Postprint : Author's Final Peer-Reviewed Version
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of: Chivalric solidarity or royal supremacy? The symbolic revival of the Order of the Golden Fleece (15661598) Reference: Thiry Steven.- Chivalric solidarity or royal supremacy? The symbolic revival of the Order of the Golden Fleece (15661598) Dutch crossing : a journal of low countries studies - ISSN 0309-6564 - 43:1(2019), p. 27-46 Full text (Publisher's DOI): https://doi.org/10.1080/03096564.2018.1559505 To cite this reference: https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1566180151162165141 Institutional repository IRUA Chivalric Solidarity or Royal Supremacy? The Symbolic Revival of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1566-1598) STEVEN THIRY University of Antwerp / Research Foundation Flanders Founded in 1430, the Order of the Golden Fleece was perhaps the most iconic dynastic institution in the Low Countries. It bound together a selective group of high nobles, promoting shared values and loyalty, and was an inexhaustible storehouse of political imagery. The Dutch Revolt seriously disrupted this venerable company. Its officers became estranged, the numbers of knights rapidly declined, and original objectives were questioned. Nevertheless, the Order’s Burgundian heritage and its enduring material memory retained a strong political potential. This article explores how both royalists and dissidents exploited the signs and codes of old to criticize − and even redress − royal policy. As such the (sometimes contradictory) use of the Order’s symbolism ensured the Netherlands’ status as ritualistic nerve centre. KEYWORDS Order of the Golden Fleece, Memory, Viglius Ab Aytta, symbolic persistence, Dutch Revolt Introduction In late November 1565 fourteen knights of the Order of the Golden Fleece gathered in the Brussels palace to celebrate the annual feast of their patron saint, St Andrew. Scheduled after the lavish wedding of the son of the Habsburg governess with a Portuguese princess, the assembly attracted many spectators and foreign dignitaries.1 As protocol demanded, solemnities began with a vigil. The knights, parading their golden collars, proceeded towards the court chapel where they took seats according to the date of their admission into the Order. The next day, they again attended Mass in their traditional red garments. A banquet concluded the feast in the grand hall of the palace, which specially for the occasion was decorated with an old tapestry series depicting the biblical story of Gideon – one of the Order’s leitmotifs.2 Despite the festive mood, the event was fraught with tension. After the grand master, King Philip II, had departed for Spain in 1559, some of the companions had criticized royal governance and religious repression. These concerns now surfaced in a speech of Chancellor Viglius ab Aytta, 1 explaining the Golden Fleece’s ‘signs and title’. He asserted that St Andrew and the cross on which the apostle had been martyred were appropriate symbols because the saint’s writings proved the Catholic doctrine of ‘the true body of Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar’.3 The knights present, however, did not unanimously approve this indirect rebuttal of Protestant views on the Eucharist. The Marquis of Bergen, who was in favour of moderating the persecution of heresy, indignantly asked where the chancellor had read such things. Nicolas de Hames, the Order’s king of arms, in his turn accused Viglius of telling ‘a dream’ of the saint.4 This controversy demonstrates that, against the backdrop of the sixteenth-century civil conflict, the Order’s shared imagery could be disputed, as well as become a channel for criticism. As much as its symbolic profile promoted corporate identity, it likewise underpinned opposed aspirations. Rituals and signs embodying a communal sense of purpose prompted alternative meanings but, at the same time, could also accommodate new compromises about an institution’s functioning within changed political circumstances. Since its foundation in 1430, the Order of the Golden Fleece formed an exclusive brotherhood of high nobles. Formal meetings in the shape of so-called chapters and the feasts of St Andrew turned these individual members into a single body with an exalted mission.5 Assembled in chapters, the knights kept each other’s conduct in check – including princely policies − and mutually elected new members. After each chapter, the preservation in public churches of panels with the knights’ armorial bearings embedded their reciprocal bond within the civic society of the Netherlands.6 Yet, the first decades of the Dutch Revolt disrupted the Order’s formal organization: political and religious discontent estranged its officers, caused a critical decline in membership, and cast doubt on the ‘original’ foundations, bringing the noble company on the verge of institutional extinction. After a period of inactivity, Philip II supposedly ‘revived’ it in 1581 as an instrument of royal favour and reward. Historians have long disregarded these kinds of chivalric fraternities because of their ostentation and exclusivity. Recent scholarship, nevertheless, has revealed the rational objectives that motivated them, and highlighted the late medieval rites of, among others, the Golden Fleece as a mainstay of princely state formation.7 The operation of such orders of knighthood within patronage networks and governmental structures also served noble interests. It provided a channel for influencing decisions and made the representation of princely authority dependent on the recognition of family pretences.8 Furthermore, new associations were introduced when older bonds lost their appeal. For instance, in 1578 King Henry III founded a new ‘Order of the Holy Spirit’ to reconcile Catholic nobles with the French crown during the religious wars, compensating the reduced prestige of the older Order of St Michael.9 2 For the early modern period, it is often presumed that an introspective, high-aristocratic logic thereby gradually evolved into individual distinctions.10 In this article, on the contrary, I will argue that such group dynamics extended beyond noble membership. In particular, the symbolic features of the Golden Fleece in the second half of the sixteenth century were reminders of the political agreement between the ruler and high nobles, who were in their turn agents of local bonds and rights. As such, the commemorative function of symbolism still perpetuated a corporate and constitutional ideal, even in times of institutional decline. As an archetypal model of a chivalric society, the Burgundian Golden Fleece did not escape the revisionary trend, and has been interpreted from the vantage point of territorial unification, social disciplining,11 and (dynastic) conflict management.12 This contrasts sharply with the limited attention paid to the period after the (last) chapter of 1559. Gert Melville, among others, claimed that the once vital ritual life disappeared under the ‘absolute monarchy’.13 Others make it a textbook example of a fraternity turning into a mere dignity that was integrated into the Spanish honours system.14 Recently, however, Violet Soen has pointed out the Order’s instrumentality in the wider context of the Dutch Revolt. Its prestigious membership status still impelled discontented nobles to act as mediators between opposite parties and to directly present their grievances to the king. But, royal intransigence would soon silence this collective forum by punishing noble initiatives after the protest of 1566.15 One could ask whether Viglius’ controversial sermon already foreshadowed the Order’s failure as a political forum in the Low Countries, and whether the its subsequent revival was nothing more than a shrewd manoeuvre of Philip II. However, a different picture appears when one focuses on the multifaceted legacy of the Golden Fleece during the Revolt. Both local initiatives and the subsequent ritual reception of new nominees in the 1580s demonstrate that the ‘corporate’ function was preserved, cherished and exploited to curb political discontent. By referring to former traditions and symbolic remnants, moderate stakeholders stressed the mutual obligation of prince and elite to maintain the integrity of the Netherlandish provinces. They advocated a ‘Burgundian’ reinterpretation of the Order’s mission that dovetailed with public memories construed around its widespread heritage. Although no ‘Burgundian’ chapter would ever be celebrated again, the corporate memory of former meetings toned down the notion of royal favour, recasting the Order’s foundation as a constitutional agreement. That is why the former traces of chivalric solidarity facilitated an institutional reinvention in the original heartland despite a formal standstill. It explains why the noble company retained its political relevance in the Habsburg Netherlands and continued to nurture the public representation of 3 rule, even after the Cession of the Netherlands in 1598 disconnected the Burgundian patrimony from the grand master.16 Institutional Breakdown? In January 1430, Duke Philip the Good instituted the Order of the Golden Fleece on the occasion of his marriage with Isabella of Portugal. This foundation had not been a spur-of-the-moment decision. The gradual introduction of ritual procedures tested the institution’s capacity to foster princely loyalty, while a set of statutes specified the duties of its companions. Adopted as late as December 1431, the statutes saw a number of revisions in the following decades. At first, the duke planned for a solemn assembly or chapter