Table Of ContentACTA HISTORIAE NEERLANDICAE
STUDIES ON THE HISTORY OF THE NETHERLANDS
EDITORIAL BOARD:
I. Sch5ffer (Leiden); Johanna A. Kossmann (Groningen); H. Balthazar (Ghent); J. R. Bruijn
(Leiden); A. Th. van Deursen (Amsterdam); W. Prevenier (Ghent).
EDITORIAL ADDRESS:
Alexander Numankade 199, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
ACTA HISTORIAE NEERLANDICAE
STUDIES ON THE HISTORY OF THE NETHERLANDS
IX
•
MARTINUS NIJHOFF / THE HAGUE / 1976
© 1976 by Martinus NijhofJ, The Hague, Netherlands.
Softcoverreprintof the hardcover 1st edition 1976
All rights reserved, including the right to translate or
to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form.
ISBN-13 :978-94-011-5956 -2 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-011-5954-8
DOl: IO.1007/978-94-011-5954-8
Table of Contents
Preface VII
N. MOUT, Political and Religious Ideas of Netherlanders at the Court in
Prague 1
E. STOLS, The Southern Netherlands and the Foundation of the Dutch East
and West India Companies 30
R. BAETENS, The Organization and Effects of Flemish Privateering in the
Seventeenth Century 48
H. VAN DIJK and D. J. ROORDA, Social Mobility under the Regents of the
Republic 76
P. J. VAN KESSEL, The Attitude of the Roman Curia to the French Revolution
and its Opposite Effects in the Southern and Northern Netherlands 103
H. BALTHAZAR, A Study of Wealth and Income in the Nineteenth and Twen-
tieth Centuries 121
C. A. T AMSE, The Role of Small Countries in the International Politics of
the 1860s: The Netherlands and Belgium in Europe 143
B. A. SUES, The Position of the Jews during the German Occupation of the
Netherlands: Some Observations 170
R. L. JONES and K. W. SWART, Survey of Recent Historical Works on
Belgium and the Netherlands Published in Dutch 193
Preface
In the Survey of Recent Historical Works, which according to custom concludes
this IXth volume of the Acta, is a notice of the recent 'Report of the Dutch
research, with suggestions for future development'. Such a report could easily
be classified as an attempt to bring pressure to bear on financial resources for
support of a somewhat neglected branch of scientific effort, indeed as a symptom
of the current disease of notatitis. A recent special issue 'Regeren door notas',
of the periodical Beleid and Maatschappij, March-April 1976, discusses this
severe Dutch epidemic of official note-writing, for any purpose, on any matter,
at any time, by any sort of official committee to any sort of official body. But
even if such were the only reason for the production of this Report, which
indeed it is not, the Report will stand on its own feet, as significant and
of consequence.
In general, however, this Report makes sad reading. It would seem that Dutch
historical research and historiography lags far behind comparable foreign
developments. There are said to be immense gaps in knowledge of and insight
into virtually all fields of the Dutch past and moreover a total lack of modem
sophistication. Inevitably, currently fashionable techniques such as programming,
co-ordination, and teamwork are suggested as desirable, and a preference is
expressed for the currently highly regarded socio-historical approach. On closing
the report, the reader may well react by asking the question 'Are things really
so bad'?
At the risk of blunting the intended effect of the Report, and although fully
aware of my having been a co-author of parts of it, I prefer to answer in the
negative. Teamwork is still rare, programming and co-ordination could solve
some problems, and certainly more money is needed for more research, but
individual research, I would like to suggest, is flowering in the Netherlands,
and for that matter also in Belgium. It may be that such research is sometimes
somewhat disorganized, undertaken spontaneously as a result of individual
initiative, and often performed under difficult circumstances, restricted in time
and lacking much material aid. But it is certainly proceeding both fruitfully
and in a stimulating manner. One needs only to consult the Repertoria of Studies
PREFACE
published on Dutch and Belgian history, or to look at Lademacher's Literatur-
bericht on Dutch historical publications between 1945 and 1970 (see Survey,
193 in this volume). The impression is not only of sheer numbers but also of
generally high overall quality.
The nine volumes of the Acta, with its selected articles in translation, and
its surveys of historical literature, surely offers proof that Dutch historical
research is in a much more favourable condition than the Report seems to
suggest. It is true that Belgian articles in the Acta do make a substantial
contribution towards this favourable impression. But this only demonstrates
that co-operation between Dutch and Belgian scholars has contributed to the
progress of research and has been of benefit to it, especially by joint ventures
such as contributions to journals and in the holding of conferences - the Report
only mentions such matters in passing.
In this ninth volume of the Acta is an impressive variety of articles, and an
equally lively and varied Survey of Recent Historical Works. To judge of the
quality of Dutch and Belgian historical work, it seems better to read some of
it for oneself, than to condemn it because others have reported unfavourably.
'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'.
I. Schoffer
Political and Religious Ideas of Netherlanders at the Court In
Prague*
NICOLETTE MOUT
In the sixteenth and early seventeenth century Prague had a cosmopolitan air.
The town owed its prominence to the triple function it fulfilled : besides being the
capital of Bohemia and an important centre for trade in Central Europe it had
been, since 1526, the seat of a Habsburg court. Indeed from 1583 to 1612 Prague
was the permanent residence of the imperial court and it attracted foreigners,
principally from the surrounding countries. Compared with these foreigners the
Netherlanders, who came from further afield, formed only a very small band. When
present day historians, especially art historians, describe sixteenth-century Prague
primarily as a 'magic centre' of late mannerism, they are thinking chiefly of the
role of the court under the Emperor Rudolf IV One of the keynotes of late
mannerism is its cosmopolitanism and in Prague, too, the mannerist artists at the
court were drawn from every corner of Europe. These included numerous Nether-
landers-painters, etchers, sculptors, architects, goldsmiths and musicians. If some
of them stayed only a short while others settled in Prague permanently.2
Mannerism is distinguished from other artistic trends by its concentration on
virtuosity and elegance and also by an intricate artistic and intellectual imagery-
hence the rise to prominence of that peculiar vehicle of mannerism, emblematic
art. Stylistically mannerism was not tied to any single religious current, indeed it
tended to be indifferent to the religious experience. This aspect of mannerism
was very much in evidence in Prague where so many varieties of Christianity
existed side by side. However this was linked to something else. It is precisely
when discussing the nature of mannerism developed at Prague that we can pass
beyond the realms of art history to ask whether the term mannerism cannot
here be employed in the far broader sense as an aspect of intellectual history. The
English historian R. J. W. Evans has investigated the intellectual world of Rudolf II
and the mannerism of the Bohemian capital and come, in my opinion, to the very
fruitful conclusion that mannerism in the plastic arts should be seen here as a
• This article is the slightly revised version of N. Mout, Bohemen en de Nederlanden in de
zestiende eeuw (Leiden : Universitaire Pers, 1975) ch. iv.
1. Cf. for instance A. Hauser, Der Manierismus (Munich, 1964), English translation Mannerism
(2 vols; London, 1965); O. R. Hocke, Die Welt als Labyrinth (Hamburg, 1957); J. Shearman,
Mannerism (Harmondsworth, 1967); F. Wiirtenberger, Der Manierismus (Vienna, 1962).
2. On Netherlanders resident in Prague in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth
centuries: Mout, Bohemen en de Nederlanden, ch. iii, 'Nederlanders en het Praagse hof', 51-93.
N. MOUT
manifestation of a magical conception of reality, based on a belief in cosmic
harmony and bound up with the notion of microcosm and macrocosm and such
arcane sciences as astrology and alchemy. According to Evans these ideas, which
were accepted by most intellectuals at the court in Prague, including the Nether-
landers and which, moreover, provided the inspiration for many mannerist
works of art at Prague, deserve the label 'mannerist' as much as the art itself.
Evans' study of Prague as a cultural and intellectual focus between 1576 and
1612-at the heart of which lay the Rudolfine court-convincingly shows the
interplay between the artists and intellectuals at work there. At this court their
common creativity could draw freely on contemporary notions about magic and
philosophy. Evans has then clearly and conclusively defined the exceptional
position of Prague mannerism, which gave rise to such an unprecedented cultural
efflorescence, in the history of mannerism in sixteenth-century Europe.3
The Netherlands artists and scholars who played so considerable a role in
Prague mannerism had more in common with one another than the accident of
their Netherlandish origin and a life spent outside their native country in one of
the most intriguing of European cities. Their lives were overshadowed by conflicts
of every sort to which even the most retiring among them could scarcely close
his eyes. They lived in a world of wars, religious quarrels and tremendous shifts
in the political order. What was supreme one moment could quickly be overturned
the next: fortune was not for nothing a recurrent and much loved theme of six-
teenth century literature and art. Several of the Prague mannerists from the Low
Countries had themselves experienced what it meant to be persecuted for the
sake of religion. At times their voluntary or enforced exile soured their stay in
Prague. In the second half of the sixteenth century there were reasons enough to
leave the Netherlands and make a career elsewhere. Johannes (Jan) Sadeler, an
etcher from Antwerp, expressed this very clearly when he petitioned Rudolf II
for a privilege :
with my wife and children I have gone into voluntary exile and on account of the present
troubled state of both religious and civil affairs I have completely broken my ties with my
native country.4
Jan Sadeler belonged to the emigrants from the Netherlands who flooded across
Germany between c. 1545 and 1590 in three great waves, heading for such im-
portant refugee-centres as Cologne, Frankfurt and Niirnberg. As a rule these
emigres preferred Germany to the Dutch Republic on account of the precarious
3. R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf II and his World (Oxford, 1973).
4. H. von Voltelini, 'Urkunden und Regesten aus dem K. u. K. Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Archiv',
Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhochsten Kaiserhauses, XV (1894) no. 11938.
2
NETHERLANDERS AT THE COURT IN PRAGUE
military situation, especially during Parma's government, the initial economic
instability and perhaps, too, the religious intolerance in the northern Netherlands.5
For the small artistic and intellectual elite among the emigres central Europe with
its numerous universities, courts and large prosperous towns, where they could
more easily gain a livelihood and find patrons and protectors, seemed more
attractive than the young Republic.
Of course the emigrants were concerned about the general political and military
developments in Europe for these could profoundly affect their own circumstances.
Yet they retained an interest in their native countries, where they still often had
relatives, friends or business connexions. The Netherlanders at the court in Prague
were, in this respect, no different. The reactions of some of them to the revolt of
the Netherlands or, occasionally, to the Turkish wars in central Europe (1591-
1606) have been preserved, mostly in their correspondence. Such remarks provide
pointers to the political and religious standpoint ofthe writer. But when evaluating
these sources certain points should be borne in mind. The Netherlanders at
Prague, from whom such remarks are known, belonged without exception to the
international world of the literati who maintained a concerted and astonishingly
large and efficient network for the exchange of information. The bonds between
the members of this group were not simply the product of a uniform cultural
standard. There was also a sense of sharing a common fate, especially at that time
when the ordinary lives of intellectuals and artists were so deeply affected by
contemporary events and when so many had personally suffered persecution, exile
and other calamities. These widely shared experiences left their mark in their
voluminous correspondence as well as in their artistic creations, though these
are usually still harder to discern in their art than in their letters. The remarks of
Netherlanders at the imperial court about the political situation in the Netherlands
were coloured by their own religious convictions and their position at court. It is
generally very difficult to determine their confessional allegiance because they
seldom ventured to express an opinion on this matter. The degree of frankness they
felt able to permit themselves on this subject was bound up with the second point,
their position at court, i.e. the nature of their office and the length of time they had
spent at the court. Understandably someone like Oghier Ghislain de Busbecq, the
eminent humanist and botanist, who had enjoyed a great diplomatic career in the
service of the Habsburgs, upheld principles inseparable from his function, namely
loyalty to the emperor he served and circumspection when it came to matters of
faith. Nevertheless he always remained emotionally and intellectually involved
in the events in the Netherlands, whither he wished to return towards the end of
s. R. van Roosbroeck, Emigranten. Nederlandse vluchtelingen in Duitsland(l550-1600) (Louvain,
1968).
3
