar quam al even wel gemoed; / Zijn Vijand dronk de dood aan zijn onschuldig bloed.’ ‘Op Barnevelt’, WB ii. 753.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

6 The Academy and the Arminian Controversy in the First Years of Frederik Hendrik’s Stadtholderate During the latter half of the 1620s the grim mood that had held the Republic captive during Maurits’s final years gradually began to lighten. The military situa­ tion improved significantly, while the new Stadtholder Frederik Hendrik’s careful manoeuvring had a moderating effect on the party divisions. In this more open atmosphere, Arminianism and the political principles that had sustained it once more began to raise its head. From exile, the Remonstrant leadership campaigned for the readmission of the Remonstrants and the recognition of the Remonstrant church as an independent church, to be granted full religious toleration. Their plea was eagerly supported by poets such as Vondel who, for a while, pinned their hopes for the healing of the country’s divisions on the Prince. Yet the Republic and its institutions remained divided between cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, where the political supporters of Remonstrantism had gained the upper hand, and those, like Leiden, who wished to uphold the status quo after Dort. Contro­ versies provoked by the inauguration of the first official Remonstrant church in Amsterdam in 1630, or the debate about a pardon for Grotius in 1631, made old antagonisms flare up with undiminished force. As Vondel grew disenchanted with the Stadtholder’s failure to end the war with Spain, and extend full liberty of worship to the Catholics of the reconquered cities in the South, Amsterdam increasingly began to supplant the Stadtholder as the pivot of his political hopes and ideals. While he had always been a staunch civic patriot, the poetry of the 1630s marks a change of vision, in which for the first time a city, rather than a ruler, became the incarnation or embodiment of an ideal of liberty, prosperity, and good governance. This same period also witnessed the appearing of the first cracks in the façade of unity of the literary group that has occupied a central place in this book. Perhaps the ferocity of the final ‘poetry war’ between the poets of the Academy and their Contra-Remonstrant opponents was itself in some measure to be faulted for this. In the following decades, differences in character, temperament, and religious and political persuasion would become increasingly manifest. After 1630, Coster’s lit­ erary production came to a virtual halt. Hooft withdrew his energies from the stage to the writing of history. Vondel, after a failed experiment in the writing of epic, returned to tragedy. Deeply affected by the devastation that the Thirty Years War

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

228

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

had wrought on his native soil, his political hopes increasingly came to revolve around schemes of religious unification of Catholics and Protestants. It was a pos­ ition that could count on little interest or sympathy from his former associates. Yet despite all this, the poets associated with Coster’s Academy had left an indel­ ible mark on Dutch literary culture, one which guaranteed the perpetuation of the great ideological debates of the beginning of the beginning of the century to later ages. With the capture of Breda, one of the most important strongholds of the coun­ try’s defensive ring, by Spinola in June 1625, the fortunes of the Republic seemed to have reached their nadir. Yet the Spanish advance halted. Financially hard-pressed, Madrid decided to revert to a strategy of defensive warfare in Flanders. In 1628, the Mantuan War of Succession erupted, which for the following three years would divert a significant percentage of Spanish money and troops to Italian soil, giving the Dutch some respite.1 Gradually, the effects of the economic slump of the mid1620s became somewhat less acutely felt. In 1628, the capture of a Mexican treasure convoy by WIC captain Piet Hein dealt a sensitive financial blow to Spain The 11 million guilders booty won by Hein, by now a folk hero in the Republic, were used to expand the WIC colonial enterprises in the West Indies, and to ­finance the Stadtholder’s next campaign: the siege of Den Bosch. In the same years, Frederik Hendrik began to unfold his talents as a military commander, showing himself heir to Maurits’s strategic genius. As personalities and political leaders, the difference between the two men was marked. Throughout his life, Maurits had remained a soldier at heart, sober and somewhat brusque, lacking the gift for words.2 Frederik Hendrik, by contrast, was a man of easy and affable temperament, a politique by character and inclinations. While his religious convictions were a moot point (the Venetian ambassador Contarini once quipped that the Prince’s only religion was ragion di stato), he had for many years maintained close ties with Uytenbogaert, and he appears to have had little sympathy for Contra-Remonstrant theology or political principle.3 The first years of Frederik Hendrik’s Stadtholderate, the period stretching from 1625 until 1633, are marked by a number of political developments that ultimately worked to strengthen the Stadtholder’s position. Initially, the balance of power swung in the opposite direction, as the States used the interim between Maurits’s death and Frederik Hendrik’s installation as an opportunity to reduce the Stadt­ holder’s hold on urban politics. In Groningen and Drente, suspicion of Frederik Hendrik’s tolerant attitude towards Arminianism led the States to bypass the Prince in favour of the Frisian Stadtholder, Ernst Casimir.4 In this period, the defeated pro-Remonstrant party rose up again in cities like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, or emerged for the first time, as in Dordrecht, and Middelburg in Zeeland. These poli­ tical Arminians, as Israel has termed them, were united in their desire to limit the extension of powers of the Stadtholder, showed a tendency to emphasize provincial 1  Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 497–8. 2  A. Th. van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau (Amsterdam: Aula/Bert Bakker, 2002), 81. 3  Quoted in Israel, Dutch Republic, 491.    4 Israel, Dutch Republic, 489.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

229

sovereignty, an opposition to the continuation of the war, and a disinclination to execute the placards against the Remonstrants. In many towns there was consider­ able amount of personal and intellectual continuity between the adherents of the Oldenbarnevelt regime and the party that began to gain a hold on politics in the mid-1620s.5 The re-emergence of ideological conflict resulted, paradoxically, in a strength­ ening of the position of the Stadtholder, who profited from the divisions in the States of Holland to style himself as a mediator, supporting the Arminian towns and at the same time avoiding giving outright offence to the Contra-Remonstrants, balancing both groups and making them both dependent on himself, without committing himself to either.6 This is the political background of the events of the late 1620s, which saw a revival of the toleration debate, as well as the last polemical flare-up of the Arminian controversy on the occasion of the opening of the first Remonstrant church in Amsterdam in 1630. Within the city, where popular Contra-Remonstrantism was firmly entrenched, large sections of the population remained committed to defending the changes of 1618. The ensuing tensions pitted the church council and the civic militia against the burgomasters and vroedschap in a struggle that lasted several years. In the end, Frederik Hendrik’s support for the magistrate during his visit to the town in 1628 made the balance fall favourably for the Remonstrants. The radi­ cal republican moment in Dutch literary culture subsided. The same poets who had used Tacitus, Seneca, and Lucan to denounce Maurits as a military despot hailed his half-brother as the man who could heal the divided country. The ele­ ment of flexibility in the balance of power between States and Stadtholder enabled these authors to combine a republican view of Holland’s constitution with a role for a hereditary military leader, especially when this leader could be styled, as Frederik Hendrik was, as the defender of liberty of conscience. 6.1  C O N T ROV E R S Y A N D T H E P O P U L A R P R E S S AT A M S T E R D A M , 1 6 2 6 – 3 0 Soon after 1619, support for the coalition that had played such an important role in the fall of the Oldenbarnevelt regime began to crumble. The resumption of the war, and the concomitant slump in overseas trade, combined with frustration over the fact that Maurits was no more willing to support the founding of the West ­Indies Company than Oldenbarnevelt had been, made many of the Amsterdam regents’ enthusiasm for Contra-Remonstrant-Orangist hegemony vanish like snow in summer.7 After 1620 Pauw’s hold over the city began to weaken. His colleagues 5 Israel, Dutch Republic, 464. Even Groenveld, usually disinclined to seek ideological factors at work in Dutch politics, argues for the continuities between the two groups. See Simon Groenveld, Evidente factiën in den staet (Hilversum: Verloren, 1990), 26. 6 Israel, Dutch Republic, 486–8; J. J. Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, Prins van Oranje (Zutphen: De Walburg Pers, 1978), 290, 294; Groenveld, Evidente factiën in den staet, 34. 7 Israel, Dutch Republic, 481; Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 288.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

230

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

began to find his domineering behaviour increasingly difficult to bear.8 A slander campaign begun to undermine his credit and reputation can be immediately linked to the shifting balance of power.9 The elections of 1622 brought four new burgo­ masters to the pillow: Frans Jacobsz Oetgens, Jacob van Neck, Dirck Bas, and Jacob Poppen. None of these men favoured the Contra-Remonstrants. Bas was believed to be a Remonstrant sympathizer, and Poppen, it was rumoured, was a cryptopapist.10 From the pulpit, Smout fulminated about the way in which the new ma­ gistrates had been elected without the ministers having even been consulted, and he hinted that the Prince might come to ‘change the legislative’.11 But Maurits did not appear, and with the death of the Prince and the accession of Frederik Hendrik it became clear that the balance of power was gradually shifting away from the Contra-Remonstrants. A tell-tale sign of the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the church council and the authorities was the appearance of a pamphlet titled Apology or Justification of a sermon of D. Johannes Doucher, French preacher at Amsterdam (Apologie ofte Verantwoordinge voor de Predicatie van D. Johannes Doucher, Franschen predicant binnen Amsterdam, 1626). The pamphlet, that became known under the name ‘Are you a whore / are you a thief / if you have money, I am your friend’ (‘Bent ghy hoer, of bent ghy dief. Hebt ghy gelt, ick heb u lief ’ ), exposed some of the more unsavoury details of the private lives of the new burgomasters, including atheism, adultery, and murder.12 The magistrates offered reward of 600 guilders for anyone who could provide information about the author, printer, or publisher of the pamphlet, but nobody stepped forward.13 Indeed, the anonymous author of the Apology wrote: ‘Had their Lordships given themselves as much trouble to find out which other people were involved in that Palamedes of Vondel, as they do now with Doucher’s sermon, we would have a better opinion of them.’14 On 13 April 1626 Contra-Remonstrant frustrations about the government’s lenient treatment of the Remonstrants boiled over. After a sermon by Smout, a Remonstrant conventicle at the Oude Schans was violently disrupted.15 When the civic militia arrived on the scene, they were greeted with stones. The commanding officer, Hasselaer, opened fire, killing two of the protesters. The crowd carried their 8  R. B. Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Ten Have), i. 287. 9 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 487. Pauw and his sons were rumoured to have sold cheese and butter to the Spanish enemy—an accusation not to be taken lightly, because dealing with the enemy in times of war or economic hardship could result in collective punitive action, such as a ritual house-plundering. Rudolf Dekker, Holland in beroering, (Ambo: Baarn, 1982), 44–5. 10 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 284. 11 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 481–2; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 284. 12  Jean Doucher was a preacher of Amsterdam’s Walloon community. He had been summoned to appear before the authorities because of his sermon on James 2: 14, which attacked the vices of the city’s rulers. Doucher’s sermon was translated into Dutch as Predicatie Ghedaen In de Francoysche Kerck tot Amsteldam, op den 14. Septembris 1625. Int vervolgh van de Wtlegginge des Sendbriefs Jacobi, int 2. Capittel, vers 14 (1625). 13 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 490; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 291. 14  ‘Hadden mijn Heeren soo veel wercks gemaeckt om te weten de personen, die aan de Vondelischen Palamedes mede handadich . . . alse wel doen teghen Douchers predicatie, men soude een beter gevoelen van haer hebben’, cited in J. H. Gallée, Academie en Kerkeraad (Utrecht: Beijers, 1878), 22. 15 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 490.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

231

corpses through the street and placed them at the door of the houses of burgomasters Van Neck and De Vlamingh, whom they held responsible for the killings.16 The uproar led to a tug of war between the burgomasters and a delegation of the church council, as a result of which the arrested rioters were spared the harsh sentence the authorities had intended to exact.17 The burgomasters, from their side, had cau­ tioned the ministers that they should admonish their congregations to peace and obedience. The only preacher who heeded the appeal and denounced the muti­ neers in a sermon, Cornelis Hanecop, minister of the Walloon congregation, was summoned before the church council to clear himself of the suspicion of Arminian sympathies and affirm the church’s right to ban and to excommunicate. The burgomasters criticized the proceedings as a purely political manoeuvre, and Hanecop’s flock came out in support of their preacher, yet the church council stood firm and proceeded to cite and censure Hanecop’s followers.18 In the ­exchange of accusations and recriminations that followed, poignant allusions to the events of the recent past were made. One individual named Henry Boelissen claimed for instance that the States General were a Blood Council worse than that of the Duke of Alba and that it had usurped power by revolutionary means.19 It was in this feverish atmosphere that Vondel brought out the ‘Rumbling-pot of the  Chicken-Run’ (Rommelpot van’t Hanekot’, a play on the name Hanecop (haan = rooster)), Vondel’s Contra-Remonstrant ministry of silly walks, perhaps his best known satirical poem. A reply to the ‘Rumbling-pot’ soon appeared in the form of the ‘Beggars’ Hurdy-Gurdy, on the Amsterdam Rumbling-Pot’, which appropriates Vondel’s invention and turns the tables on Vondel’s Hanecop, here depicted as a nasty little rooster, crooning and crowing to please the lords and pecking at the common folk.20 Less elegant but more menacing was the ‘Rum­ bling-Pot of the Arminian Prince-Murdering Faction turned Upside-down’, which describes the ministers of the consistory as good shepherds, protecting their flock from the wolves, the Arminian hirelings and their political allies.21 If there was a hint of rebellion in the air in 1626, it was only a prelude of what was to follow in 1627–8.22 During the election of the new magistrate, early in 1627, the eyes of the country were fixed on Amsterdam. Nicolaas van Reigersberch reported to his brother-in-law, Grotius, that the time for the latter’s return was coming very near.23 Yet the letter fell into the wrong hands and was, equipped with 16 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 490–1. 17 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 491–2; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 291–4. 18 Wagenaar, Amsterdam; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 296. 19 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 296–7. 20 Anon., ’t Geuse Liere-pypien op de Amsteldamschen Rommel-pot (Ghedruckt, 1627). 21 Anon., Omgekeerde Rommel-pot van het Arminiaens Prinsmoorders rot ([1627]). 22  Wagenaar gives an extensive quote from a pamphlet which divided the regents in three groups, Arminian sympathizers [quanten]: Boom, Oetgens, Geert Dirx, Andries Bicker, Bas, Albert Koenraad [Burgh] Teeling [Tholincx] Schaep, Grootenhuyse, Hasselaer, Opmeer, W. Backer, Hinlopen, Reael, Hinlopen; ‘waverers’ [wagelmussen]: Raep, Hudden, Hoogcamer, Vlamingh, Neck, Rennist [Reynst], Vinck, Tulp, Raephorst, and the ‘godfearing’ [‘de vromen’]: Pauw, Jan Gijsbertsz., De Vry, J. W. Boogaert, Hillebrant Schellinger, Verdoes, Ernst Roeters, Bets, Haringcarspel. He ended with an injunction to support only the godfearing. Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 492–3. 23 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 333.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

232

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

slanderous marginal notes, printed for public distribution, while Reigersberch was  summoned to explain himself before the States of Holland.24 The ContraRemonstrant clergy took the lead in a campaign against the possibility of Grotius’s return, with Smout denouncing him from the pulpit as an Arminian, a Socinian, and a sorcerer, who had deceived magistrates with his eloquence.25 Vondel, unsur­ prisingly, minced no words in his support for the good cause. In 1628, he brought out a translation of Seneca’s Hippolytus, staged in the following year by the actors of the Academy, in which he used the trope of chastity to point to Grotius’s falsely impugned integrity.26 The dedication of the play, ‘To the Loyal Hollander’ (‘Aen de getrouwe Hollander’) included a poem that recalled the injustice done to Gro­ tius and Oldenbarnevelt in tones reminiscent of ‘On Holland’s Latest Transform­ ation’ and the ‘Beggars’-Vesper’.27 At the last moment, Blaeu considered it prudent not to throw oil on the flames, and in the first edition of the play, the dedication was cut out. It would in fact not appear before the edition of 1652.28 Tensions between the magistrate and the church council were quickly reaching boiling point. The church council organized a petition urging the burgomasters to act more forcefully against Remonstrant church conventicles. The burgomaster forbade anyone to sign or canvass support for the petition.29 In the face of con­ tinuing agitation, the Amsterdam authorities submitted a remonstrance to the States of Holland. The church council replied with a remonstrance of its own, written by Trigland, Rolandus, and Petri with the backing of Reinier Pauw, which was read out aloud in the presence of the burgomasters and the thirty-six council­ lors.30 The magistrate now appealed to Frederik Hendrik, who arrived in the city on 10 April 1628, to bring the deadlocked conflict to a resolution. The Prince lis­ tened to the grievances of both parties, and received a petition from a number of Contra-Remonstrant merchants and from the directors of the WIC, both urging him to forbid Arminian gatherings.31 His approach was conciliatory: the church council was reminded to exhort their flock to obedience, while the magistrate was urged to be accommodating towards the populace, and to uphold the public church. Yet despite the Prince’s emphasis on consensus, it was obvious which party had carried the day. Vondel voiced the sentiment of the Amsterdam magistrate in 24 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 333–4.   25 Nellen, Hugo de Groot, 327–8. 26  Oey-de Vita lists ten performances for 1629, E. E. Oey-de Vita and M. Gessink, Academie en Schouwburg (Amsterdam: Huis aan de drie grachten, 1983), 47. 27  ‘Een kyf-aes, niet meer, dat baet u ’t lieve leven / Sprak flaewelijk de tong der ongerechte schaal / Daer vrydom tegens bloet gewogen werd: daer ’t stael / Gestroopt, en ree was om den tweeden slagh te geven / Die neerlaegh ghy ontsnapt: u Vader was ’er bleven. / Ghy bleef gevangen, en verreest weer andermael; / Na dat g’een levend-lijck, ontdoockt de Sonne-strael, / en tuygde, wat het kost, door deugt naar lof te streven. / O! die de werelt zijt verschenen als een son, / Behaegelijck aan stam en rancken van Bourbon; die met u mont na maght, gantsch Christenrijk bevredigt; / Ick bid, neemt in u schut en scherm mijn Hippolyt: / Sijn kuysheyt heb ick u getrouwigheyt gewijdt; / Die ’t Vaderlandt, en alle onnoselen, verdedicht.’ Vondel, ‘Opdracht van HIPPOLYTUS Aen de getrouwe Hollander’, WB iii. 200. 28  Geeraerd Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven (Maastricht: Charles Nypels, 1928), 22. 29 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 495; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 300–1. 30 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 495–6; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 304. 31 Israel, Dutch Republic, 466; Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 496–7; Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 325; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 304.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

233

‘Amsterdam’s Welcome to the Renowned and Highborn Prince Frederik Hendrik’ (‘Amsteldams Wellekomst Aen den doorluchtighsten en hooghgeboren Vorst Frederick Henrick’), in which Amsterdam greets her hero as Neptune, whose pres­ ence calms the waves of popular disturbance. But while the Prince of Orange is praised, Amsterdam prides herself on ‘the wit of Vlamingh, the loyalty of Pol, the fortitude of Graef ’. ‘Indeed, let envy try to scale my walls, I will have Hasselaers who will wage their life for me’.32 These are the men that carry sword and shield in Holland’s defence. More than a mere courtesy towards the Prince, the poem recon­ nects the ties between the city and the Stadtholder which, in Vondel’s eyes, had been severed by Maurits in 1618. It is therefore remarkable, and in this context perhaps also a little indecorous, that Vondel still could not manage to pass by the events of 1618–19 in silence, but has the river Scheldt, whose distress forms a counterpoint to the joy of the Amstel reminisce how, up until the conquest of Grol, the Spanish king believed that Holland would soon be conquered ‘Since vio­ lence cast out the virtuous from their seats / and cast down wisdom / with its grey hairs / and its trembling years / waiting for the last blow / that took off the head of Holland’s authority.’33 More indecorous still were the poems and plays celebrating the ministers’ defeat. Some of these, like the scurrilous ‘The Poets against the Consistory’, sound like a prelude to the more scandalous offspring of the Academy’s rhymed prize contest. In this period an anonymous play appeared which has sometimes been ascribed to Coster, but which can at least in certainty be ascribed to one of the poets from the circles of the Academy, and which, if it was indeed, as the title-page claims, ‘performed as a play on 1 June, 1628’ must have incensed the ministers even more than the Iphigenia, namely the farcical Fall of the Calf.34 This play, obviously intended as a belated April’s fool joke on the Contra-Remonstrant clergy (the anonymous author ends with A.H.T.F.F finem in posuit 1. die Aprilis 1628), gives us a commentary of the events of April 1628 from the perspective of two skippers, Miewes and Jaucke. Mieuwes tells how his dreams predicted the fate of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius, and Ledenberg, as well as the anti-Remonstrant house-­ plunderings, the seditious sermons of Smout, and the expulsion of Hanecop. He  had predicted how ‘that most valiant of poets’ got into trouble because he wanted to write about ‘innocent Palamedes’, and he adds ‘Have I not warned that brave poet, because of his Iphigenia? And what about the other one, who 32  ‘Mannen heb ick, soomen ’t vraeght, / Daer mijn raedhuys moed op draeght: / Onder dese, in raeds beraeming, / Blinckt de schranderheyd van Vlaming, / Pols oprechtigheyd heel braef, / En de dapperheyd van Graef: / Mannen (laet de nijd wat grimmen) / ie mijn’ vesten deden klimmen: / Sulcke soeck ick by de kaers. / ’k Hebbe’r oock noch / Hasselaers, / Die hunne halsen voor my waegen; / Die hun vaders degen dragen, / Welcke op’t Spaensche knokebeen / Sijn geschaert voor ’t algemeen.’ WB iii. 182–6, 185–6. 33  ‘Zedert het geweld de vromen / Heeft ten setel wtgeruckt; / En de wysheyd neergebuckt, / Met haer’ gryse silverhayren, / Met haer’ zidderende jaeren, / Wachte na den jongsten slagh: / Die haer ’t hoofd nam, ’t land ’t gesagh.’ WB iii. 183. 34  [Samuel Coster?], Kallefs-val (1628). On Coster’s authorship, see M. M. Kleerkoper, ‘Samuel Coster als pamfletschrijver. Kallefs-val (1628)’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal en Letterkunde, 18 (1899), 296–304.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

234

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

behaved like Democritus?’35 Last night, however, he dreamt that he saw Gomarus leading a calf through the streets, to whose legs were tied Rudolf Pieters (Rudophus Petri), Eliazer (Swalmius), and Trigland. Clinging on to the calf ’s tail, catching the cow-pat in his mouth and spitting it out from the pulpit, was Smout. The citizens, aggrieved to discover themselves covered in muck, began to drive the calf to the ‘Kamper hoofd’, where the poor animal, mooing and bellowing, fell in to the water, followed by Gomarus, ‘Beer-nose’, and ‘Smutty Smout’. None of the grey Beggars, Mieuwes jeers, dared to lend their shepherds a helping hand.36 If Vondel and the author of the Fall of the Calf believed that they had triumphed over the ‘consistorian madmen’, they would be sorely disappointed. The recon­ ciliation effected by Frederik Hendrik would last only for a few months. In the summer of 1628, a group of Remonstrants and Remonstrant sympathizers drafted a petition asking the Amsterdam magistrate for freedom of worship for the Remon­ strants. In the text of the document, incorporated by Wagenaar, we find many ­familiar names, including members of the families Bicker, Bisschop, Hinlopen, and Hasselaer, Joost Baeck, Daniel de Breen, Geeraerd Brandt, Joost Brasser, and many people associated with the Academy, such as Thomas de Keyser, Johan Victorinus, Willem Jansz Blaeu, Abraham de Wees, and indeed, Coster himself.37 In the autumn of that year, the civic militia collided with the magistrate over the ­appointment of a new militia captain, Cornelis Vlooswijck, a man removed by the purge of 1618 and suspected of Arminian sympathies. When a part of Vlooswijck’s troops refused to swear the oath to him, the burgomasters responded by depriving them of their militia rights.38 By this time, the air was rife with rebellion. Pamphlets reminding the mil­ itiamen of their civic and religious duties started to appear. In one of these, the Echo or Resonance on the Oath done by the Praiseworthy Militia, to Remind it of its Lawful Duty (Echo ofte weer-klanck, Op den Eedt/die ghedaen werdt van de eerloffelijcke Schutterije tot opweckinghe haerder schuldige plicht), Amsterdam’s militiamen were reminded that they had sworn their oath to defend the city and the estab­ lished church.39 Rejecting the view that the militia’s character is purely local, the pamphlet author maintains that it owes its primary allegiance to the highest authorities, to Prince and the States, and only secondarily to subaltern authorities such as the urban magistrates.40 A second pamphlet, the Crown of the Militia of the Renowned Trading Town Amsterdam (De croon der Schutterij van de beroemde Coop-stad Amstelredam), put the case for the militia in even stronger terms. The verso side of the pamphlet’s title-page carried an excerpt from a charter dating from the alteration of 1578, when the civic militia had helped in the expulsion of the city’s Catholic rulers, and assisted in the election of a new Protestant magis­ trate. The militia’s ‘crown’ consists in their historic role in the struggle for liberty 35  Kallefs-val, sig. A2v. I have not been able to identify the play, or the playwright Mieuwes alludes to. 36  Kallefs-val, sig. A3r.    37  All names in Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 497–8. 38 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 499–500. 39  Echo ofte weer-klanck, Op den Eedt/die ghedaen werdt van de eerloffelijcke Schutterije tot opweckinghe haerder schuldige plicht (Hoorn: By Marten Gerbrantsz, 1628), sigs. A1v–A3r. 40  Echo ofte weer-klanck, sigs. B1v–B2r.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

235

and religion.41 The author of the Crown furthermore maintains that a right of election had been granted to the militia by a privilege granted by Philip and Mary of Burgundy.42 The pamphlet denounced the Remonstrants as ‘anti-Christian Prince-murderers’, and its admonition to the magistrate sounds like a barely veiled declaration of war.43 Both the Echo and the Crown of the Militia refer to the attempt on the life of Prince Maurits, while the Crown of the Militia even goes back to the period of the Truce, the religious division, and the ‘Spanish pisto­ lets’.44 The Arminian faction, the author claims, quoting the text of Brutus to Holland, still worships Barnevelt as their idol and wishes to erect a statue in his honour. Uytenbogaert furnished a refutation of the Crown of the Militia, giving a historical account of the events of 1578 to disprove his opponent’s version. More fundamentally, it argued that an exceptional situation like that of 1578 should not be generalized into a rule or a right, as that would lead to the destabilization of all authority.45 He countered that the church had already dealt the decision blow to the Remonstrants’ theology at the Synod of Dort, with an allusion to Vondel’s ‘On Holland’s Latest Transformation’, that ‘if the iron blade had not lent its force, the blow would not have been so fatal’.46 With the city government and the militia on collision course, the militia took a further step and sent a delegation, headed by the former alderman Jan Willemsz Boogaert and Carel Leenaertsz, a medical doctor, to plead their case with the States of Holland, as well as asking the theology faculty of Leiden for advice. Obtaining a hearing with the Stadtholder, they argued that the city council had violated the promises made to Frederik Hendrik earlier that year. They expressed their indigna­ tion about the freedom with which not only Arminians but also Catholics were allowed to practise their religion, and about the fact that Grotius’s Defence for the Legitimate Government of Holland and West-Vriesland, which had been banned by the States General, had been reprinted twice in the city.47 The city council’s response was to insist on the civic nature of the urban militias, denying them any right to higher appeal.48 They asked for the Stadtholder’s military assistance and Frederik Hendrik, for whom the quenching of popular unrest held priority, sent six companies of infantry. Backed by the Stadtholder, the Amsterdam magistrate organized a wholesale purge of the militia, subjecting the remainder to a new oath. Leendertsz and Boogaert were tried, fined, and banished from the city.49 The States of Holland, however, were divided, and many of the Contra-Remonstrant towns refused to condemn the actions of the militia. Haarlem, a city which had changed from being fervently Remonstrant to fervently Contra-Remonstrant, opened her gates to Boogaert, who continued to agitate against the Amsterdam magistrates.50 From Amsterdam Vondel, who had already chastised the Leiden theologians for 41 Anon., De croon der Schutterij van de beroemde Coop-stad Amstelredam (1628), sigs. A3v–A4r. 42  De croon der Schutterij, sig. B1r.    43  De croon der Schutterij, sig. A3v. 44  De croon der Schutterij, sig. B1v. 45 [Uytenbogaert], Waerschouwingh voor Hamans Loon/aen Autheur van de Croon des Muytighen ECHO Ghestelt ten dienst van de Vrome Schutterije der vermaerdern Coopstad (Amsterdam, 1628), 6–7. 46  Waerschouwing voor Hamans Loon, 8. 47 Israel, Dutch Republic, 495–6.   48 Israel, Dutch Republic, 495–6. 49 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 500–4.    50 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 308.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

236

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

their role in the affair in the ‘Farmers’ Catechism’ (‘Boerencategismus’), a verse dialogue between a farmer and a student (Farmer: I pray thee, instruct my ignor­ ance what is the faculty of Divinity? Student: Four donkeys, more stupid than stupidity51) took up his pen against Boogaert, who seems to have fallen victim to a slander-campaign similar to the one that had earlier been waged against Pauw.52 In his Apology, Boogaert complained bitterly about the way he and his allies had been slandered. He continued to insist that the urban magistrate should be subordinate to the sovereign authority. From being a sanctuary of the persecuted and a foster-mother of the true religion, Amsterdam, he claimed, had degenerated into a ‘Babel full of confusion, a shit-cart of licentious sects, a tavern for papists’.53 6 . 2   H A E C L I B E RTAT I S E R G O : L I B E RT Y OF CONSCIENCE REVISITED The sheer volume of the literature written against the Academy’s prize contest, and the amount of animosity Vondel’s satirical poems provoked, are indicative not only of the depth of the political and religious divide, but also of the fact that Amsterdam was in this respect assuming a minority position. With Rotterdam, she was the only city in Holland where the placards against Remonstrant church meetings were conspicuously ignored, much to the dismay of the Contra-Remonstrant towns. In the meeting of the States of Holland of 1630, they threatened to make the payment of their part of the military budget dependent on Amsterdam’s and Rotterdam’s compliance with the placards against the Remonstrants.54 But the ­Remonstrant towns were not inclined to give in to the pressure. Indeed, over the summer of 1630 the Remonstrants at Amsterdam began building their own church on the plot on Keizersgracht where, for some years, they had organized clandestine meetings. The Amsterdam magistrate did not interfere, and soon afterwards, Epis­ copius led the service of the first publicly recognized Remonstrant church. A year later, the city managed to trump Leiden by persuading both Vossius and Barlaeus to take up a position at the newly established Athenaeum Illustre, inaugurated in January 1632. During these years, the Remonstrant leadership watched over the developments in Amsterdam with Argus eyes. The toleration debate of the late 1620s needs to be viewed against the background of Frederik Hendrik’s conquests in the Catholic Southern Netherlands, as well as the resurgence of Arminianism in towns like Rotterdam and Amsterdam. As always in the Dutch Republic, national and urban politics were inextricably intertwined. Episcopius’s treatise Free Religion (Vrye 51  ‘B. Ick bid u onderwijst mijn botheyt / Wat is de faculteyt der godtheyt? / S. Vier esels sotter als de sotheyt.’ Vondel, ‘Boerencategismus’, WB iii. 257. 52  Vondel, ‘Eerdicht op ’t vertreck van Jan Willemsz. Bogaert, Oudt schepen van Amsterdam, Anno 1629 den tweeden Februarij’, WB iii. 258; see also ‘De Poeten tegens de consistorie’, WB iii. 180–1. Some of the poems against Boogaert that were attributed to Vondel were, as the poet con­ fided later to Brandt, written by others, like city secretary Mostart and Hendrik Hooft, the brother of P. C. Hooft, Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 57. 53 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 308–9.    54 Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 330–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

237

Godesdienst, 1627), for instance, addresses the question of what form of liberty of conscience to grant to the inhabitants of the cities conquered by Frederik Hendrik, as well as offering a refutation of the sermons of Jean Doucher.55 The parameters of the toleration debate had, however, shifted considerably. In exile, Paschier de Fyne and Episcopius worked on a defence of religious toleration that went well beyond the ‘tactical’ policy of limited toleration espoused by the States party and the Re­ monstrants before 1619. Breaking away from the idea of toleration within the church, the Remonstrants now argued—as in fact, as their opponents were happy to point out, Coornhert had done in the 1580s—that freedom of worship forms an integral part of liberty of conscience.56 To counter the accusation that the ­Remonstrants were betraying their own principles, the Remonstrant leadership reconceived the relationship between church and civil magistrate in a way that opened the way to full religious toleration. Despite its adoption of the dialogue form, Free Religion is hardly a conciliatory work. Indeed, in front of his Contra-Remonstrant neighbour, the Remonstrant minces no words in his criticism of the Contra-Remonstrant church. After the Synod of Dort, she has become a ‘Deformed Church’, a loveless and tyrannical church, to which the pious Christian should turn his back sooner, rather than later.57 The perverted nature of the Dutch Reformed Church manifests itself ­nowhere clearer than in its devotion to the ‘land- and soul-ruining’ doctrine of the persecution of heretics, first introduced by Bogerman and Geldorpius, and now continued through the efforts of Smout and Teeling.58 Episcopius here takes up one of the most common arguments of sixteenth-century tolerationist literature: that the true church can never be a persecutory church, because the example of Christ forbids it.59 To the Contra-Remonstrant’s objection that, when the Remon­ strants were still backed by those in authority, they were neither tolerant, nor forbearing, the Remonstrant responds, in a similar way to Grotius so many years before, that punitive measures were enforced only against those who openly contra­ vened the decisions of the authorities.60 To the Contra-Remonstrant’s assertion that the Remonstrants should stick to their own principles and, seeing that their teachings have been banned by a Synod that has been convened and approved by the highest authorities, should therefore acquiesce in defeat, the Remonstrant replies, with surprising boldness, that the decisions of the Synod of Dort are null and void, as the authorities that convened it were not the country’s legitimate rul­ ers.61 Episcopius does not state that the rights of the sovereign authorities extend 55 [Simon Episcopius], Vrye Godesdienst . . . met Wederlegginge van Douchers oproerige predicatie (1627). 56  J. Israel, ‘The Intellectual Debate about Toleration in the Dutch Republic’, in C. Berkvens-­ Stevelinck, J. Israel, and G. H. M. Posthumus Meyes (eds), The Emergence of Tolerance in the Dutch Republic (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Israel, Dutch Republic, 499–505. See for Episcopius’s theory of church and state also Douglas Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration, (Cambridge: CUP, 1938), 91–107. 57 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 22–3.   58 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 13. 59  Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 10–11.   60 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdiesnt, 11. 61 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 32–3. The argument is still habitually levelled at the Remonstrants by historians from a Reformed tradition. See e.g. Verboom, who argues that the Remonstrants, who had placed their trust in the sword of the civil magistrate, now ‘fell onto that sword themselves’, W. Verboom, De belijdenis van een gebroken kerk (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2005), 255.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

238

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

over the public church, but emphasizes that under no condition should such rights extend over the individual conscience.62 There is, he warns, ‘no state so unstable, so unfortunate, more desperate, more liable to destruction than that in which con­ straint of conscience is exercised, for there, God’s sovereignty, God’s crown, God’s rule are injured and diminished’.63 To negotiate a space in which the dictates of individual conscience can be hon­ oured, without infringing on the sovereign authority’s ius circa sacra, a possibility at which Uytenbogaert had wavered and which Grotius had firmly denied, Episco­ pius introduces a distinction between private places, falling under the authority of a private individual, and public places, that fall under the authority of the magis­ trate. In these private places, the liberty to worship according to the dictates of conscience and the libertas prophetandi can be granted without damage to the right of the supreme magistrate.64 It is in the defence of religious freedom as a positive good that Free Religion truly breaks new ground. Some elements of this can be found in sixteenth-century tol­ eration thinking already. The argument that toleration is conducive to economic prosperity, or rather, that persecution is detrimental to trade, can be traced back to the very beginnings of religious dissent in the Low Countries. Yet the overwhelming majority of arguments in favour of toleration, were, it is well-known, arguments against persecution rather than arguments for toleration. In the work of Episco­ pius, we encounter one of the earliest articulations of the idea that freedom of ­religion is not a condition of a just, peaceful, and prosperous society, but that such freedom is the very foundation of such a society: The safest, securest state is that in which liberty of conscience reigns; there, one does not have to fear oppression: the more persuasions, the less danger and fear. The one keeps the other in balance and measure and the majority always outweighs that one that wishes to make itself master. Freedom itself is a remedy for all injustice and mis­ fortune. The free minds and hearts are eager to help the commonalty. It is the concern of each; each likes to maintain what is his own. Nobody is forced to feign.65

Episcopius’s plea for full freedom of worship, not just for the Remonstrants, but for all Christian churches, was duly picked up by two members of the Academy: Coster and Vondel. Vondel had always been adverse to compulsion in religious matters. But it is in the late 1620s and early 1630s that freedom of religion becomes a central topic in Vondel’s poetry. It is in this period, also, that freedom, 62 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdient, 13, 34. 63  ‘. . . daer is gheen losser / gheen onghuckigher / gheen sorgelijcker / gheen verdoemlijcker staet / als in welcke over de conscientien wordt geheerscht . . . . Godts souverainiteit / Godes kroon/ Godes heerschappije wordt daar in aenghetast en te kort ghedaen’ Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 36. 64 Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 15–17. 65  ‘De beste, veiligste staat is die waarin conscientievrijheid heerst, daar hoeft men niet te vrezen voor dwingelandij; ‘hoe meerder ghesintheden / hoe minder perijckel en vreese. D’een houdt d’ander in gewichte en balance / en de meeste overweghen altijdt licht eenen die de Meester soude willen maken. De vryheit selve is een remedie teghen alle onghelijck en onheyl. De vrye gemoederen en deherten zijn ghewillich om ’t ghemeen de handt te bieden. T’gaet elck aen, elck wil gaerne ’t zijn behouden. Niemandt behoeft te veynsen’. Episcopius, Vrye Godesdienst, 37.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

239

liberty of conscience, and peace and prosperity emerge as three inseparably linked ideas in which we recognize the influence of De Fyne and, in particular, Episcopius. It is true that Vondel never truly abandoned the anti-Calvinist rhetoric of perse­ cution which had developed during the Arminian controversy—and even earlier— and which had reached a climax after the Synod of Dort and the execution of Oldenbarnevelt. In his ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo: Paper money sacrificed on the altar of Holland’s Liberty’ (‘Haec Libertatis Ergo. Papieren Geld Geoffert op het autaar van de Hollandsche Vryheyd’, 1630), he chastises—like a generation of anti-­ Calvinist polemicists before him—the Calvinists for their murderous intolerance: ‘O bitter branches of that wormwood-bitter bush / that, scarce escaped from the fire, consigned Servetus to the flames / How do you take after the plant from which you sprouted’.66 The notorious poem ‘Decretum Horribile’ (1631) puts the case against Calvin and his followers in even starker terms, connecting the doctrine of reprobation with the persecution of heretics: ‘God tears the innocent from its mother’s breast / and consigns it to the flames. O morass, o open grave! / Where do I flee this stench? Dares this fiend to burn Servetus? To cast him into the Abyss / as a blasphemer? While this book spits that abominable curse in Heaven’s face?’67 In Vondel’s argument, as in that of De Fyne, a persecutory authority can never be the true church: Christ’s flock has always been the persecuted minority. He therefore welcomes the newly built Remonstrant church as a safe haven for Christ’s flock: ‘The herd that bans no one, save those who reject God’s Word / And serves as a pillar to derelict Christianity / That, relentlessly, was bound, murdered, damned, plundered / Found this safe gathering-place at last long last / Protect, O Lord, pro­ tect this ­innocent fold.’68

66  ‘O bittre spruyten van dien alssembittren stamme, / Die, naulijcx ’t vier ontvloon, Serveet ver­ wees ter/ vlamme, / Hoe aerdghe na den struyck, daerghe wt gesproten sijt:’ ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’., WB iii. 332. The reference is to wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), a bitter tasting herb used for me­ dicinal purposes, and to flavour wine and spirits. 67  ‘God ruckt d’onnoselheyd van moeders borsten af, / En smacktse in’t eeuwigh vier. o poel! o open graf! / Waer bergh ick my van stanck? dar dit gedroght sijn’ pooten / Noch branden aen Serveet? en hem ten afgrond stooten, / Als een’ Godslasteraer; nadien dit schendigh boeck / In ’s hemels aenschijn spuwt dien gruwelijcken vloeck?’ The marginal notes from the Amersfoort edn read: ‘Calvin, in the 3d book of his Institutions, chapter 23, section seven: I agree that it is a horrible decree, etc.’ And further down: ‘The same, in his 3d and 4th slanderous attacks of that fiend (he means Castellio) “Now spit out your venomous bile against God because he tears the innocent from its mother’s breast and casts it into the flames.”’ Vondel, ‘Decretum Horribile. Gruwel der verwoest­ inghe’, WB iii. 346–51, 346. 68  Vondel, ‘Op den Bou van den Christen-Tempel te Amstelredam’, WB iii. 319–20: ‘De schaer, die niemand doemt, als dien Gods woord afsondert,En streckt een pylaer, aen ’t bouvalligh Christendom: Die eeuwigh werd geboeyt, vermoord, verdoemt, geplondert, / En ’t opgeleyde kruys geduldigh droegh alom: / Dees’ veylge samelplaets verworf ten lange lesten. / Bewaer, o heer, bewaer d’onnoosle lamrenkoy: / Bescherm oock d’Overheyd van d’Amsterdamsche vesten, / Dat nimmer wrevelgeest haer’ wysen raed verstroy: / Op dat wy heylighlijck, en met een goed geweten, / V, na uw heyligh woord, aenbidden onbelet, / En onsen wandel soo, na uw’ geboden, meten, / Dat wy den bergh des heyls beklimmen, sonder smet. / Vergangklijck is de stof van desen tabernakel: / Dies heffen wy ons hart na ’s hemels hooge kerck: / Van waer een’ stem ons wees op Christus, Gods orakel: / Wiens kracht in ons voltoy syn aengevangen werck.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

240

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Yet toleration is now presented, as it is in De Fyne, and even more strongly, in Episcopius, as a positive good, conducive to peace and prosperity. In Vondel, it is Amsterdam, in particular, that serves as a moral anchor-point. In the dedication of Jerusalem Destroyed, Vondel had already hailed the city as the shelter for those fleeing persecution, but his poems of the later 1620s show that his scope has widened considerably, broadening into a vision of mercantile prosperity, based on good government and toleration: Y and Amstel feed the capital of Europe Crowned empress; her neighbours’ hope and support Amsterdam, who raises her head to Heaven’s axis And plants her roots, on Pluto’s breast, into the swamp Which waters are there, not shadowed from her sails? Which markets are there, where she does not trade her ware? Which peoples does she not see under the light of the moon? She, who herself gives laws to the ocean? She spreads her wings, through the influx of so many souls, And carries back the world, in heavy-loaded keels. Prosperity supports her state, as long as the authority Of the magistrate bars conscience-constraint’s evil design.69

This is a vision at once universal in aim and inspiration, and civic-particularist, defining itself in opposition to the persecutory practices still in use in other towns. Leiden, in particular, city of the hated burgomaster Broeckhoven, Sheriff Bond, notorious for his harsh persecution of Remonstrants and of Henricus Fabritius, a Contra-Remonstrant firebrand, and, a stroke of luck for Remonstrant polemicists, like Trigland, an ex-priest, was a happy target. In ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’ the antago­ nism between Leiden and Amsterdam is voiced through an apostrophe to burgo­ master Van der Werf, the hero of Leiden’s siege of 1574, ‘O hero, who would extinguish civil conflagration with your blood / If you now saw your blood chased from the council seat / Persecuted, accursed, accused of treachery / and on our free altar erected tyranny / scarcely would you believe your eyes and ears’.70 The poet continues to describe the pitiful persecution of Remonstrants in Leiden, but then turns away from Leiden to Amsterdam, ‘that well governed town’: Whose LIBERTY prepares for the dance, to the sound of flutes, drums and strings, Whose Christian temple rises, with pillars on piles: That draws in the foreigners who stand astounded, 69  ‘Het Y en d’Aemstel voên de hooftstadt van Europe, / Gekroont tot Keizerin; des nabuurs steun, en hope; / Amstelredam, die ’t hooft verheft aan ’s hemels as, / En schiet, op Plutoos borst, haar wortels door ’t moerasch. / Wat watren worden niet beschaduwt van haar zeilen? / Op welcke marckten gaat zy niet haar waren veilen? / Wat volcken zietse niet beschijnen van de maan; / Zy die zelf wetten stelt den ganschen Oceaan? / Zy breit haar vleugels uit, door aanwas veler zielen, / En sleept de weerelt in, met overlade kielen. / De welvaart stut haar Staat, zoo lang d’aanzienlijckheit / Des Raats gewetens dwanck zijn boozen wil ontzeit.’ Vondel, ‘Op Amstelredam’, WB iii. 354. 70 ‘O Held! die, met uw bloed, den burgerbrand woud blusschen, / Indienghe nu uw bloed geschopt saeght van het kussen, / Vervloeckt, vervolght, en van verradery betight, / En, op ons vry autaer, de tyranny gesticht: / Ghy soud uwe oogen nocht uwe ooren nau gelooven.’ Vondel, ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’, WB iii. 330.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

241

And lay their blessing over the work. God, God, said Amstel’s Lord, shall search the individual’s conscience Let FREEDOM go its course, and navigate with full sail, In and out of Y: this way we build our stronghold, This way, the merchant reaches elbow-deep in gold.71

Apart from the metaphoric association of the sailing ship and the free, unrestrained conscience, one notes how both ‘On Amsterdam’ and ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’ point to the poet’s increasing identification with his adoptive city and its rulers, men like the burgomasters Bicker, Vlamingh, Poll and Van Beuningen, in whose honour he would compose many poems, and the pro-toleration, anti-war policy of which the city was Holland’s most vocal exponent. In this period, this position was by no means incompatible with an admiration for Frederik Hendrik, whom Vondel hailed as the long-awaited peacemaker. Von­ del and his colleagues at the Academy seem to have regarded Frederik Hendrik as their strongest ally in the struggle for peace and liberty of conscience. In recogni­ tion of the Prince’s intervention in those tense months of 1628, a bust of Frederik Hendrik was placed prominently on the stage of the Academy. Vondel’s poem for its inauguration expresses the hope that the Prince will continue to rise, ‘in these dark days’, enjoining him to remain ‘the lodestar of your people / guardian of conscience’.72 But it is in his ‘Victory Hymn to Frederik Hendrik’ (‘Zegesang op Frederik Hendrik’, 1629) that Vondel expresses the importance of liberty of con­ science most emphatically. With this poem, Vondel joined the chorus of poets celebrating the siege and capture of Den Bosch. In the spring of that year the Prince, battling long and hard to overcome the divisions in the States of Holland, led an army of 77,000 troops deep into Brabant to lay siege to Den Bosch. Aware of the weakness of her position, Archduchess Isabella implored Madrid for help, and an army under the command of the Count Montecuccoli was sent across the IJssel as a diversionary tactic. The Spanish troops penetrated deep into the Repub­ lic’s territory, capturing Amersfoort, but Frederik Hendrik did not take the bait, continuing his siege of the city, while the States General hurriedly levied emer­ gency troops. The Spanish invasion collapsed when Dutch troops took Wesel in the Duchy of Cleves, the most important Spanish power base on the lower Rhine, severing the Spanish supply lines. After a siege of nearly half a year, Den Bosch surrendered to the troops of Frederik Hendrik. The fall of Wesel and Den Bosch was greeted with general euphoria. Vondel’s ‘Victory Hymn’ was taken up in a volume with over forty poems that also included 71  ‘Daer Amsterdam om lacht, die wel bestierde stad: / Wiens Vryheyd gaet ten Rey, op pijpspel, trom en snaeren: / Wiens Christen tempel rijst, met pylers op pylaeren: / Dat lockt d’wtheemschen, die verbaest staen stijf en sterck, / En breyen gunstigh wt hun’ segen, over ’t werck. / God, God, seydt d’Amstelheer, sal elcx geweeten peylen. / De Vrydom ga sijn’ gang, en vliegh, met volle seylen, / Den Ystroom wt en in: soo word ons’ vest gebout: / Soo tast de koopman tot den elleboogh in ’t goud. / Geen paep, geen stokebrand magh hier den wervel draeyen. / De toghtschuyt leydt gereed, voor all’ die oproer kraeyen, / Als Smout, en Kloppenburgh: wien nu het harte breeckt, / Soo dick hy, in den Briel, voor ses paer ooren preeckt: / Om dat hy trouweloos sijn’ rotgans Paus wou hullen, / En botsen d’Overheyd met Geusen aflaetbullen.’ ‘Haec libertatis ergo’, WB iii. 333. 72  Vondel, ‘Inwying van’ t gelaurierde Princebeeld op den Schouburg’, WB iii. 317–18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

242

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Revius’s Pindaric ode to Frederik Hendrik, the ‘Victory Hymn on the Conquest of ‘s Hertogenbosch’.73 Blaeu also brought out an edition of the poem, dedicated to the burgomasters of Amsterdam, ‘the eye of all free cities, as Vondel called her’, and the city which had actively supported Frederik Hendrik’s campaign against the opposition of some of the Contra-Remonstrant towns. The victory over Den Bosch sparked a nationwide debate over the question of whether to continue ­waging an offensive war in the Southern Netherlands, or whether, with the fortunes of the  Spanish Netherlands at an all-time low, the time had come to conclude a  new truce.74 Vondel’s ‘Victory Hymn’ narrates the vicissitudes of the military campaign, yet in comparing Frederik Hendrik to emperor Augustus, it exhorts the Stadtholder to act as a prince of peace, rather than a military conqueror.75 Sum­ ming up the defeats Spain had recently suffered, the poet concludes ‘it is here, here, that war takes its end’ (559–60). With its blend of Pindaric heroism and militant Calvinist imagery, Revius’s ‘Victory Hymn’ strikes an altogether different tone. While it takes up the trad­ itional image familiar from the visual propaganda from the Revolt that cast the Prince of Orange as Perseus freeing Andromeda from the sea monster, the poem’s identification of the sea monster with the Dragon of the Apocalypse does appear to suggest a shadow over the virgin’s purity, just as the third anti-strophe which compares war to a ‘grim harvest’ in which the poor are the ears that are mowed, but not reaped as they fall ‘for the sake of the whore of Rome’, undercuts the poem’s celebration of military glory.76 For Revius, in the war against the Moloch of Habs­ burg hegemony, peace can only mean a temporary let-up in the struggle against ‘The might of Asia, of India, of Spain / Of Naples, Milan, Castilia, Leon / The Force of Portugal, Minorca, Arragon / The pride of Austria, Burgundy, Germany / The riches of the rising and setting sun’.77 Revius’s poem ‘Peace’ (‘Vrede’) hails the 73  Ton van Strien, ‘Een prins en zijn dichters. Hooft’s Hollandsche Groet en de andere Nederlandse gedichten over “1629”’, in Fred de Bree et al. (eds), Teeckenrijcke woorden voor Henk Duits: Opstellen over literatuur, toneel kunst en religie meest uit de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen, 2002), 101–17. 74 Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 290–5; On Vondel’s contribution to this debate see Coen Free, ‘Vondel’s Zegesang, 1629: een onvermoed pamflet’, in H. Vekeman and H. van Uffelen (eds), Jetzt kehr ich an den Rhein. Een opstellenbundel bij Vondels 400ste geboortedag (Cologne: Ruder, 1987), 113–27. For Vondel in the context of the discussion of 1629–33 see Mieke Smits-Veldt, ‘Vondels Vredewensch aen Constantyn Huighens (1633) als bijdrage tot een actuele discussie’, Spektator, 7 (1977), 217–45. Jacobus Revius, Over-ysschelsche Sangen en Dichten, ed. W. A. P. Smit (Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1930–5), ii. 81–95. 75  Free, ‘Vondels Zegesang’, 119. 76  ‘Een fellen oegst den oorloch is, / Waer in veel schoone aren vallen, / Maer inde schuyr comt niet met allen / Als jammer-sanck en droefenis. / Noch is het beter, wel geweirt / Int velt zijn vyant te verwachten / Als in zijn huys en aen sijn heirt / In dodes vreese te benachten, / En hier en daer een swanger wijf / Of grijsen cop en mager lijf / Ter liefde vande hoer van Romen / Onnoselijck sien ommecomen. / Wat jonge krijgers wedervaert / En is soo hart niet te beclagen, / Haer siel in ruste wert gedragen, / Haer naem in eeren is vermaert.’ Revius, ‘Verovering van ’s Hertogenbosch’, Over-ysselsche Sangen en Dichten, ii. 86–7. 77  ‘De macht van Asia, van India, van Spanjen, / Van Naples, van Milaen, Castilia, Leon, / ’tGewelt van Portugal, Minorque, Arragon, / Lothrijck, Sicilia, Majorque, en Sardanjen, / Den trots van Oost­ enrijck, Borgonjen, Allemanjen / Den rijckdom vande op-en-neder gaende Son / Op eenen hoop gebracht niet hinderen en con / In Brabant het geluck en d’eere van Oranjen. / ‘De seege t’aller tijt haer segen niet en geeft / Den geen die ’tmeeste volck en sterckste wapen heeft: / Voorsorge, rijpen raet

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

243

advent of peace as the restoration of truth as much as the mere cessation of hostilities: ‘O Brabant, that until yet sits in the gloomy shades / of ignorant superstition and mute servitude / See how a clear sun disperses your mists’.78 In the years following Frederik Hendrik’s victories in Brabant, a plan ripened to conquer, with the help of the French, all the Southern Provinces from the Spanish, resulting ultimately in the military campaign of 1632. Revius responded to the renewed offensive with a belligerent poem full of Beggar-style anti-Spanish invective that throws the call for peace back into the teeth of the adversary—literally, as the fifth line of every stanza together form the hymn Da pacem domine in diebus nostris quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi Tu Deus noster.79 Altogether different is Vondel’s ‘Victory Hymn’, which imagines Frederik ­Hendrik’s victories in Brabant as the culmination and the final act in the historic process of the Revolt: ‘Prins Wilhelm has prepared the ground / his issue laid liber­ ty’s wall / in the red mortar of heroes’ blood / Not without a counsellor, rarely found / in this world, like a Phoenix / But Frederik has completed the work’ (561–6). Both Free and Duits have commented on the way in which Maurits’s name is here effaced from the historical tableau, yet equally striking is wording of these lines, which suggests that Maurits laid low liberty’s wall in the blood of heroes.80 In a striking reworking of traditional sun-imagery, Vondel proceeds to en wackerheyt bemintse. / Sy rijst (gelijck het werck wtwyset) int gemeyn / Niet wt de handen, maer, als Pallas, wt het breyn / En haren Jupiter is onsen braven Prince.’ Revius, ‘Overwinnige’, Over-ysselsche Sangen en Dichten, ii. 136. 78  ‘O Brabant, die alsnoch sitt’ inde droeve schimmen / Vant domme by-geloof, en stomme dienstbaerheyt, / Siet hoe een clare son u nevelen verspreyt, / Siet hoe hy hem alree toont boven uwe kimmen. / Hy wackert zynen loop, en laet niet af van climmen / Tot dat hy over u sijn stralen heeft gebreyt, / Verlichtende het ooch dat lange heeft geschreyt, / En qualijck noch verdraecht dit ongewoonlijck glimmen. / Het is dien goeden Prins, dien Godes hooge hant / Tot rust van u en ons gevoert heeft in u lant. / Wiens deugden men alleen sijn grootheyt mach gelijcken. / Den Prince, die met recht geducht wert en bemint, / Dewijl sijn vromicheyt de vyanden verwint, / En sijne soeticheyt haer vyantschap doet wijcken.’ Revius, ‘Vreede’, Over-ysselsche Sangen en Dichten, ii. 139. 79  ‘Rijck God, verlost ons vande Specken / Die ons beknorren nacht en dach. / Ons goet, ons bloet na haer zy trecken / En roepen (datmen vreesen mach) / Da! / Geef / Den oorloch sy niet con­ nen voeren / Dewijl het op den nagel brant, / Maer stropen borgers ende boeren, / Niet gunnende ons Vaderlant / Pacem. / vrede / Wanneer de siele haer ontgaet! / Dan sal haer het geweten knagen, / En sullen roepen (doch te laet) / Domine! / Heer! / Dit saet van Moren en van Joden, / Dit Catalo­ nische gespuys / Wert hier geviert als aerdsche Goden. / Dit’s immers alte swaren cruys / In diebus nostris. / in onze dagen, / Sy schelden ons Neerlantsche Heeren / Voor trahidores duyts en wals. / Don is een cavaillier met eeren / Soo seggen sy. maer dat is vals; Quia non est. / omdat er niet is / Als yemant van dees fyne quanten / Gevullet heeft sijn holle sack / Soo druypt hy door met de contanten / Na Spanjen. en dan comter strack / Alius. / een ander, / Indien den noot gebiedt te strijden / En te betonen moet en macht / Soo isser (connen wy dit lijden?) / Niet een van al dees boeve-jacht / Qui pugnet. / om te strijden / De Patacons, de Pistoletten / Sijn altemael voor hen gemaeckt: / Maer vier en hagel van mosquetten, / En wat Sinjoor niet wel en smaeckt / Pro nobis. / voor ons, / Niemant, eylaes! en can verdrijven / Wt onse Vaderlijcke nest/Van onse kinders ende wijven/Dees cancker vant gemeene best / Nisi Tu Deus noster. / dan Gij, onze God!’ Revius, ‘Gebet der over-heerde Neder­ lantsche Provincien om vrede en verlossinghe vande Spaensche Heerschappye’, Over-ysselsche Sangen en Dichten, ii. 150–1. 80  Henk Duits, Van Bartholomeusnacht tot Bataafse opstand: Studies over de relatie tussen politiek en  toneel in het midden van de zeventiende eeuw (Hilversum: Verloren, 1990), 172; Free, ‘Vondel’s Zeegesang’, 120.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

244

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

compare the sun not to the person of the ruler, or to the light of truth, but to liberty, shining on all alike: But liberty, charter what may these be? Merely sounds without force? Not at all, o most noble of offsprings! Let each be owner of this. Let freedom, like the sun, shine On men of every sort and condition, Who desire the common good. We ought make of Christian faith No plunder, or soul-robbery: We ought oppress no pious conscience With fines or imprisonment: But let God be judge of inner man, For this, your father gave his blood.81

Vondel here follows the same line of argument as Episcopius in Free Religion, namely that freedom, if we want to use that term correctly, should be shared by all; for ‘what is free should be common / or it once more becomes constraint’. Thus, freedom of religion should be extended even to Catholics, as long as they respect the laws and swear an oath of allegiance to the authorities.82 Through their contri­ bution to the war against Spain in which they, like their Protestant countrymen, gave their goods, blood, and life for liberty, the Catholics, Episcopius argues, have earned the right to be treated as equal citizens. Indeed, as the Remonstrant reminds his Contra-Remonstrant neighbour, the majority of the nobles who signed the Petition of the Nobles, asking Margareta van Parma for the cessation of the placards against the Protestants, were in fact Catholic.83 But no matter how sympathetic Frederik Hendrik might have been to the idea, freedom of worship for the Catholics in Den Bosch was politically not a viable option. The terms of surrender stipulated that, in the point of religion, the inhab­ itants would have to rule themselves according to the edicts ‘granting the liberty of conscience of the like practised everywhere in the land’.84 The attempt to reconcep­ tualize liberty of conscience failed to alter a political reality which, for the m ­ oment, meant the disappearance of Catholic worship in Den Bosch. Vondel, however, was slow to abandon the idea he had expounded in the ‘Victory Hymn’. In his ‘On the Inauguration of the Christian Temple in Amsterdam’ (‘Inwyding van de Christen 81  ‘Hier is, hier is het oorlooghsende. / Prins Welhem heeft den grond geheyt, / Sijn nasaet vrydoms muur geleyt / In rood ciment van ’t bloed der helden; / Niet sonder raedsman, dienmen selden / Ter weereld als een Phoenix socht: / Maer Fredrick heeft het werck volwrocht, / En d’opperoverwinnings kroone / Geset voor Christenrijck ten toone / Op ’t spits der vryheyd, ’t oorloghs wit. / Maer vryheyd, handvest, wat is dit? / Sijn ’t enckle krachteloose klancken? / Niet niet, ô edelste aller rancken! / Laet yeder eygnaer hier af sijn. / De vryheyd als een’ sonne schijn’ / Op allerhande slagh van menschen, / Die om ’t gemeene beste wenschen. / Men maeck’ van ’t Christelijck geloof / Geen’ plondering en sielenroof: / Men onderdruck geen vroom gewisse, / Met boeten en gevangenisse: / Maer laet God rechter van ’t gemoed, / Vw Vader storte hierom sijn bloed.’ WB iii. 284–5. 82 Episcopius, Vrye Godes-dienst, 44.   83 Episcopius, Vrye Godes-dienst, 39. 84 Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 294.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

245

­ empel’, 1630), he cast the history of God’s chosen people into a narrative of elec­ T tion, decline, persecution, and delivery, stretching from Exodus through the Baby­ lonian Captivity to the persecution of the early Christians. The opening lines set a celebratory tone as it paraphrases the Song of Solomon (2: 10–15), yet here, too, the polemical subtext soon becomes evident, as even an inattentive reader can hardly fail to miss the allusions to the Arminian controversy in the description of the flourishing of idolatry in the period preceding the Babylonian Captivity.85 The poem ends with the poet giving thanks to God, and to ‘Amstel’s sage magistrate’ for the reopening of the temple, and a prayer that God may awaken the ‘Nassovian saviour’, who will carry off the gates of Loevesteijn on his shoulders, like Samson carried off the gates of Gaza (Judges 16: 3).86 Yet the religious toleration Vondel so fervently hoped for proved to be a highly divisive issue in the arena of national politics. In the States General, the traditional division between cities and provinces which favoured a truce (the inland provinces that bore the brunt of the fighting and Holland’s maritime trading towns) and those who opposed it (Zeeland and the textile manufacturing towns like Leiden) was compounded by the hostilities between Arminian and Contra-Remonstrant towns in the States of Holland, which stymied political debate and hampered the prosecution of the war. Even though Frederik Hendrik argued before the States that debate over the truce should be kept separate from the question concerning ‘regime and religion’, towns like Leiden, Haarlem, Schoonhoven, and Schiedam held firm in their determination that religious affairs should first be brought in good order, insisting that the existing placards against Remonstrant conventicles should be enforced, and non-members of the public church barred from public office.87 For once it was the Arminian towns in Holland who relied on Frederik Hendrik’s political support that favoured the Prince’s plans for an offensive cam­ paign in the Southern Netherlands, whereas the Contra-Remonstrant towns wished to revert to the earlier mode of defensive warfare, which would place less of a tax burden on the population. The conflict paralysing the States of Holland forced Frederik Hendrik to spend the following year in inaction, repairing the fortifications of Den Bosch and Wesel. 85  ‘Maer ’t is vergeefs gepreeckt, geroepen en gekreten, / Gewaerschout en gedreyght, door teeckens en Profeten: / De boosheyt kanckert in; sy heelt door Smout nocht salf. / Men knielt, voor valsche Goon: men huppelt, om het kalf. / De dolle scheursucht valt aen ’t rijten en verwarren: / Men soeckt aen Baäl troost, aen ’t noodlot van de starren: / Men smoockt voor Astarot: men offert kinders op, / Ia ’t suygeling, ten brand, aen Molocks gruwelpop: / Men schend sijn’ handen aen Gods boden en gesanten: / Men steenigt, vangt en spant, die deugd en waerheyd planten: / Rechtvaerdigheyd ghe­ schopt, moet kroppen haer verdriet: / De rechter ’t vonnis velt, ghelijck ’t de vorst ghebied. / De sonden klimmen hoogh, en darren God aenblaffen: / Hy word gheterreght, om hun’ lastering te straffen, / En maeyt, met Babels kling, als in een’ rijpen oegst: / En boeyt het overschot, en laet den tempel woest.’ ‘Inwyding van de Christen Tempel’, WB iii. 323–8, 325. 86  ‘Bewaeck, o Iakobs God, bewaeck dit bedehuys: / Wilt, met uw’ vleuglen, dees’ vergadering bedecken, / En op haer suchten een’ Nassauschen Heyland wecken: / Die op sijn’ schouders tors de poort van Loevesteyn, / En omvoer, in triomf, dien norssen kasteleyn: / Op datwe u loven, en gedrooght van alle traenen, / De maghten eeren, als geloovige onderdaenen: / Die door Godsaligheyd, en vryheyd van ’t gemoed, / Dit aerdsche rijck versmaen, op hoop van ’t eeuwigh goed.’ ‘Inwyding van de Christen Tempel’, WB iii. 325, ll. 176–84. 87 Israel, Dutch Republic, 509.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

246

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

In 1632, however, a new offensive campaign was launched. During the summer the Prince’s troops swept down the Maas valley, taking Venlo, Roermond, Sittard, Straelen, and capturing the important fortress town of Maastricht. Vondel celebrated the conquest of Maastricht in ‘Frederik Hendrik’s City-Crown’ (‘Stedekroon van Frederick Henrick’). He praised the Prince for his moderation and tolerance, con­ trasting his handling of the conquered town with the treatment it had suffered at the hands of Parma. Yet once more, and more emphatically than the ‘Victory Hymn’, the poem argues that the time to close the gates of the Temple of Janus had come.88 During the peace negotiations at The Hague, which began in December 1632, a rift between the Stadtholder and his allies among the Holland towns was beginning to open up. As talks dragged on over the spring and summer of 1633, it became evident that Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Dordrecht, the towns which for commercial reasons were most in favour of a settlement, were willing to go much further than the Stadtholder in accommodating Spain. In the vroedschap of Amsterdam, plans for the evacuation of the WIC territories in Brazil were dis­ cussed. Led by the energetic secretary of the States of Holland, Adriaan Pauw, the son of Reinier, the peace party managed to keep control over the States of Holland. Frederik Hendrik, using his network of provincial powerbrokers, in turn mobilized support in the other provinces. The constellation of 1618, when Holland had chal­ lenged the Stadtholder, was revived, albeit that this time it was Overijssel, rather than Utrecht which backed Holland. On 9 December, the States General voted to break off negotiations by five votes to two. After a long hesitation, the Stadtholder had finally thrown his weight behind the pro-war faction, against his former allies in the States of Holland. From this period onwards, Vondel’s sympathies, too, shifted. He no longer produced poems to celebrate the Prince’s military exploits. This silence prompted Huygens to ask Tesselschade whether Vondel still wrote poetry in praise of Frederik Hendrik’s victories. Vondel responded with his ‘Peace Wish to Constantyn Huygens’ (‘Vredewensch aen Constantyn Huigens’) in which he urged the secretary to use his influence to persuade Frederik Hendrik to peace, reminding him of the dangers to the Prince’s own life, and of the misery war brings to the common people.89 88  ‘Nu Mars syn rol volspeelt op’t wreed toonneel: / En d’uitvaert van Castiljen word beluid / Met onweer van kortouwen grof van keel: / De Vryheid op dit graf haer’ standert plant / In’t aensicht van Filips en Ferdinand. / Soo word met vier het eeuwigh vier gebluscht. / Soo vreet de vlam des Hemels taeie roe, / En Henrick houd de heirbaen van August, / En sluit de poort van’t gruwlijck oorloogh toe. / Vaer wel, mijn hart, leer harden, en swijgh stil. / Soo droop hy door haer armen in sijn kil.’ ‘Stedekroon van Frederick Henrick’, WB iii. 384–6. 89  ‘O Ridder, die den noit verwonnen held / Gestadigh volght, in ’t bloedigh oorlooghsveld, / En saeght hem korts, in ’t oude worstelperck / Versengen myn’ geboortstroom voor Rynberck: / Wat portghe my dat ick den leeuw ophits, / Die al te heet op ’t sorgelycke spits / Sich selven waeght in veldslagh en voor vest, / En sleept den roof in syn doorluchtigh nest? / Hy spiegel sich veel eer aen Cazimir, / Die onlangs werd getroffen van dit vier. / Hy spiegel sich aen d’eer van Swedenryck, / Wiens weduw treurt op het gebalssemt lyck. / Het oorlooghslot verschoont nu den soldaet, / En lacht, wan­ neer het opperhoofden slaet. / De koegel snort d’onedelsten voorby, / En blindling treft de grooten op een ry. / ’t Is veilighst dat ghy den Nassauwer stuit, / Op synen toght: dies stel uw gulde luit, / En streel den held, dat het gemoed bedaer, / En vre verkies voor oorloogh en gevaer. / De vreê, een schat by veelen onbekent, / Die overtreft triomfen sonder end. / D’olyf behaeght my boven den laurier. / Wat is de krygh een woest verslindend dier! / Dat weet het volck ’t welck op de grensen sucht, / En eeuwigh

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

247

The following year, the Republic entered into an alliance with France, combining forces in an offensive war against Spain. Vondel responded with a lamentation ‘On the Discord among the Christian Princes’, which was translated into Latin and put to music by one of his Catholic friends, Thymen Cornelisz Padbrué. As always when the Republic was in open war, the prestige of the Stadtholder ­increased. In the 1630s the Prince increasingly came to employ so-called Secreet besognes, secret committees with far-reaching powers in diplomatic and military matters. While they facilitated speed and efficiency in decision-making, always a problematic point in the Republic, they contributed, inevitably, to the concentration of power in fewer hands.90 Another tell-tale sign was the forced resignation, in 1636, of Adriaan Paauw, and his replacement by Jacob Cats, whose loyalties lay firmly with the Stadtholder. In the following year the Prince was awarded, on the initiative of Louis XIII, the title of ‘Highness’ (Altesse). In response, the delegates of the States General took the ‘High Mighty Lords’, which had been in occasional use before, as their title of address, henceforth being referred to as ‘Their High Mightinesses’.91 The late 1630s saw new triumphs for the Republic. That same year, Frederik Hendrik won a final important victory by reconquering Breda. Yet in comparison to his capture of Den Bosch, a decade earlier, reactions to the Prince’s exploits were subdued. Barlaeus honoured the Prince with a long heroic poem, hailing him as the ‘stedendwinger’ (forcer of cities). Huygens wrote to Hooft to encourage him to celebrate the Prince’s victory, but Hooft, curiously, ­decided to let the occasion pass. Vondel, again, remained conspicuously silent. Frederik Hendrik’s last triumph was perhaps the marriage of his son to Mary Stuart, daughter of Charles I. It is unlikely that the King would have consented to the marriage if he had not been preparing for war against his Scottish subjects. Even so, the marriage, which allied the house of Orange to one of the major royal lines of Europe, brought the family increased prestige. The final years of Frederik Hendrik’s life were devoid of any real successes. As resistance to the war increased, Holland grew more unified in its opposition to the Stadtholder. With the peace negotiations at Münster opening in 1641 involving France, Sweden, Spain, the Emperor, and the Dutch, Frederik Hendrik chose to avoid an open conflict with Holland, by letting the negotiations take their course but by refusing direct talks between Brussels and The Hague. In 1643 the States of Holland took the far-reaching step of forbidding their delegates to the States General from discussing matters of war and peace in the States General and its committees in any other way than instructed by the States of Holland, dealing a sensitive blow to the Stadtholder’s kermt in een benaude lucht. / Wat heeft het schier een eeuwe niet besuurt. / Elck vecht om vre, maer Neerlands oorloogh duurt. / Het uitheemsch schuim d’inlandsche vruchten maeit. / De zee en ’t veld met lycken syn besait. / De nagebuur die schent ons jaerlyx aen, / Uit eige baet, en juicht soo wy vergaen. / Vervloeckte krygh, is ’t noodlot, dat dit land / Tot’s andren rust heel Spanjen hou aen band. / Soo moeten wy het draegen met gedult, / En achten ons rampsaligh buiten schuld.’ ‘Vredewensch aen Constantyn Huigens’, WB iii. 392–3. For an interpretation of the poem, see Smits-Veldt, ‘Vondels Vredewensch’, 231–6. On Vondel’s war-weariness, see Duits, Bartholomeusnacht, 176. 90  Israel, Dutch Republic, 526. 91  Herbert Harvey Rowen, The Princes of Orange (Cambridge: CUP, 1988), 70.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

248

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

system of governance.92 On 14 March 1647, when the peace ­negotiations at Münster were entering into their final phase, the Prince died. On his death-bed, he stated ‘I have been the servant of the States’, words which, though true, may have held some bitter irony.93 The States of Holland had already proved that they could, again, flex considerable muscle in opposing the wishes of the Stadtholder. Frederik Hendrik’s son, on the other hand, had already made it well known that he opposed a peace with Spain, and wished to continue the alliance with France. The clash of interests that would eventually lead to a full-blown conflict between the new Stadtholder and the States, resulting in the attack by William’s forces on Amsterdam in 1650, and the eventual decision by the States General not to appoint a new Stadtholder after William’s death that same year, were long in the making. 6.3   B A B E L : T H E A C A D E M Y ’ S R H Y M E D P R I Z E C O N T E S T Yet in 1630 these developments could hardly be foreseen. In Amsterdam the for­ tunes of the Remonstrants and their sympathizers had reached their zenith. For the Contra-Remonstrants, appalled to see their city turning into a new Babel, the worst was however still to come. The burgomasters, strengthened by the support of the Stadtholder, were determined to assert their authority over the church council once and for all.94 Cloppenburg, who had brought the request to the Leiden theologians, was summoned to account for his actions. Fearing prosecu­ tion he refused to return to Amsterdam. Even the mediation of the influential theologian Gisbert Voetius could not effect a compromise, and Cloppenburg, in the end, moved to Briel, where, Vondel jeered, ‘his heart breaks with spite, every time he has to preach for six pairs of ears’.95 Measures against Smout, the most vocal opponent of the policy of the burgomasters, would only be a matter of time. On 1 August 1629, while the Prince was besieging Den Bosch, Smout denounced the godless magistrates from the pulpit, pointing to the Spanish attack on the Veluwe as a sign of God’s wrath. According to Smout the ‘elders’ of Israel had ­always possessed the right to counsel and to steer the kings. The fate of Rehoboam had shown what disasters followed if such counsel went unheeded.96 The burgo­ masters summoned Smout to explain himself, and demanded a written copy of the text. Smout, not a man to be easily intimidated, prevaricated, appealed to the authority of the church council, and even dared to admonish their Lordships to beg God for forgiveness.97 After another such sermon, and a fruitless appeal to the church council, the burgomasters summarily banished Smout, ordering him to leave the city within twenty-four hours.98 Crowds of people gathered to see their preacher leave the city. 92 Israel, Dutch Republic, 542.   93 Poelhekke, Frederik Hendrik, 563. 94 Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 314–20.    95 Vondel, Haec Libertatis Ergo, 333. 96 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 510; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 311–12. 97 Wagenaar, Amsterdams, i. 511; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 312–13. 98 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 512–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

249

For Vondel and his confrères at the Academy, the magistrate’s resolute action was cause for great rejoicing. Around Christmas, Iphigenia was restaged at the Academy, and its restaging was followed by a new edition in which a final scene was added. Once more Euripylus/Trigland got egg on his face, with Protesilaus calling him a ‘renegade priest’ (‘verlopen paep’; a reference to Trigland’s early career at the Catholic seminary in Louvain), and inviting him to join his friends Pultarcis (from pultare, to knock, Dutch kloppen, and arx, castle, Dutch burcht, hence Clop­ penburg) and Ariadeps (Adriaan Smout) in Troy.99 Another reason why the per­ formance of 1630 caused a tumult was because the actor playing Euripylus was dressed in such a way that, in the words of Brandt, ‘he resembled Trigland like a drop of water, and everybody knew who he was’.100 Denunciations of Iphigenia, such as the Voice crying out against the staging of Iphigenia, only served to make the public more curious, so that Coster, in the preface to the new edition could thank, on behalf of the orphans of the city orphanage, his critics, the ‘deranged dimwits’, for drawing such multitudes with their shouting and railing that the theatre could not contain the crowds, and the collection-box ran over with coins.101 Earlier that year, on 12 March, an actor dressed as Apollo had mounted the stage to read out Vondel’s ‘The Amsterdam Academy, to all Poets and Writers of the United Netherlands, lovers of the Libertas Aurea’ (‘D’Amsterdamsche Akademie, aen alle Poëten en Dichters, der Vereenigde Nederlanden, liefhebbers van de goude vryheit’).102 The questions which Apollo addresses to his poets, give the perspective of pro-Remonstrant literary avant-garde on the events of 1628–9: ‘what the best, and what the worst voices are? / whether truth brings salvation, or hypocrisy? / whether the constraint of pious Christians will not bring about the country’s downfall? / whether liberty was not the prize for which Holland first began the war? / whether house-plundering builds strongholds? / Whether riot makers are suffered in well-governed towns? / whether the oath does not bind the citizenry? / and whether ministers do not forget themselves, when they untie this bond?’ The Academy ’peers’ would award the best answer with a ‘Prince’s rummer’, adorned with a portrait of Frederik Hendrik, ‘the general who won Den Bosch, which Maurits had to abandon two times’.103 99  Smits Veldt, Samuel Coster, 338–9; Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, ii. 285. 100  ‘Trigulandus wesen, Door baart, Gelaet, van Preeck en Lesen’. Versoeck, tot antwoordt van Een Otter in’t Bolwerk’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten (Leiden: Slijthoff, 1890), 361–4. See also Smits-Veldt, Samuel Coster, 339. 101  ‘Aende lasteraers vande Amsterdamse Academi’, Coster, Werken, ed. R. A. Kollwijn (Haarlem: Bohn, 1883), 229. 102 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 517–18. The replies provoked by Vondel’s poem, some in manuscript but most printed in plano or quarto, have been gathered in J. van den Vondel Verscheiden gedichten, 131–206. 103  ‘Apoll, op Helicon geseten, / Vraeght al syn heylige Poëten: / Wat beste en slimste tongen syn? / Of waerheyt salich maeckt of schijn? / Of dwang van vrome Christen-sielen / Niet streckt om ­Hollandt te vernielen? / Of vryheyt niet en was de schat / Waerom men eerst in oorloogh tradt? / Of oock in wel bestierde steden / Een oproermaecker wort geleden? / Of huyse-plondren vesten sticht? / Of d’eedt geen burgery verplicht? / En of sich leeraers niet verloopen, / Wanneerse desen bandt ontknoopen? / Wiens antwoordt kortst en bondichst is, / En klaerst in dese duysternis, / Dien sullen d’Academiheeren / Met eenen Princenroemer eeren: / Daer Pallas, met haer diamant, / In sne den Veldheer van het landt, / Die met ’s Hartogenbosch gaet strijcken, / Daer Mauritz tweemael af most

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

250

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

The Academy members initially planned to submit the best entries for publication, including the winning poem, submitted by P. C. Hooft, but in fact written by Tesselschade, the runner-up by the anonymous ‘Naer dit een beter’, and the poem attributed to Jacob Cats, that had been awarded the third place. But now the ­authorities intervened, banning all written or printed answers that kept pouring in which, in the words of Wagenaar, the magistrates deemed to ‘contribute to the augmentation of hate and bitterness among the citizens’.104 Unger and Van Lennep’s edition of Vondel’s collected poetry counts more than forty answers, ranking from plano-sized poems to pamphlets.105 Some of the contributions were written by poets close to the Academy, such as Vondel’s friend Plemp,106 Academy member Willem Dirksz Hooft,107 Tesselschade,108 or by Remonstrants and Remonstrant sympathizers such as the poet Dirk Raphaëlsz Camphuyzen,109 and the anonymous poets hiding under the motto ‘Lover of the Libertas Aurea’.110 Interestingly, Tes­ selschade’s contribution alludes to Episcopius’s Free Religion in pleading for the extension of liberty of worship to the Catholics: ‘The Roman Beggar signed supplica­ tion’s leaf / as well as the other / and pleaded for land’s liberty with the emperor’s daughter.’111 Yet the vast majority of submissions voiced the anger and aggravation of the beleaguered Contra-Remonstrants. Some of the poems came from members of the chambers of rhetoric, who resented the fusion of the chambers with the Academy, dominated by Vondel and Coster, like the author of the ‘Answer to the Questions of the Un-baptized Vondel, published by the Un-baptized Amsterdam Academy, to be Judged by the Un-baptized Academy Peers, now Possessors of the Brabantine Chamber’112 and the ‘Notice on the Questions of the Amsterdam Academy, or Fools-school, Submitted by a Member of the Brabantine Chamber, called The Lily under the Thorns’. This last poem, incidentally, is one of the few poems which take Coster (‘Raised on the Helicon-mount / intoxicated from the infernal fount’) to be the author of the poetical contest.113 Another poet, con­ tributor to a pamphlet from Zeeland with a number of answers and other satirical wijcken. YVER.’ Vondel, ‘D’Amsterdamsche Akademie, aen alle Poëten en Dichters, der Vereenigde Nederlanden, liefhebbers van de goude vryheit’, WB iii. 296–7. 104 Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 517. Documentation relating to the prize contest can be found in F.  C. van Bohemen and Th. J. C. van der Heiden (eds), Retoricaal memoriaal: Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Hollandse rederijkerskamers van de middeleeuwen tot het begin van de achttiende eeuw (Delft: Eburon, 1999), 242–4. 105  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 245–320. 106  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 202–3. 107  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 160–1. 108  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 131. 109  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 192–3. 110  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 141, 153–4. 111  ‘De Roomsche Geus het smekent blad, / Tot Brussel, ondertekent had, / Soo wel als d’ander, en versochter / ’s Lants vryheyt by, aen ’s Keizer’s dochter.’ ‘Antwoort’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 131. 112  Antwoorden op de vraghen van d’ onghedoopte Vondelen, uytghegeven van d’onghedoopte Amsterdamsche Academi, Om gheoordeelt te werden by de Onghedoopte Academi-Heeren, nu besitters vande Brabantsche Camer. J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 146–50. 113  ‘Koster van Apollos Feesten, / Koster van des Amstels geesten, / Opgevoet in Helicon, / Droncken van de Helsche Bron’, Bericht op de vragen van de Amsterdamsche Academi ofte Narrenschool, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 186.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

251

poems against the Academy, claims that he does not know whether this is Vondel’s or Coster’s work.114 Yet most of the contributors knew their enemy by his style as ‘unbaptizedVondel’, ‘Foundling’ (‘vondeling’), ‘Filthy-Palamedes-Father’, Godless-AcademicalPalamedes-maker, and so on.115 Notwithstanding all the invective against the Academy (Mutineers, ‘lovers of the licentious, Arminian liberty’) and its leading members, Coster and Vondel, most of the respondents took the challenge encap­ sulated in the questions very seriously. Thus, one of the anonymous authors who appeals to ‘The True and Pious Lovers of the United Netherlands, Lovers of Chris­ tian Liberty’ counters Vondel’s questions with a question put in near-identical terms: ‘whether the constraint of pious Christians will not bring about Amstel’s downfall? / whether Religion was not the prize for which Holland first began the war? / whether the Arminian-mutineer is suffered in well-governed towns / whether subverting Land and Church builds strongholds? / whether the oath does not bind the magistrate? / and whether Lords do not forget themselves, when they untie this bond?’116 Without exception, the poems cry out against the way in which Maurits is slandered. Many also accuse the Remonstrants of hypocrisy in complaining of the spiritual tyranny which they were more than willing to inflict upon the ContraRemonstrants when they themselves were still in power. Thus, the author of the ‘Impartial Answer to the Questions of the Amsterdam Academy’ asks ‘whereto such mendacious tongues? / whose belief is compelled here? / the liberty that you praise so highly / you took from another carelessly / did not Schieland’s Placard / deprive many of the pious of their liberty? / Grotius in his wicked book / maintains that it was done well / you, at first, have devised it / then why, suddenly, cry out against it?’117 Another frequently repeated complaint was that the liberty of worship which the Remonstrants were claiming so audaciously would throw the land into turmoil, turning it in a Babel of heresy and licentiousness. As the author of ‘The Dutch Holipodrido’ had it: ‘Take Coornhert, together with A ­ rminius / Menno Simons, too, and Socinus / A piece of Vorstius, and Bellarmine / Together with the Libertin­ ian swine / jointly in one crew / brew it together in your stew’.118 114  Antwoorde ghesonden aen de esele gout-suchtige heeren met haer omhangh vande Neder-duytsche Academy besitters van de Gouden Vrijheit binnen Amsterdam (1630), sig. A3r. 115  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 146, 162. 116  ‘off dwang van vrome Christen zielen / niet streckt om d’ Amstel te vernielen? / off Godts-dienst niet en was de schadt, Waerom men eerst in oorloch tradt? / Of oock in wel bestierde steden / D’armijnsch muytmaecker wort geleden? Off landt en Kerck beroeren vesten sticht / off d’ eedt geen magistraat verplicht? / en of sich Heeren niet verlopen / Die dese banden al ontknoopen?’ ‘De Amster­ damsche religions verwanten’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 135. 117  ‘Waer toe alsulcke Leugen—tongen? / Wiens geloof word toch hier gedwongen? / De Vryheyds Hoedt die ghy soo looft / Hebt ghy een ander selfs berooft. / Heeft het Schielandts Placcaet veel vromen / Oock haere Vryhedt niet benomen? / Grotius noch in sijn Boeck stout / Voor wel ghedaen, sulcx staende hout / Ghy hebt eerst selfs soo inghemeten /, Waerom nu alsoo luy ghekreten?’ ‘Onpartydich antwoort op de vragen vande Amsterdamse Academi’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 144–5. 118  ‘Neemt Koornhert, ’t samen met Armijn, / Oock Menno Simons, en Socijn, / Een stuck van Vorst, en Bellarmijn, / Oock wat vant Libertijnsche swijn; / Dit hoort te samen als een rot; / Smoort dat by een in uwen pot.’ ‘Hollandschen Holipodrido, tot een toemate dienende als een collatie voor de Amsterdamsche Kameristen’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 191.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

252

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

The ban of the Amsterdam magistrate on the prize contest at first only seems to have had a counterproductive effect: both parties left Apollo’s questions for what they were, and started to attack each other head-on. An ‘Amsterdam Cacademy, or, Scoundrel-School’ was immediately answered by an ‘Amsterdam Cacistory, or Mutineer-School’.119 Another hyperbolic libel poem against ‘Iapick Priaap’ and Jaap Broeckhoven, one of the members of Oldenbarnevelt’s jury, burgomaster of Leiden and a fervent Remonstrant-hunter, declares itself to be printed for Iapick Priaap, ‘Reformed pasquil-maker, factor and deacon of the Middelburg Chamber, also known as The Zeeland Nightingale, printed with the privilege of the Teeling­ ists’, thus satirizing Contra-Remonstrant poets associated with the popular poetry collection ‘the Zeeland Nightingale’, and their somewhat uneasy ‘alliance’ with the figurehead of the Further Reformation, and declared opponent of the stage, Maxi­ miliaan Teellinck (Teeling).120 Yet even the—on first appearance—more innocuous satirical poems were seldom without a sharper edge. Throughout his career as a satirist, and as it seems, well before the appearance of Palamedes, Vondel was a controversial figure, whose poems provoked heated, sometimes downright vitriolic responses. But the year 1630–1, with the Academy’s prize contest, with the publi­ cation of the  ‘Currycomb’, ‘Harpoon’, ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’, ‘Lightning-Bolt against the Noord-Holland Synod’, ‘Medal for the Gomarist Heretic-Hunter’— to name only the better known ones—and the restaging of the Iphigenia, saw the climax of this poetry-war, whose epicentre lay right in the heart of Amsterdam. The author of the ‘Voice Crying Out Against the Staging of Iphigenia’ had threat­ ened Coster (‘Baal’s prophet, son of Anti-Christ’) in less than charitable terms with the wrath of God and the torments of hell.121 Yet there were others who made it known that they could perhaps not muster the patience to let divine justice take its course. In ‘Aesop’s Donkeys on Stage’ the author predicts that there are many ‘who like to see these madmen beaten black-and-blue’, ending with the pious wish that Coster and Vondel be taken to Loevesteijn, or expelled from the country. ‘But best would be’, he concludes, ‘that master Gerrit [the executioner of Oldenbarnevelt] came from Haarlem, / to teach you the game of stretch-your-neck’.122 One ‘At­ tempt at An Answer for the Otter in the Bulwark’, threatens Vondel that he is preparing him such a beating, that even Dr Coster’s treatment would not do him any good,123 while another warns him that he should get baptized soon, before worse 119  The two poems were often printed in plano with the texts together in two columns, see also Brandt, I. V. Vondels Poesy, 42–4. 120  ‘Geprent voor Jaap Priaap, geformeert Paquil-drucker, facteur en deken vande Middel-komer. Genomt Het Zeeuwsche Nachtegooltjen Met privilegie vande Teelingisten’, ‘Aen de Liefhebbers ende Liefhebster van Jaap Broeck-of, en Jaep Priaap, Ritmeesters van de lichte Paerden, spitsbroeders vande graauwe plonder Geusen, onder het Regiment van Schutters-Kroon’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 203–4. 121 Anon., Roeppende Stemme teghen de Iphigenia spel vertooningh ende haer personagien ([1630?]). 122  ‘’t Best waer dat Meester Gerret quam, / ’t Best waer, etc. / Van Haerlem, hier tot Amsterdam, / En gecken, en gecken, / Aldaer te leeren, hem voornam / Het Spel, van streckt u necken.’ ‘Esopus Ezels op’t Tonneel’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 238. 123  ‘Maer komt eens mijn penn’ te lossen / ’k Sal dien Esel soo af-rossen / ’k meen dien onge­ doopten Joost / Dat des Doctoors Costers troost / Niet ghenesen sal die Wonden / Van het Sotje vol van sonden.’ ‘Antwoordt op’t voorgaende’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 249.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

253

will come to him.124 The hate-campaign against the figureheads of the Academy gave rise to more satirical exchanges, such as ‘Vondel’s Complaint to Coster’ and ‘Dr Coster’s complaint to Vondel’ in which the poets pass the buck back and forward.125 In July of the following year, the two poets visited Hooft at Muiden, possibly to escape the continuing uproar over the prize contest.126 Hooft’s reaction to the prize contest was, in a way, very typical. He certainly did not object to the contents of the questions, for it is known that Hooft had looked over Tesselschade’s contribu­ tion, which, for some time was believed to be Hooft’s own production.127 In the same year, he praised the ‘Harpoon’ in most complimentary terms. Vondel’s auda­ city in taking aim at highly placed persons, he wrote to Baeck, is a sign of the poet’s magnanimity, for virtus est domare quae cuncti pavent.128 The poem, he writes humorously, is very fine, although, like the ‘Currycomb’, many will think it a bit too prickly.129 When the Lord of Schagen, dedicatee of the ‘Harpoon’, turned out to be not at all pleased, Hooft was surprised and disappointed. But then, how to explain Hooft’s letter to Baeck of 27 April 1630, in which he compared the Aca­ demy’s prize contest to a grenade, pregnant with death and destruction?130 Most probably, then, Hooft had imagined that the prize contest would have remained an internal affair within the circle of the Academy and her supporters. Tesselschade’s poem had, for example, been delivered to Vondel’s house in manuscript, rather than printed.131 Yet printed answers, in broadside and pamphlet-form, soon started to multiply, and Hooft instinctively recoiled from the resulting din and confusion. 124  ‘D. Costers beclagh tegens I. van Vondelen’, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 249–50. 125  ‘Vondelens beclach tegens D. Coster’ and ‘D. Costers Beclach tegens I. Van Vondelen’, J. Van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 249–50. 126  ‘Heden had jck hier D. Coster, om my eenighe besonderheit van den slagh van Heiligherlee, daer de Geuzen haer’ eerste zeghe behaelden to verrekenen Want zijn vader ze heeft ze helpen winnen; ende was mij ijets in de heughenis blijven hanghen, dat ick in mijn’ kintsheit, ujt hem gehoort had. Vondelen quam met eenen, ende dunkt my dat ze bejde hun bujk van [d’Academie] vol hebben, doch weet niet eighentlijk waer ’t hun [schort] . . .’ Hooft to Baeck, 29 July 1631. In the manuscript, the words following ‘quam met eenen’ have been cut out until the end of the line, while the following two lines have been made illegible: the italics indicate an emendation by Sterck, rejected by Tricht. See De briefwisseling van P.C. Hooft, ii. 223–4, and Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 67–8. 127  Wagenaar gives both the original questions of the Academy and Hooft’s [i.e. Tesselschade’s] answer. Wagenaar, Amsterdam, i. 517–18. 128  ‘De Harpoen is aerdigh, al zal by veelen haerigh dunken, niet min als de Roskam. My dunkt by to genaedigher, om dat by yder naegeeft dat hem naekomt, en zoo wel voor een goedt betaeler, als voor een scherp maener gaen magh. Maer verwondert U E. dat die geest het op zoo groote personaedien gelaeden heeft? daeraen ziet ghy zijne grootmoedigheit. Hebt gy- voor ’t Tuchthuis niet zien staen de spreuk, die by den Poeet op Hercules gepast zijnde, van de Tuchtvaeders geëighent wort: Virtutis est domare quae cuncti pavent. / Hetgeen, daer alle man om swjght, / Te temmen is manhaftheitsplight.’ Hooft to Baeck, 28 May 1630. Tricht, Briefwisseling van P.C Hooft, i. 810–11, no. 362. Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 59–60. 129 Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 59. 130  ‘Het vraegdicht der Academie, dunkt my een van die krygsgranaten, die zwanger met doodt en verderf, niet en baren, om ter wereld to brengen, maer om daer ujt te helpen. ’t Geen hier in to rugge keert, is een felle kerne, die jck wenschte dat liever de twist verdelgde, als ‘er ’t vier in schoot. Ick kan niet vernemen, dat tot noch toe, eenighe vyant, ujt vreeze van dit wapentuigh, zich opgegeven heeft . Lukt het voortaen beter, ’t zal my meer nae myn’ zin als nae myn gissing gaen.’ Hooft to Baeck, 27 Apr. 1631. Tricht, Briefwisseling, ii. 158–9, no. 435. Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 67. 131  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

254

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Hooft’s ambivalent reaction was a tell-tale sign. Indeed, if the Academy’s prize contest marked the high tide of Remonstrant fortunes in Amsterdam, it was also the last collective appearance of this group, before its coalition slowly began to break down. As in the years 1613 to 1618, one can ask to what extent the Aca­ demy’s support was actually perceived as such by the Remonstrant leadership. For  the Contra-Remonstrants, in any case, the close association between the Academy and the Amsterdam Remonstrants was an opportunity too good to be missed. The prominent role Coster, Vondel, and their associates had played in the debate about the position of the Remonstrants in the Republic made it pos­ sible for their opponents to forge a polemical association between the Academy and the new Remonstrant church, with which the Remonstrant leadership was undoubtedly little pleased. Just as the poems generated by the Academy’s contest showed how the Academy was chastised through the vituperative rhetoric of anti-Arminian stereotype, with its standard charges of heresy, popery, treachery, and sedition, the Remonstrant church now became tainted by anti-theatrical rhetoric. Thus, the author of the ‘Opening Tableau for the Inauguration of the Arminian-Unchristian Temple in Amsterdam’ (‘Op den Bou van den genaemde Christen, dat is nieuwe Jesuyten Tempel’) fuses the rhetoric of idolatry with im­ agery borrowed from the carnivalesque, depicting the Remonstrant church ser­ vice as a carnival show, a drunken revel, in which Coster and Vondel lead the dance, dragging the entire Academy in their trail.132 Camphuysen is kindly requested not to disturb the merry gathering with his pious sermonizing, for this flock prefers Betteken voer naar Mariemond. Quite effectively, the poem blends together liberty of worship, poetical licence, furor poeticus, and licentiousness into a rambustious celebration of ‘liberty’ for all drunkards, sectarians, blasphemers, and mutineers. In ‘On the building of the Nominally-Christian; that is NewJesuitical, Temple in Amsterdam’, we return once more to Babel, as the marginalia of the poem explain: For Babel, that means confusion, for thus the Arminian Temple, agitating against God’s Church and its servants, is mixed up with all sects, Academy-players and blas­ phemers, yes has even been christened by these godless Iphigenia-fools—and that during Christmas! For how can Christ be born here, seeing that the Arminians do not seek Christ, our salvation, but obedience to the commandments, and thus attempt to be saved. O, wayward people! A wayward Babel is the work you have commenced, and thus will you be dispersed when you do not cease to build, like new Jesuitical and Academical Templars, your Babel-house.133 132  J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 231–6, 233. 133  ‘Babel is te segghen verwerringhe: Alsoo is de Arminaensche Tempel, welcke teghen de Kercke Gods ende zijn Dienaers aenwrevelende, met alle Secten, Academi-speelders ofte Gods Lasteraars verwerret is, jae oock van dese Godtlose Iphigenias-Quanten alhier gekerstet wordt ende dat voor Kerstmisse: Want hoe kan Christus hier ghebooren zijn, naedien de Arminianen niet Christum onse salichheydt maer de ghehoorsaemheydt der geboden nae-jaeghen ende daerdoor soecken salich te worden? O Heyloose Menschen! Wrevel Babel is u aengevangen werck, alsoo sult ghy oock verstroyt worden. Indien ghy niet aflaet als Nieuwe Jeuytische ende Academische Templiers u Babel-huys te bouwen.’, ‘Op den Bou van den genaemde Christen, dat is nieuwe Jesuyten Tempel t’ Amsterdam, J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, 229–30, 230.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

255

Not only did these pamphlets denounce the Remonstrant church as a theatre, and its gatherings as revels, or carnival shows, the Academy poets themselves were denounced as false teachers. Thus the author of another pamphlet against Coster, ‘The Little Test of the Arminians’ (‘Kleyn proefken van der arminianen’), with a joke on Coster’s motto ‘overal thuys’ (everywhere at home)—‘Overal thuys bang voor Christi cruys’ (‘everywhere at home, afraid of Christ’s cross’)—reminds his readers of the words of the apostle Jude: ‘For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Jude 4). The truth of these words is borne out, the author maintains, by the writings of Quirijn van Breemborch, a somewhat shadowy figure, who had spoken out in support of Coster’s Iphigenia, but who was, apparently, better known for his erotic poetry, sig. A2v–4v. Yet despite the opposition of the orthodox, the civic authorities stood firm in their support of the Academy. In 1632, the burgomasters mediated a merging of the Academy and the Old Chamber, whose motto was fused into ‘industry blossoming in love’. An alternative venue, founded in 1634 by former Eglantine member Jan Hermansz Krul, foundered within a few years, and what remained of the Amster­ dam’s chambers of rhetoric soon dwindled into insignificance. A few years later, another step towards the professionalization of the stage was set. The wooden play­ house so speedily erected in the summer of 1617 was demolished and on 2 April 1637 the building of a new theatre designed by Jacob van Campen after Palladio’s Teatro Olimpico in Vicenza was begun. The inauguration of the city theatre was planned for 26 December but was delayed until 3 January, due to the opposition of the consistory. It opened with a performance of Vondel’s civic-foundational play Gysbreght van Aemstel, the destruction of his city, and his exile (1637), beginning a tradition that was to last into the second half of the twentieth century. From Paris, Grotius, to whom Vondel had dedicated the play, followed the affair with keen interest. He thanked Vondel in a highly complimentary letter, and wrote to Vossius that it made him glad to see his name kept alive among his countrymen.134 Throughout the following decades, Amsterdam’s city theatre would remain a focal point of the Republic’s literary culture as well as a forum where some of the most pressing, political, religious, and philosophical issues of the period were addressed, dramatized, and commented upon. Yet the Schouwburg’s embedded­ ness within Amsterdam’s civic culture also meant that the unique constellation of 1617, when Coster’s Academy, for a few years, functioned as the bulwark of the city’s literary opposition, would not repeat itself. After 1630, Coster’s literary pro­ duction came to a virtual halt. In 1648 he was asked by the city government to devise the tableaux and triumphal carts for the celebration of the Peace of Münster, for which Vondel wrote the pastoral tragi-comedy Leeuwendalers. But from that date until his death in 1665, this remarkable, controversial, figure remained silent—a silence which was only broken in 1650, in response to the attack of Willem II on  the city, when Coster—or someone posing as Coster—wrote the ‘Dialogue 134 Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 32–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

256

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

between Samuel Coster and Koenraad’, an altogether unexceptional libel poem, that fails to catch the attention in the flood of anti-Stadtholder literature produced in that year. Among all the explanations one could imagine for this silence, the simplest is perhaps also the most probable, namely that Coster, now that the Amsterdam city government was ‘turned’, the church council brought under con­ trol, and the Remonstrants officially tolerated, simply did not see the need to continue his activities as a satirist. On a personal level, too, the first divisions in the ‘Gideon’s band’ Vondel had celebrated in ‘The Poets against the Consistory’, soon started to appear. In 1631 Grotius, assured by friends that the Stadtholder was favourably disposed towards him, hazarded his luck by returning to the Republic. While Frederik Hendrik was initially not opposed to an amnesty, Grotius, by refusing anything less than a full rehabilitation, soon forfeited the Stadtholder’s favour, undoing the attempts at mediation by friends like Hooft. In the States of Holland, Arminian and Contra-Remontrant towns came to a full collision, with the Contra-Remonstrant towns, led by Haarlem, Gouda, and Leiden, managing to defeat the proposal for amnesty with twelve votes to seven.135 With his inflexible attitude, Grotius certainly had done his cause little good. Although ties were not severed, the friendship with Hooft cooled considerably as a result. Vondel, by con­ trast, continued to support Grotius, whom he met for the first time in person during the latter’s stay in Amsterdam, with admiration bordering on hero worship. After Grotius’s hasty departure and final break with his fatherland, the two men exchanged letters, in which Vondel sometimes asked for advice on the Constantine (also referred to as the Constantiniad), the epic on the life of Emperor Constantine the Great, to which Vondel in these years devoted most of his energies. Whether it was Grotius who had suggested the subject matter is not known, but it is clear that the life of the first Christian emperor fitted his Erastian and ecumenical ideals. Grotius repeatedly spurred Vondel on to continue his work, even when, after the death of his wife Maayken in 1635, Vondel confessed to having been unable to carry on, feeling ‘his courage had been somewhat broken’. However it may have been, Vondel never finished the Constantiniad, the first five books of which had been completed by 1634. With Gysbreght van Aemstel, he returned once more to tragedy. Yet Vondel’s engagement with the work of Grotius increasingly became coloured by the poet’s rapprochement to the Catholic faith to which he would convert in 1641. Grotius’s irenicist works held Vondel’s particular interest, yet many of his former friends and supporters took issue with the way in which Vondel obscured the difference between Grotius’s irenicism and his own Catholic and ecumenical ideas. This became increasingly apparent after Grotius’s death, when Vondel published a work titled Grotius’s Testament, a translation of Grotius’s last work against Rivetus, in which Vondel had made questionable translations of certain passages while omitting and even adding, material, making it appear as if Grotius had died a crypto-Catholic.136 In the introduction of The Second Part of 135 Israel, Dutch Republic, 515. 136  Vondel, ‘Grotius Testament’, WB iv. 1640–5 (1930), 623–32. On Hooft’s reaction see Smits-Veldt, ‘Hooft en De Groot’, 67–8. On the reception of the work in general, see Brandt, J. van Vondel’s leven, 42–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi



First Years of Frederik Hendrik

257

Vondel’s Poetry (1647) the compiler, Geeraerd Brandt, while praising Vondel’s lit­ erary genius, accused the poet of being a religious turncoat, who had acted in bad faith with his Grotius’s Testament.137 It can hardly be a coincidence that Vondel’s Catholic poetry provoked stronger reactions from his one-time allies, involving him in polemics with prominent Remonstrants like Brandt and Westerbaan, than from his natural opponents, the Contra-Remonstrants.138 Coster, perhaps, shared their feelings. Vondel never abandoned the principle of religious toleration which he had adopted in the 1620s. He continued, as his poetry shows, to show his ­admiration for men like Episcopius and the Mennonite leader Hans de Ries, and, not surprisingly perhaps, he carried on the polemic with the orthodox Calvinists. In addition, he now began to gain a reputation as a Catholic controversialist. Hooft seems to have grown increasingly weary of his colleague’s zest for controversy. In  1645 Vondel published a poem celebrating tercentenary of the Miracle of Amsterdam, which during the High Middle Ages had made the city a famous place of pilgrimage. In a letter to Barlaeus, Hooft describes how Vondel had publicly displayed it in the bookseller’s shop: like ‘when a champion-fighter slams a knife into the porch of an inn, daring anyone brave enough to pluck it out’. Vondel’s action had certainly succeeded in being provocative, as the daily appearance of new libels showed, and Hooft showed his concern that someone might lay his hands on him, thinking there would be no questions asked. ‘I am sorry for the man, who seems to tire of nothing sooner than of peace’, he concluded somewhat coolly.139 After the publication of Grotius’s Testament, their friendship reached its nadir. When Vondel, in 1646, tried to mend the pieces of what remained of it, sending him a letter to accompany his translation of Virgil, we are struck by its melancholy, elegiac tone, as it reminds Hooft of their mutual friends, all of them now dead: Our Maecenases are dissolving. Reael lies in the Westerner. Plemp, Baeck, Blaeu, Victo­ ryn and Mostert lie in the New Church, crept under the tombstones, a sure sign that we shall follow: God grant at a blessed hour. Our good and wise Grotius has also passed away.140 137 Brandt, I. V. Vondels Poesy, f* 5–8, Brandt, J. van Vondels leven, 43. 138  On Vondel’s polemic with Westerbaan, see [Geerard Brandt], Apollo’s Harp, Bestaande in Nederduytsche Mengelrymen. C. Huygens J. van Vondel, J. Westerbaan, J. van den Bugh, R. Anslo, J. Dekker, J. Vos, &c. (’Amsterdam: by Jan Henrysz en Jan Rieuwertsz. Boeckvercoopers, 1658), 54–5. 139  ‘Vondel heeft een veirs gemaakt op ’t wonder, waar of de Heilige Stee haaren naam draagt: en laat het openbaarlijk voor de boekwinkels ten toon hangen, gelijk de voorvechters de messenin de luif en steeken, om de oogen van de verbygangers to tergen, als met zeggen: wie ’t hart heeft, pluike. My deert des mans, die geenes dings eerder moede schijnt to worden dan der ruste. ’t Schijnt dat by noch 300 guldens in kasse moet hebben, die hem dreigen de keel of to bijten. Nog weet ik niet, oft het hem niet wel dierder moghte koomen to staan; ende d’een oft d’ander heetharsen, by ontijde, de handen aan hem schenden, denkende dat’er niet een haan naa kraayen zoude. Dit spel, immers, maakt zulk een brabbeling in de wacht, dat’er alle daags nieuwe krabbeling uit rijst. Ik zend hierbij een paar staaltjens, niet de fijnste, die ik gezien heb, maar die ik althans bekoomen kan; want dit tuig gaat ter greep weg . . .’ Hooft to Barlaeus, 20 Apr. 1645. Tricht, De Briefwisseling van P. C. Hooft, iii. 184, no. 1265. Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 113. 140  ‘Onze Mecenaten smilten vast. Reael leit in de Westerkerck. Plemp, Baeck, Blaeuw, Victoryn en Mostert leggen in de Nieuwe Kerck onder de zerck gekropen, een teken, dat wy volgen zullen: Godt geve ter zalige ure. Onze goede en wyze Grotius is oock al hene.’ Vondel to Hooft, Hooimaant 1646. Sterck, Vondelbrieven, 120. On the cooling of relations between Hooft and Vondel, see J. F. M. Sterck, ‘Vondels verhouding tot Hooft’, in J. F. M. Sterck, Hoofstukken over Vondel en zijn kring (Amsterdam: Van Looy, 1923), 47–50.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

258

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Vondel continues to reminisce about his final encounter with Grotius, just before the latter’s fateful trip to Sweden, in what is a remarkable letter for a man who at that time still had more than thirty years of his life to live, and his most productive years as a tragic poet ahead of him. The literary constellation which we see in operation in the years leading up to 1630 did not outlive the crisis which had called it into being. The activities of the poets associated with the Academy in the years between 1627 and 1630 repeat the pattern of events of 1617 to 1619, when Coster and Telle were the most active fig­ ures in this literary scene, and Vondel had only just made his debut as a satirical poet. In 1617, their primary goal was to undermine the credibility of the ContraRemonstrant cause, attacking the Contra-Remonstrants on points of doctrine, the relationship between church and state, and the persecution of heretics, while em­ phasizing the sovereignty of the States of Holland, and the legitimacy of the eccle­ siastical policy of Oldenbarnevelt’s party. In 1627 the stakes were altogether different. Within the Republic, the Remon­ strants had lost the fight, yet in Amsterdam, thanks to a shift in the balance of power, the Remonstrants could enjoy a more comprehensive form of tolerance than anywhere else—with the exception, perhaps, of Rotterdam—in the Republic. The poets grouped around Coster’s Academy now sided with the Amsterdam magistrate in what can be called nothing less than a libel offensive against its opponents among the clergy (Trigland, Smout, Badius, Cloppenburg), the regents (Pauw), and the civic militia (Boogaert, Leendertsz). They also redefined their notion of liberty of conscience, claiming liberty of worship for the Remonstrants, as Episcopius and De Fyne had done earlier. The argument for toleration rehearsed over and again in their writings formed, as the Contra-Remonstrants realized only too well, a two-tiered attack on the Contra-Remonstrant position, casting the Revolt as a struggle for lib­ erty, not religion, and reappropriating the notion of liberty of conscience in a way that made it fundamentally incompatible with its Contra-Remonstrant definition. At the heart of the matter, therefore, lay the struggle over the definition of that hallowed notion, so central to the identity of the Republic: libertas conscientiae.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Conclusion Foelix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. Happy is he who understands The cause of things: how firmly they Are chained together; so that no living Being (except God) ever did or felt Ought, but through causal force, All (that happens) is by causal force impelled. Were that too weak, no force remained And cause no cause. What is brought about On earth thus is caused by force So great that it cannot not be done. Each cause has its mother cause All goes as must, descends from God; The power of his wise goodness is the cause From which like sunrays, each thing flows. He would, were it good, relieve us sooner (P. C. Hooft, ‘Fate’)

When can it be said that the Arminian controversy was truly over? The answer ­depends, perhaps, on whom one chooses to ask. For Hooft, the poem ‘Fate’ (‘Nood­ lot’) written in 1618 seems to mark a turning point.1 The tone of the poem is philosophical, yet anti-speculative; its ultimate line strikes a note of quiet resigna­ tion. Our helplessness is willed by God, who does nothing but for our good. And yet, the poem can be seen as an effort to come to terms with controversy, Hooft’s own attempt to square the circle. The poem’ posits an inexorable causality (oorsaeck) that has its origin in God; the enjambement and the flowing rhymes linking line to line and stanza to stanza enact the concatenation of cause and effect they evoke. 1 ‘Foelix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. Geluckigh die d’ oorsaecken van de dingen / Verstaet: en hoe sij vast zijn onderlingen / Geschakelt sulx, dat geene leventheên, / (God wtgesejdt) oyt yet van selven deên / Oft leên ’maer al door ander oorsaex dringen, / Door oorsaex cracht men al wat schiedt siet drijven. / Waer die te flaeuw geen wercking soud beclijven, / En oorsaeck zijn geen oorsaeck. Wat gewracht / Ter wereld wordt, is dan te weegh gebracht / Door kracht ’soo groot dat het niet nae kan blijven. / Elcke’ oorsaeck heeft haer moederoorsaeck weder. / T gaet al soo ’t moet: en daelt van Gode neder. / Zijn goedthejt wijs vermoghen is de bron / Daer ’t al wt vliet als straelen wt de Zon. / Hij kon ’en soud waer ’t nutst, ons helpen reeder. P. C. Hooft, ‘Noodlot’, Gedichten, ed. P. Leendertz Wz. and A. Stoett (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1899), i. 155.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

260

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

Ultimately, however, this causality has its source in God’s infinite goodness. Does the poem place God’s goodness before his will, or does Hooft attempt to elide the difference between wisdom, justice, and power? Since Hooft, with Vossius per­ haps the only truly irenic spirit among the writers here discussed, sought to leave partisan divisions behind, the poem itself transcends the markers of ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’. Acquiescence is not congenial to everyone, and to no one less so than to Vondel. While Vondel’s commitment to the cause of Grotius and Oldenbarnevelt may be  extraordinary (in that he could, even after thirty-eight years, describe the memory of Oldenbarnevelt’s death as the driving force of his poetry), he was not the only person for whom memory, poetics, and political allegiance were inextric­ ably intertwined. At the very end of Vondel’s life, in 1677, the Remonstrant poet and dramatist Joachim Westerbaan brought out fragments of what was to remain an unfinished tragedy about the death of Servetus; another high mark in literary anti-Calvinism. It is perhaps not so surprising that the disruptive literary energies unleashed by the Arminian controversy took a long, indeed a very long, time to die down. The fact that the pamphlet wars unleashed by the Arminian troubles galvanized Dutch politics is uncontroversial. Yet the extent to which many of the key figures and devel­ opments in Dutch literary life in the early seventeenth century were directly shaped by religious and political conflict still needs to be recognized. Dutch theatre cul­ ture, in particular, bore the imprint of controversy. The evidence linking the literati associated with Coster’s Academy is so strong that it seems justified to wonder whether this remarkable initiative would have taken place under different circum­ stances. For a period of time, the men in the vanguard of Dutch theatre culture, Hooft, Coster, and Vondel, came together in defence of the cause of Grotius and Oldenbarnevelt. And though levels of personal persuasion, commitment, and par­ tisanship may have varied from individual to individual, plays like Hooft’s Baeto, Vondel’s Jerusalem Destroyed and Palamedes, and Coster’s Iphigenia leave hardly any doubt as to where their allegiances lay. To discount this evidence, because it does not agree with how we have come to believe literary culture functioned in society, is problematic to say the least. In the same way that we cannot separate theological literature from the ‘white noise’ of religious polemic, it is impossible to draw a de­ marcation line between the poetry and drama privileged by literary historians, and the sprawling corpus of pamphlets, broadsides, satire, and libel verse. This is not to say that genre distinctions do not matter; they mattered, obviously, a great deal to Vondel, who spent years trying to master the style, first, of Senecan drama, and later, of the Greek tragedians. But it does mean that on a different level a play like Palamedes shared a discursive field with Remonstrant apologetics and martyr-­ narratives, as well as with the poetry of Lucan, the elegies for Oldenbarnevelt, and with Slatius’s libel-pamphlets. What makes the literature of the period exhilarating, as well as unsettling to read, is the way in which they show how the ‘fictional’ col­ ludes with what we have come to view as the production of political and religious meaning in literary texts. A perspective that views the relationship between reli­ gious controversy, political conflict and literature in mimetic terms, as literature

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Conclusion 261 ‘mirroring’, or ‘reflecting’ a pre-existing political or religious reality, cannot ­altogether grasp this dynamic. A very simple reason why this should be the case is that the distinction between politics and literature was perhaps never there in the first place. Authors like Hooft, Coster, and Vondel did not simply use literary media to propagate the political ideas they had found elsewhere. If anything, this book has demonstrated how fraught the transfer of ideas from author to author and from medium to medium really was, and how this exchange of ideas was liable to mistakes, misreadings, and strategic appropriations. From Telle’s tongue-in-cheek conflation of the doctrinal latitudinarianism advocated by Grotius with a spiritu­ alist plea for full religious toleration, to Coster’s endeavour, in Iphigenia, to marry Remonstrant apologetics to what at times appears as a Deist natural theology, to Vondel’s attempt—failed, ultimately, perhaps—to steer a safe course between victim tragedy and political libel, these cases can only be viewed as Remonstrant propaganda on the most elementary level. To view them as such would overlook the fact that to write a tragedy with openly polemical purposes, lampooning the Calvinist clergy, or writing politico-religious controversiae in accessible satirical form, or even posting a stinging libel poem, was a consummately political act. The fact itself may seem common sense enough, yet its implications for how we understand the culture of early modern politics are undeniably important. The political culture of the Arminian controversy was colourful, vibrant, and driven, more often than not, by a strong undercurrent of barely suppressed violence. In this conflict, literature in the broadest sense provided both the ammunition and the spark. Even though some of the phenomena discussed here, such as the practice of ­polemical ballading, or the role of libel in oppositional politics, are familiar from different contexts, the nature of the conflict itself remains exceptional. Altogether absent is the culture of ambiguity and self-censorship that governed the discussion of predestinarian theology in pre-Civil War England. In comparison to the careful manoeuvring of a Whitgift in the controversy between Peter Baro and his oppon­ ents, the bold way in which the Dutch authorities addressed some of the most ­arcane questions in theology cannot but strike us as out of the ordinary. In this respect, the way in which the label ‘latitudinarian’ or ‘irenicist’ is applied to both is, although not altogether wrong, nevertheless somewhat misleading. Up until the very end, the Republic’s authorities attempted to foist their own vision of tolerance and unity onto an unwilling church, and they did so through an appeal to con­ sensus, as well as authority. In the end it proved to be a strategy that backfired disastrously, demonstrating, more than anything else, the brittle limits both of authority and consensus in early modern politics. But the systematic way in which the Oldenbarnevelt regime sought to justify its policies and the intellectual resources it marshalled for the purpose are therefore no less remarkable. The judgement trad­ itionally pronounced on Oldenbarnevelt and his handling of the crisis as being purely ‘pragmatic’ (or even ‘opportunistic’), a consummate example of his political brinkmanship, showing little real concern for the principles at stake, and even less for the sensibilities of the church, is in this respect simply incorrect. It will be clear that a purely pragmatic ecclesiastical policy would hardly have raised such fervent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

262

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

partisan hopes, or have proved so intellectually productive. The truth remains that the States party’s vision of the nature of the church and of the right of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, as well as evoking intense opposition within the Reformed Church, found supporters with a substantial minority of the Republic’s population, that overlapped, but did not coincide with the Remonstrant minority within the church. Not only, finally, was the ecclesiastical policy of the States of Holland a highly innovative strategy of dealing with religious controversy, it also provided the intellectual ferment that would animate the debate on religious toler­ ation, the Hebrew Republic, and the nature of the civil sovereign’s ius in circa sacra for the period to come. That this debate proved to be such a fertile ground for literary experiment was in no small measure due to paradoxes inherent in the idea of ‘consensus’ in lit­ erary and intellectual culture. More than an unequivocal appeal to a pre-existing harmony or absence of dissent, the appeal to consensus came to function as a normative vision of the past, a hermeneutic, an ethical code and standard, and even, one could say, a poetic. When Hooft praised Grotius in his Oration on the Dignity of Poetry as having led the way where so many theologians had gone astray, he not merely voiced his admiration for the Christus patiens, or expressed his adherence to the policy advocated in the Ordinum pietas and the Tolerance Resolution. Rather, he drew attention to the intimate link between these works, stressing poetry’s unique role in persuading people to charity and peace. Grotius, Cunaeus, Hooft, and Vondel, different as they are in other ways, ultimately share the same analysis of what lies at the root of the problem, and repeat the same diag­ nosis: controversy cannot be simply overcome because doctrinal dissent is self-­ perpetuating, and is motivated by the same spiritual errors that make us proud, inquisitive, obstinate, and intolerant. The magnitude of the vices which Cunaeus’s Sophia, or Coster’s Nestor expose is such that they cannot be overcome by appeals to reason. For Grotius, the fissiparous tendencies of contemporary Christianity had reached such extremes that only the strongest possible bond, our common belief in Christ, can hold us back from total fragmentation. Poetry, more specific­ ally tragedy, here, fulfils a privileged role, because it directly moves the affections, bypassing reason altogether. Vondel understood the importance of Grotius’s ideas, and developed them into a new direction. In 1635, when the Thirty Years War had entered into its most ­destructive phase, and the trauma of the Arminian controversy became gradually overwritten by the greater tragedy of European religious war, Grotius brought out a play titled Sophompaneas, a tragedy on the reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers. As he put it in a letter to Vossius: ‘scripsi tragoediam qua Josephus, Jacobi filius, a fratris recognoscitur’ (I have written a tragedy in which Joseph, the son of Jacob, is recognized by his brothers).2 Vondel set about translating the play into Dutch, and furnished it with two prequels: Joseph in Egypt (1640) and Joseph in Dothan (1640). In the dedication of Joseph in Dothan, the poet gives an important 2  Grotius to J. Slupecki de Konary, 2 Aug. 1635, cited in Henk Nellen, Hugo de Groot (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007), 393.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Conclusion 263 insight into his ideas concerning the relation between passion and mimesis. Vondel describes how the subject of Joseph’s betrayal by his brothers came to his mind when, visiting the house of an acquaintance, he chanced upon a particularly dra­ matic painting by Jan Pynas (now in the Hermitage), depicting the moment when Joseph’s brothers show their father Joseph’s blood-stained cloak. The moment of passionate mimesis transforming a movement in the soul to inspiration is then doubled, as Vondel links the affections stirred in the author’s breast to those in his audience. If this play wounds your heart, he argues, ‘I will not hesitate to confess that this moving history has helped the tragedian and has wounded his heart many times: for what is more capable to mollify and move someone’s heart, even if it were as hard as a rock, than the injustice and the violence that blood does unto blood?’ Typologically, Genesis 37: 3 was traditionally read as Joseph prefiguring Christ, the multi-colored coat alluding to Christ’s humanity on the cross.3 The tra­ gedy, however, can be viewed on several levels; allegorically, one can read in it allu­ sions to the Republic’s recent past and its disruptive religious conflict, or, on a larger stage, to the wars of religion that were, as Vondel warned, in danger of redu­ cing Germany to a wilderness. Viewed typologically, the play forces the spectator to recognize that, whenever Christians wage war among each other, they betray Christ. The two perspectives are mutually reinforcing, as Vondel’s continuing ­efforts for the rehabilitation of Grotius came to be connected to his larger irenicist concerns to promote peace among Christians of all denominations. Joseph’s tra­ gedy ‘acted out on small scale’, to use Vondel’s words, was subsumed in Joseph’s tragedy acted out on the scale of European politics, in a plea to all Christians to end the madness of their fratricidal wars. Vondel indeed takes pains to point out the relevance of the story of Joseph for a Christianity divided by religious schism and war: Throughout history, Joseph’s story has been re-enacted, both on a small and a great scale, among every race and every people; as even to this day, among Christians, who, being brothers and members of one body, caring little for Joseph’s sorrow, every day again sell the innocent and deliver him to his most bitter, sworn enemies; when they, each betraying and destroying the other, prefer to open the gates of Christianity to the Ishmaelites, than to give in and tolerate each other.

It is the hatred among Christians of different denominations which has brought war and destruction on Europe, and has laid her open to Turkish invasion. Indeed, he continues, ‘if Joseph would be heard more loudly, what misery would not be prevented?’ ‘Speedily would the brothers who now stand armed over against each other, lay down the cursed sword to embrace and take up arms against the common enemy.’4 In the following years, in which Vondel increasingly dedicated himself to 3  See e.g. the poem by Herbert, ‘Joseph’s Coat’, in George Herbert and the Seventeenth Century ­ eligious Poets: Authoritative Texts—Criticism, ed. Mario A. di Cesare (London and New York: Norton, R 1978), 56. For a more detailed account of Grotius, the Joseph-trilogy and Vondel’s biblical poetic, see my ‘Compassion, Remorse and Reconciliation: The Joseph-Tragedies of Joost van den Vondel’, in Political Thought and the Passions, special issue of European Review of History, ed. Adriana Luna-Fabritius and Freya Sierhuis, 17/1 (2010), 27–51. 4  Vondel, ‘Joseph in Dothan’, WB iv. 74–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

264

Literature of the Arminian Controversy

the study of Greek tragedy, and Aristotle’s Poetics, his biblical tragedies came to explore the idea of catharsis in spiritual, as well as in affective terms, bringing the language of transgression, conversion, and atonement to bear on the Aristotelian categories of hamartia, peripeteia, and anagnorisis. But that is an altogether dif­ ferent story. In the context of the Arminian controversy and its immediate aftermath, however, the irenicist literature of the period also manifests its more unruly, paradox-ridden side. The alliance between irenicism and satire which we find, in differing forms and within different genres, in the work of Cunaeus, Telle, and Vondel, is by no means coincidental. The appeal to a minimal consensus, or to humility, tolerance, and moderation in judgement and interpretation, often meant that the regula caritatis came to be utilized in a rather uncharitable manner, to separate the wheat from the tares. The appeal to a religious or satirical plain speech rhetoric was invariably accompanied by an attack on the plain speech rhetoric of the other party as false parrhèsia, exposing one’s opponents as false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, rabble-rousers, and demagogues. The selfvalidating performativity of early modern religious parrhèsia thus broke the bounds of legitimate political discourse, creating a political and literary culture that was open, discursive, and at times, highly disruptive. Anti-Calvinism was, in this respect, only the most vocal part of its legacy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography Early printed editions (ordered alphabetically when author is known) [Aerssen, François van?] (1618). Noodtwendigh ende levendigh discours, van eenighe getrouwe patriotten ende lief-hebberen onses vaderlandts; over onsen droevighen ende periculeusen staet.: VVaer inne oprechtelijc ende levendigh verthoont wordt, in wat perijckel ende ghevaer wy gheraeckt zijn, ende waer henen dese verwarringhen tenderen: Met de noodighe middelen om die te remedieren.: In ’t licht ghebracht, om teghen die vileyne boecxkens, Weeghschael, Reuck-appel, Vraegh-al, &c. ghelesen te worden (s.l., s.n.) [Aerssen, François van?] (1618). Parctiicke [sic] van den Spaenschen Raet, dat is: clare vertooninghe dat den raedt door I. Lipsium, Er. Puteanum, ende Fr. Campanellam, ghegeven, om de Vereenighde Nederlanden wederom te brengen onder ’tghebiet van den Coning van Spangjen, in alle hare deelen ofte alreede in’t werck ghestelt is, ofte noch daghelijcks in’t werck ghesteldt wordt . . . : tot waerschouwinghe van alle vrije, vrome Nederlanders, insonderheyt der gener die inde regieringe zijn (s.l., s.n. (1618)) [Aerssen, François van?] (1618). Provisionele Openinghe. Van verscheyden saecken, gestelt in de Remonstrantie van den Heer Advocaet van Hollandt ende West-Vriesland. Tot naerder Onderrechtinghe, soo van hare Ed. Mog. als van alle getrouwe Patriotten ende Liefhebebrs des Vaderlandts. Waerinne oock de Nulliteyt van de ghenaemde Ontdeckinghe van de Valsche Spaensche ende Jesuytische Practijcquen cortelijck wort aengewesen [s.l., ‘Ghedrvct wt cracht van de privilegien der Vrye Nederlanden’] Anon. (1618). Den Arminiaenschen Dreck-waghen gheheel naer het leven afgebeelt ghelijck de letters binnen uytwijsen sullen ([Amsterdam], s.n.) Anon. (1618). Gulden Legende van den Nieuwen St. Jan. Dat is: Cort verhael vande Edeldom/ deuchden/ ende handelinghen van Meester Jan van Barnevelt/ghewesene Advocaet van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1619). Afbeelding der executie geschiet den xiii May 1619 aan Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, gewesene advocaet van Holland (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1619?). Namen der vier-en twintig gedelegeerde rechters van den advokaet Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. Bij den ambassadeur van Vrankrijk beuls genoemd (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1619). Request aen de Eedele Grootmogende HEEREN, mijn Heeren De Staten van Hollant ende West-Vrieslandt. Van weghen de Huysvrouwe ende Kinderen vanden Heere van Oldenbarnevelt, Heere van Bercke, &. Door een liefhebber der Nederlantsche Regeeringhe, maer niet des Paus (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1619?). Tsamenspraeck Vanden duyvel van Ghent met de sot van Mechelen (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1620). Clacht-Liedt Over den Dood van de E. Heere Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mitsgaders een Clacht-Dicht over den verdruckten staet van Holland (. . .) (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1620). Iammer-liedekens ende riimen, voor desen in Hollant gestroyt en gesongen: doch nu voor de liefhebbers by een ghestelt/ende voor den druck uytghegheven (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1620). Lacrymae Lacrymarum, Dat is/ Traenen der Traenen ghestort over den doot des Edele Heer Iohan van Oldenbarnevelt (. . .) (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1620). Truer-Dichten over het jammerlijck Om-brenghen des Edelen ende wijd-beroemden helds Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (. . .) ([Antwerp, Abraham Verhoeven]) Anon. (1621). Tranen der Seyn, over ’t vertrecken der Hollantschen Protesilaus. Mitsgaders, d’Omhelsing van de Maes op sijne commste (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1625). Aen den E.E. Welgeleerden Joost van den Vondelen (Amsterdam, s.n.)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

266 Bibliography Anon. (1625). Den gereformeerde Momus aen I.V. Vondelen op zijnen Palamedes. ‘Men singhet op de Voyse van Bereyt u huys terstont, Off Ick weet een reyn Casteel’ (s.l., Ghedruckt voor den autheur) Anon. (1625). Joost huylt over sen bestevaer (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1626). Apologie ofte Verantwoordinge voor de Predicatie van D. Johannes Doucher, Franschen predicant binnen Amsterdam, ghedaen door een Oprecht Liefhebber v.d. Geref. Religie ende v. ons lieve Vaderlandt. (s.l., s.n.) (1626) Anon. (1627). Den omgekeerden rommelpot van het arminiaens prins-moorders rot (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1627). ’t Geuse Liere-pypien op den Amsterdamschen Rommelpot, Ghedruct int Iaer 1627 (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1628). Echo ofte weer-klanck, Op den Eedt / die ghedaen werdt van de eerloffelijcke Schutterije tot opweckinghe haerder schuldige plicht. Door L.H.D.W in’t licht gestelt (Hoorn: Marten Gerbrantsz, 1628) Anon. (1630). Antwoorde ghesonden aen de esele gout-suchtige heeren met haer omhangh vande Neder-duytsche Academy besitters van de Gouden Vrijheit binnen Amsterdam Ghedruckt (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1630?). Antwoorden op de vragen der D’Amsterdamsche Academi aen alle poëten en dichters van de vereenighde Nederlanden, liefhebbers van de goude vryhyt—Arminiaensche liefde ende yver (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1630). Wondere claechten van Arminia vryheyts papieren-Geldt over de vreemde kueren en procedueren door haar man Gamaliels-rasende mans protest samt oock door de Schets van Duc d’Alff, Vorm, Twee stinck-visschen ende Den heraut met believen. Van hare peeters ende peeten na haer vaders dood aen haer gepleecht: met hare wondere gheboorte ende opvoedinghe (s.l., s.n.) Anon. (1631). Kleyn Proefken van der Arminianen, ende onder desen Samuel Costers over-al ’t huys, bang voor Christi Cruys: Item des Noord-Vaerders Kriin Breemborgs Godloosheden ende wulpse genade: tot waarschouwing van den voorslach van middelen tot de vereenighinge, &c. (s.l., s.n.) [Brandt, Geeraerd] (1658). Apollo’s Harp Bestaande in Nederduytsche Mengelrijmen (Amsterdam, Jan Hendriksz en Jan Rieuwertsz) Brandt, Geeraerd (1671–1704). Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen, in en omtrent de Nederlanden. Met enige Aenmerkingen en Aentekeningen, 4 vols (Amsterdam, Jan Rieuwertz, Hendrik en Dirk Boom) Brandt, Geeraerd (1710). Historie van de rechtspleging gehouden in den jaaren 1618 en 1619 ontrent de dry gevangene heeren. Mr Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Mr Rombout Hoogerbeets, Mr. Hugo de Groot (Rotterdam, Barent Bos) [Cannenburgh, P.] (1618). Een cleyn vensterken daer door ghekeecken wert waer de groote meesters die oude Geuskens meenden te brengen, maer siet of sy hem selven daer niet toe wentelen. Een cloeckmoedigh Zeeuw (s.l., s.n.) [Brandt, Geeraerd] (1647). I.V. Vondels Poesy ofte verscheide gedichten. Het tweede deel (Schiedam, gedruckt voor den Autheur) Bredero, Gerbrand Adriaensz (1638). Alle de wercken, so spelen, gedichten, brieven en kluchten / van den gheest-rijcken poëet Gerbrand Adriaensz. Bredero Amsterdammer Amsterdam: Cornelis Lodewijcksz. van der Plasse. [Carpentier, Roeland de] (1648). Historie van het Leven en Sterven van Heere Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Ridder, Heere van den Tempel, Berckel, Rodenrijs, Gewesen Advocaet van Hollandt, Etc. Waerachtelijck beschreven door een Liefhebber der waerheyt (Rotterdam, Johannes Naeranus)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 267 Castellio, Sebastien (1613). Opera Sebastiani Castellionis (Haarlem, Pieter Arentsz) Coolhaes, Caspar (1609). Naedencken of de diputatien vande Godtlijcke predestinatie ende derghelijcken meer, des natuerlijcken menschen verstant verre te boven gaende, oorbaerlijck ende stichtelijck ghetracteert, ofte verhandelt konnen worden . . . Den eerwaerdighen ende welgheleerden heeren Francisco Gomaro ende Jacobo Arminio, . . . ter proeve voorgestelt . . . Gouda. (Gedruckt ter Goude: Jasper Tournay) Coolhaes, Caspar [Rudoph Gwalther] (1582). Van die christelijcke disciplijn ende excommunicatie ofte ban: . . . Uyt de Latijnsche tale . . . overgheset door Casparum Coolhaes (Leiden, Andries Verschout) Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz (1630 [1633]). Wercken, waer van eenige noyt voor desen gedruct zijn (Amsterdam, Jacob Aertsz. Calom) [Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz] (1611). Van de predestinatie, Of Godt yemandt verblindt, verwerpt, ende verhardt onveroorsaackt door desselvens quaatheydt. Vijfde ghesprake tusschen Ghereformeerde Calvinist, ende D. Demosthenes. (Gouda: Jasper Tournay) [Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz.] (1611).Van Gods predestinatie over den verworpenen. Of de verworpene buyten haar toedoen, alleen door Godes predestinatie verdoemt worden. Vierde ghesprake tusschen Ghereformeerde Calvinist, ende D. Demosthenes (Gouda, [Jasper Tournay]) [Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz] (1616). Vande vreemde sonde schulde straffe nasporinghe: Waer inne naectelijck werdt ontdeckt de rechte gront ende oorsake vande schadelijcke dolingen gheslopen inde leeringhen vande vrije-wille, predestinatie ende justificatie (Gouda, Ghedruckt ter Goude: Jasper Tournay voor Andries Burier) [Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz, et al.] (1613). T’samenspreeckinghen. Vande predestinatie ende schickinghe Godes, verkiesinghe, vrye-wille, t’gheloove. Eerst ghemaeckt int Latijn door . . . Sebastiaen Castellio. Ende nu Nederlandtsche tale overgeset, te weten die drie eerste door Dirck Adriaensen Kemp ende het laetste door D.V. Coornhert (Gouda, Ghedruckt ter Goude: Jasper Tournay, voor Andries Burier) Coster, Samuel (1617). Iphigenia. Treur-spel (Amsterdam, Nicolaes Biestkens) Coster, Samuel (1619). Duytsche Academie/ tot Amsterdam gespeelt/op den eersten dag van Oegstmaant (Amsterdam, voor Cornelis Lodevvijcksz. Vander Plassen) Coster, Samuel (1620). Nederduytsche Academijs Niemant ghenoemt/ niemant gheblameert/ Gespeelt den eersten dag van Oegst maand, op het derde iaer-ghety/ kneppel onder de hoenderen ’t (Amsterdam: Voor Cornelis van der Plassen) [Coster, Samuel?] (1628). Kallefs-val (Speel-ghewijs voorghestelt den 1. Junij anno 1628) (s.l., s.n.) [Coster, Samuel?] (1630). De schets van Dvc d’Alba, die de Hollanders balhoorigh maackt (s..l., s.n.) Donteclock, Reginald (1612). Overlegginghe van de Oorsaecken der schadelicker Twist in de kercken van Hollant en West-vriesland opgeresen, ende eerst van de Kerckelicke Ordonantie oft Regieringhe in’t gemeyn (Delft, Jan Adriesz) [Episcopius, Simon] (1627). Vrye Godes-dienst, Of t’samen-spreeckinghe tusschen Remonstrant en Contra-Remonstrant over de vrye godts-dienstighe vergaderinghen der Remonstranten. Met wederlegginge van Douchers oproerighe Predicatie, C. Dungani redeloose salvatien, & c. (s.l., s.n.) Francken, Jan (1620). Warachtige Historie van de Ghevanckenisse/ bekentenisse/ leste woorden ende droevighe dood van wylen heer Johan van Olden-Barnevelt, Ridder/heere tot Berckel/ Roderijs/etc. Advocaat van den Lande/ Bewaerder vanden Grooten Zegel ende Chartres van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt (Amsterdam, Joris Veselaer) [Fyne, Paschier de] (1624). Een broederlicke vermaninge: waer invertoont wort, d’ellende onses lieven vaderlants. Mitsgaders de middelen om de zelve voor te komen (s.l., s.n.)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

268 Bibliography [Fyne, Paschier de] (1625). Nieuwe-jaer geschenck, vereert aen alle remonstrants-gesinde, zo wel aen predikanten als toehoorders, die nu dese 6 jaren zeer swaerlick onder de verdruckinghe gezucht hebben, ende noch tot Godt haren hemelschen Vader zuchten . . . Wt ghegheven door een liefhebber van alle menschen (s.l., s.n.) [Fyne, Paschier de] (1625). Silvere-vergulde naelde bequaem om af te lichten de vliesen van de oogen der Hollantsche regenten. Als oock, van alle trouhertighe Hollanders. Wiens ooghen nu by-nae verduystert zijn, door het al te licht ghelooven, en naevolgen, van dien schaedelicken raedt der predicanten, die selfs op hare oogen vliesen als visschellen hebben (s.l., s.n.) Gomarus, Franciscus (1592). Defensor Pacis: Sive Adversus Usurpatam Rom. Pontificis Iurisdictionem, Marsilii Patavini Pro invictiss. & constantiss. Rom. Imperatore Ludovico IV. Bavarico, a tribus Rom. Pontificibus indigna perpesso, Apologia; Qua politicae & ecclesiasticae potestatis limites doctissime explicantur (Frankfurt, Johannes Wechelus) Gomarus, Franciscus (1609). Francisci Gomari Verclaringhe Over de vier hooftstucken, der leere, waer van hy met sijn weerde mede Professore D. Iacobo Arminio, ghenconfereert heeft, voor de E. E. moghende Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende Westvrieslandt; overghelevert den achtsten Septembris (s.l., s.n.) Gomarus, Franciscus (1613). Accoort Vande Recht-sinnige Leere der Voorsienicheyt Gods (Delft, Jan Andriesz) Grotius, Hugo (1622). Verantwoordingh van de wettelijcke regiering van Hollant ende WestVrieslant Midtsgaders eeniger nabuyrige Provincien, sulcx die was voor de veranderingh, gevallen inden Iare 1618, beschreven bij Mr. Hugo de Groot (s.l., s.n.) Heinsius, Daniel (1619). Homilia in locum Iohannes cap XVII versus ix in qua de Electione, & quae ab ea pendet quinque Articulorum doctrina, deque eius quae in Ecclesiis recepta est, usu ac aedificatione agitur Heinsius, Daniel (1621). Cras credo, hodie nihil. Siue, Modus tandem sit ineptiarum: Satyra Menippea (Leiden, Elzevier) Konigh, A., de (1616). Sekere liedekens, ghesteld tot stichtinghe ende troost der vervallene en verdrukte kercke Christi in Nederlant Amsterdam Konigh, Abraham, de (1618). Simsons treurspel. Amsterdam: voor Cornelis Lodewijcksz vander Plasse, bij Paulus van Ravesteyn, 1618 Konigh, Abraham de (1618). Achabs treur-spel. Amsterdam: voor Abraham de Konig, Konstverkooper aan de Borse. [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.] (1608). De Noortsche Rommel pot, Jerem. 1. vers. 13. Op de wijse: Dick heb ick mijn lief ghebeden (s..l., s.n.) [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.](1610). Nieuwe jaars claach-liedt, over de doodt van D.D. Iacobus Arminius, . . . Op de wijse vanden tweeden Psalm, Waerom raest het volck met sulcken hoochmoedt (s.l., s.n.) [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.] (1610). Onder verbeteringh. Een mey-praetjen tusschen vader ende sone, over ’t gheschil der professoren . . . tot Leiden (s.l., s.n.) [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.] (1614). Sommighe buer-praetgens, van de resolutie der Ed. Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-vrieslandt, ende de Magistraten der stadt Hoorn: alles dienende tot opbouwinghe van de ware Ghereformeerde kercke (Hoorn: ghedruckt by Willem Andriessz.woonende op het Noordt, in’t Schrijf-boeck) [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.] (1618). Een kort Monickendammer discours (s.l., s.n.) [Robbertsz Le Canu, R.] (1618). Hoorns basuyn teghen de practijcque des ondanckbaren danckaerts, van den Spaenschen raedt, der stede van Amsterdam, met een maybloem uyt Barnevelt op-geresen (s.l., s.n.) Robbertsz Le Canu, R. (1646). Rechte aen-wijsinghe tot die ware sichtbare kercke Gods (Statum, gedruckt voor Arent Sjoerssz)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 269 Scabaelje, Dierick (1616). Corte ende clare aenwysinghe van den sin/ meeninghe/ ende het ooghemerck des H. Apostels Pauli/ in het negende Capittel zynes Briefs tot den Romeynen (Amsterdam, zicolaes Biestkens) Scabaelje, Dierick (1617). Spel des gheschils tot Athenen/ghenomen uyt het 17. Cap der Handelingen der Apostelen (Amsterdam, by Nicolaes Biestkens) Scabaelje, Dierick (1614). Spel des Oproers tot Ephesien, door Dierick Schabalie Ghedruckt tot Haerlem, Jacob Pauwels Houwaert, voor Daniel de Keyzer) [Schut, H. V.?] (1628). De croon der Schutterij van de beroemde Coop-stad Amstelredam Haer daeromme gedediceert ende toegheschreven, om de valjante Godts zeghen-rijcke couragie, in het jaer 1578. by hen voor-ouders volbracht, verlossende de selve stadt van de schrickelijcke, pauselijcke, superstitieuse, afgoderije, ende der selver paepsche magistraten, met hare inquisitie ende bloedige placcaten . . . (s.l., s.n.) [Servetus, Michel, and Telle, Reinier] (1620). Vande dolingen der Drievuldigheyd: seven boecken, eertijds in het latijn beschreven ([Amsterdam?], s.n.) Sixtinus, Suffridius (1617). S.S. Apollo over de inwydinghe van de Neerlandtsche ­Academia de Byekorf ghesticht door S. Coster (Amsterdam: Willem Jansz inde gulde Sonnewijser) [Slatius, Henricus] (1616). Joannis Calvini tyrannien, scheldinghen, ende leughenen: dat is, Korte ende klare onderrichtinghe voor de eenvoudighe herten, die haer bekommeren over de resistentie ende wederstant, welcke den huyden-daeghschen schuer-predikers, inden lande van Schielant, werdt gedaen (s.l., s.n.) [Slatius, Henricus] (1617). Henrici Slatii bewiis, dat de Schuer-predicanten zijn vrienden ende toestanders van dese leere, dat Godt on-mondighe jonge kinderkens, die in hare onbejaertheyt sterven, zelfs der gheloovighen van eeuwigheyt heeft verworpen, ende in tijde verdoemt (Rotterdam: Matthijs Bastiaensz) [Slatius, Henricus] (1619). Christalijnen spieghel, waer in men naectelijcken kan zien, wie t’zedert eenighe jaren herwaerts inde Provintie van Hollandtmde hooghheydt, rechten, privilegiën en vryheden hebben gevioleert . . . of wie de rechte auteurs zijn van alle divisie, scheuringe, twist, tweedracht en andere ongevallen (s.l., s.n.) [Slatius, Henricus] (1619). Den gepredestineerden dief, ofte een t’amen-sprekinge: ghehouden tvsschen een predicant der Calvinvs-ghesinde, ende een dief, die ghesententieert was om te sterven ([Antwerp], s.n.) [Slatius, Henricus] (1619). Ioannes Calvinvs vreedt, bitter, vals. Dat is: Corte en claere verbeldinghe vanden aert of gheest Ioannis Calvini hem vertoonende in sijne tyrannie, leughenen ende scheldinghe. Ghetrocken wt Joannis Calvini leere . . . eerst gheteeckent door eenen liefhebber der nederlantsche vryheid in Schielandt . . . nu sonder vercortinghe oft veranderinghe door lief-hebbers der catholijcke waerheydt wtghegheven (Antwerp, Guilliam Lesteens, inde Hoochstraet, inden gulden Pellicaen) [Slatius, Henricus] (1620). Morgen-Wecker, aen de oude ende ghetrouwde Batavieren, met een remedie teghen haere slaep-sieckte (s.l., [Joris Veselaer]) [Slatius, Henricus] (1623). De klaer-lichtende fakkel, om de verduysterde ooghen der Batavieren ende ingesetenen deser Vereenighde Nederlanden zo toe te lichten, datse ter degen mogen zien het ghevaerlicke perijckel ende uytersten noot onses lieven vaderlands: ende daer beneffens de heylsame remedie daer toe nodigh (s.l., s.n.) Storm, H. (1620). M. Annaeus Lucanus van’t borger oorlogh der Romeynen, tusschen C. Iulium Caesarem ende Gn. Pompeius Magnum, Overgheset in Nederlands rymdicht door Heyndrick Storm (Amsterdam, Michiel Colyn, Boeckvercooper op ’t Water) [Taurinus, Jacobus] (1617). In-houdt van eenighe brieven aangaende de beroerten binnen Amsterdam onlangs voor-ghevallen. Met een discours aan alle goede patriotten [s.l., s.n.]

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

270 Bibliography [Telle, Reinier] (1615). Vrede-sang, welcke dienen mach voor een eeuwigh Nieuwe-jaer-liedt/ Aen alle eenvoudighe Christenen, van wat ghevoelen sy oock zijn (s.l., s.n.) [Telle, Renier] (1616). Drye hoofden in eene kapproen, Ofte, De klucht van muys, kat, hont en leeuw, gestelt in dichte by een zeeuw (s.l., s.n.) [Telle, Renier] (1616). Tafereel, begrypende kortelijck het groot ende merckelijck verschil datter is tusschen de leere der h. Schriftuere ende der ghereformeerde kercken . . . ende der contraremonstranten (s.l., s.n.) [Telle, Reinier] (1617). Der contraremonstranten kerf-stock, die nimmermeer yser wordt: Aen de Roomsche catholijcken. Op de wyse: Het was een fray rijck burghers kindt (s.l., s.n.) [Telle, Reinier] (1617). Gal-braecke, te weghe ghebracht door een Leydtsche purgatie, aen den persoon van Vincent van Drielenburgh (Amsterdam, s.n.) Telle, R. (1617). Reinier Telles Tweede vrede-sang: ofte Jaerlied op de vol-eyndinge van de eerste hondert jaren na de aengevangene reformatie der kercken (Amsterdam, gedruckt by Porcevant Morgan) [Trigland, Jacobus] (1615). Christelycke ende nootwendighe verclaringhe waerinne cortelijck ende duydelijck verclaert wordt/wat in seecker formulier van eenicheyt/ uyt gegheven onder de tydel van Resolutie vande Doorluchtige &c Met Godes H. Woort ende met de Leere der Ghereformeerde kercken over een compt ofte dae van verschilt Versterckt met d’Autoriteit der H. Schrift, der Concilien, der Oudt-Vaderen, openbare Confessien, Mitsgaders met de getuyghenissen van sommige Leeraren onses tijdts ([The Hague], s.n.) Trigland, J. (1649). Kerckelijcke Geschiedenissen, begrypende de swaere en Bekommerlijcke Geschillen, in de Vereenigde Nederlanden voor-gevallen met derselver Beslissinge, ende aenmerckingen op de kerckelijcke Historie van Johannes Uytenbogaert. Uyt Autentycke stucken getrouwelijck vergadert, ende op begeerte der Zuyd en Noort-Hollantsche Synoden uytgegeven, tot nodighe onderrichtinge. Door Jacobum Triglandium, professor der H.. Theologiae in de  Universiteyt tot Leyden Ende Bedienaer des H. Evangeli aldaer (Leiden, Adriaen Wyngaerden) Uytenbogaert, J. (1610). Tractaet van ’t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener hoogher Christelicker Overheydt/ in Kerckelicke Saecken./ Ghestelt door Johannem Wtenbogardt, Bedienaer des Heylighen Evangelii (The Hague, Hillebrant Iacobsz, Drucker Ordinaris der Heeren Staaten van Hollandt en West-Vrieslandt) [Uytenbogaert, J.] (1628). Waerschouwingh voor Hamans Loon/ aen den Autheur van de Croon des Muytighen ECHO Ghestelt ten dienst van de Vrome Schutterije der vermaerdern Coopstad (Amsterdam, s.n.) Verclaringe (1617). Verclaringe Vande Heeren Burgermeesteren, Raden, ende Vroedtschappen der Steden van Amstelredam, Enckhuysen, Edam, en[de] Purmereynde, Mede-leden vande Vergaderinghe der Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende West-Vrieslandt, . . . dat de particuliere ende verschillende opinie van seeckere vijf poincten op’t stuck vande Predestinatie ende gevolge dien . . . (Amsterdam, Maarten Jansz Brant) [Visscher, Claes] (1619). Afbeelding der iustitie, geschiet den XIII May A° 1619, aen Ian van Oldenbarnevelt, gewesene advocaet van Hollant (s.l., s.n.) [Visscher, Claes] (1623). Slatius komt uijt het graff. En vaert op daer hy voer af. (Amsterdam, Claes Jansz Visscher) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1618). Op de jonghste Hollandse Transformatie (s.l., s.n.) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1625?). Gespreck op het graf van wijlen den heere Joan van Oldenbarnevelt (s.l., s.n.) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1625?). Geuse-vesper of Siecken-troost voor de vierentwintigh. Op de wijse: Brande Partinice (s.l., s.n.) [Vondel, Joost van den?] (1625?). Op d’afbeelding van Joan van Oldenbarnevelt (s.l., s.n.)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 271 [Vondel, Joost van den] (1627). Nieuw lietgen van Reyntgen de Vos: ’op de wijse van Arent Pieter Gijsen, &. (s.l., s.n.) [Joost van den Vondel] (1627). Rommel-pot vant hanekot (In D’Mater Salem [= Amsterdam] door Jrenaeum Philalethium, by Adelaert Waermont [pseud.]]) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1628). Wellecomste van den Prins (s.l., s.n.) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1630). Aen de lasteraers van de Academi (s.l., s.n.) [Vondel, Joost van den] (1630). D’Amsterdamsche Academi aen alle poëten en dichters van de vereenighde Nederlanden, liefhebbers van de goude vryhyt (s.l., [Willem Jansz. Blaeu?]) Vondel, J. v. d. (1707). Palamedes of vermoorde onnozelheit. Treurspel. Nu met aantekeningen uit ’s Digters mont opgeschreven. Den tweeden druk merkelyk vermeerdert. nunc cassum lumine lugent (Amsersfoort [Rotterdam], Pieter Brakman) Wagenaaar, J. (1760–5). Amsterdam, in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten . . .  2 vols (Amsterdam, I. Tirion) MODERN EDITIONS Arminius, James (1986). Works, tr. James Nichols and William Nichols, 3vols. London: Baker Book House [repr. of London: Longman, 1825, 1827, 1875]. Beza, Theodore (1968). Abraham sacrifiant. Geneva: Droz. Brandt, Geeraerd (1928). J. van Vondel’s leven. Maastricht: Charles Nypels. Bredero, Gerbrand Adriaensz (1968). G. A. Bredero’s Rodd’rick ende Alphonsus C. Kruyskampand G. Stuiveling ed. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. Calvin, John (1997). Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Calvin, John (1960). Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeil, tr. F. L. Battles, 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Coornhert, Dirck Volkertsz (1942). Zedekunst, dat is Wellevenskunste vermids waarheyds kennisse vanden mensche, vande zonden ende vande dueghden nu alder eerst beschreven int Neerlandsch. Leiden: Brill. Coster, Samuel (1883). Werken, ed. R. A. Kollewijn. Haarlem: Bohn. Cunaeus, Petrus (2006 [1617]). The Hebrew Republic, with introduction by Arthur Eyffinger, tr. and annotated by Peter Wyetzer. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press. Cunaeus, Petrus (1980 [1612]). Two Neolatin Menippean Satires. Justus Lipsius: Somnium. Petrus Cunaeus: Sardi Venales, ed. with introduction and notes by C. Mattheeussen and C. L. Heesakkers. Leiden: Brill. Erasmus, Desiderius (1989). The Correspondence of Desiderius Erasmus: Letters 1252 to 1355, 1522 to 1523. Vol. ix of Collected Works of Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Erasmus, Desiderius (1969). De libero arbitrio diatriba sive collatio. In Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Grotius, Hugo (1978). De Dichtwerken van Hugo Grotius, ed. B. L. Meulenbroek and A. C. Eyffinger, 2 vols. Assen: Van Gorcum. Grotius, Hugo (2001 [1647]). De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra. Critical edn with introduction, English tr., and commentary by Harm-Jan van Dam, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Grotius, Hugo (1988 [1611]). Meletius sive de iis quae inter christianos conveniunt epistola. Critical edn with tr., commentary, and introduction by Guillaume H. M. Posthumus Meyjes. Leiden: Brill.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

272 Bibliography Grotius, Hugo (1995 [1613]). Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas. Critical edn with English tr. and commentary by Edwin Rabbie. Leiden: Brill. Heinsius, Daniel (1965). Bacchus en Christus: Twee Lofzangen van Daniel Heinsius, ed. L. Ph Rank, J. D. P. Warners, and F. L. Zwaan. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. Hooft, P. C. (1871, 1925). Memorien en adviezen van Cornelis Pietersz. Hooft, 2 vols. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Hooft, P. C. (1899–1900). Gedichten, ed. P. Leendertz Wz. and A. Stoett, 2 vols. Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon. Hooft, P. C. (1972). Alle de gedrukte Werken: 1611–1738, ed. W. G. Hellinga. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hooft, P. C. (1976–9). Briefwisseling, ed. H. W. van Tricht, 3 vols. Culemborg: Tjeenk Willink [vol. I = 1599–1630]. Hooft, P. C. (2005). Geeraerdt van Velsen—Baeto, ed. H. Duits. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Hooft, P. C. (2005). Reden vande Waerdicheit der Poesie, ed. Jeroen Jansen. Amersfoort: Florivallis. Languet, Hubert (?) (1994). Vindiciae, contra tyrannos: Or, concerning the legitimate power of a prince over the people and the people over a prince, ed. and tr. George Garnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyere, Emmery de (1971). Antidote ou contrepoison contre les conseils sanguinaires et envenimez de Philippe de Marnix Sr. de Ste. Aldegonde in : Emmery de Lyere et Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde: Un admirateur de Sébastien Franck et de Montaigne aux prises avec le champion des calvinistes néerlandais, ed. Cornelis Kramer. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Melanchthon, Philip (1965). On Christian Doctrine. Loci communes 1555, tr. and ed. Clyde L. Manschreck, introduction by Hans Engelland. New York: Oxford University Press. Revius, Jacobus (1930–5 [1630]). Over-Ysselsche sangen en dichten, ed. W. A. P. Smit, 2 vols. Place: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland [vol. I = Het epos der Godsgeschiedenis; vol. ii = Overige gedichten]. Amsterdam: Holland. Spieghel, Hendrik Laurensz (1992 [1614]). Hert-spiegel, ed. Fokke Feenstra. Hilversum: Verloren. Vondel, Joost van den (1927–40). De werken van Vondel: Volledige en geïllustreerde tekstuitgave in tien delen, ed. J. F. M. Sterck et al., 11 vols. Amsterdam: Maatschappij voor Goede en Goedkope Lectuur. Vondel, Joost van den (1890). J. van den Vondels Verscheiden gedichten, with commentary by J. van Lennep, ed. J. H. W. Unger, 8 vols. Leiden: Slijthoff [vol. i]. Vondel, Joost van den (1978?). Palamedes, ed. N. C. H. Wijngaards. Zutphen: Thieme. Vondel, Joost van den (1987). Twee zeevaart-gedichten, ed. with commentary by Marijke Spies. Contains Hymnus, ofte Lof-gesangh, over de wijd-beroemde scheeps-vaert der Vereenighde Nederlanden (1613) and Het lof der see-vaert (1623), 2 vols. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij publisher. S E C O N D A RY S O U RC E S Aa, A. J. van der (1852–78). Biographisch woordenboek der Nederlanden, 21 vols. Haarlem: Van Bredrode. Abrahamse, W. (1998). Het toneel van Theodore Rodenburgh (1574–1644). Amsterdam: AD&L. Abrahamse, W., and Fleurkens, A. C. G, eds (1998). Kort tijt-verdrijf: Opstellen over Nederlands toneel (vanaf ca 1500) aangeboden aan Mieke B. Smits-Veldt. Amsterdam: AD&L.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 273 Albach, Ben (1984). Nederlands toneel in de 17de en 18de eeuw. Zutphen: De Walburg Pers. Amussen, Susan D., and Klishansky, Mark A., eds (1995). Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Essays Presented to David Underdown. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Apperloo-Boersma, Karla, and Selderhuis, Herman J. (2013). Power of Faith: 450 Year Heidelberg Catechism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his World, tr. Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Bangs, C. (1971). Arminius. A Study in the Dutch Reformation. New York: Abingdon Press. Becker, Bruno (1928). ‘Nederlandse Vertalingen van Sebastian Franck’s geschriften’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, 21: 149–60. Bellany, Alistair (1994). ‘Rayling Rymes and Vaunting Verse: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England, 1603–1628’, in Peter Lake and Kevin Sharpe (eds), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. London: Houndsmills, 285–310. Benedict, Philip (2002). Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bergsma, W. (1983). Aggaeus van Albada, 1525–1587: schwenckfeldiaan, staatsman en strij­ der voor verdraagzaamheid. Groningen: s.n., 1983. Bergsma, W. (1995). ‘“I shall honestly confess to you the truth”. A learned Frisian speaks his mind about Coornhert’, Lias, 22: 19–27. Berkvens-Stevelinck, Chr. (1989). ‘Coornhert, een eigeninnig theoloog’, in H. Bonger, et al. (eds), Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert. Dwars maar Recht. Zutphen: De Walburg Pers, 18–31. Bie, Jan Pieter de, Loosjes, Jacob, et al., eds (1907–49). Biographisch woordenboek van Protestantsche godgeleerden in Nederland, 6 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Bierma, Lyle, Gunnoe, Charles D., Maag, Karin, and Fields, Paul W., eds (2005). An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology: With a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Bietenholz, Peter G. (2009). Encounters with a Radical Erasmus. Toronto: University of ­Toronto Press. Bloemendal, Jan, and Norland, Howard, eds (2013). Neolatin Drama and Theatre in Europe. Leiden: Brill. Bloemendal, Jan, and Korsten, Frans-Willem (2012). Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679): Dutch Playwright in the Golden Age. Leiden: Brill. Blom, H. (2005). ‘Grotius and Socinianism’, in Martin Mulsow and J. Rohls (eds), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 121–48. Boer, William den (2010). Twofold Love. The Theology of Jacobus Arminius 1559–1609. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bodian, Miriam (2008). ‘The Biblical “Jewish Republic and the Dutch New Israel” in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Thought’, in Gordon Schochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger, and Mairav Jones (eds), Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press, 148–66. Bohemen, F. C. van, and Th. J. C. van der Heiden, eds (1999). Retoricaal memoriaal: Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Hollandse rederijkerskamers van de middeleeuwen tot het begin van de achttiende eeuw. Delft: Eburon. Bonger, H. (1978). Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert. Amsterdam: Van Oorschot. Bonger, H., et al., eds (1989). Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert. Dwars maar Recht. Zutphen: De Walbug Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

274 Bibliography Boralevi, Lea Campos (2002). ‘Classical Foundation Myths of European Republicanism: The Jewish Commonwealth’, in Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (eds), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–61. Boralevi, Leah Campos (2002). ‘La respublica Hebraeorum nella tradizione Olandese’ in Politeia Biblica, special issue of Il pensiero politica, ed. Leah Campos Boralevi and Diego Quaglioni, 35(3): 431–63. Bostoen, Karel (1987). ‘Vondels hekeldichten’, in M. Geesink and A. Bossers (eds), Vondel! Het epos van een ambachtelijk dichterschap. The Hague: Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 61–72. Bruaene, Anne-Laure van (2008). Om beters wille: Rederijkerskamers en stedelijke cultuur in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1400–1650), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bruin, M. de (2001). ‘Geuzen en Anti-Geuzen Liederen’, in Louis Peter Grijp (ed.), Een muziekgeschiedenis der Nederlanden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 174–81. Burke, Peter (1974). Venice and Amsterdam: A Study in Seventeenth Century Elites. London: Temple Smith. Burns, J. H., ed. (1991). The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Büsser, F. (2005). Heinrich Bullinger, Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Bijl, Simon Willem (1978). Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617. Niewkoop: De Graaf. Calhoun, C., ed. (1997). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press. Calhoun, C. (1997). ‘Introduction’, in Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 1–48. Calis, Piet (2008). Vondel (1587–1679): Het verhaal van zijn leven (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff). Carabin, Denise (2004). Les idées stoïciennes dans la littérature morale des XVIe et XVIIe siècles (1575–1642). Paris: Honoré Champion. Coffey, J. (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1585–1689. Harlow: Pearson Education. Colclough, D. (2005). Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collinson, P. (1995). ‘Ecclesiastical Vitriol: Religious Satire in the 1590s and the Invention of Puritanism’, in John Guy (ed.), The Reign of Elizabeth I. Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150–70. Coudert, Allison P., and Shoulson, Jeffrey S., ed. (2004). Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Crum, H. (1979–80). ‘De relaties van de “Pharsalia”-vertaling van Hendrik Storm met de Amsterdamse admiraliteit’, Spektator, 9(4): 348–60. Cummings, Brian (2013). ‘Erasmus and the Invention of Literature’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 33: 22–54. Cummings, Brian (2002). The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Davis, J. C. (1992). ‘Religion and the Struggle for Freedom in the English Revolution’, Historical Journal, 35: 307–30. Deen, Femke, Onnekink, David, and Reinders, Michel, eds (2011). Pamphlets and Politics in the Dutch Republic. Leiden: Brill. Dekker, Eef (1993). Rijker dan Midas: Vrijheid, genade en predestinatie in the theologie van Jacobus Arminius (1559–1609). Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 275 Dekker, Eef (1991). ‘Wilsvrijheid volgens Coornhert in het traditie-historische licht van de scholastiek: Een kleine diepte-peiling’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 55: 107–19. Dekker, Eef (1999). ‘Theologische en filosofische vrijheid in de vroege zeventiende eeuw’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E. Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw. Amsterdam: AUP, 53–69. Dekker, Rudolf (1982). Holland in beroering: Oproeren in de 17de en 18de eeuw. Ambo: Baarn. Den Tex, Jan (1932). ‘Le Proces d’Oldenbarnevelt (1618–1619) fut-il un meurtre judiciaire?’ Legal History Review, 22(2): 137–68. Den Tex, Jan (1960–72). Oldenbarnevelt, 5 vols. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink [vol. i. Opgang: 1547–1588 (1960); vol. ii. Oorlog 1588–1609 (1962); vol. iii. Bestand 1609–1619 (1966); vol. iv. Documentatie (1970); vol. v. Stambomen, kaarten en register (1972)]. Deursen, A. Th. van (2010 [1974]). Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt. Franeker: Van Wijnen. Deursen, A. Th. van (2002). Maurits van Nassau: De winnaar die faalde. Amsterdam: Aula/ Bert Bakker. Deursen, A. Th. van (1991). Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion and ­Society in Seventeenth Century Holland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dibbs, G. C. (1971). ‘The Role of the Dutch Republic as Intellectual Entrepôt of Europe in the Seventeenth Century’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 86(3): 323–41. Dingemanse, Clazina (2008). Rap van tong, scherp van pen: Literaire discussiecultuur in Nederlandse praatjespamfletten (circa 1600–1750). Hilversum: Verloren. Dixhoorn, Arjan van (2009). Lustige geesten: Rederijkers in de Noordelijke Nederlanden (1480–1650). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Dixon, Leif (2014). Practical Predestinarians in England, c. 1590–1640. Farnham: Ashgate. Dlugaiczyk, M. (2005). Der Waffenstillstand (1609–1621) als Medienereignis: Politische Bildpropaganda in den Niederlanden. Münster: Waxmann. Drees, Marijke Meijer (2003). ‘Kijken, lezen, oordelen: Prent en tekst van het pamflet Den Arminiaenschen Dreck-waghen (1618)’, in M. van Vaeck, H. Brems, and G. H. M. Claassens (eds), De steen van Alciato: Literatuur en visuele cultuur in de Nederlanden. Opstellen voor Prof. Dr. Karel Porteman bij zijn emeritaat. Leuven: Peeters, 495–513. Dufour, A. (1989). ‘La Notion de liberté de conscience chez les Réformateurs’, in H. R. Guggisberg, Frank Lestringant, and Jean-Claude Margolin (eds), La Liberté de conscience (XVe–XVIIe siècles): Actes du Colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989). Geneva: Droz, 15–20. Duits, Henk (1995). ‘“11 november 1621”: De Amsterdamse Kerkeraad stuurt twee afgezanten naar de burgemeesters om te klagen over Samuel Coster’s Iphigenia in de Nederduytsche Academie. De moeizame relatie tussen kerk en toneel in de zeventiende eeuw’, in R. Ehrenstein (ed.), Een theatergeschiedenis der Nederlanden: Tien eeuwen drama en theater in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 178–85. Duits, Henk (1997). ‘Consistentie en continuïteit: Hooft’s opvattingen over vrijheid en vrede’, Tijdschrift Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 113: 62–8. Duits, Henk (1999). Een wandeling door het vak: Opstellen voor Marijke Spies. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU. Duits, Henk (1990). Van Bartholomeusnacht tot Bataafse opstand: Studies over de relatie tussen politiek en toneel in het midden van de zeventiende eeuw. Hilversum: Verloren. Duke, Alastair (2009). Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries, ed. Judith Pollmann and Andrew Spicer. Manchester: Ashgate.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

276 Bibliography Duke, Alastair (1990). Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries. London: Hambledon Press. Duke, Alastair, and Tamse, C. A., eds (1988). ‘Too Mighty to be Free’: Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands. Zutphen: Hambledon Press. Enno van Gelder, H. A. (1972). Getemperde vrijheid. Een verhandeling over de verhouding van Kerk en Staat in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden en de vrijheid van meningsuiting in zake godsdienst, drukpers en onderwijs gedurende de 17e eeuw. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Erenstein, Rob L., et al., eds (1995). Een theatergeschiedenis der Nederlanden: Tien eeuwen drama en theater in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Evenhuis, R. B. (1965–78). Ook dat was Amsterdam: De kerk der hervorming in de gouden eeuw, 5 vols. Amsterdam: Ten Have. Ferrel, Lori Anne, and McCullough, P. (2000). The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and History 1600–1750. Manchester: Manchester/New York University Press. Fitzgerald, John T., ed. (1996). Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech in the New Testament World. Leiden: Brill. Fleurkens, Anneke C. G. (1994). Leren met lust. De toneelspelen van D. V. Coornhert als middelen tot het geven van morele instructive. Hilversum: Verloren. Fontaine Verwey, Herman de la (1971). ‘Drie vrienden, Bredero, Telle, Le Blon’, Maandblad Amstelodamum, 58: 49–57. Fontaine Verwey, Herman de la (1968). ‘Reinier Telle, hekeldichter, pamfletschrijver vertaler’, Offprint of Zestigste Jaarboek Genootschap Amstellodamum, 53–73. Fontaine Verwey, Herman de la (1953). ‘Reinier Telle traducteur de Castellion et de Servet’, in Bruno Becker (ed.), Autour de Michel Servet et de Sébastien Castellio. Haarlem: s.n., 142–57. Fontaine Verwey, Herman de la (1973). ‘Willem Jansz. Blaeu as a Publisher of Books’, Quarendo: A Quarterly Journal Devoted from the Low Countries Devoted to Manuscripts and Printed Books, 3(2): 141–6. Fornerod, Nicholas (2001). ‘“The Canons of the Synod Had Shot Off the Advocate’s Head”: A Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dort’, in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (eds), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Leiden: Brill, 181–215. Foucault, Michel (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Hamondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, Michel (2004). Parrèsia: Vrijmoedig spreken en waarheid. Amsterdam: Parrèsia. Free, Coen, (1987). ‘Vondel’s Zegesang, 1629: Een onvermoed pamflet’, in H. Vekeman and H. van Uffelen (eds), Jetzt kehr ich an den Rhein: Een opstellenbundel bij Vondels 400ste geboortedag (Cologne: Ruder), 113–27. Frijhoff, Willem (2002). ‘Religious toleration in the United Provinces: From “Case” to “Model”’, in R. Po Hsia-Chia and Henk F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–52. Gallée, J. H. (1878). Academie en kerkeraad: 1617–1632. Utrecht: Beijers. Geesink, Maria, and Bossers, A., eds (1987). Vondel! Het epos van een ambachtelijk dichterschap. The Hague: Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Gelderen, Martin van (1999). ‘De Nederlandse Opstand (1555–1610): Van “vrijheden” naar “oude vrijheid” en de “vrijheid der conscientien”’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E. Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 27–52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 277 Gelderen, Martin van (2002). ‘Dutch and German Political Thought, 1580–1650’, in Quentin Skinner and Martin van Gelderen (eds), Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol. i. Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, 195–217, 203–4. Gelderen, Martin van (1992). The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gelderen, Martin van, and Skinner, Quentin, eds (2002). Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gestrich, Andreas (2006). ‘Habermas and the Public Sphere Debate’, German History, 24(3): 413–30. Geurts, Pieter Antoon Marie (1956). De Nederlandse Opstand in pamfletten, 1566–1584. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Veght. Goudriaan, Aza (2006). Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbert Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen, Brill’s Series in Church History, 26. Leiden: Brill. Goudriaan, Aza, and Lieburg, Fred van, eds (2011). Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), Brill’s Series in Church History, 49. Leiden: Brill. Graafland, C. (1987). Van Calvijn tot Barth: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der ver­ kiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme. The Hague: Boekencentrum. Grijp, Louis Peter (1991). Het Nederlandse lied in de Gouden Eeuw: Het mechanisme van de contrafactuur. Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens-Instituut. Grijp, Louis Peter (1987). ‘Wil je zingen, ik kan rijmen: Vondel op muziek’, in Maria Geesink and A. Bossers (eds), Vondel! Het epos van een ambachtelijk dichterschap. The Hague: Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 31–44. Grijp, Louis Peter (1994). ‘Van Geuzenliedboek tot Gedenck-clanck. Eerste deel: Het Geuzenliedboek in de Gouden Eeuw’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10(1): 118–32. Grijp, Louis Peter (1994). ‘Van geuzenlied tot Gedenck-clanck. Tweede deel: De receptie van de geuzenliederen in het bijzonder in de contrafactuur’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10(2): 266–76. Groenhuis, Geert (1981). ‘Calvinism and National Consciousness: The Dutch Republic as the New Israel’, in Alastair C. Duke and Coenraad A. Tamse (eds), Britain and the Netherlands. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 118–33. Groenveld, Simon (1990). Evidente factiën in den staet: Sociaal-politieke verhoudingen in de 17e-eeuwse Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden. Hilversum: Verloren. Groenveld, Simon (2009). Het Twaalfjarig Bestand: De jongelingsjaren van de Republiek. The Hague: Haags Historisch Museum. Groenveld, S. (1995). Huisgenoten des geloofs: Was de samenleving in de Republiek de Verenigde Nederlanden verzuild? Hilversum: Verloren. Groenveld, Simon (1988). ‘The Mecca of Authors? States Assemblies and Censorship in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic’, in Alastair Duke and C. A. Tamse (eds), ‘Too Mighty to be Free’: Censorship and the Press in Britain and The Netherlands. Zutphen: De Walburg Pers, 63–86. Groenveld, Simon, and Leeuwenberg, H. L. Ph., eds (1979). De Unie van Utrecht: Wording en werking van een verbondsakte. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Guggisberg, Hans R. (1989). ‘Haïr ou instruire les héretiques? La Notion d’hérétique chez Sébastien Castellion et sa situation dans l’exil bâlois’, in Hans R. Guggisberg, F. Lestringant, and J.-C. Margolin (eds), La Liberté de conscience (XVe–XVIIe siècles): Actes du Colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989). Geneva: Droz, 65–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

278 Bibliography Guggisberg, Hans R. (1997). Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563: Humanist und Verteidiger der religösen Toleranz im Konfessionellen Zeitalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Guggisberg, Hans R., Lestringant, F., and Margolin, J.-C, eds (1989). La Liberté de ­conscience, XVIe–XVIIe siècles: Actes du colloque de Mulhouse et Bâle (1989). Geneva: Droz. Güldner, Gerhard (1968). Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden im Ausgang de 16. Jahrhunderts. Lübeck and Hamburg: Matthiesen Verlag. Habermas, Jürgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haitsma Mulier, E. O. G. (1985). ‘Grotius, Hooft and Tacitus and the Writing of History in the Dutch Republic’, in Alastair.C. Duke and C. A. Tamse (eds), Clio’s Mirror: Historiography in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands, 8. Zutphen: Walburg Pers. Haitsma Mulier, E. O. G. (1989). ‘Coornhert in de geschiedschrijving’, in H. Bonger et al. (eds), Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert. Dwars maar recht. Zutphen: De Walbug Press, 154–70. Haitsma Mulier, E. O. G., and Velema, W. R. E., eds (1999). Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hamilton, Alastair (1981). The Family of Love. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Harline, Craig E. (1987). Pamphlets, Printing, and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic. Dordrecht: Nijhoff. Harms, Roeland (2011). Pamfletten en publieke opinie: massamedia in de zeventiende eeuw. Amsterdam AUP. Harvey, Warren Zev (2006). ‘The Israelite Kingdom of God in Hobbes’s Political Thought’, Hebraic Political Studies, 1: 310–27. Haykin, Michael A. G., and Jones, Mark (2011). Drawn into Controversy: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hellinga, W. G. (1962). Copy and Print in the Netherlands: An Atlas of Historical Biblio­ graphy. Amsterdam: Federatie der Werkgeversorganisatiën in het Boekdrukkersbedrijf (sole distributors, North-Holland Pub. Co.). Hoenderdaal, G. J., and Luca, P. M., eds (1982). Staat in de vrijheid: De geschiedenis van de Remonstranten. Zutphen: Walburg Press. Hoffman, M. (1995). ‘Language and Reconciliation: Erasmus’ Ecumenical Attitude’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 15: 71–94. Hoftijzer, P., and Lankhorst, O. (2000). Drukkers, boekverkopers en lezers tijdens de Republiek: Een historiografische en bibliografische handleiding. The Hague: Sdu publishers. Holden, William P. (1954). Anti-Puritan Satire 1572–1642. New Haven: Yale University Press. Holtzapffel, Koen, and Leeuwen, Marius van, eds (2010). De Remonstrantie 400 jaar. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema. Höpfl, Harro (1982). The Christian Polity of John Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsia, R. Po-Chia, and Nierop, Henk F. K. van, eds (2002). Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hummelen, W. M. H. (1982). Amsterdams toneel in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw: Studies over Het Wit Lavendel en de Nederduytsche Academie. The Hague: Nijhoff. Israel, Jonathan (1995). The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, its Greatness and its Fall, 1477–1806. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 279 Israel, Jonathan (1997). ‘The Intellectual Debate about Toleration in the Dutch Republic’, in C. Berkvens-Stevelinck, J. Israel, and G. H. M. Posthumus Meyes (eds), The Emergence of Tolerance in the Dutch Republic. Leiden: Brill, 3–36. Jansen, Jeroen, ed. (1997). Omnibus idem: Opstellen over P. C. Hooft ter gelegenheid van zijn driehonderdvijftigste sterfdag. Hilversum: Verloren. Janssen, Geert J. (2001). Het stokje van Oldenbarnevelt. Hilversum: Verloren. Kaajan, H. (1918). De Grote Synode van Dordrecht 1618–1619. Amsterdam: s.n. Kaplan, Benjamin J. (1995). Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht, 1578–1620. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kleerkoper, M. M. (1898). ‘Een vergeten catalogus – Catalogus Bibliothecae D. Samueli Costeri [1665]’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 17: 172–89. Kleerkooper, M. M. (1899). ‘Samuel Coster als pamfletschrijver. Kallefs-Val (1628)’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 18: 296–304. Koning, Paula (2011). ‘De twee levens van Erasmus in Leiden: Petrus Scriverius en Paulus Merula als biografische beeldvormers’, De zeventiende eeuw, 27(1): 37–48. Konst, J. W. H. (2003). Fortuna, Fatum en Providentia Dei in de Nederlandse tragedie, 1600–1720. Hilversum: Verloren. Koopmans, Paul J. (1992). ‘Nicolaes Biestkens en de Nederduytsche Academie’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8: 123–30. Kooi, Christine (2000). Liberty and Religion: Church and State in Leinden’s Reformation, 1572–1620. Leiden: Brill. Korsten, Frans Willem (2009). Sovereignty as Inviolabilty: Vondel’s Theatrical Explorations in the Dutch Republic. Hilversum: Verloren. Kossmann, E. H. (1987). Politieke theorie en geschiedenis: Verspreide opstellen. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Kossmann, E. H. (2000). Political Thought in the Dutch Republic: Three Studies. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Kruif, Joke, and Drees, Marijke M., eds (2005). Het lange leven van het pamflet: Boekhistorische, iconografische, literaire en politieke aspecten van pamfletten 1600–1900. Hilversum: Verloren. Kühler, J. W. (1940). Geschiedenis van de Doopsgezinden in Nederland, 3 vols (1932–50), vol. ii. 1600–1735. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink. Lake, Peter (1996). ‘“A Charitable Christian Hatred”: The Godly and their Enemies in the 1630s’, in C. Durston and J. Eales (eds), The Culture of English Puritanism. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 145–83. Lake, Peter (2000). ‘Joseph Hall, Robert Skinner and the Rhetoric of Moderation at the Early Stuart Court’, in Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough (eds), The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and History. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 167–85. Lake, Peter (1995). ‘The Moderate and Irenic Case for Religious War: Joseph Hall’s Via Media in Context’, in Susan D. Amussen and Mark A Klishansky (eds), Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 55–83. Lake, Peter, and Pincus, Steve (2007). The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern ­England. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Lake, Peter, and Pincus, Steve (2006). ‘Rethinking the Early Modern Public Sphere’, Journal of British Studies, 45(2): 270–92. Lake, Peter, and Questier, Michael C., eds (2002). The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England. New Haven: Yale University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

280 Bibliography Lake, Peter, and Sharpe, Kevin, eds (1993). Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Laqueur, Thomas (1989). ‘Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions 1604–1868’, in A. L. Beier, D. Cannadine, and J. Rosenheim (eds), The First Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305–56. Leendertz, P. (1990). Het leven van Vondel. Amsterdam: Meulenhof. MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2004). Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490–1700. London: Penguin Books. MacCullough, Diarmaid (2007). ‘Bullinger and the English-Speaking World’, in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger: Life –Thought—Influence, 2 vols. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, ii. 891–934. McRae, Andrew (2004). Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maczkiewitz, D. (2005). Der niederländische Aufstand gegen Spanien (1568–1609): Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Analyse. Münster: Waxmann. Mah, Harold (2000). ‘Phantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of the Historians’, Journal of Modern History, 72: 151–75. Miert, Dirk van (2009). Humanism in an Age of Science: The Amsterdam Athenaeum in the Golden Age. Leiden: Brill. Milton, Anthony (2011). ‘A Distorting Mirror: The Hales and Balcanquahall Letters and the Synod of Dort’, in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (eds), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619.) Leiden: Brill, 135–61. Moes, E. W., and Burger, C. P., eds (1988). De Amsterdamse boekdrukkers en uitgevers in de  zestiende eeuw, Re-ed. and augmented by P. C. J. van der Krigt. Utrecht: HES Publishers. Molkenboer, B. H. (1950). De jonge Vondel. Amsterdam: s.n. Mörke, Olaf (2007). ‘Friedlicher Religionskonflikt – konfliktreicher Religionsfriede: Konfessionelle Koexistenz in der niederländischen Republik’, in Heinz Schilling and Heribert Smolinsky (eds), Der Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 455–70. Mörke, Olaf (1990). ‘Konfessionalisierung als politisch-soziales Strukturprinzip? Das Verhältnis von Religion und Staatbildung in der Republik der Vereinigte Niederlande im 16. un 17. Jahrhundert’, Tijdschrift voor sociale geschiedenis, 16: 31–60. Morsink, Gerrit (1986). Johannes Anastasius Veluanus: Wording en Levensloop. Kampen: Kok. Mortimer, Sarah (2012). ‘Human and Divine Justice in the Works of Grotius and the ­Socinians’, in Sarah Mortimer and John Robertson (eds), The Intellectual Consuquences of Religious Heterodoxy. Leiden: Brill, 75–94. Mortimer, Sarah, and Robertson, John (2012). The Intellectual Consequences of Religious Heterodoxy. Leiden: Brill. Mout, M. E. H. N., Smolinsky, H. E., et al., eds (1997). Erasmianism: Idea and Reality. Amsterdam: Royal Academy ofArts and Sciences. Mühlegger, Florian (2007). Hugo Grotius: Ein christlicher Humanist in politischer Verantwordung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Muller, J. W. (1931). ‘Wanneer zijn Vondel’s Palamedes, Geusevesper en Transformatie geschreven?’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde, 50: 285–311. Muller, Richard A. (1991). God, Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius. Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 281 Muller, Richard A. (1993). ‘The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob ­Arminius’, Westminster Theological Journal, 55: 55–72. Muller, Richard A. (2000). The Unaccomodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. Muller, Richard A. (2008). ‘Arminius and the Reformed Tradition’, Westminster Theological Journal, 70(1): 19–48. Muller, Richard A. (2008). Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Muller, Richard A. (2012). Calvin and the Reformed Tradition. On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Mulsow, Martin, and Rohls, Jan, eds (2005). Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Nauta, D., et al., eds (1978–2006). Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, 6 vols. Kampen: Kok. Nellen, Henk (1997). ‘A Rotterdammer Teaches the World How to Reform. The Image of Erasmus in Remonstrant and Counter-Remonstrant Propaganda’, in M. E. H. N. Mout and H. E. Smolinsky (eds), Erasmianism: Idea and Reality. Amsterdam: Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 177–88. Nellen, Henk (2007). Hugo de Groot. Een leven in strijd om de vrede, 1583–1645. Amsterdam: Balans. Nellen, Henk. J. M., and Rabbie, Edwin, eds (1994). Hugo Grotius—Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes. Leiden: Brill. Nelson, Eric (2010). The Hebrew Republic. Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nierop, Henk F. K. van (1992). ‘Edelman, bedelman: De verkeerde wereld van het Compromis der Edelen’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 107: 1–27. Nijenhuis, W. Ecclesia Reformata:. Studies in the Dutch Reformation, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Noak, Bettina (2002). Politische Auffassungen im niederländischen Drama des 17. Jahrhunderts. Munich and Münster: Waxmann. Nobbs, Douglas (1938). Theocracy and Toleration: The Debates in Dutch Calvinism, 1600–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norbrook, David (1999). Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norbrook, David (2002). Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oey-de Vita, Elise E., and Geesink, Marja with Ben Albach and R. Reuse (1983). Academie en schouwburg: Amsterdams toneelrepertoire 1617–1665. Amsterdam: Huis aan de drie grachten. Pannhuysen, Luc (2005). De ware vrijheid: De levens van Johan en Cornelis de Witt. Amsterdam: Atlas. Patterson, Annabel (1991). Fables of Power: Aesopian Writing and Political History. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press. Peacey, John (2004). Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and the Interregnum. Aldershot: Ashgate.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

282 Bibliography Pettegree, Andrew (2005). Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poelhekke, J. J. (1978). Frederik Hendrik, Prins van Oranje: Een biografische drieluik. Zutphen: De Walburg Pers. Pol, B. (2010). ‘De uitverkiezing in Der Leken Wechwyser van Johannes Anastasius Veluanus: Een gereformeerde afwijzing van de dubbele predestinatie’ (MA Diss, University of Utrecht). Pollmann, Judith. (1999). Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation of Arnoldus Buchelius, 1565–1641. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Pollmann, Judith (2002). ‘The Bond of Christian Piety: The Individual Practice of Tolerance and Intolerance in the Dutch Republic’, in R. Po-Chia Hsia and H. F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 53–71. Pollmann, Judith, and Spicer, Andrew, eds (2007). Public Opinion and Changing Identities in the Early Modern Netherlands, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions: History, Culture, Religion, Ideas. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Popkin, Richard H. (2003). The History of Scepticism. From Savonarola to Bayle. Rev. and expanded edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porteman, Karel (1984). ‘“Aensiet de swackheyt dan van uwen armen dichter”: Een lectuur van Vondels “Gebedt” (1621)’, in K. Porteman (ed.), Uut goeder jonsten: Studies aangeboden aan prof. dr. L. Roose naar aanleiding van zijn emeritaat. Leuven and Amersfoort: Acco, 115–30. Prak, Maarten R. (2005). The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century: The Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rademaker, C. S. M. (1981). Life and Work of Gerardus Johannes Vossius (1577–1649). Assen: Van Gorcum Raymond, Joad (2003). Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinders, Michel (2010). Gedrukte Chaos: populisme en moord in het Rampjaar 1672. Amst. Rogge, C. Caspar Janszoon Coolhaes: de voorlooper van Arminius en der Remonstranten 2 vols. Amsterdam: Rogge, 1865. Rogge, Hendrik C. (1868). Brieven en onuitgegeven stukken van Johannes Wtenbogaert, Werken van het Historisch Genootschap, 11, 2 vols. Utrecht: Kemink. Rogge, Hendrik C. (1874–1876). Johannes Wtenbogaert en zijn tijd 3 vols. Amsterdam: Rogge. Roobol, Marianne (2010). Disputation by Decree: The Public Disputations between Reformed Ministers and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert as Instruments of Religious Policy during the Dutch Revolt (1577–1583). Leiden: Brill. Rooden, Peter T. van (1989). Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the  Seventeenth Century: Constantijn l’Empereur (1591–1648) Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden. Leiden: Brill. Roorda, D. J. (1961). Partij en factie: De oproeren van 1672 in de steden van Holland en Zeeland, een krachtmeting tussen partijen en facties. Groningen: J. B. Wolters. Rowen, Herbert Harvey (1988). The Princes of Orange: The Stadtholders in the Dutch Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salman, J. (1999). Populair drukwerk in de Gouden Eeuw: De almanak als handelswaar en lectuur. Utrecht: Walburg Pers. Salmon, J. H. M. (1989). ‘Stoicism and Roman Example: Seneca and Tacitus in Jacobean England’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 50(2): 199–225.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 283 Sarx, Tobias (2007). Franciscus Junius d.Ä (1545–1602): Ein reformierter Theologe im Spannungsfeld zwischen späthumanistischer Irenik und reformierter Konfessionalisierung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sawday, Jonathan (1997). ‘Self and Selfhood in the Seventeenth Century’, in Roy Porter (ed.), Rewriting the Self: Histories from the Renaissance to the Present. London and New York: Routledge, 29–48. Sawyer, J. K. (1990). Printed Poison: Pamphlet Propaganda, Faction Politics and the Public Sphere in Early Seventeenth-Century France. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Schama, Simon (1987). The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York: Knopf. Schilling, Heinz (1992). ‘Religion and Society in the Northern Netherlands’, in Heinz Schilling, Religion, Political Culture, and Society in the Northern Netherlands: Essays in German and Dutch History. Leiden: Brill, 353–412. Schilling, Heinz (2011). ‘Calvinism as an Actor in the Early Modern State System around 1600’, in Irena Backus and Philip Benedict (eds), Calvin and his Influence, 1509–2009 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 159–81. Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen, Maria A. (1991). Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt: Themes and Ideas. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schochet, Gordon, Oz-Salzberger, Fania, and Jones, Meirav, eds (2008). Political Hebraism. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press. Schorn-Schütte, Louise (2004). Aspekte der politischen Kommunikation im Europa des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: Politische Theologie, Res Publica, Verständnis, konsensgestütze Herrschaft. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Schwartz, Gary (1985). Rembrandt: His Life, his Paintings. New York: Viking. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2013). ‘From Heidelberg, through Emden, and into the Whole World’, in Karla Apperloo-Boersma and Herman J. Selderhuis, Power of Faith: 450 Year Heidelberg Catechism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19–28. Sellin, Paul R. (1968). Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharpe, Kevin (2000). Reading Revolutions: The Politics of Reading in Early Modern England. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sharpe, Kevin (2000). Remapping Early Modern England: The Culture of Seventeenth-Century Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharpe, Kevin, and Zwicker, Steve N., eds (1987). The Politics of Discourse: The Literature and History of Seventeenth-Century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shriver, Frederick (1970). ‘Orthodoxy and Diplomacy: James I and the Vorstius Affair’, English Historical Review, 85(33): 449–74. Shuger, Deborah K. (1994). The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shuger, Deborah K. (1988). Sacred Rhetoric. The Christian Grand Style in the English Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sierhuis, Freya (2010). ‘Compassion, Remorse and Reconciliation. The Joseph-Tragedies of Joost van den Vondel (1635–1640)’, in Political Thought and the Passions, special issue of European Review of History, ed. Adriana Luna-Fabritius and Freya Sierhuis, 17(1): 27–51. Skinner, Quentin (1998). Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skinner, Quentin (2002). Visions of Politics, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slee, J.C. van (1914). De geschiedenis van het Socianisme in de Nederlanden. Haarlem: De erven F. Bohn.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

284 Bibliography Smit, J. G. (1979). ‘Prins Maurits en de goede zaak: Brieven van Maurits uit de jaren 1617–1619’, Nederlandse historische bronnen, 1: 42–173. Smit, W. A. P. (1928). De dichter Revius. Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij. Smits-Veldt, Mieke. B. (1977). ‘Vondels Vredewensch aen Constantyn Huigens (1633) als bijdrage tot een aktuele diskussie’, Spektator, 7: 217–45. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1982–3). ‘De opening van de “Neerlandtsche Academia De Byekorf ”. Melpomene presenteert: Gijsbrecht van Hogendorps Orangien-tragedie’, Spektator, 12: 199–214. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1984). ‘De Nederduytsche Academie van Samuel Coster: De eerste Nederlandse Volksuniversiteit (1617–1622)’, Literatuur, 1: 58–64. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1986). Samuel Coster, ethicus-didacticus: Een studie naar de opzet en morele instructie van Ithys, Polyxena en Iphigenia. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1991). Het Nederlandse renaissance-toneel. Utrecht: HES Uitgevers. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1992). ‘Het Brabantse gezicht van de Amsterdamse rederijkerskamer “Het Wit Lavendel”’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8: 160–6. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1994). Maria Tesselschade. Leven met talent en vriendschap. Zutphen: Walburg Pers. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1995). ‘9 maart 1613: P. C. Hooft vraagt in een brief aan de Amsterdamse schepen dr. Jan ten Grotenhuys om hulp van de stadsregering bij de reorganisatie van de rederijkerskanmer De Eglentier’, in R. Eerenberg et al. (eds), Een theatergeschiedenis der Nederlanden: Tien eeuwen drama en theater in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 156–61. Smits-Veldt, Mieke B. (1997). ‘Hooft en de Groot’, in Jeroen Jansen (ed.), Omnibus idem: Opstellen over P. C. Hooft ter gelegenheid van zijn driehonderdvijftigste sterfdag. Hilversum: Verloren, 51–68. Sochet, Gordon, Oz-Salzberger, Fania, and Jones, Meirav, eds (2008). Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press. Sommerville, John (2000). ‘Hobbes, Selden, Erastianism and the History of the Jews’, in G. A. J. Rogers and Tom Sorell (eds), Hobbes and History. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 160–88. Somos, Mark (2011). Secularization and the Leiden Circle. Leiden: Brill. Spaans, Joke (1989). Haarlem na de Reformatie: Stedelijke cultuur en kerkelijk leven, 1577–1620. The Hague: Hollandse Historische Reeks. Spies, Marijke (1992). ‘Rederijkers en Reformatie in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw in Amsterdam’, De zeventiende eeuw, 8: 66–74. Spies, Marijke (1994). ‘Verbeeldingen van Vrijheid: David en Mozes, Burgerhart en Bato, Brutus en Cato’, De zeventiende eeuw, 10: 141–58. Spies, Marijke (1999). ‘Rhetoric and Civic Harmony in the Dutch Republic’, in Marijke Spies, Rhetoric, Rhetoricians and Poets, Studies in Renaissance Poetry and Poetics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 57–68. Spies, Marijke (1999). ‘“Vrijheid, vrijheid”: Poëzie als propaganda, 1565–1665’, in E. O. G. Haitsma Mulier and W. R. E Velema (eds), Vrijheid: Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende tot de twintigste eeuw. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 71–98. Spies, Marijke (2002). ‘Rederijkers in beroering: Religie en politiek bij de Hollandse rede­ rijkers in de eerste decennia van de zeventiende eeuw’, in ‘Teeckenrijcke Woorden’ voor Henk Duits: Opstellen over literatuur, toneel, kunst en religie meest uit de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 59–76. Stanglin, Keith D. (2005). ‘“Arminius avant la lettre”: Peter Baro, Jacob Arminius and the Bond of Predestinarian Polemic’, Westminster Theological Journal, 67: 51–74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 285 Stanglin, Keith D. (2007). Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603–1609, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Stensland, Monica (2011). ‘Peace or No Peace? The Role of Pamphleteering in Public Debate in the Run-up to the Twelve Year Truce’, in Femke Deen, David Onnekink, and Michel Reinders (eds), Pamphlets and Politics in the Dutch Republic. Leiden: Brill, 227–52. Sterck, J. F. M. (1918). Oorkonden over Vondel en zijn kring. Bussum: Uitgevers Mij. Sterck, J. F. M. (1923). Hoofdstukken over Vondel en zijn kring. Amsterdam: Van Looy. Sterck, J. F. M. (1923). ‘Vondels verhouding tot Hooft’, in J. F. M. Sterck (ed.), Hoofdstukken over Vondel en zijn kring, Amsterdam: Van Looy, 47–50. Sterck, J. F. M. (1932). Oud en nieuw over Joost van den Vondel. Amsterdam: De spiegel/ Mechelen: Het Kompas. Sterck, J. F. M. (1935). Vondelbrieven uit de XVIIe eeuw aan en over de dichter. Verzameld en toegelicht door J. F. M Sterck. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek. Stern, Jill (2010). Orangism in Word and Image 1650–1675. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Stipriaan, René van (2002). Het volle leven: Nederlandse literatuur en cultuur ten tijde van de Republiek (ca. 1550–1800). Amsterdam: Prometheus. Stipriaan, René van (1996). Leugens en vermaak: Boccaccio’s novellen in de kluchtcultuur van de Nederlandse renaissance. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Strietman, Elsea, and Happé, Peter, eds (2006). Urban Theatre in the Low Countries, 1400–1625. Turnhout: Brepols. Strohm, Christoph (2013). ‘The Heidelberg Catechism in the Context of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Calvinism’, in Karla Apperloo-Boersma and Herman J. Selderhuis, Power of Faith: 450 Year Heidelberg Catechism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 97–105. Szabari, Antónia (2005). ‘Rabelais Parrhesiastes: The Rhetoric of Insult and Rabelais’s Cynical Mask’, Modern Language Notes, 120(1): 84–123. Szarota, Maria Elida (1967). Künstler, Grübler und rebellen: Studien zum europäeischen Märtyrerdrama des 17. Jahrhunderts. Munich/Bern: Francke Verlag. Szarota, Maria Elida (1967). ‘Vondels Palamedes’, in Maria Elida Szarota, Künstler, Grübler und Rebellen. Studien zum europäischen Märtyrerdrama des 17. Jahrhunderts. Munich/ Bern: Franken Verlag, 274–85. Trapman, J. (1994). ‘Grotius and Erasmus’, in H. J. M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie (eds), Hugo Grotius—Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes. Leiden: Brill, 77–98. Tuck, Richard (1979). Natural Rights Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuck, Richard (1993). Philosophy and Government, 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tyacke, Nicholas (1987). Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590–1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Unger, J. H. W. (1888). ‘Vondeliana (IV) Palamedes’, Oud Holland, 6: 51–67. Ungher, J. H. W. (1888). Bibliographie van Vondels werken. Amsterdam: Frederik Muller en Comp. Veen, Miriam van (2001). ‘Verschooninghe van de roomsche afgoderye’: De polemiek van Calvijn met nicodemieten in het bijzonder met Coornhert. Utrecht: HES & De Graaf. Veenstra, Fokke (1946). Bijdragen tot de kennis van de invloeden op Hooft. Assen: Van Gorcum. Veenstra, Fokke (1996). ‘Hooft in de troebelen van het Bestand: Waarom hij zijn Baeto in portefeuille hield’, in Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, W.Abrahamse, A. C. G. Fleurkens, and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

286 Bibliography M. Meijer Drees (eds), Kort Tijt-verdrijf: Opstellen over Nederlands toneel vanaf circa 1550 aangeboden aan. Amsterdam: AD&L Uitgevers, 111–18. Venema, Cornelis P. (2002). Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’?. Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Verboom, W. (2005). De belijdenis van een gebroken kerk. Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum. Verboom, W. (2013). ‘Catechism Teaching in the Netherlands’, in Karla Apperloo-Boersma and Herman J. Selderhuis (eds), Power of Faith: 450 Year Heidelberg Catechism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 69–79. Visser, Piet (1988). Broeders in de geest. De doopsgezinde bijdragen van Dierick en Jan Philipsz. Schabaelje tot de Nederlandse stichtelijke literatuur in de zeventiende eeuw, 2 vols. Deventer: Sub Rosa. Visser, Piet (2007). ‘Mennonites and Doopsgezinden in the Netherlands, 1535–1700’, in John D. Roth and James Mentzer Stayer (eds), A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700. Leiden: Brill, 299–345. Vivo, Filippo de (2007). Information and Communication in Venice: Rethinking Early Modern Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vloten, J. Van (1853). Paschier de Fyne, naar zijn leven en schriften. Den Bosch: Gebr. Muller. Vooght, Gerrit (2000). Constraint on Trial. Dirk Volckertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press. Vooys, C. G. N. de (1920). Amsterdamse spotliedjes uit het begin van de zeventiende eeuw. [S.l., s.n.] Vrieler, Joost (2007). Het poëtisch accent. Hilversum: Verloren. Vught, Yarko van, and Waszink, Jan (2000). ‘Politiek in Hooft’s Baeto: De middenweg als uitweg’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal en Letterkunde, 116: 2–22. Waite, Gary K. (2000). Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515–1556. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Walsham, Alexandra (2006). ‘Charitable Hatred’: Tolerance and Intolerance in England 1500–1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Wesel-Roth, Ruth (1954). Thomas Erastus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität. Lahr and Baden: Schauenburg. Weststeijn, Arthur (2011). Commercial Republicanism in the Dutch Golden Age: The Political Thought of Johan and Pieter de la Court. Leiden: Brill. White, Peter (1992). Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wickenden, Nicholas (1993). G. J. Vossius and the Humanist Concept of History. Assen: Van Gorcum. Wijngaards, N. (1966). ‘Vondels Hollantsche Transformatie’, De nieuwe taalgids, 59: 302–12. Wijnman, H. F. (1928). ‘Jan Theunisz alias Joannes Antonides (1569–1637), boekverkoooper en waard in het muziekhuis “d’Os in de Bruyloft” te Amsterdam, met een bibliografie zijner uitgaven en geschriften’, Jaarboek van het genootschap Amstelodamum, 25: 29–123. Wille, J. (1963). ‘Het Moordpasquil’, in J. Wille, Literair-historische opstellen. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 159–81. Wille, J. (1963). Literair-historische opstellen, Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. Williams, George (1962). The Radical Reformation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Worp, J. A. (1912). Geschiedenis van den Amsterdamschen schouwburg, 1496–1772, ed. with additions by J. F. M. Sterck. Amsterdam: Van Looy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

Bibliography 287 Zaret, David (2000). Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Zieleman, G. C. (1994). ‘Vondels dichtbrief “aen myn heer den Drost van Muyden”’ Spiegel der Letteren, 36: 19–44. Zijlstra, Samme (2002). ‘Anabaptism and Tolerance: Possibilities and Limitations’, in R. Po-Chia Hsia and H. F. K. van Nierop (eds), Calvinism and Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 112–31.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/07/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

Index Abott, George  39, 66, 67 Acconcio (Acontius), Iacopo  20, 129 Alba, Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba  21, 36, 171, 177, 180, 231 Albada, Aggaeus (Agge) van  19, 189 Ambrose  56, 62, 69 Amsterdam  5, 6, 7, 12, 12 n.24, 13, 31, 36, 37, 37 n.74, 40, 51, 54, 58 n.27, 59, 66, 77, 77 n.11, 78, 81, 81 n.125, 86 n.144, 93, 93 n.169, 94 n.179, 96 n.188, 98, 99 n.3, 101 n.5, 102 n.8, 104, 105, 106, 108, 115, 116, 123, 132–44, 147, 185, 189, 193, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 218 n.79, 221, 227, 228, 229–36, 236 n.52, 239 n.68, 240–1, 241 n.70, 242, 244–5, 246, 248–58 Anabaptism  18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 33, 35 n.71, 103, 113, 126 n.104 Andrewes, Lancelot  39, 66–7 Anti-Trinitarianism  21, 62, 78, 81 Antwerp  18, 19, 20, 29, 88, 170 Archdukes, Albrecht VII of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia  147, 190, 207, 241 Arminianism (Remonstrantism)  1–2, 6, 6 n.5, 17, 21, 23, 26–7, 34, 42–7, 48–51, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60–1, 62, 67, 69–70, 85, 96, 129, 131, 132, 149, 159, 166–7, 175, 227, 228, 236, 245 Arminians (Remonstrants)  2, 3–4, 9, 16, 23, 23 n.24, 27, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 103, 115, 117, 118, 119, 126, 129, 133, 134–5, 135 n.135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 151, 157, 162–4, 166–7, 168, 169–75, 178, 180, 182, 184, 190, 191, 194, 195, 199, 200, 203, 207, 208, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 237 n.61, 238, 240, 245, 248, 250, 251, 254–5, 256, 257, 258, 260, 262 Political-(and Remonstrant sympathizers)  3, 5, 63, 74, 77, 78–82, 93, 103, 117, 139, 146, 175, 186, 191, 195–7, 198, 228–9, 230, 231 n.22, 234, 248, 249, 250; see also Samuel Coster, P.C. Hooft, Reinier Telle, Robbert Robbertsz le Canu, Joost van den Vondel Arminius, Jacobus  2, 4, 17, 23 n.24, 34, 34 n.69, 36–48, 56, 56 n.19, 58, 61, 65, 76, 82, 82 n.131, 83, 84, 86, 129, 131, 134, 136, 151, 251 Assurance of salvation  6, 43, 56 Atonement  23, 43, 75, 76, 166, 167, 264

Aquinas 43 Augustine  33, 56, 62, 68, 69, 69 n.71, 115, 131 Badius, Otto  92, 93, 95–6, 252, 258 Baeck, Justus  194, 201, 201 n.41, 234, 253, 253 n.126, 257, 257 n.140 Barlaeus, Caspar  2, 3, 61, 74, 79, 104, 105, 105 n.16, 135, 139, 161, 192, 236, 247, 257, 257 n.139 Baro, Petrus  34, 45, 45 n.114, 261 Bastiaensz, Matthijs  79, 79 n.117, 85, 88 Becius, Johannes  55 Bertius, Paulus  2, 4, 69, 77, 78, 82, 84 Beza, Theodore  23, 28, 45, 46, 72, 86, 87, 89, 110–12, 115, 151 n.23 Bible  5, 20, 24, 24 n.31, 32, 41, 44–5, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 58, 62, 72, 75, 80, 86, 89, 118, 120, 126–7, 129, 151, 168, 174, 183, 193, 216 Biestkens, Nicolaes  103, 104, 105 n.14 Bisschop, Rem  36, 135, 135 n.135, 137, 137 n.147, 148, 234 Blaeu, Willem Jansz  78, 103, 105 n.14, 184, 194, 198, 232, 234, 242, 257, 257 n.140 Blon, Michel le  104 Bogerman, Johannes  74, 87, 164, 167, 237 Bogaert, Jan Willemsz  13, 235–6, 236 n.52 Bogaert, Johannes  55 Bolsec, Jerome  24, 24 n.31 Boomgaerd, Adriaan Cornelisz  83, 87 Brabant  59, 101, 173, 194, 241–3, 250 Brandt, Geeraerd  65, 82, 91, 92, 139, 160, 167, 191 n.1, 194, 195, 198, 207, 213, 224, 234, 236 n.52, 249, 257 Breda  228, 247 Bredero, Gerbrand Adriaansz  92, 93, 101, 104, 104 n.12, 136, 185 Breen, Daniel de  194, 195, 234 Brussels  21, 247 Brutus  161, 162, 175, 184, 186 n.134, 187, 188–9, 198, 203, 226, 235 Buchanan, George  110–11 Bullinger, Heinrich  22–3, 23 n.21, 24, 24 nn.28, 30, 25, 26 n.37, 79 n.117 Calvin, Jean  7, 19, 22, 23, 24, 24 n.28, 43, 47, 53, 56, 57 n.20, 70, 72, 80, 87, 88, 89, 95, 111–12, 115, 119, 151, 164, 196, 216, 239, 239 n.67 Camphuyzen, Dirk Rafaëlsz  115, 254 Carleton, Dudley, Viscount Dorchester  148 n.11, 157, 166

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

290 Index Carleton, George, Bishop of Llandaff  166 Casaubon, Isaac  39, 67 Castellio, Sebastian  20, 21, 31 n.57, 33 n.61, 80, 85–7, 129, 131, 239 n.67 Catechism  5, 22–3, 24, 24 n.31, 25, 26–7, 32, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49–50, 51, 55, 70, 74, 89, 95, 115, 129, 135, 167, 236 Heidelberg Catechism  22–3, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49–50, 51, 55, 70, 74, 95, 129, 167 Cats, Jacob  247, 250 Chambers of rhetoric  7, 58, 99, 99 nn.2–3, 100, 102, 105 n.16, 106, 250, 255 The Eglantine  31 n.55, 77, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106, 255 The White Lavender  59, 59 n.35, 194 Christ  30, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59–60, 61, 62, 64, 75–6, 79, 80, 95, 119, 120, 126, 127 n.110, 163, 167, 168, 170, 171, 174, 203, 217, 223, 237, 239, 254, 255, 262–3 And imitatio Christi  30, 79, 115 As an avenger of the oppressed  164, 172–4 As head of the Church  55, 119, 126 As the fundamentum electionis  46, 54, 167 Opposed to persecution  30, 174, 237, 239 Chrysostom  69 n.71, 70–1, 71 n.79 Church and state, relationship between In Contra-Remonstrantism  25–6, 27, 54, 77, 118, 119–20 In Remonstrantism  117–18, 120–1 In Grotius  72–4, 76–7, 126–7 Cicero  31, 115, 131, 151 Citizens’ militia  12, 132, 149, 229, 230, 234–5, 258 Cloppenburg, Johannes  92, 93, 248, 249, 258 Collaterality  117–18, 119–20, 127 Collegiants  20, 76 Confessio Belgica  17, 19, 47, 54, 70 Contra-Remonstrantism  47–8, 51–2, 54–7, 103, 217, 228, 229 Contra-Remonstrants (Gomarists)  4, 27, 32, 48, 51, 53–4, 55–6, 57 n.21, 57–9, 59–60, 61–3, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71–2, 73, 74–5, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95–6, 97, 106, 107, 112, 116, 119–20, 121, 125, 127–8, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147–8, 149, 151, 154, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 179, 190, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 201–2, 202–3, 206–7, 208, 214–21, 227, 229, 230–6, 237, 239, 240, 242–3, 244, 245, 248–9, 250–3, 254–5, 256, 257, 258 Coolhaes, Caspar  26, 88 Coornhert, Dirck Volkertsz  19–20, 21, 26, 31–6, 46, 70, 78, 80–4, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97, 103, 113, 115, 126, 126 n.104, 129–30, 131, 132, 189, 215, 237, 251 Errors of the Catechism 31 Ethics, That is the Art of Living Well  31, 33, 34, 129–30

Justification of the Magistrate of Leiden  26, 32 Synod on the Liberty of Conscience 31–2 Trial of the Killing of Heretics  31, 35–6 Works on Predestination  34 Corvinus, Johannes Arnoldus  74 Coster, Samuel  5, 7, 77, 85, 89, 92, 93, 95–6, 96 n.186, 97, 98–9, 99 n.1, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104–5, 105 n.16, 106, 106 n.23, 107, 108–9, 108 n.38, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 136, 136 n.145, 138, 138 n.152, 140, 141, 142–4, 185, 186, 203, 207, 208, 209, 211, 214, 216, 227, 228, 233, 234, 238, 249–55, 253 nn.124–6, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261 Anniversary plays for the Nederduytsche Academy 106–7 Farmer Theeuwis 99–102 Iphigenia  103, 106, 108–44, 203, 207–8, 209, 211, 214, 216 Ithys  99, 101–2 Thijsken van der Schilden  99, 102 Crell, Johannes  76  Crum, Hans  186, 186 n.137 Cummings, Brian  72, 112 Cunaeus, Petrus  2, 4, 61, 63, 63 nn.52, 54, 64, 65, 98, 116, 118, 122–3, 124, 129, 131, 192, 262, 264 Cupus, Petrus  58, 79 n.117, 199, 199 n.33 Cyprianus 62 Dathenus, Petrus  58 Davenant, John  166, 168 Dekker, Eef  1, 142 Den Bosch  228, 241–2, 244, 245, 247, 249 Determinism (and fatalism)  24, 43, 46, 48, 86, 89–90, 113, 181; see also Stoicism Deursen, A. Th. van  6, 6 n.5, 27 n.42, 57, 159 Diana  109–10, 113–14, 128, 208, 215 Diodati, Jean  164, 168 Discipline, ecclesiastical  20, 21–2, 23, 25–6, 26 n.37, 38, 77, 103, 117 Dominicans  34, 70 Donteclock, Reginald  27, 32, 35, 46, 48 n.135, 95, 117 Dordrecht (Dort)  12, 77, 135, 155, 228, 246 Doucher, Jean  230, 230 n.12, 14, 237 Dousa, Janus  261 Drielenburgh, Vincent van  93, 135, 135 n.136, 139 Drusius, Johannes  2, 3 Dungcart, The Arminian 84–5 Dutch Revolt  1, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 26, 28, 58, 78, 98, 112, 188, 196, 242, 243, 258 Episcopius, Simon  6 n.15, 36, 55, 78, 115, 126, 135, 167, 169, 192 Free Religion  236–8, 239, 240, 244, 250, 257, 258

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

Index 291 Erasmus  19, 20, 20 n.9, 34 n.68, 46 n.124, 64, 68–9, 68 n.67, 69 n.69, 70, 70 n.76, 71, 71 n.81, 72, 78–83, 78 n.115, 79 n.117, 80 n.123, 115, 129, 196–7, 197 nn.26, 27 Erastianism  3, 25, 26, 27, 32, 38, 63 n.52, 116–17, 122–3, 129, 256 Erastus, Thomas  25, 117 Euripides  109–10, 113, 127, 138, 184, 204, 204 n.52 Farnese, Alessandro, Duke of Parma  14, 29, 246 Franck, Sebastian  19, 20 n.9, 30, 35 n.71, 80, 81, 87, 103, 126 n.104 Francken, Jan  155, 158, 160, 224 Franeker  3, 66, 74, 75, 116 Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange  143, 193, 226, 228, 229, 230, 232–6, 237, 241–9, 256 Fyne, Passchier de  126, 170–5, 237, 239–40, 258

Adamus exsul 60 Christus patiens  60, 61–2, 77 n.111, 262 De imperio summarum potestarum circa sacra  72–3, 118, 122, 126–7 De iure belli ac pacis  76, 122, 145 De veritate religionis Christianae 62, 62 n.46, 76 Defence of the Lawful Government of Holland and West-Vriesland  142, 155, 156, 159–61, 176, 212, 235 Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi, adversus Faustum Socinum 75–6 Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas 28, 53, 63 n.51, 67–74, 75, 77 n.111, 78, 82, 84, 87, 98, 118, 122, 123, 129, 135, 262 Meletius  71–2, 122, 123, 129, 131 Sophompaneas  143, 262–3 Tolerance Resolution 76–7 Gwalter, Rudolph  26, n.37

Geesteranus, Petrus and Johannes  76 Gelderland (province of )  24, 53, 156 n.42 Geldorpius, Henricus  87, 237 George, David  19, 84, 87 Gerwen, Jonas van  59 Geuzen (Beggars)  13, 54, 196, 198, 206, 223–4, 225, 231, 232, 234, 253 n.126 Geuzenliederen (Beggars’ Songs)  15, 28, 28 n.43, 58, 91, 91 n.164 Gomarus, Franciscus  36–44, 46, 47–8, 66, 82, 82 n.131, 95, 117, 119, 127, 151, 151 n.123, 167, 208, 234 Gouda  27, 31, 35, 59, 87, 170, 256 Grace  1, 24, 34, 43, 50, 58, 59, 68, 69–70 And faith  24, 44, 45, 46, 56 And perseverance  34, 50, 55, 56, 56 n.8, 58, 89–90, 168 And the covenant (predestination and)  50, 111, 112, 168 Arminian position on  40, 45, 46–7, 46 n.124, 50–1, 131 Bullinger on  24, 24 n.30 Calvin on  24, 47 Grace and will  25, 25 nn.32, 34, 45, 68–70, 166, 168; see also Doctrine of the small free will Irresistible  6, 43, 47, 48, 50–1, 69, 78 Reformed position on  48, 56, 119 Sufficient and efficient  47 Universality of the promise of (real or hypothetical)  24, 50, 72, 167, 168 n.88 Grevinchoven, Nicolaes van  6 n.5, 115 Grotius  2, 4–5, 6, 16, 28, 38, 56, 60, 60 n.40, 61, 62, 63, 63 nn.51, 52, 56, 66–7, 74–5, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83–4, 85–6, 104, 115, 116, 122, 131, 133, 135–6, 138, 142–3, 149, 153, 155–6, 157, 161, 184–5, 193, 201, 227, 231–2, 238, 251, 255, 256, 257–8, 257 n.140, 260, 261, 262–3

Haarlem  9, 26, 31, 58, 59, 83, 87, 144, 213, 235 Habermas, Jürgen  10–11 Hague, The  5, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 48, 51, 83, 86, 89, 99, 161, 169, 190, 201, 246, 247 Hall, Joseph, Dean of Worcester  38, 166 Hartewech, Abraham  58 Hebrew Republic  98, 116–17, 122–3, 126, 262 Heinsius, Daniel  4, 56 n.18, 60–3, 65 Hemmingius, Nicolaus  23 n.24, 34 Herbers, Herman  27, 87 Hilarius 62 Holland  33–5, 37–8, 41–2, 48–9, 52–4, 57, 65–8, 72, 75–7, 79, 82–3, 87, 89, 100, 101, 114, 116–17, 122, 126 n.104, 132–3, 135, 137, 138, 142–4, 145–9, 151, 153–6, 159, 161–2, 170, 173, 175–7, 182, 187, 189, 191–2, 196, 198, 201, 203, 207–9, 211–12, 223, 226, 229, 232–3, 235–6, 239, 241, 245–52, 256, 258, 262 Hommius, Festus  55 Hooft, C.P.  36, 77, 123, 133–4, 137, 198 Hooft, P.C.  5, 36, 77, 77, 91, 101, 103, 104, 104 n.13, 118, 119, 119 n.72, 130, 131, 136, 185, 186, 187, 193, 193 n.7, 194, 195, 201, 227, 247, 250, 253–4, 253 nn.126, 128, 130, 256, 257, 257 n.140, 261 Baeto (1617)  103, 118–19, 131, 136, 193, 260 Geeraerd van Velzen  101, 113 ‘Noodlot’ 259–60 Oration on the Dignity of Poetry (1610–1614)  77, 77 n.111, 101, 262 Schijnheilig 193 Warenar (1617)  102, 105 Huygens, Constantijn  104, 246, 247

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

292 Index Idolatry  54, 59, 112, 114, 141, 153, 196, 235, 245, 254 Irenicism  3, 7, 23, 28, 38, 61–2, 66, 68, 71–2, 77, 78, 123, 129, 256, 260, 261, 263, 264 Ius circa sacra  26, 27, 38, 67, 72–4, 115, 116–19, 120–4, 126–7, 149, 211, 237–8; see also Erastianism ius de non evocando  154, 176–7, 201 Iustitia Dei  43–5, 75–6 God as tyrant  34, 44–5, 134 James I  28, 38–9, 66–8, 166, 221 Jeanin, Pierre  61 Jesuits  34, 70, 74, 85, 254 Junius, Adriaen  156, 207 Junius, Franciscus  36, 45, 71 Koningh, Abraham de  59 Korsten, F.W.  191 n.1, 217 n.78 Lactantius  62, 116 n.58, 119, 131 Lake, Peter  7, 8, 10, 39 n.85 Leicester, Robert Dudley, Earl of  26, 26 n.38, 39, 39 n.84, 74, 88, 162, 209, 215 n.75 Leiden  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 25–7, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40–1, 45, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 68, 74, 81, 83, 88, 99, 116, 122, 146, 156, 192, 196–7, 198, 227, 235, 236, 240, 245, 248, 252, 256 Libertines  19, 30, 96, 126, 251 Lidmaten 21–2 Libel; see satire Liberties and privileges of the Netherlands  12, 16, 154, 162, 175–82, 186, 187, 188–9, 196, 201, 211–12 And freedom of speech; see parrhèsia And the fall of the Roman Republic  182–9; see also republicanism Liberty Neo-Roman concept of  183 Of conscience  10, 28–36, 88, 142, 162, 171, 172, 173, 229, 236–45, 249–50, 251, 258 Of worship  28, 82, 126, 227, 236–41, 243–5, 249–50, 251, 254–5 Lipsius, Justus  31, 32, 34–6, 61, 83, 130, 141–2, 147 Lodenstein, Jodocus van  58 Lubbertus, Synbrandus  66–7, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74–5 Lucan, Pharsalia  115, 143, 176, 184–9, 229, 260 Luther, Martin  18, 68, 70, 80, 151 Lutherans, Lutheranism  14, 22, 23, 29, 35 n.71, 40, 73, 73 n.93, 126 n.104, 166 Lyere, Emmery de  19, 30 Marcion of Sinope  62 Marnix, Philip van Sint Aldegonde  30, 63

Martens, Pieter  58 Maurits van Nassau, Prince of Orange  2, 4, 41, 59, 61 n.43, 66, 92, 94, 132, 133, 133 n.129, 139–41, 145, 146, 147–8, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 163 n.72, 167, 175–90, 193, 196, 197–8, 199, 202, 205–8, 209–13, 215 n.75, 217, 221–2, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 235, 243, 249, 251 McRae, Andrew  90, 91 Melanchthon  22, 23 n.24, 24, 24 n.31, 70, 72, 79 n.117 Meletius Pegas  71 Mennonites  9, 19, 29, 30, 41, 73, 91 n.164, 103; see also Waterlanders Middelburg  26, 27, 59, 66, 228, 252 Moderation  17, 38–40, 38 n.79, 39 n.86, 53, 55–6, 64, 65, 74, 76, 78–9, 85, 95, 153, 175, 176, 246, 264 Moderates  40, 40 nn.88, 85 Montague, James  39 Montaigne  30, 33, 110 Mostart, Daniel  93, 104, 104 n.12, 194, 236 n.52 Muiden  104, 136, 253 Muiderkring 104 Muller, Richard  1, 42–3, 44 Münster, Peace of  115, 247, 248, 255 Muys van Holy, Hugo  61 n.43, 135, 155, 156, 156 n.42, 162, 164, 208, 224 Myle, Abraham van der  74, 198 Naeranus, Samuel  76 Natural law  110, 128–32 Oldenbarnevelt  2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 22, 26–7, 27–8, 27 n.42, 35, 38–40, 41, 41 nn.91, 92, 48–9, 49 n.136, 59, 66–7, 76–7, 81, 85, 92, 94, 115, 116, 123, 132–4, 135, 138, 141, 142, 145–54, 154–61, 154 n.30, 31, 161–3, 164, 176–80, 182, 186, 190, 191, 195, 198, 202, 203–8, 209, 211–14, 217, 220–1, 222, 223–6, 229, 232, 233, 239, 252, 258, 260, 261 Parrhèsia  64, 65, 85, 90–1, 95, 184, 264 Pelagianism  42, 55, 59, 69, 74, 89, 131, 168, 192 Perkins, William  34, 45 Plancius, Petrus  27, 81, 106 Pollmann, Judith  9 Predestination  5, 6, 10, 16, 23–6, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42–8, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 67, 68, 69–70, 74, 83, 86, 89, 91, 112, 114, 132, 135, 206, 214–17 And the arcana Dei  7, 46, 56, 62, 111 And the Covenant  111, 245 And the persecution of heretics  86–7, 88, 89, 239, 260

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

Index 293 Contra-Remonstrant position on  40, 47–8, 55–7, 57–9, 163 election  24, 34, 45, 47–8, 56, 57 n.18, 62, 68–9, 89–90, 111, 114, 167–8 ex praevisa fide  24, 45–6, 47–8, 56, 69, 167 human sacrifice as a metaphor for  111, 112–15, 215 Infralapsarian and supralapsarian  45–6, 50, 167 Isaac and Esau as types of the elect and the reprobate  45, 62, 111, 196 Remonstrant position on  40–1, 44–7, 50–1, 89, 136, 167–9 reprobation  24, 34, 45, 60, 62, 69, 90, 112, 168, 167–8 Puritans  7, 28, 38, 73, 107; see also satire and anti-Calvinism Real, Laurens Jacobsz  36, 134 Real, Laurens  36, 91, 194, 195, 198 Real, Lijsbet  36 Reformation  1, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18–27, 30, 31, 36, 48, 58, 65, 70, 80, 99 n.3, 151, 252 Republicanism  134, 144, 185–9, 229 Respublica Hebraeorum; see Hebrew Republic Revius, Jacobus  47, 58, 59, 60, 242–3 Robbertsz, Robbert, Le Canu  78, 81–2, 95, 147–8 Roobol, Marianne  32, 34 Saravia, Adrianus  32 Satire  5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 78 And anti-Calvinism  63–5, 85–97, 98, 106, 108–15, 129, 139, 196–7, 207, 214–21, 231, 235–6, 239, 252, 264 And libel  5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 87–9, 91, 92–7, 98, 132, 145, 151–5, 177, 178, 192, 197–8, 202, 203, 206, 226, 231, 235–6, 236 n.52, 249, 250–3, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261 And the Academy’s prize-contest  249–53 Menippean  4, 63–5 Scabaelje, Dirck  104, 113–14 Scaliger, Joseph  2, 4, 60 Schwenkfeld, Caspar von  19, 81, 103; see also Spiritualism Scriverius, Petrus  60, 195, 196, 197 n.25 Simons, Menno  19, 103, 251 Slade, Matthew  66, 74, 79 Slatius, Hendrik  57, 59, 79 n.117, 87–9, 90, 115, 145–6, 147 n.7, 162, 163, 164, 170, 175–84, 187–8, 189–90, 198, 203, 215, 260 Smits-Veldt, Mieke B.  77 n.111, 108, 130, 138 n.152, 141–2 Socinianism  21, 41, 59, 66, 67–8, 69, 74–5, 87, 131, 232; see also anti-Trinitarianism Socinus, Faustus  68, 75, 76, 87, 251 Sovereignty  10, 16, 117, 119, 124, 125, 126–7, 134, 142–3, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153,

154, 158, 159, 159 n.60, 162, 176, 177, 179–80, 182, 205, 210, 211–13, 216, 228, 236, 237–8, 258, 262; see also church-state relation Spiegel, Hendrik Laurenszoon  31, 33, 35, 83, 100, 113, 115, 129–31, 132 Spiritualism  19, 20, 26, 30, 33, 78, 80–2, 103, 261 Stanglin, Keith  1, 23 n.24, 42 States General  29, 132, 144, 146, 154–5, 156, 158, 159, 167, 169, 176, 177, 180, 182, 208, 231, 234, 235, 241, 245, 246, 248 States of Holland  2, 4, 7, 26, 27–8, 29, 33, 34, 35–6, 37, 38, 41–2, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 65–6, 67–8, 70, 72–4, 75, 76–7, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 89, 103, 114, 116, 117–18, 122, 126 n.104, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148–9, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159–60, 176–7, 178, 179, 182, 211, 229, 232, 235, 237, 237, 241, 245, 246, 247, 248, 256, 258, 262 Stoicism  24, 130, 181, 213, 215, 223 Sybrandtsz, Taco  27 Synod of Dort  1, 2, 3–4, 5, 17, 45, 61, 88, 116, 145, 159, 162–3, 164–9, 170, 180, 184, 191, 194, 198, 214–21, 235, 237, 239 Telle, Reinier  5, 17, 77, 78, 79–81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89–90, 92, 93, 97, 103, 104 n.12, 106, 114, 114 n.51, 135, 135 n.135, 139, 151, 185, 215, 258, 261, 264 Tesselschade  104, 104 n.13, 195, 246, 250, 253 Toleration  2, 3, 5, 6, 17, 20, 29, 30, 78, 85, 97, 117, 121, 229; see also liberty of conscience Full  28, 30, 31–2, 34, 35, 72, 78–82, 103, 126, 170, 171, 173, 227, 236–41, 244–5, 249–51, 257, 258; see also liberty of religion Limited  2, 6, 28, 38–9, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 69–70, 71–2, 76–7, 78–82, 82–3, 85–6, 98, 115, 123–4, 126, 131, 132, 133, 135, 142, 149, 177, 237; see also moderation Tournay, Jasper  35, 85, 87 Trigland, Jacobus  6 n.5, 17, 25, 27, 35, 54, 55, 56–7, 77, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 106, 108, 115, 119–20, 132, 135, 139, 178, 206, 214, 214 n.73, 218, 232, 234, 240, 249, 258 Twelve-Year Truce  2, 6, 14, 40–1, 52, 57, 78, 147, 148, 180–1, 195, 213, 235 Union of Utrecht (1579)  29, 29 n.47, 38, 149, 176, 177 Uytenbogaert  2, 6, 6 n.5, 37, 49, 54, 55, 66, 66 n.55, 77, 78, 84, 98, 115, 116, 117–18, 119–21, 126, 127, 129, 132, 135, 138, 139, 142, 153, 161, 208, 228, 235, 238

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/10/15, SPi

294 Index Veluanus, Anastasius ( Jan Gerritz Versteghe)  20 n.8, 23 n.24, 24–5, 25 n.32, 70, 70 n.76 Venator, Adolphus  55, 78, 84 Verboom, Wim  20, 237 n.61 Voetius, Gisbert  248 Vondel, Joost van den  5, 17, 36, 77, 90–1, 91 n.164, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 103, 104, 104 n.12, 114, 118, 124, 130, 136, 138, 164, 185, 187, 191, 192, 193–8, 195 n.20, 198–203, 202 n.44, 206, 207, 212–13, 214, 215, 217, 225, 227–8, 230, 231, 232–3, 234, 236, 236 n.52, 238–41, 242, 242 n.74, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250–3, 253, 253 n.126, 128, 130, 254, 255, 256–7, 257 nn.139, 140, 258, 260, 261, 262–4 plays Gysbreght van Aemstel (1637)  255, 256 Hippolytus (1628)  103, 232 Jerusalem Destroyed (1620)  103, 116, 123–4, 198, 218, 240, 260 Joseph in Dothan (1640)  262–3 Leeuwendalers (1648)  115, 255 Palamedes (1625)  7, 89, 90, 98, 103, 115, 138, 191, 193, 198–221, 223–6, 230, 233, 251, 252, 260 poems  ‘A New Song of Reynard the Fox’ (1627)  91 ‘Amsterdam’s Cacistory or Mutineer-school’ (1630)  221, 252 ‘Amsterdam’s Welcome to the Prince’ (1628) 232–3 ‘An Otter in the Bulwark’ (1627)  93, 95–6 Beggars’ Vesper , or Sick-Comfort for the Twenty-four (1631 [probably written in the1620’s])  196, 196 n.22, 198, 223–5, 232 Chronogram on the Death of Oldenbarnevelt’ (1631?)  164, 226 Currycomb (1630)  252, 253 ‘Decretum Horribile’ (1631)  86, 12, 196 n.22, 239, 239 n.67 ‘Dedication to the States of the United Netherlands, on the statue of Prince William’s grave’ (1622)  196 ‘Elegy on Vorstius’ (1622)  198 ‘Farmers’ Catechism’ (1628)  235–6 Frederik, Hendrik’s City-Crown’ (1632) 246 ‘Haec Libertatis Ergo’ (1630)  239, 240, 241, 248, 252 Harpoon (1630)  252, 253 ‘In Praise of Navigation’ (1623)  194, 195 ‘Inauguration of the Christian Temple at Amsterdam’ (1630)  243–4

‘Lightning-Bolt against the Noord-Holland Synod’ (1631)  252 ‘Medal for the Gomarist Heretic-Hunter’ (1631) 252 ‘On a murder-libel’ (1623?)  197 ‘On Amsterdam’ (1631)  240–1 On Barnevelt (1625)  226 On Holland’s Latest Transformation’(‘Op de Waeg-schael‘) (1618)  151, 152, 196, 198, 232, 235 On Storm’s translation of Lucan (1619)  186, 187, 196 ‘On the building of the Christian Temple at Amsterdam’ (1630)  239 On the Discord among the Christian Princes to Jesus Christ’ (1634)  247 ‘Peace wish to Constantijn Huygens’ (1632) 246 Poems on Erasmus (1622)  196–7 ‘Rumbling Pot of the Walk’ (1627)  93, 206, 231 ‘The Amsterdam Academy, to all Poets and Writers of the United Netherlands’ (1630) 249 ‘The Cane of Oldenbarnevelt’ (1657)  225 ‘The Poets against the Consistory’ (1628)  93–4, 233, 256 ‘Victory Hymn to Frederik Hendrik’ (1629)  241–2, 243–4, 246 Vorstius, Conrad  40, 41, 65, 66, 66 n.55, 67–8, 75, 76, 84, 87, 194, 196, 198, 251 Vossius  2, 3, 63 n.51, 52, 69, 74, 78, 104, 129, 131, 136, 192, 236, 255, 260, 262 Waterlander Doopsgezinden  103, 114, 194 Wiggertsz, Herman  27 Will  1, 58 Corruption of the  33, 68, 131 Divine will  24, 28, 43–5, 50, 56, 68, 76 110, 111–12, 114, 216–17, 259–60 Doctrine of the small free will  24–5, 25 n.32; see also Anastasius Veluanus Freedom of the  20–1, 33–4, 46–7, 48, 50, 58, 64, 68, 68 n.67, 69–70, 72, 85, 168, 214–15 Willem I, Prince of Orange (William the Silent)  13, 19, 26, 29, 30, 60, 74, 83, 88, 105, 177, 188, 196, 209 Willem II, Prince of Orange  15, 143, 248 Witt, Johan de  14, 15, 16, 144 Zanchi (Zanchius)  24, 34 Zeeland, province of  15, 19, 26, 29, 72, 100, 133, 143, 176, 228, 245, 250, 252 Zurich  22, 24, 25 Zwingli, Huldrych  80