sign in sign up
<<
Home , Albert Hardenberg, Anthonis, Antwerp City Hall, Crucifixion (van Dyck), Diest, Duchy of Brabant

and Opposition: The Creation of a Secular Inquisition in Early Modern Brabant

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Christman, Victoria

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 10/10/2021 08:36:02

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195502 ORTHODOXY AND OPPOSITION: THE CREATION OF A SECULAR INQUISITION IN EARLY MODERN BRABANT

by

Victoria Christman

______Copyright © Victoria Christman 2005

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2 0 0 5 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation

prepared by Victoria Christman

entitled: Orthodoxy and Opposition: The Creation of a Secular Inquisition in Early Modern Brabant and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Professor Susan C. Karant Nunn Date: 17 August 2005

Professor Alan E. Bernstein Date: 17 August 2005

Professor Helen Nader Date: 17 August 2005

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

Professor Susan C. Karant-Nunn Date: 17 August 2005 Dissertation Director: 3

STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.

SIGNED: Victoria Christman______

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 8

ABSTRACT ...... 9

PART I SIXTEENTH CENTURY BRABANT

INTRODUCTION ...... 11

CHAPTER ONE. THE LAY OF THE LAND: GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN BRABANT ...... 25 I. BRABANT: CENTER OF GOVERNMENT, THEOLOGY, AND TRADE . . 25 II. THE UNDER CHARLES V ...... 29 a. Governmental Organization ...... 29 b. The Prosecution of in Brabant ...... 32 III. CHARLES V’S ANTI-HERESY LEGISLATION ...... 37 a. First Steps: 28 September 1520 and 8 May 1521 ...... 41 b. 1529, a Watershed Year ...... 43 c. The Edict of Blood, 29 April 1550 ...... 45 IV. LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION ...... 48 V. CONCLUSION ...... 52

PART II HERESY IN BRABANT

CHAPTER TWO. THE EARLY ...... 53 I. DISSENT TO THE REFORMATION ...... 54 a. Lay Piety ...... 54 b. ...... 55 c. Latent Sacramentarianism ...... 57 II. MANIFESTATIONS OF DISSENT ...... 64 a. Anticlerical Sentiment ...... 65 b. Book Crimes ...... 67 c. Conventicles ...... 73 III. DISSENT IN THE CITIES ...... 76 a. ...... 76 b. ...... 79 c. ...... 81 IV. CONCLUSION ...... 90 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER THREE. THE CLAES VANDER ELST CIRCLE . . . . 92 I. UNVEILING DISSENT IN BRUSSELS ...... 92 II. CLAES VANDER ELST ...... 94 III. VANDER ELST’S SECRET SERMONS ...... 96 a. Conventicle Attendees ...... 98 b. The Content of the Sermons ...... 103 i/ Propositions concerning fasting ...... 106 ii/ Propositions critical of the ...... 107 iii/ Proposition concerning the of the bells ...... 110 iv/ Propositions concerning the Eucharist ...... 111 c. Books and Ideas ...... 117 IV. THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES ...... 126 V. SENTENCING ...... 129 a. Ecclesiastical Punishments ...... 130 b. Secular Punishments ...... 133 VI. RETURNEES ...... 136 VII. CONCLUSION ...... 139

PART III THE PORTUGUESE NEW CHRISTIANS

INTRODUCTION: THE PORTUGUESE AND ANTWERP ...... 142 I. CONVERSION, EXPULSION, AND ESCAPE: THE OF PORTUGAL ...... 144 II. SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF: CHARLES V AND THE NEW CHRISTIANS ...... 151 III. ANTWERP: RELIGIOUS AND MERCANTILE HAVEN ...... 153

CHAPTER FOUR. POLICIES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, 1526-1540 ...... 156 I. THE EARLY YEARS ...... 156 II. TURNING POINT: THE ARRIVAL OF LOYS GARCEZ ...... 159 III. THE TRIALS OF THE ...... 163 a. Diego Mendes ...... 164 b. Jan de Belins ...... 167 c. Anthonis Fernandes ...... 168 IV. LOCAL AUTONOMY VS. IMPERIAL AMBITION: THE CONCERNS OF THE ANTWERP AUTHORITIES ...... 169 a. Economic Fears: The Dangers of Merchant Unrest ...... 171 b. Jurisdictional Defenses: The City Council’s Legal Autonomy ...... 178 V. A TEMPORARY PEACE ...... 185 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

CHAPTER FIVE. LOCAL RESISTANCE AND IMPERIAL POWER ...... 190 I. THE MIDDELBURG NEW CHRISTIANS, 1540-1542 ...... 191 a. Arrests and Investigation ...... 193 b. The Depositions: December 1540 to March 1541 ...... 196 c. Conflicting Imperial Policies ...... 201 II. TURNING POINT: 1544 ...... 205 III. RESPONSES OF THE ANTWERP AUTHORITIES ...... 209 IV. THE FATE OF THE PORTUGUESE NEW CHRISTIANS ...... 221 V. CONCLUSION ...... 222

PART IV BETWEEN THE SCAFFOLD AND THE STAGE: REDERIJKERS IN THE EARLY MODERN LOW COUNTRIES

INTRODUCTION: INTELLECTUAL CRIMES OF HERESY ...... 228

CHAPTER SIX. THE DRAMA OF DISSENT: REFORMATORY REDERIJKERS IN BRABANT ...... 234 I. THE REDERIJKER TRADITION ...... 234 II. ANTWERP’S CHAMBERS ...... 236 III. REDERIJKER PRODUCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES ...... 239 IV. PLAYS AS PEDAGOGY ...... 242 V. CLERICAL CRITIQUE AND REFORMATION PROPAGANDA ...... 244 VI. RELATIONS TO GOVERNMENT AND ...... 253 VII. THE COMPETITION, 1539 ...... 256 VIII. THE FALLOUT FROM GHENT: LEGISLATION ...... 265 IX. ENFORCEMENT AND EVASION ...... 269 X. CONCLUSION ...... 271

CHAPTER SEVEN. REDERIJKERS AND RELIGIOUS REBELS: HERESY TRIALS IN ANTWERP, 1542-1547 ...... 274 I. INTRODUCTION: REDERIJKER PROSECUTIONS ...... 274 II. THE FIRST TRIAL OF JACOB VAN MIDDELDONCK: JUNE 1542 . . . . 276 a. The Tree of Scripture ...... 278 III. THE SECOND TRIAL OF JACOB VAN MIDDELDONCK ...... 285 IV. THE TRIAL OF PETER SCHUDDEMATE ...... 288 V. INTERVENTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ...... 296 a. The Trial of Jacob van Liesvelt ...... 299 VI. PRECIPITATING EVENTS ...... 302 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

a. The rederijker performance in Roborst, 1543 ...... 303 b. Pruystinck and the Antwerp Loyists ...... 305 VII. CONCLUSION ...... 315

CONCLUSION: POWER AND PUNISHMENT ...... 318

APPENDIX I: CHRONOLOGY OF ANTI-HERESY LEGISLATION IN BRABANT ...... 326

APPENDIX II: SERMON ATTENDEES, 1526 ...... 328

APPENDIX III: MIDDELBURG DEPOSITIONS, 1540-41 ...... 336

APPENDIX IV: ANTWERP CONTACTS, 1540 ...... 345

APPENDIX V: ANSWERS AT GHENT TO THE QUESTION, “What is the dying man’s greatest consolation?” ...... 346

APPENDIX VI: EDICTS CONCERNING NEW CHRISTIANS ...... 347

REFERENCES ...... 353 8

ABBREVIATIONS

AA: Paul Génard, Antwerpsch Archievenblad, 30 vols. (Antwerp: Gui. Van Merlen, 1864-1893). ARA: Algemeen Rijksarchief, Brussels. ARG: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte. CD: Paul Fredericq, Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis Haereticae Pravitatis Neerlandicae, Hoogeschool van Gent: Werken van den practischen leergang van vaderlandsche geschiedenis 9, 5 vols. (: Martinus Nijhoff, 1902). RAG: Rijksarchief, Gent SAA: Stadsarchief, Antwerpen.

9

ABSTRACT

Decades of burgeoning humanism, intensifying lay piety, and an increasing

anticlerical sentiment, paved the way for ’s reforming message when it

reached the Low Countries in 1519. As ruler of the territory, Charles V resolved to curb

the spread of heterodoxy via the promulgation of a series of anti-heresy edicts.

Increasing in severity throughout his reign, these edicts gradually removed the prosecution of heresy from the jurisdiction of the church, placing it squarely under the control of secular officials. The success of Charles’s religious legislation was therefore

contingent upon the cooperation of primarily local, secular rulers. But municipal officials

and their subjects viewed Charles’s anti-heresy legislation as an unwelcome

encroachment on their local autonomy, and a disturbing manifestation of the emperor’s

centralizing ambitions. Consequently, they formed a resolute front of determined

resistance to the imposition of Charles’s religious policies throughout his reign. This

study examines the motivations underlying this opposition, as well as the specific ways in

which such resistance manifested itself.

Chronologically, the study addresses the years of Charles’s reign (1515-1555) and geographically, the of Brabant. This region, in the southern Low Countries (the modern-day borderland of and the ) was home to some of the most important urban centers in . In the chapters that follow, the major Brabantine cities of Antwerp (the most lucrative commercial metropolis of the period), Leuven

(home to the university and an important center of Roman theology), and

Brussels (seat, after 1531, of Charles’s central administration) will be examined in terms 10

of their role in the religious controversy of the period, and the reactions of their

inhabitants to the edicts promulgated by Charles.

The anti-heresy edicts of Charles V represent one of the earliest attempts of a

European ruler to establish a governmental policy for treating religious difference. This

examination of the responses to these legal innovations provides not only a more detailed understanding of struggles for political autonomy, but a more nuanced view of belief and heterodoxy in this crucial period in the history of the early modern Low Countries. 11

PART I SIXTEENTH-CENTURY BRABANT

INTRODUCTION

The States General declared Charles of Habsburg ruler of the Low Countries in

1515. As King of Spain and later Holy Roman Emperor, Charles came to rule over vast terrains in Europe and the New World, yet in few of his possessions did he face such concentrated resistance as in the small and fragmented land of his birth. Wracked internally by political strife, the Low Countries of the sixteenth century posed particular problems because of their increasingly heterodox religious climate. Years of simmering anticlericalism produced fertile ground for Martin Luther’s reforming message, which spread quickly through the highly literate Low Countries during the first decade of

Charles’s reign.

As Holy Roman Emperor and representative of the Roman Church, Charles felt profoundly the burden of his religious . In an attempt to preserve religious orthodoxy and societal order, he promulgated a series of anti-heresy edicts in the Low

Countries, beginning in 1519, and increasing in severity during the course of his reign.

Through these edicts, Charles sought to systematize and centralize the prosecution of heresy, removing it from the jurisdiction of the church and placing it entirely under secular control. The success of this enormous change was contingent, however, upon the cooperation of local authorities in implementing these new laws. Such compliance was frequently not forthcoming. Municipal officials viewed the legal encroachments of

Charles and his imperial bureaucracy with hostility. They articulated their opposition via 12

a consistent policy of resistance to the emperor’s anti-heresy edicts. This study examines the tensions created by Charles’s religious legislation.

The sixteenth-century Low Countries was a territory composed of individual,

largely autonomous provinces, each claiming its own legal privileges and administering

itself independently of its neighbors. It is difficult, therefore, to conceive of the territory

as a whole during the period under consideration here.1 Rather than attempt to do so, this

study focuses geographically on the . Home to some of the most

important governmental, intellectual, and economic centers in Europe, this region was the

site of much dissatisfaction with Charles and his religious policies. In the chapters that

follow, the major Brabantine cities of Antwerp (the most important commercial

metropolis of the period), Leuven (home to the Catholic university and an important

center of Roman theology), and Brussels (seat, after 1531, of Charles’s central

administration) will be examined in terms of their role in the religious controversy of the

period, and the reactions of their inhabitants to the edicts promulgated by Charles.

Chronologically, this study addresses the years of Charles’s reign from 1515 to

1555. Historians of the Low Countries infrequently examine this early period, choosing to focus more often on the second half of the sixteenth century, when heresy prosecutions intensified under Charles’s successor, Philip II. Although officials during Philip’s rule

1 Its history of locally autonomous cities and vast regional differences predisposes the Low Countries to local historical investigation. Regional studies worthy of note include: for , James D. Tracy, Holland Under Habsburg Rule, 1506-1566: The Formation of a Body Politic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); for , Johan Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen, 1520-1565, Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, 2 vols. (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975); for Friesland, Juliaan J. Woltjer, Friesland in Hervormingstijd (Leiden: University Press, 1962); and for Tournai, Gérard Moreau, Histoire du Protestantisme à Tournai jusqu’à la veille de la Révolution des Pays-Bas (: Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1962). 13

tried and executed a greater number of religious dissidents, it was not Philip, but his

father Charles V, who had constructed the laws that condemned them. The developments

of the latter half of the sixteenth century, under Philip II, can therefore be understood

only in the context of Charles V’s legislation.

Having witnessed the outbreak and rapid proliferation of the Reformation in the

Holy , Charles was determined to contain the spread of Luther’s message

when it reached the Low Countries in early 1519. He saw the Reformation as a breech in

the fabric of and viewed it as his responsibility to curtail its progression in

the lands under his care. In the same way that secular crimes jeopardized the stability of

society, so heresy posed a vital threat to the common weal, and an insult to its rulers.2 In terms of the anti-heresy legislation Charles promulgated, the Reformation in Brabant must be viewed in two distinct periods: 1520-1529, and post-1529. In the early period,

Charles issued a series of edicts in response to the appearance of the early writings of the

Reformers. Carrying relatively minor penalties, these placards dictated that prohibited books be burned and other infractions be punished by fines, pilgrimages, and possible banishments. Only in 1529 was explicitly incorporated into imperial legislation as a sentence for heretical crimes. This edict, written in Charles’s absence by his regent, Margaret of Austria, extended the use of the death penalty to encompass intellectual crimes of belief, as well as offenses involving heretical acts. Although local

2 For comments on this view of heresy by governing authorities throughout Europe, see Brad S. Gregory, at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe, Harvard Historical Studies 134 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 27; and Hugo de Schepper, “Entre compromis et répression: inquisition et clémence aux Pays-Bas sous Charles Quint,” in Guy le Thiec and Alain Tallon, eds., Charles Quint face aux réformes: colloque international organisé par le Centre d’histoire des réformes et du protestantisme (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005), 159-77, here at 161. 14

rulers resisted the implementation of such harsh penalties, the promulgation of the 1529

edict was a pivotal moment in the progression of Charles’s religious policy.

Reaction to Charles’s anti-heresy program was immediate, overt, and emanated

from those at every level of the social spectrum. Their responses bear witness to a

society wrestling with the competing interests of religious plurality and an unwelcome

policy of governmental intervention in religious affairs. On the popular level, Charles’s edicts provoked defiant reactions from heterodox religious practitioners, many of whom maintained their new religious affiliations despite the emperor’s ordinances. Among the educated strata of society, adherents of the new religious movements found creative ways to voice and disseminate their beliefs, in schools, pamphlets, and plays performed in the vernacular to diverse public audiences. For their part, local officials quickly realized the threat the edicts posed to their legal and political autonomy and persistently fought the encroachment of imperial power. They viewed Charles’s religious policies as an extension of the centralizing fervor of Habsburg rule, and fought him with unyielding determination. In the early years of the sixteenth century, these officials successfully rebuffed Charles’s attempts to introduce a formal inquisition into their territory.

Thereafter, they struggled to protect their residents from charges stemming from the

edicts, passively resisting Charles by refusing or neglecting to impose the terms of his edicts in their local . The actions of the municipal authorities appear at first sight to

exhibit a level of religious toleration extraordinary in so early a period. On closer examination, however, it becomes apparent that the motivations underlying their actions 15

encompassed far more than a reasoned inclination to religious forbearance. It is the

nature of these motivations that the following chapters seek to uncover.

This study raises three central questions: first, how did the resistance of the local

authorities to Charles V’s religious policies manifest itself? In other words, what specific

actions did they take to defy the directives of his anti-heresy edicts? To what extent were

they successful? How did their success or failure change over time? The second

question concerns Charles’s response to the opposition of his local rulers; namely, how

did he combat their resistance and enforce their compliance? Finally, why did the local

rulers risk so much to defy the mandates of their imperial overlord? What were the

factors informing their resistance? Were they predicated on theological or theoretical

notions of toleration, or were they more pragmatic, involving fears about their own

political autonomy or economic well-being? In addition to addressing these main

questions concerning the actions of the ruling authorities, the following consideration will

provide insight into the attitudes of intellectuals, foreign residents, and ordinary burghers

toward Charles’s legislation.

The broad scope of this study unites several formerly disparate fields of historical

research, including religious, social, political, literary, and Jewish history, as well as

theology. Only by considering all of these varied lines of history together can the events

of this period be fully contextualized, and the actions of those involved be understood on

their own terms. This integrated approach draws me into three ongoing historiographical debates. The first focuses on the social impact of early modern inquisitions. Historians such as A. L. E. Verheyden have sought to estimate this impact on the basis of the 16

number of people tried and killed.3 My approach moves away from an assessment of raw

figures and turns instead to the voices of those most directly affected by these policies.

In addition, it seeks to explore the political and religious implications of these events.

The second historical debate emerged initially from the work of Henri Pirenne and Léon-

E. Halkin, who questioned whether Charles V should be considered culpable for the

notoriously repressive policies of his successor, Philip II and his eager prosecutor, the

Duke of Alva.4 My study redirects this debate. By focusing on the earlier period out of

which Charles’s reforms emerged, I provide a broader context in which to understand

these policies and Charles’s aims in formulating them. Finally, this investigation

contributes to the historiographical debate over the development of early modern

toleration. The sixteenth century in general and the Reformation in particular have long

been hailed as watershed periods in the development of religious toleration.5 This older

scholarship focuses, however, primarily on intellectual history and the ideological

considerations of writers such as of Rotterdam, Sebastian Castellio, and John

Locke. Premised on this limited basis, such studies fail to take into account the

peculiarities of the real life context in which policies of toleration emerged. This study

offers a corrective, by providing such a contextualization. It demonstrates that what

appears at first to have been a tolerant approach by the local authorities in their treatment

3 See, for example, his Le martyrologe Protestant des Pays-Bas du Sud au XVIme siècle (Brussels: Éditions de la Librairie des éclaireurs unionistes, 1960), and Le Conseil des troubles; liste des condamnés (1567-1573) (Brussels: Palais des académies, 1961). 4 See Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique (1908; Brussels: H. Lamertin, 1973). See also Halkin, La Réforme en Bégique sous Charles-Quint (Brussels: La du Livre, 1957); and Halkin and Verheyden, De hervorming in het zuiden: staat en kerk tegenover de ketters (: W. de Haan, 1952). 5 See, among others, Wilbur K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in from the Beginning of the to the Death of Queen Elizabeth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932); Henry A. F. Kamen, L’Eveil de la tolérance (Paris: Hachette, 1967); and Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme (1955; Paris: A. Michel, 1994). 17

of religious dissenters was, in fact, a non-theoretical, situation-driven response to

circumstances that threatened the economic and political well-being of their cities.

Notably omitted from this analysis are the Anabaptists. This group was prosecuted and executed in higher numbers than any other from the early 1530s to of Charles’s reign, yet their trials have been excluded because their cases do not reveal information concerning the tensions between Charles and his local officials. After the 1535 uprising in Münster, Anabaptists were considered anathema by all governing bodies in Brabant, local and imperial alike. They had the dubious distinction of being viewed as heretics by the faithful on all sides of the religious divide, rendering them without support or protection in any locale. While municipal councils fought to acquit other alleged heretics, they were more than willing to condemn and execute Anabaptists from the earliest days of the 1530s.6 Anabaptist trials therefore cast little light on the

“tolerant” character of early modern cities, other than to demonstrate its limits.

Municipal authorities feared the Anabaptists as harbingers of sedition and unrest, and

sought with as much vigor as their imperial rulers to rid their cities of Anabaptist

influence.

The period of the early Reformation in the Low Countries is one for which few

sources have survived, particularly in contrast to the better-documented second half of

6 The first territory-wide edict concerning the Anabaptists appeared in June 1535. It legislated burning (for men) and burial alive (for women) for those considered obstinate in their Anabaptist heresy. Although such harsh penalties were similar to those incorporated into the edicts treating Lutheranism, this Anabaptist edict, and others that followed, were strictly implemented by local authorities throughout the Low Countries. These were the same officials who fought the emperor at every step with regard to the edicts against other forms of heresy, but on the issue of they were of one accord with their sovereign. 18

the century. This paucity of documentation derives not from a lack of records generated

at the time, but from various unfortunate events in the intervening period. The Spanish

fury of 1576 resulted in the destruction of the , where many of the fiscal

and administrative records relevant to this study were housed.7 Brussels, too, suffered at

the hands of foreign invaders, losing much of its early modern documentation when

French troops set the royal archives alight in the late seventeenth century.8 The sources

that remain, and on which this study is based, can be divided into four categories:

judicial sources, legislation, correspondence, and literary sources.

Attempting to decipher the motivations of sixteenth-century actors is a complex

task. Correspondence between individuals must be read with a critical eye in an attempt

to discover hidden meanings and double entendres. Letter-writers notoriously shape their

narratives with specific goals in mind, seeking to present their complaints, petitions, or

stories in as favorable a light as possible.9 Judicial sources pose a particular challenge in

this regard. Most of the judicial records utilized in the following pages are made up of the testimonies, depositions, and sentences of those charged with crimes of heresy in

early modern Brabant. For the most part, they transmit the words of a defendant,

represented by an attorney, and written from the pen of a notary. Layers of

interpretation are therefore contained in every document. Unlike other instances of

7 For details, see An M. Kint, The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp (Ph.D. Diss., Columbia University, 1996), 9-10, who reports that, as a result of this episode, there are no complete city accounts prior to 1570 and few guild records remaining. 8 The city archive was burned during war with the French in 1695. See Johan Decavele, “De Opkomst van het Protestantisme te Brussel,” in Noordgouw, Cultureel tijdschrift van de Provincie Antwerpen 19-20 (1979-83), 25-44, here at 26. 9 For more on the methods employed in this regard, see Natalie Zemon-Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987). 19

inquisitorial documentation, the records utilized in this study were generally formulated

by local authorities who were positively disposed toward the defendants. These were the

urban judges who sought to avoid the terms of Charles’s edicts, rather than prosecute

those who appeared before them. This does not make the records they produced any less

likely to contain bias in their presentation, but it makes that bias less likely to be negative

and more likely to benefit the subject under investigation. For that reason, I have taken as credible any negative charges reported by courts, since they stood to gain little from emphasizing such damaging features. Likewise, I have read with a critical eye the exculpatory reports they produced. When the judicial records encompass documentation produced by the frequently more hostile imperial courts, I have read their contents with this consideration in mind. In short, each document included in this study was evaluated within its own context, and read through the filter most appropriate to the situation in which it was produced. I have attempted to untangle webs of construction contained in the story of each document, without losing sight of the reality of the events it reports.

Judicial Sources

This designation encompasses court records and inquisitorial documentation of the various trials of the period. Included among these sources are witness depositions, daily logs of court activities, accounts of costs incurred and monies collected by the various judicial bodies involved in the prosecutions, and lists of suspects and the goods confiscated from them. This collection of sources is vital to a study of criminal prosecutions and the tensions they created between various governing bodies. Each 20

judicial unit generated its own documentation, the components of which are separately

housed. Records of cases tried in municipal courts are usually contained in the city

archives of each location, the largest collection appearing in the city archive of Antwerp, much of which has been published by Paul Génard in his Antwerpsch Archievenblad series. Cases involving the provincial courts are housed in the archives of the Council of

Brabant, currently in Anderlecht, Belgium (primarily in the archives of the Officie

Fiscaal and Griffies.) Other files containing accounts, details of confiscations, and

miscellaneous pieces can be found in the Algemeen Rijksarchief in Brussels (notably in

the archives of État et Audience, Conseil Privé, and Grand Conseil de Malines).

Legislation

Legislative sources include the edicts promulgated by Charles, which formed the

cornerstone of his religious policy. In addition, local councils published their own city

ordinances, which often reflected their attitudes toward contemporary events and

struggles internal to their municipalities. The ordinances outline the attempts of local

councils to react to and shape the course of events in their towns. In addition, they

indicate the success or failure with which such officials were able to enforce compliance

among their burghers.10

10 Most of the imperial and local edicts of this period have been collected, edited, and published in recent years. Most imperial promulgations are transcribed in their entirety in C. Laurent, J. Lameere, and H. Simont, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922). Some are also reproduced by Paul Fredericq in his Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis Haereticae Pravitatis Neerlandicae, Hoogeschool van Gent: Werken van den practischen leergang van vaderlandsche geschiedenis 9, 5 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1902). 21

Correspondence

A vital source of information, I have made use of any available correspondence,

particularly that between the municipal and imperial authorities (most of which is

contained in the Algemeen Rijksarchief, Brussels, in the archives of Audientie and

Letteren en Missieven, as well as in local municipal archives). In addition, miscellaneous

pieces of correspondence were used, such as letters from Luther to the Christians of the

Low Countries, or between Erasmus and other Reformers concerning the troubles in the

territory. Many of these sources have been edited and are contained in Paul Fredericq’s

Corpus Documentorum.

Literary sources

A variety of sources are included under the heading “literary.” Chief among them

are the plays and poetry produced by the chambers of rhetoric, literary clubs whose

members composed and performed plays, poetry, and songs for broad, urban audiences

throughout the sixteenth century. Relative to the output of the chambers, few of their

works survive for this early period, but many of those still extant have been published in

reliable recent editions.11 I have also included contemporary chronicles under the designation of literary works, since they were usually written from a specific viewpoint, with a particular audience in mind and are, to that extent, correspondingly propagandistic in tone. They should therefore be read as literary productions rather than exact accounts

11 See below, Part Four. 22

of events. Similarly, pamphlets are included in this grouping also, although few of them

are available for this period.12

Local and provincial councils tried hundreds of cases during the reign of Charles

V. Rather than attempting to provide a systematic overview of these proceedings, this

study focuses on three specific case studies that illustrate broader trends occurring in the

prosecution of heresy, and provide answers to the main questions of this study, namely

how and why local officials resisted Charles, and how the emperor responded to their

opposition. In each case, the proceeding under discussion is examined in light of other

contemporary events and trials. Such an approach encompasses the broader landscape of

religious prosecution, while providing specific examples through which to understand the

actions of the key players in this story. In order to comprehend the jurisdictional disputes

between local and imperial officials, it is vital to understand the complex administrative

and legal system then operating in the duchy of Brabant. The first two chapters present

an outline of the legal, administrative, and religious situation in the territory and its most

important cities in the first half of the sixteenth century.

The remainder of the study is divided into three parts, each focused on one case study. Each part includes an introductory chapter explaining the history of that particular type of heresy, and the circumstances in Brabant pertaining to that specific trial or group of trials.13 The following chapter then provides details of the proceeding, with a view to

12 Those that remain extant are well catalogued in the Knuttel microfilm collection at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The Hague. 13 Because the three case studies here included are so varied in terms of the nature of the heresy they report, each possesses its own historiographical tradition. Rather than attempt to present all three sets of historiographical background together in a separate chapter, I have included such information in the first chapter of each of the three parts. 23

understanding the actions of the local and imperial rulers in relation to it. Each of the

three case studies reveals a different facet of the struggle between Charles and his

resolute Brabantine subjects. The first case study examines a circle of religious

dissidents in Brussels, centered around the figure of Claes vander Elst in the late 1520s.

Members of the group met in conventicles, where they heard heterodox sermons

preached by vander Elst in violation of the emperor’s edicts. This case reveals a vibrant

underground movement at this early stage of the Reformation. Furthermore, the

punishments meted out upon these offenders illustrate the jurisdictional confusion

resulting from the unsystematic nature of Charles’s earliest legislation.

The second group of trials involves a community of Portuguese New Christians in

Antwerp in the 1530s and 1540s, who were accused of Judaizing. When members of the

community were prosecuted by Charles and his regent, the city council of Antwerp

defended them tirelessly, in defiance of the central authorities. Charles himself changed

his policy with regard to these wealthy residents throughout the period considered here.

The cases provide a compelling example of the many and varied factors that informed the

local council’s support of these controversial residents, as well as the emperor’s own

struggles in deciding how best to treat them.

The third and final case study focuses on a series of trials involving intellectuals or one sort or another: teachers, publishers, and playwrights. The proceedings all took place in the 1540s and bear witness to the escalation of imperial policy toward heresy prosecution by that time. Although crimes of such respected members of the community had gone largely unpunished in previous years, the trials examined in this part of the 24 dissertation illustrate the systematization and intensification of the central government’s handling of such cases, and the futility of local officials in attempting to defend their residents.

Each of these case studies is analyzed in light of other trials of the same period.

This comparative method allows each example of inform the whole, thereby providing a nuanced view of Charles’s religious policies in their social, political, and religious complexity. 25

CHAPTER ONE THE LAY OF THE LAND: GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN BRABANT

During the reign of Charles V, the duchy of Brabant contained several of the most

important cities in the Low Countries, each of which germinated a high degree of uncompromising resistance to the emperor’s religious program. The emperor’s legislation changed the existing jurisdiction of local rulers, transformed the procedures for prosecuting religious offenses, and challenged the prized autonomy of the cities, provoking sustained opposition from municipal rulers and local inhabitants throughout

Charles’s reign. In order to understand the roots of this discontent, as well as the ways in which it was articulated, it is necessary to gain some understanding of the system of government and law into which Charles introduced his anti-heresy edicts.

I. BRABANT: CENTER OF GOVERNMENT, THEOLOGY, AND TRADE

Prior to the accession of Charles, the various regions within the Low Countries

operated as separate administrative units. They had been only partially united by the

Burgundians in the fifteenth century, before the Habsburg Maximilian came to the throne via his marriage to Mary, Duchess of Burgundy in 1482.1 When Charles V ascended to

power, the Low Countries was a disunified entity, not wholly subjugated to Habsburg

rule, and embroiled in sporadic civil wars that would last until the end of the fifteenth

1 For a general overview of this history, see James D. Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 1506-1566: The Formation of a Body Politic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), introduction. 26

century.2 By 1548, Charles had placated the northern territories and conquered Gelders and . Two years later at the Diet of Augsburg, he would consolidate all his

Netherlandish holdings into one administrative unit. However, the Low Countries remained only nominally part of the , maintaining in reality a large degree of its previous administrative autonomy. The strength of local institutions within the provinces, their diverse legal systems, and the inhabitants’ jealous defense of their local privileges ensured the persistence of a significant degree of autonomy and independence within each of these territories.3

Straddling the modern border between Belgium and the Netherlands, the duchy of

Brabant occupied an unobtrusive position in the geography of the Low Countries.

Located in the shadow of its northern neighbor, Holland, and flanked on the west and east

by Flanders, Hainault, and Liège, Brabant has received inadequate attention in historical

treatments of the early modern Low Countries. In part, such neglect results from the fact

that Brabant peaked a half century before the Golden Age of its renowned northern

neighbor. The second half of the sixteenth century saw the financial and commercial

demise of the southern Low Countries as merchants moved their businesses to

Amsterdam in the north, or south, to France. Likewise, Brabant’s brief flirtation with

Protestantism, which flourished in the Wonderyear of 1566, was swiftly and decisively

crushed by Philip II and his eager prosecutor, the Duke of Alva. Thus, scholarly attention

2 Details on the wars between the Hoeks and the Kabeljauws can be found in Wim Blockmans and Walter Prevenier, The Promised Lands: The Low Countries Under Burgundian Rule, 1369-1530, Elizabeth Fackelman, trans., Edward Peters, ed., The Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). Originally published as In de ban van Burgondië (Houten: Fibula, 1988). 3 Guido Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation: Underground in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 30-34. 27

on the Reformation era in the Low Countries has traditionally focused on the province of

Holland and the other northern territories that would become the United Provinces after

the Revolt of 1572. The construction of the modern divide between the Netherlands and

Belgium has only exacerbated this trend. Few studies take a comprehensive view of the

early modern Low Countries, anachronistically limiting their focus to fit these modern

boundaries.4

The lack of scholarly attention to Brabant does not reflect the enormous import of the region in the early sixteenth century. The duchy was highly urbanized in comparison to its European counterparts, with forty percent of the population living in cities in excess of 10,000 souls.5 Brabant was home to three of the most important cities in the Low

Countries: Brussels, Leuven, and Antwerp. During the reign of Charles V, they served

as centers of government, theology, and trade respectively. Brussels became the seat of the Habsburg’s central government of the Low Countries in 1531, when Charles appointed his sister, Mary of Hungary, queen-regent of the Netherlands.6 Leuven was an

important intellectual center. Even before it became home to the Erasmus-inspired

Collegium Trilingue (1539), its university had long possessed a theological faculty

second in stature only to that of Paris. Antwerp blossomed as an international mercantile

4 The most stunning recent example is Aline Goosens, Les Inquisitions Modernes dans les Pays-Bas Meridionaux, 1520-1633, Hervé Hasquin, ed., Spiritualités et Pensées Libres (Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1997-1998), 2 vols. Despite her extensive scope and exemplary archival research, Goosens restricted her work to include only those areas of the Low Countries falling within the modern of Belgium. 5 Elsewhere in northwestern Europe, only an average of twenty-four percent of the total population lived in such urban areas. An M. Kint, The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp (Ph.D. Diss., Columbia University, 1996), 28. Jonathan I. Israel adds that Flanders and Brabant were, with , the most urbanized areas in Europe already by the fourteenth century. Idem, The : Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806, R. J. W. Evans, ed., Oxford History of Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 12. 6 Tracy, Holland Under Habsburg Rule, 3. 28

and publishing hub in the early- to mid-sixteenth century. Home to residents from all over the known world, Antwerp possessed a distinctly cosmopolitan atmosphere. In the first half of the century one could well describe it as a bastion of heterodoxy in the Low

Countries, as new religious ideas and suspect writings flowed into and out of the city on

German and English trade ships.7

Although there was much interest in the Reformation in Brussels and Leuven, the

inhabitants of each city received these new ideas with some hesitation. Reform-minded

residents of Brussels were ill-advised to exhibit Reformation tendencies, given their

proximity to the mechanisms of the central administration. Likewise, the Reformation

movement struggled to establish itself in Leuven, with so many influential Catholic

theologians present in the town. For its part, Antwerp contained neither of these

impediments to reforming zeal. Partly for that reason, the ideas of the Reformers

flourished within its walls, and it figures most prominently in the history here explored.

Religious dissidents arrested in Brussels and Leuven frequently confessed to having learned their new ideas from like-minded thinkers in Antwerp.8 Because of its

importance as a financial and commercial center, Antwerp was vital to Charles’s

economic success. Consequently, the city was able to bargain for levels of autonomy

greater than its Brabantine neighbors and Antwerp was therefore able to establish itself as

a relative safe-haven for dissenting voices.

7 A. L. E. Verheyden, De Hervorming in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in de XVIe eeuw (Brussels: Synode van de Protestantse Kerken, 1949), 26-27. 8 Johan Decavele, “De Opkomst van het Protestantisme te Brussel,” in Noordgouw, Cultureel tijdschrift van de Provincie Antwerpen 19-20 (1979-83), 25-44, here at 32. 29

Despite their differing social and economic situations, Reformation thought managed to penetrate all three of these important Brabantine cities. With it came a defiant opposition to Charles’s religious reforms, which manifested itself in confrontations between the governors and inhabitants of Brussels, Leuven, and Antwerp, and their imperial ruler. The form and complexity of their resistance was determined, to a certain degree, by the governmental organization of the duchy, and the emperor’s attempts to change and utilize its legal system in order to contain the early Reformation movement.

II. THE LOW COUNTRIES UNDER CHARLES V

a. Governmental Organization

Born in Ghent and raised in Brussels, Charles V inherited the territory of the Low

Countries upon the death of his father, Philip I the Handsome, in 1506. When he came of age in 1515, official administration of the region transferred to him. But his duties elsewhere frequently kept him away from his Netherlandish holdings. He spent most of his reign attending to problems in his other domains after becoming King of Spain in

1516, and Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. In his absence, his appointed queens-regent, his aunt Margaret of Austria (1519-1530), and sister Mary of Hungary (1531-1555) ruled the Low Countries.

The Low Countries of Charles V possessed an interconnected system of local and

provincial councils, designed to ensure the preservation of some degree of local

autonomy, while providing a strict hierarchy of responsibility, leading ultimately back to 30

the court of the emperor. The adoption of this system was a wise compromise on the part

of Charles, who realized the extent of local hostility to central control. Already in 1473,

Charles the Bold established a parlement in as a first step in unifying his administration of these previously independent regions. But his efforts met with resistance, as the inhabitants of the Low Countries grew increasingly impatient with

centralized rule and fought to maintain specific local privileges, eventually sliding into

civil war at the end of the fifteenth century.9

Beginning with the regency of Mary of Hungary, Charles’s administration sat in

Brussels, also home to the Privy Council (and later, the Secret and Great Councils) of the

queen-regent. This body was composed of jurists who advised her on the affairs of the

land.10 Below these institutions were the provincial courts, responsible for the

governance of each or duchy. The provincial court of Brabant, likewise located in

Brussels, represented the entire duchy of Brabant, including Antwerp, Leuven, Brussels, and the many other towns of the territory. Under this provincial authority, each town and

city had its own local council, which oversaw the legal and financial administration of the

particular municipality. Local councils were composed of fifteen to twenty aldermen

(schepenen). These representatives were originally appointed by the Duke of Brabant,

but under Charles this system changed. From the sixteenth century on, half of the sitting

aldermen retired each year. The remaining aldermen proposed a list of replacements,

from which the duke or his regent chose new appointees.11 The city councils issued

9 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 9-31. 10 Tracy, Holland Under Habsburg Rule, 290. 11 Kint, Community of Commerce, 292-95. 31

ordinances and implemented municipal policies. In addition, they acted as judges in the

city’s high court, where they adjudicated cases of both criminal and civil law. Under

Charles V, their responsibilities came to include crimes of heresy.

The councils were headed by two , one responsible for the internal

affairs of the city, particularly its judicial functions (binnenburgemeester) and the other a

representative of the city’s interests in its external relations, including its dealings with

Brussels (buitenburgemeester). The external was also the head of police

and of the militia guilds. Each year the aldermen appointed the internal burgomaster from among their own ranks, while the duke selected the external burgomaster. In addition to these members, the local magistracy (magistraat) also included a cadre of secretarial functionaries, the most important of whom was the pensionary (pensionaris), whose lifelong appointment included the duties of counseling the aldermen on city affairs, traveling with the external burgomaster to confer with the councils in Brussels, and representing the city abroad.12

The jurisdiction of the local councils was not limited to the citizens of the cities

over which they presided, but included authority over the resident aliens of their

municipalities. In Antwerp in particular, this was an important charge, given the number

of foreign merchants living there. Citizenship (poorterschap) in Antwerp came

automatically to anyone born in the city, and was conferred on any immigrants of good

standing in their previous lands who purchased municipal naturalization. Those who

12 For information on the local administrations in Brussels, Leuven, and Antwerp, see Raymond van Uytven, et al., eds., De Gewestelijke en Lokale Overheidsinstellingen in Brabant en Mechelen tot 1795, Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchief in de Provinciën, Studia 82 (Brussels: Algemeen Rijksarchief, 2000), vol. 2. 32

chose not to become citizens but who were nonetheless permanent residents of Antwerp

were known as resident aliens (ingezetene), a status that could be achieved after continual

residence of more than one year. Resident aliens possessed privileges similar to those of

full citizens, including eligibility for mastership in the guilds, but they were subject to

certain tolls, and were not protected against prosecution in foreign jurisdictions.13

b. The Prosecution of Heresy in Brabant

Charles V made a series of significant modifications to the structure of the governing institutions of the Low Countries, but the most important change by far was in the prosecution of heresy. Prior to his accession, heresy in the Low Countries had been tried, as it had elsewhere in Europe, through a system of ecclesiastical investigation run by specialized clergy. The operative in the Low Countries at the time of Charles’s succession was the culmination of efforts to combat heresy that began in the earliest days of the Christian church. The system was greatly expanded with the creation of a formal papal inquisition, founded to counter the Cathar threat of the early thirteenth century.14 In its earliest considerations, the Church defined heresy as the

13 Kint, Community of Commerce, 280-85. 14 The magisterial work of Henry C. Lea is still unsurpassed as a general synthesis of the inquisition in its medieval incarnations: , History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 3 vols. (New : The Macmillan Company, 1922). For a general overview of the development of clerical measures against heretics, see Edward Peters, Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). More recent general and regional studies include: Goosens, Les Inquisitions; Stephen Haliczer, ed. and trans., Inquisition and Society in Early Modern Europe (: Croom Helm, 1987); Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1981); Gustav Henningsen, John Tedeschi, and Charles Amiel, eds., The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe: Studies on Sources and Methods, (Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986); Henry A. F. Kamen, The : an Historical Revision (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997); Raymond A. Mentzer, Jr., Heresy Proceedings in , 1500-1560 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1984); William Monter, Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern 33

intellectual repudiation of Christianity and the obstinate refusal to return to the orthodox

truth.15 The twelfth-century church broadened the definition of heresy and established

new punishments for combating it. Gratians’s Decretum (1140) declared that heretics

forfeit their right to property. As a consequence, Alexander III (1159-1181)

introduced legislation in the permitting the imprisonment of heretics and seizure of

their property. To these provisions, the Third Lateran Council of 1179 added the

possibility of for convicted heretics and denial of Christian burial. But

the most significant promulgation against heresy came in the form of the , Ad

Abolendam, issued by Pope Lucius III (1181-1185) in 1184. Although this bull did not

proscribe specific penalties, it demanded that heretics and their supporters be handed over

to the secular authorities for punishment. Furthermore, were instructed to

conduct visitations in their dioceses twice annually, to accept denunciations of suspects

by fellow citizens, and to investigate those accused of heresy. In addition, and significant

for our purposes, the bull stipulated that lay authorities had to cooperate with bishops in

these proceedings. This was the first legislation to compel lay and clerical authorities to

work together in the prosecution of what had previously been a wholly ecclesiastical

infraction. In 1199, Pope Innocent III’s (1198-1216) bull, Vergentis in Senium (1199),

further integrated the work of these two powers by identifying heresy with treason, and

History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); R. I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 950-1250 (1987; Oxford: Blackwell, 1996); , The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain (New York: New York Review Books, 2001); Mary Elizabeth Perry and Anne J. Cruz, Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); and John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy. Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 78 (New York: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1991). Information for the following summary of the development of the inquisition is drawn from these works. 15 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 29. 34

demanding confiscation of the heretic’s goods. Although this bull did not completely

transfer the investigation or prosecution of heresy from the Church to secular institutions,

it irrevocably united the two in this process for centuries to come.

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 further codified the content of Vergentis in

Senium by legislating that condemned heretics should be punished by secular officials. In

the same century, the Dominicans and were established as and

Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254), in his bull, Ad Extirpanda (1252), legalized their use of

to extract information and confessions from suspected heretics. In 1375, the

, Nicolas Eymerich extended the definition of heresy yet further, to include the

possession of unorthodox literature, consorting with known heretics, and fleeing investigation by the inquisition.16 Such additions are significant in that they form the earliest break with pronouncements based wholly on canon law. Moreover, Charles V seized upon, extended, and utilized Eymerich’s definitions frequently in the edicts he promulgated in the sixteenth-century Low Countries.

Prior to the Reformation, heresy trials in the Low Countries had fallen under the

purview of the territory’s own ecclesiastical inquisition (the Inquisitio Haereticae

Pravitatis) which, by the sixteenth century, was generally inactive (although not

completely dormant) in most of the provinces. Yet Innocent III’s definition of heresy as

high treason (laesae majestatis) meant that it was a crime against God and the sovereign,

making ecclesiastical and lay authorities jointly responsible for the prosecution of

16 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 31. 35

offenders.17 As a crime of laesae majestatis, heresy was considered a reserved offense

(cas privilégié) in the Low Countries. For other crimes, the provincial courts acted only

as courts of appeal, but for reserved offenses they were entitled to primary jurisdiction

over prosecutions. The provincial courts exercised this right infrequently, and always

over the objections of the local councilors, who interpreted their intervention as an

infringement upon their legal autonomy. In practice, local courts in Brabant normally

managed to retain heresy cases, because the sheer volume of these cases was simply too

great for the provincial courts. However, when the provincial courts did seek transfer of

a case on the basis of its status as a reserved offense (or when the emperor or regent did

the same), the local officials had few legal grounds on which to object. Such tensions

between the city courts and provincial councils were common in most of the larger cities

of the Low Countries, and in the case of Brabant especially, this legal issue sparked many

conflicts.18

When heresy cases were tried locally, the prosecutions took place in the city’s high court (vierschaar), which was responsible for crimes that carried punishments of

“life and limb” (lijf en lid).19 Acting as a representative of the Duke of Brabant (in this

period, Charles V), the public prosecutor (schout) initiated proceedings in this court. His

17 Johan Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520-1565), Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 37, 2 vols. (Brussel: Paleis der Academië, 1975), 1: 7. 18 For details of similar contention in the province of Holland, see Alastair Duke, “Salvation by Coercion: The Controversy Surrounding the ‘Inquisition’ in the Low Countries on the Eve of the Revolt,” in P. N. Brooks, ed., Reformation Principle and Practice. Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens (London: Scholar Press, 1980), 149-50. 19 Lesser crimes were tried in the city hall before the burgomaster and aldermen, and appeals were permitted. For this information, and what follows with regard to the high court system, see Wim Meewis, De Vierschaar: De Criminele Rechtspraak in het Oude Antwerpen (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 1992), who explains the structure of the legal system generally, and specifically in terms of the function of the Antwerp court. 36

duties included facilitating the arrest and questioning of the accused, overseeing the

prosecution’s case, collecting confiscated goods, and ensuring that the sentence was

accurately carried out. Under Charles V, public prosecutors found themselves in the

unenviable position of overseeing the enforcement of the emperor’s placards as well as

the city’s own ordinances, a situation that sometimes led to conflicts of interest. The

aldermen of the city acted as judges in the high court, with the interior burgomaster at

their head. Once a verdict was issued, appeal was not permitted, and the sentence was

carried out the following day. Citizens of the municipality were accorded certain legal

protections not offered to other residents. The prosecutor could not arrest them without

the prior approval of the burgomaster and aldermen, nor could any authority remove them

from the municipality for trial elsewhere.20 Once arrested, a citizen’s home and property could be inspected only if two aldermen were present. Interviews of the suspect and other witnesses also required the participation of two aldermen, as did all interrogations in which torture was used, a practice that could continue only as long as the aldermen

deemed it reasonable. In some cities, such as Antwerp, full citizens of the municipality

could not be tortured. If the prisoner was a citizen, his or her citizenship had first to be

revoked by consent of the city’s Broad Council (composed of aldermen and other

20 See Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 151-55; Duke, “Salvation by Coercion,” 149-50; Juliaan J. Woltjer, “Dutch Privileges, Real and Imaginary,” in J. S. Bromley and E. H. Kossmann, eds., Britain and the Netherlands: Some Political Mythologies: Papers Delivered to the Fifth Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference 5 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975), 19-35, here at 22; and F. Edward Beemon, “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition and the Preconditions for the ,” ARG 85 (1994), 246-64, here at 248. 37

representatives of the city) before torture could commence.21 Statements made under

torture were invalid unless repeated later publicly, and without coercion.22

III. CHARLES V’S ANTI-HERESY LEGISLATION

Charles V spent much of his reign outside the territory of the Low Countries,

dealing with crises in France, Spain, and the Empire. During his extended absences, he

relied upon his regents, Margaret of Austria and Mary of Hungary, to administer his

Netherlandish holdings, and to impose his policies, religious and otherwise. In their administration of the emperor’s anti-heresy program, both regents displayed a remarkable degree of vigor. In 1524 Charles praised Margaret for her diligence in the fight against heresy:

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the good work you are doing in fighting the Lutheran sects in Antwerp and , and I have no doubt that you will continue to redouble your efforts to rid my lands of these . I therefore warmly beseech you to continue to punish these offenders with the utmost rigor.23

Lest we erroneously assume that Charles was at the helm of this effort, the letter

closes with a remark telling of the level of Margaret’s leadership. The emperor assures

his aunt that he has contacted the papal curia to request that the pope send an inquisitor to

21 For an example of such a case, see the trial of Jacob van Liesvelt below, Chapter Seven. 22 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 2: 46-50, and Meewis, De Vierschaar, 79-82. 23 “Du bon ordre quavés donné pour reboutter la secte de Luthère tant à Anvers que Amstredam, je vous mercie de bon ceur et ne fais point de doubte que ferez tout vostre mieulx pour extirper ladicte secte en mesdicte pays de pardela, ce dont je vous prie affectueusement, et que faictes faire les corrections à toute riguer.” Charles V to Margaret of Austria, 22 May 1524. CD, 4: doc. 216. As in other early modern territories, the authorities of the Low Countries used the term Lutheran to connote a spectrum of heterodox belief. Many of the religious dissidents about whom Charles is here speaking would not have considered themselves followers of Martin Luther, but the use of this term is an indication of the emperor’s unsophisticated understanding of the Reformation movement at this early stage of its development. 38

the Low Countries to help in the fight against Lutheranism, “as you requested of me.”24

Charles’s letter gives the impression that the prosecution of heresy at this point, although conducted in his name, was supervised and directed by his aunt.25

Charles’s second queen-regent, his sister, Mary of Hungary, held office during the

most active period of heresy prosecutions in the Low Countries, even though she herself

had been partial to the doctrines of the reformers earlier in her life. Upon her

appointment in 1531, Charles warned her of his determination to rid the territory of

heresy and clearly articulated his attitude toward those who did not share his view:

“Make no mistake about it, if I found out that my father, mother, sister, wife or children

were infected with the Lutheran heresy, I would count them among my greatest

enemies.”26 Mary apparently heeded the startling admonition of her , becoming

increasingly steadfast in her support of his policies, even when faced with the robust

opposition of the local authorities. Indeed, as Charles’s absences became more frequent,

Mary effectively took control of heresy prosecutions in the region, forcing reluctant city

officials to enforce the emperor’s edicts, and penning new legislation herself to meet the

growing demands of the Reformation.

24 “. . . comme luy avez mandé.” Ibid. 25 Indeed, Margaret corresponded frequently with her nephew regarding the prosecution of heresy in the territory. On 6 March 1526, she wrote to complain that the king of Denmark (who would later reveal himself to be a staunch supporter of the Reformation cause) had criticized the secular officials of Brabant for their harsh stance against the Lutherans there. Later in the same month, she sent a messenger to Charles to apprise him of the situation. See CD, 5: docs. 506 and 510. 26 “Je vous declaire, si javoye pere, mere, frere, seur, femme, ou enfans, qui fussent infectez de la secte Lutherane, je les tiendroye pour les plus grantz ennemiz.” Charles V, 7 October 1531. Quoted in Jacob G. de Hoop Scheffer, Geschiedenis der Kerkhervorming in Nederland van haar ontstaan tot 1531 (Amsterdam: G. L. Funke, 1873), 610, who claims that the quotation is taken from a letter of Andries Jacobs, Antwerp pensionary, who was present during this conversation. 39

Terrified by his experiences in the Empire, Charles resolved to curb the spread of

Reformation thought in the Netherlands with speed and rigor. The prosecutorial system

he created was not a formal inquisition according to the model of Spain, but a new legal

code, fashioned from an extemporized fusion of ecclesiastical and criminal law. He constructed this system via the promulgation of a series of anti-heresy edicts, issued between 1520 and 1550. The edicts were of two sorts: those that applied universally to the entire territory of the Low Countries, and those limited in their application to a specific location, be it a province, county, or individual city.

The earliest placards responded directly to the appearance of Luther and the transmission of his works in the Low Countries. Ordinances of the early 1520s required that Luther’s writings be burned, and they prohibited the printing, sale, and even possession of materials deemed heterodox.27 The theological faculty of Leuven produced lists of forbidden works, and booksellers were investigated to ensure that they carried only approved materials. As conventicles emerged in various towns, Charles’s edicts began to incorporate prohibitions of secret gatherings, and outlawed public preaching on

Lutheran themes.28 Despite their specificity with regard to censured material, the edicts

of the 1520s were ambiguous in terms of the punishments they prescribed for violations, with the result that local officials applied them arbitrarily, assigning minimal

27 Edicts involving book-related offenses were published on: 30 August 1519, 20 March, 1521, 22 March 1521, 8 May 1521, 1 April 1524, 24 September 1525, 17 July 1526, 14 March 1527, 18 January 1528, 14 October 1529, 19 February 1544, and 30 June 1546. See Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 203-06; Maria E. Kronenberg, Verboden Boeken en Opstandige Drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Patria Vaderlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis in Monografieën 44 (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1948), 14-15; and transcriptions of these edicts in CD, 4: docs. 42, 209, and 5: docs. 391, 529, 574, 682. 28 Meewis, De Vierschaar, 26. For an example of such an edict, see C. Laurent and J. Lameere, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922), 2: 405. 40 punishments to those they sought to protect. A substantial change came at the end of the decade, however, with the promulgation of the edict of 14 October 1529. From this point on, a comprehensive system emerged by which heresy suspects were to be tried and punished.29

The anti-heresy edicts of Charles V are numerous and frequently reiterative. For the purposes of the present study, we shall here examine only those edicts that proved

29 Because little documentation concerning heresy prosecutions has survived, particularly for the early period under Charles V, it is difficult to form an accurate assessment of the number of people tried and punished for this crime. However, some general conclusions regarding their social status are possible. The remaining records suggest that, with the exception of the Anabaptists (who deserve separate treatment in this regard), clerics, schoolmasters, and those in the book trade were most well represented among the prosecuted. Those at the highest and lowest positions on the social scale, the nobility and the peasants, were grossly underrepresented. Aline Goosens estimates that crimes of laesae majestatis accounted for seven to eight percent of all prosecutions between 1520 and 1555. Of these, less than one percent are attributable specifically to Protestant crimes. In total, she estimates that just under 1,500 people were tried for heresy in the territory, from a total population of approximately 100,000. It must be noted, however, that Goosens considers only the southern half of the Low Countries, in the region of modern-day Belgium. She suggests that if these figures were writ large, to account for the northern territory also, a total between 4,000 and 8,000 trials for heresy would emerge. See Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 2: 190. Alistair Duke, however, has discovered that double the number of heretics were executed in Holland than in Brabant, suggesting that the northern territories may well have been more active in their enforcement of the edicts, making Goosens’s estimate unreliable. For figures on numbers executed in all the provinces of the Low Countries, see Alastair C. Duke, “Building Heaven in Hell’s Despite: The Early History of the Reformation in the Towns of the Low Countries,” in idem and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Church and State Since the Reformation: Papers Delivered to the Seventh Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference, Britain and the Netherlands 7 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), 45-75, here at 45. Johan Decavele has compiled information for the entire sixteenth century, including the reign of Philip II, when executions were more numerous. On the basis of this documentation, he estimates the numbers of suspects executed in most major cities of the southern Low Countries. See Decavele, “Opkomst,” 26, and Cornelis Augustijn, “Die Ketzerverfolgungen in den Niederlanden von 1520 bis 1545,” in Silvana Seidel Menchi, ed., Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 49-64, here at 56. Duke has also posited that of the 380 accused heretics represented in the Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis of Paul Fredericq, which covers heresy prosecutions for the late medieval period to 1528, occupational information is provided in 209. Of those, two fifths were craftsmen (in which category he includes publishers) and another two fifths were clerics or religious, thereby affirming the estimations of Augustijn for the period as a whole. Duke, “Building Heaven,” 53. 41 most important in the duchy of Brabant,30 which include the earliest ordinances of 1520 and 1521, the watershed edicts of 1529 and 1540, and the “Bloody Edict” of 1550.

a. First Steps: 28 September 1520 and 8 May 1521

Charles issued the edict of 28 September 1520 in direct response to the condemnation of Luther’s writings by the theologians in Leuven and , and the promulgation of ’s Bull, Exurge Domine (15 June 1520). The edict demanded that those in possession of any of Luther’s works surrender them immediately, so that the authorities might burn them.31 A new placard issued in March of the following year reinforced the terms of the edict, and even proscribed discussions of

Lutheran themes. It stipulated confiscation of goods as the punishment for contravention,

as well as “other penalties,” which were nowhere precisely defined.32

On 8 May 1521, Charles issued the Edict of Worms in all his realms. In its Low

Countries’ manifestation, this legislation reaffirmed the two edicts that had gone before,

by roundly condemning Luther’s works and forbidding publication or ownership of them.

30 For a more thorough consideration of Charles’s edicts, see below, Appendix I, “Chronology of Anti- Heresy Legislation in Brabant.” Although this list of edicts is not exhaustive, it includes the major promulgations of the emperor with regard to religious crimes in the duchy, as well as a brief overview of the most important terms of each ordinance. 31 The text of this edict is no longer extant, and some historians deny its existence. James D. Tracy, for example, refers to the placard of March 1521 as the first by the emperor. However, the papal nuncio, Aleander, mentions the edict of 1520 in his correspondence, confirming its existence. See the letter of Aleander to the pope, 23 October 1520. Transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 34. See James D. Tracy, “Heresy Law and Centralization under Mary of Hungary: Conflict between the Council of Holland and the Central Government over the Enforcement of Charles V’s Placards,” ARG 73 (1982), 284-307, here at 289, and Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 48. 32 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 49 and Tracy, “Heresy Law,” 289. The introduction of confiscation raised the ire of many of Charles’s subjects on the local level because it violated the age-old privileges of their towns, which protected citizens (and sometimes other residents) from confiscation of money and goods. In many provinces, limited confiscation had previously been allowed, but Charles’s edicts recognized no such limitations and demanded complete confiscation on the basis of the fact that heresy was now considered a crime of laesae majestatis. Duke, “Salvation by Coercion,” 147. 42

It reiterated the punishment of confiscation of goods but added the possibility of banishment.33 Furthermore, this ordinance was the first to explicitly define contravention as a crime of divine treason (laesae majestatis divinae), opening the way to the possibility of capital punishment for those found guilty. The Edict of Worms was particularly significant in the Low Countries because it was there that Charles V installed his newly-appointed inquisitor-general, Frans vander Hulst, a laymen and former member of the Council of Brabant.34 Charles’s decision to institute a civil, state-run inquisition

was popular with neither the pope, who saw it as a usurpation of his own authority, nor

the local and provincial councils, who viewed it as an infringement of theirs. Although

vander Hulst and his assistants did investigate and try several cases during their short

tenure, local secular officials consistently opposed them, and in 1523 the emperor

eventually removed them, at the request of the regent, Margaret of Austria. In their

place, the pope installed three clerical inquisitors, but because they were unqualified to

33 The edicts still allowed for the punishment of pilgrimage, but this fell out of general use by the 1530s, replaced by more frequent impositions of banishments. In some cases, banishment was temporary, lasting anywhere from one to ten years. For more serious infractions, local authorities often imposed permanent exile as an alternative to capital punishment. Still, when seeking to avoid enjoining harsh penalties, local authorities sometimes continued to use the punishment of mandatory pilgrimages, although evidence suggests that convicts sometimes managed to avoid actually undertaking the pilgrimages. When a pilgrimage was imposed as a punishment, the offender had to send a letter of authentication back to the prosecuting authorities, to prove that he had undertaken his journey. Many, however, managed to produce forged documents of authentication in such situations. See Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 2: 64, and Henk F. K. van Nierop, “, Illicit Printing and the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to be Free. Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands 9 (Zutphen: De Walburg Press, 1987), 29-44, here at 38. 34 For information on the person and work of Frans vander Hulst, see among others, Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 50, and 2: 76-80; Werner Thomas, “De mythe van de Spaanse inquisitie in de Nederlanden van de zestiende eeuw,” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 105 (1990), 325-53, here at 327-28; Tracy, Holland Under Habsburg Rule, 153-55; and Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 11. Primary documentation regarding the installation and dismissal of vander Hulst is contained in CD, 4: docs. 151-53, 156, 157, 161-64, 167, 169-72, 188, and 197. Additional sources can be found in SAA, Privilegekamer 1561, doc. 1, fols. 1-3 (a copy of the edict of the emperor, installing vander Hulst, dated 30 April, 1522), and doc. 3, fols. 1-4 (unsigned letter, n.d., addressing the Lutheran “ketterie” and the induction of vander Hulst as inquisitor-general). 43 judge crimes relating to the edicts of the emperor (which technically constituted criminal, rather than ecclesiastical infractions) they were largely ineffective. In Brabant, the local authorities opposed the installation of an inquisitor-general so fiercely that the emperor was never again able to impose one upon them.35 Thus, in Brabant, the prosecution of heresy fell under the purview of the local magistrates, who tried the vast majority of heresy cases in the province. Nevertheless, the Council of Brabant did not relinquish its right to oversee heresy cases upon demand. On occasions when the provincial council exercised this right, the local authorities consistently resisted, arguing that such requests compromised their municipal privileges. Such legal wranglings were a constant source of tension between local and central officials throughout Charles’s reign.

b. 1529, a Watershed Year

The defining moment in the evolution of Charles’s anti-heresy legislation came in the form of an ordinance penned by his aunt, Margaret of Austria. On 14 October 1529, in response to several cases of relapsed heretics, Margaret issued a new edict containing prohibitions similar to those already imposed, but which drastically extended potential punishments. Most significantly, she included specific wording regarding the use of the death penalty. Individuals found guilty of any transgression of the edict, including even the possession of heretical works, were to be put to death by the sword (for men),

35 Elsewhere, inquisitors were used throughout the 1530s and 1540s, the most notable being Pieter Titelmans, who conducted a much more traditional, papal-style inquisition in Flanders in the late 1540s. Because of his industrious work, resulting in large numbers of arrests during his tenure, Titelmans was resented and opposed by the local and provincial councils of Flanders throughout his career. The officials of Brabant refused him entry into their territory. For more information on Titelmans and his work, see Decavele, De Dageraad, vol. 1. 44

drowning (for women), or by fire (for those who were relapsed). The edict also

encouraged the use of informants and legislated the systematic use of torture to obtain confessions. Furthermore, and much to the chagrin of local leaders, it provided no

latitude for municipal authorities to exercise leniency based on individual

circumstances.36

Although the Privy Council cautioned Margaret of Austria against including the harshest elements of this ordinance, she disregarded their advice. The provincial and local councils likewise virulently opposed the edict, but their remonstrations were in vain.37 Three features of this decree are particularly significant. First, it legislated and

systematized new regulations with regard to capital punishment. Second, it changed the

definition of heresy. From 1529 on, any person who sold, bought, possessed, or even

read forbidden literature was considered a heretic. The actual beliefs of the transgressor

thereby became only secondary, for they were no longer the foundation upon which a

charge of heresy was made. Third, the terms of the edict were not created by Charles,

who was away from the Low Countries at the time, but by Margaret of Austria, a fact that

illustrates her increased involvement in the prosecution of heresy by the end of the 1520s.

The lack of jurisdiction afforded to local courts further indicates Margaret’s centralizing

impulses in these final years of her reign. To this point, Charles’s edicts had been

equivocal in terms of the punishments they imposed and imprecise in assigning specific

36 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 51-53, and Tracy, “Heresy Law,” 289. 37 Only Flanders secured the right to any leeway in imposing it, receiving exempt status with regard to confiscations. Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 53. 45

jurisdiction. The edict of 1529 changed all of this, extending and systematizing the

prosecution of heresy for the foreseeable future.

Although Charles V was not the author of this edict, he gave it his full approval.38

On 29 September 1540, he clarified certain prohibitions contained within it, listing the authors and works that were considered heretical, demanding that new publications be produced only with the prior approval of the local authorities, and extending the punishments for heresy to those who aided heretics or collaborated with them. The emperor reserved to himself the right of pardon and afforded no leeway to the individual judgment of the local courts.39 This edict, as with all anti-heresy legislation produced by

Charles in the 1530s and 1540s, reaffirmed the terms of the 1529 edict, and commanded

that local authorities enforce it. The uncompromising terms of the 1529 edict and the

punishments it legislated remained in force until the introduction of the Bloody Edict in

April, 1550.

c. The Edict of Blood, 29 April 1550

The edict of 1550 was promulgated several years after the cases considered in

parts Two to Four below. It remains important in the history of the Low Countries,

however, because it formed the cornerstone of all future anti-heresy legislation in the

territory. Despite its epithet, the edict actually moderated the terms of prior laws in one

38 On 7 October 1531, he issued an ordinance that reaffirmed its provisions. Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 55. 39 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 61. For a consideration of letters of pardon granted by the emperor in criminal cases (not limited to crimes of heresy), see Hugo de Schepper, “Entre compromis et répression: inquisition et clémence aux Pays-Bas sous Charles Quint,” in Guy le Thiec and Alain Tallon, eds., Charles Quint Face aux Réformes (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005), 159-78. 46

significant way: it accorded local authorities some degree of autonomy in the imposition

of penalties by allowing them to account for individual circumstances when sentencing those found guilty. The penalties themselves, however, remained the same. The death penalty was affirmed even for the penitent, although they were beheaded before being thrown into the fire rather than being burned alive, a punishment reserved for the unrepentant.

The most significant addition of this edict was its requirement that all new residents of the Low Countries had to provide certification of their Christian orthodoxy, signed by a priest from their old locale. On the basis of this provision, the Council of Brabant refused to publish the edict, complaining that it would endanger trade, since many of the merchants in cities such as Antwerp were foreigners and not faithful

Catholics. To include such a stipulation, they argued, would frighten away a significant percentage of the traders on whom Brabant relied for its economic and commercial well- being. The Brabantine councilors argued that this requirement smacked of the measures utilized by the hated Suprema of the Spanish Inquisition, and they warned Charles that his Low Countries residents would not brook such a system in their territory. Despite his uncompromising stance toward heresy, Charles sympathized with their economic reasoning and agreed, in September 1550, to amend the terms of the edict specifically for its application in Brabant. He withdrew the requirement of certificates of orthodoxy for merchants, and he consented to turn a blind eye to their religious affiliations if they gave 47

the appearance of orthodoxy. On 25 September 1550, the ordinance appeared in its

revised form and was published in the duchy.40

Of all the innovations contained in Charles’s edicts, by far the most controversial was the use of capital punishment even for repentant heretics. The edicts demanded that local authorities execute an offender even if he begged mercy for his crime. Most local officials viewed such an escalation in the use of capital punishment as barbarism, and they prevaricated in their implementation of it. They consistently failed to impose the most severe penalties, instead inflicting only minor punishments, or releasing their citizens completely free of charge. Such flagrant neglect of the terms of the edicts angered Charles and Mary, who frequently intervened to enforce the compliance of local officials.41 And this was the paradox of Charles’s legislation: although he was, from the

1520s on, attempting to centralize his governance of the Low Countries, his edicts

actually transferred responsibility for the prosecution of heresy to the largely autonomous

municipal councils. Predictably, these were reluctant to impose such aggressive measures, and Charles therefore found himself in an ongoing battle to coerce these city

officials into enforcing his laws as he endeavored to centralize his authority.

40 Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 64-67. 41 Governmental clampdowns against accused heretics often elicited mob reactions, and riots and general tumult became common occurrences at the arrest and punishment of popular figures. By 1527, the authorities in the northern province of Holland already noted that executions of heretics seemed to serve only to inflame popular opinion against the authorities and in favor of their victims. See below, Chapter Two, in the case of the Antwerp . For more examples of outbreaks of violence in Amsterdam and ’s-Hertogenbosch, see Alastair Duke, “The Face of Popular Religious Dissent in the Low Countries, 1520-1530” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 26 (1975), 41-67, here at 46. 48

IV. LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Despite the multitude of voices that criticized the edicts of Charles V, it would be

a distortion to suggest that all inhabitants of the Low Countries were repulsed by his

policies. In some instances, townspeople ejected former friends-turned-heretics from guilds and taverns.42 Other expressions of support were voiced in literary works of the

period. The Antwerp schoolmistress and poet, Anna Bijns, composed a multitude of

literary works, explicit in their rejection of the Protestant Reformation.43 Other authors

went so far as to praise the inquisitorial work of the emperor. The rhetorician, Cornelis

Everaert, of Brugge, explicitly lauded the anti-heresy edicts of the emperor in his 1523

play, “The Welcome of the Preachers” (Wellecomme van den Predicaren). Written for a

gathering of Dominicans, the work praises the order for their efforts as charitable

workers, teachers, and finally, inquisitors.44

One of the most compelling examples of support for Charles is an anonymous letter from a resident of Antwerp to the chancellor of Brabant in 1533. The author castigates the municipal authorities for allowing heretical ideas to spread, and he calls unequivocally for the institution of a formal inquisition, modeled on that of Spain. The anonymous author claims that his concerns stem from a sincere desire to protect the salvation (salicheyt) of the souls of his fellow citizens.45 He refers explicitly to the edicts

of Charles, implying that the local authorities equivocate in enforcing them only because

42 Duke, “Religious Dissent,” 46. 43 For more information on Bijns, see below, Chapter Six. 44 Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515-1556 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 108. Cited in J. W. Muller and Lodewijk Sharpé, eds., Spelen van Cornelis Everaert (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1920), 157, line 358. 45Robert van Roosbroeck, “Een nieuw dokument over de beginperiode van het Lutheranisme te Antwerpen,” De Gulden Passer 5 (1927), 267-84, here at 278. 49

they themselves are riddled with heresy: “Enough edicts have been promulgated, but

there is no one enforcing them, either in the spiritual or secular realm. This is either

because they seek their own good and not that of God, or because they are themselves

infected.”46 Although the author complains of the inefficiency of his local leaders, he

expresses nothing but praise for the edicts themselves. If they were properly enforced, he

claims, his city would quickly be rid of the heresy with which it is riddled: “Oh, would

that there were an inquisition in Antwerp . . . enough offenders would surely be found

that the town would be fully purged of all heresy and dangerous books.”47

Although this anonymous author displays a passion for the eradication of heresy, he also, elsewhere in the document, provides names, addresses, and even directions to the houses of specific individuals he denounces as heretics. It is entirely possible that he had ulterior motives in composing this letter. Nonetheless, the sentiments here expressed exhibit a concern for the religious welfare of the city and its inhabitants. The author speaks from an orthodox, perspective, praises Charles for his efforts at preserving the true , and rebukes the local rulers who inhibit this holy work.

Strong opinions in support of Charles’s religious policy were in the minority in the Low Countries. Far more frequently, townsfolk and municipal officials alike voiced opposition to the emperor’s stringent edicts, as is demonstrated by a series of pamphlets printed in in 1546. They appear to be the result of a collaboration between

46 “. . . daer zijn mandementen ghenough ghegheven, mer daer en is niemandt die die exequeert, noch gheestelick noch waerlick; want di sucken haer selven ende niet God; oft om dat si daer selver meede besmet zijn.” Roosbroeck, “Een nieuw document,” 278. 47 “O waert dat men eens ‘t Antwerpen inquisitie dade . . . men soude ghenough vinden ende die stadt soude wel ghepurgeert werden van alle ketteriën ende valsche boucken.” Roosbroeck, “Een nieuw document,” 282. 50

heterodox refugees, probably from Antwerp, and their supporters in Germany, where they

fled to avoid prosecution by the authorities in Brabant. The pamphlets provide a detailed

account of the fate of a convicted heretic from Antwerp, and decry the new system of

prosecution, accusing Charles of introducing a new “Spanish Inquisition” (Inquisitio

Hispanica).48 They declare this inquisition to be a “ghastly and unchristian dictatorship .

. . antichristian, anti-imperial, and devilish,” aimed at the “poor Christians” (armen

Christen) of the Low Countries.49 Other pamphlets describe it as “the Devil’s inquisition,” with which he will continue to torture the poor Christians until he is stopped.50 The existence of a market for such virulent denunciation of Charles’s edicts

suggests at least some degree of public animosity toward them.

On a legal level, however, the frequent appearance of new anti-heresy edicts in

the Low Countries, particularly Brabant, did not produce a corresponding rise in the

number of heresy trials. Indeed, because municipal officials disdained Charles’s

stringent religious program, they sought to avoid implementing its demands whenever

possible. After capital punishment had been definitively included in the placard of 1529,

local resistance increased even further, causing the queens-regent to intervene on more

48 Von der Unchristlichen tyrannischen Inquisition den Glauben belangend Geschrieben aus Niderland. Wittenberg, 1546 (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag, Knuttel 99a), Newe zeytung ausz Dem Niderland, 1546 (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag, Knuttel 99). See also Alastair C. Duke, “A Legend in the Making: News of the ‘Spanish Inquisition’ in the Low Countries in German Evangelical Pamphlets, 1546- 1550,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 77 (1997), 125-44. 49 “. . . grausame und unchristliche Tyrannen. . . antichristliche, unkayserliche und teuffellische . . . .” Newe Zeytung, 1-2. 50 Newe Zeytung, 5, Von der Unchristlichen Tyrannischen Inquisition, 5. The possibility of the inquisition ending is here thought to depend upon the success of the emperor in his fight against the Protestants in Germany, which was probably a reference to the Schmalkaldic wars. The victory to which they here refer came for Charles in 1547, but it did not signal an end to the prosecutions in the Netherlands. 51

than one occasion.51 They frequently chastised Antwerp’s city councilors for disregarding the emperor’s laws and took similar action in the provinces of Holland,

Flanders, and Artois.52

The stubborn disobedience of the local officials was a form of passive opposition

to Charles V. Municipal rulers had several reasons to be dissatisfied with the emperor’s

increasingly severe legislation. Foremost was the fact that the edicts forced them to choose between the sometimes conflicting interests of their sovereign, Charles, and the maintenance of peace and stability in their municipalities. With good reason they feared that the edicts would elicit a public outcry that would threaten the peace of their cities and the common weal of their inhabitants.53 Local officials also resented the fact that they

had so little power over the terms of enforcement of the emperor’s laws. Until the

Bloody Edict of 1550, they had little room to maneuver in punishing the guilty.54 Local magistrates also had to contend with the fact that the emperor’s edicts often contravened the ancient privileges of their municipalities. As representatives of these cities, their primary function was to uphold the very privileges that the edicts violated, a conflict of interest difficult to ignore. In the majority of cases, loyalty to the local privileges and customs won out over allegiance to Charles, and the city officials sought by all means possible to avoid those stipulations that tested the bounds of their civic freedoms.

51 Duke, “Salvation by Coercion,” 138. 52 Goosens, Les Inquisitions¸ 2: 89. 53 Such fears were realized on several occasions, such as during the arrests of the Augustinian in Antwerp. See below, Chapter Two. Similar riots occurred at the arrest of other heresy suspects, and in 1525, the Antwerp authorities actually lied to the public about the location of one execution so as to avoid a public outcry. See below, Chapter Two. 54 In 1534, two councilors from Holland actually resigned, explaining that they could no longer stand to be present for the torture of witnesses and that they were tired of being hated in their own town purely on account of their work against heresy. The letter from these two men, Aert Sandelijn and Jan van Duvenvoorde to the pensionary of Amsterdam, , is cited in Tracy, “Heresy Law,” 293. 52

V. CONCLUSION

As part of his ongoing attempt to centralize his administration of the Low

Countries, Charles V dramatically changed the system of heresy prosecution in the territory, effectively removing it from ecclesiastical oversight and placing it squarely under secular jurisdiction. Beginning in the 1520s, the changes were ill-defined and poorly understood by secular and ecclesiastical officials alike. With the edict of 1529, however, Charles systematized his anti-heresy legislation, clarifying jurisdictions and intensifying punishments. This edict greatly expanded the use of capital punishment, increasing popular animosity to the emperor’s laws. The paradox of this new system was that it transferred control over heresy trials to the local, city officials. With few exceptions, they were opposed to these laws, viewing them as punitively excessive, unwelcome violations of their local privileges. As a result, municipal rulers exercised a stalwart, passive resistance to Charles’s legislation. They consistently failed to impose the terms of his edicts, forcing the central administration to intervene to ensure that the emperor was obeyed. 53

PART II HERESY IN BRABANT

CHAPTER TWO THE EARLY REFORMATION

Reformation ideas entered the Low Countries quickly after Luther’s appearance in

1517, spreading through the territory with impressive speed and breadth. The first decade of the Reformation differed significantly from those that followed for both the dissidents and the prosecuting authorities. In this early period, those attracted to the ideas of the Reformers exhibited great flexibility in their beliefs and allegiances, familiarizing themselves with Reformation texts from a variety of lands and theological viewpoints.

They formed clandestine groups, often possessing members with conflicting theological opinions. Despite their differences, however, these underground proto-Protestants were unified by their status as religious dissidents, meeting in violation of local and imperial commands. The resilience of such groups is evinced by the fact that they managed to maintain viable networks of dissent, enduring years of prosecution and geographic dispersal.

This chapter considers the success of the early Reformation in the Low Countries, examining the pre-existing religious atmosphere in the territory, which predisposed its inhabitants to accept the ideas of Luther when they first arrived. It will then discuss the ways in which these ideas manifested themselves among the dissident population in the major cities of the territory during this first decade of the Reformation.

54

I. DISSENT PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION

For several decades prior to Luther’s appearance, a climate of religious dissent

had developed in the Low Countries in ways that would benefit the propagation of

Reformation doctrine when it emerged. The religious atmosphere of the Low Countries

was most affected by the appearance of three interrelated influences in the late fifteenth

and early sixteenth centuries: an intensification of lay piety, the development of Northern

Humanism, and the dissemination of a growing sacramentarian sentiment.

a. Lay Piety

A vibrant lay piety flourished among the population of the Low Countries in the

fifteenth century. In addition to large numbers of religious prior to the Reformation, non-

cloistered groups such as the beguines emerged in the region. Other forms of lay pious

expression, such as membership in and voluntary devotional bequests remained high until the last decade of the fifteenth century.1 Another indication of lay

piety was the burgeoning of religious architecture in the late fifteenth century,

exemplified by the construction of the magnificent cathedrals adorning the central plazas

of Antwerp and Mechelen.2

1 Antwerp’s confraternities experienced significant growth until 1480. The single beguinage in the city continued its fifteenth-century expansion well into the 1500s, doubling its membership between 1526 and 1581. See Guido Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 49-50. Many chambers of rhetoric, so important in the early Reformation in Brabant, were in some way attached to local confraternities. On this point, see Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515-1556 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 30-40. 2 Alistair Duke goes so far as to call the fifteenth century “one of the greatest ages of church building in the Low Countries.” See idem, “Building Heaven in Hell’s Despite: The Early History of the Reformation in the Towns of the Low Countries,” in Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Church and State Since

55

Although lay piety indicates devotion to faith, it does not necessarily imply affection for the institutional church. In the years prior to the Reformation, the church in the Low Countries included many dissenting voices, calling for various types of reform.

The territory was home to a variety of late medieval mystics such as and

Thomas à Kempis, whose thought and writings inspired groups such as the Sisters and

Brethren of the Common Life, which flourished throughout the .

Blending the impulses of mystics and early humanists, these groups nurtured individual inner piety by means of communal living and a focus on personal devotion. They formed houses of like-minded souls, where they sought to live lives devoted to Thomas à

Kempis’s Imitatio Christi. They also instructed students, whose numbers came to include some of the most prolific voices in the Reformation movement.3

b. Humanism

Historians have long credited humanism with having prepared the ground for the ideas of the Reformation in the Low Countries.4 The Christian humanists of the late

the Reformation: Papers Delivered to the Seventh Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference, Britain and the Netherlands 7 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), 45-75, here at 54-55. 3 The piety of the Sisters and Brethren of the Common Life (and their religious counterparts, the Windesheim canons and canonesses) reached its height in the late fifteenth century and exercised an enormous influence on most religious figures. Although Erasmus critiqued their asceticism, he was undoubtedly influenced by his early experiences with the mother house of during his youth. Luther too had extensive ties to the house and praised the work of the Brethren and Sisters. The influence of the movement (which formed one part of the larger Devotio Moderna movement) can also be seen in reformers such as Gabriel Biel. For a brief overview and modern bibliography of the Devotio Moderna, including of some of their foundational writings, see John van Engen, Devotio Moderna: Basic Writings, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1988). 4 Historians emphasizing the contribution of the humanists include Johan Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520-1565), Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 37, 2 vols. (Brussel: Paleis der Academië, 1975), 1: 63-116, and Paul Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in den Niederlanden, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (: Verlag May Niemeyer, 1903), 39-40. Alistair Duke points

56 medieval period appropriated the call for a return to the original sources (ad fontes) as an appeal to study the scriptures in their original languages. As a corollary to this program, many of these Northern humanists advocated the of the Bible into vernacular languages so that lay people too could approach the original sources, albeit in translation.

By 1480, all the books of the Bible had appeared in vernacular Dutch, although a single

complete translation was not produced until 1526.5

Frequent interaction between humanists in the Low Countries and their counterparts in German-speaking territories also helped lay a foundation for the spread of

Reformation ideas. Some the former fled to safety in German cities when their writings came under scrutiny in their native land.6 Their travels and intellectual connections brought them into contact with German critics of the church, many of whom were closely affiliated with Luther and his ideas. The communication networks formed by the humanists provided an intellectual infrastructure for the transfer of early Reformation thought.7

to the convergence of three factors as primary contributors to the success of the early Reformation in the Low Countries: the rise of Christian humanism, anticlericalism, and the laicization of previously ecclesiastical functions such as poor relief. See idem, “Building Heaven,” 59. 5 Alastair Duke, “The Face of Popular Religious Dissent in the Low Countries, 1520-1530,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 26 (1975), 41-67, here at 61. 6 Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 101. Another example of the influence of humanist networks is the Spanish humanist, Francisco de Enzinas, who lived for several years in the house of , was imprisoned as a heretic in Leuven in 1543, only to escape and return to Wittenberg two years later. Throughout his life, he maintained an active correspondence with reformers such as , , Jan à Lasco, and Petrus Martyr. 7 Traditionally, the northern provinces have been credited with producing Dutch humanism’s greatest minds, but the significance of Brabant (and particularly the publishing hub of Antwerp) in the movement should not be underestimated. See Cornelis Augustijn, “Die Ketzerverfolgungen in den Niederlanden von 1520 bis 1545,” in Silvana Seidel Menchi, ed., Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 49-64, here at 50.

57

Most notable among the Christian humanists in the Low Countries in the early

sixteenth century is Desiderius Erasmus. During his lifetime he exercised an enormous

influence on readers in his native land, drawing on intellectual and anticlerical currents

already present in the territory. His impact on Brabant was significant. Many of the

vernacular Bibles produced in the early sixteenth century (particularly in Antwerp) reflect

an awareness and often an overt adherence to Erasmus’s own biblical scholarship. Many

of their translators used his as a starting point for their own work.8 Yet

he also serves as an example of the limits of humanism in realizing a Reformation

agenda. Like Erasmus, many Low Countries humanists felt a deep antipathy toward the

church of their day and its many abuses. But also like Erasmus, many of them were

content to offer critique from within, remaining unwilling to break completely with their

mother church.9

c. Latent Sacramentarianism

In the late medieval period, a “sacramentarian” was generally understood as

someone who questioned any or all of the of the Church. As time went on,

sacramentarianism became increasingly identified with criticisms of the doctrine and

8 Jos Andriessen, “Het Geestelijke en Godsdienstige Klimaat,” in Walter Couvreur, ed., Antwerpen in de XVIde Eeuw, Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis (Antwerp: Mercurius, 1975), 203-32, here at 209. 9 Despite the fact that such connections are readily verifiable, it would be going too far to refer to these humanists as a coherent ‘group.’ Although these thinkers shared intellectual ideals, they sought reform of the church to highly varied degrees, and were divided in their opinions regarding the validity of an overt break with the Roman Church. See Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 115-16, and Jozef Ijsewijn, “The Coming of Humanism to the Low Countries” in H. A. Oberman, T. A. Brady, Jr., and P. O. Kristeller, eds., Itinerarium Italicum: the Profile of the in the Mirror of its European Transformations (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193-302.

58 efficacy of the Eucharist in particular.10 Despite the centrality of the Eucharist in the

Roman church, voices of dissent and opposition were already audible by the fifteenth

century. At the Council of Constance (1414-1418), (1369-1415) had been

accused of practicing Utraquism (offering the Eucharist to the laity in both kinds), and

John Wycliff (1324-1384) had been posthumously condemned as a heretic, in large part

for his beliefs regarding the Eucharist.11 In the Low Countries, a growing number of voices questioned various aspects of the Church’s teaching on this issue. Collectively, this group of dissenters came to be known as the “sacramentarian movement.”12 They debated various aspects of , including the doctrine of transsubstantiation, the notion of the redemptive power of the Mass, and the concept of

the Mass as a sacrifice.13 All educated members of the intellectual elite, these thinkers came to exercise a significant influence on the development of sacramental theology in much of western Europe, and indirectly, on lay piety as well.

10 George Huntston Williams, The , 3rd ed., Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Charles G. Nauert, ed., 15 (1962; Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992), 95-6. 11 For an account of Hus’s background, journey to Constance, and experience at the council, see Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd ed. (1977; Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 284-326. Contentions over the theology of the Eucharist stretch back yet further. Even as the church was establishing orthodox doctrine on the matter, voices of opposition were raised. Ratramnus, a of Corbie, disputed the full transsubstantiation of the elements already in the ninth century, and questioned the efficacy of the in the absence of faith, in the early twelfth century. For more information, see Carter Lindberg, “Sacraments,” in Hans Hillerbrand, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 463-67, and Williams, Radical Reformation, 31. 12 Bart J. Spruyt, “Wessel Gansfort and Cornelis Hoen’s Epistola Christiana: ‘The Ring as a Pledge of My Love,’” in Fokke Akkerman, et al., eds., Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) and Northern Humanism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 122-41, here at 124. Many historians caution against viewing sacramentarianism as in any way a unified “movement.” Although sacramentarian thought circulated widely in this period, there are few documented relational or intellectual links between particular adherents of these beliefs. 13 Williams, Radical Reformation, 27-28. Previous historical inquiry has focused upon as the seat of early sacramentarianism. However, Williams has made the claim that the Swiss reformers appropriated much of their sacramentarian theology from this group of Dutch predecessors.

59

One of the most influential voices of sacramentarianism in the fifteenth-century

Low Countries was Johannes Wessel Gansfort (†1489).14 Born in in the northern Low Countries, Gansfort was well acquainted with the work of Thomas à

Kempis and supported his call for a life lived in imitation of Christ.15 In spite of the fact that Gansfort’s extant writings are limited and do not constitute a systematic view of his theological beliefs, it is clear that in terms of the Eucharist, Gansfort believed that alone, the sacrament is wholly ineffective. Although the believer cannot earn the grace

conferred through the sacraments, Gansfort’s nominalistic proclivities caused him to

conclude that the believer must “do that of which he is capable” (facit quod in se est), and

possess a sincere regret for his sin. God bestows his grace freely, but only on a repentant

soul. Thus, in Gansfort’s sacramental understanding, a receptive mind and a genuine

faith are prerequisites to the imputation of .16 Gansfort placed so much

14 Already in the late fifteenth century, Gansfort had written scathing critiques of clerical abuses such as sales, and questioned points of Roman dogma such as purgatory and . Gansfort even raised the idea of a priesthood of all believers fifty years before Luther popularized the notion. Gansfort’s extant work is available in a facsimile copy: Opera: Facsimile of the Edition Groningen 1614 (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1966). An English translation of several of his treatises is also available: Edward W. Miller and Albert Hardenberg, eds., Wessel Gansfort: Life and Writings, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917). In addition, several recent studies consider the import of Gansfort and other late medieval humanists. Notable among them are: F. Akkerman et al., eds. Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) and Northern Humanism; Heiko A. Oberman, “Gansfort, Reuchlin and the ‘Obscure Men’: First Fissures in the Foundations of Faith,” in Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert: Festschrift für Erich Meuthen, 2 vols. (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), 2: 717-35; Oberman, “Wessel Gansfort: Magister Contradictionis,” in Akkerman, et al., eds., Wessel Gansfort and Northern Humanism, 97-121; Erika Rummel, “Voices of Reform from Hus to Erasmus,” in Thomas A. Brady, et al., eds., Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 2: 61-92; and Carl Ullman, Reformers Before the Reformation, R. Menzies, trans., 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1855). 15 A brief overview of Gansfort’s life is provided by M. C. W. Wegeling, “De Voorbereiding,” in A. L. E. Verheyden, De Hervorming in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in de XVIe eeuw (Brussels: Synode van de Protestantse Kerken, 1949), 12-25, here at 20. 16 Erika Rummel, “Voices of Reform,” 73.

60

emphasis on the necessity of faith that he raised the possibility that Christ could be

present even in the absence of the eucharistic host:

I am not saying that the ability has been given to any Christian whatsoever to secure the Divine presence sacramentally through the Eucharist as he wishes; that ability has been given only to priests. But what I am saying is that to one who truly remembers his name, the Lord is truly present, not only in his divinity, but also in his flesh and blood and entire humanity. For who can doubt that the Lord Jesus is often bodily present with his faithful in their agonies, though he does not on that account forsake his seat at the right hand of the Father in heaven? Who can doubt that this may happen without the Eucharist as well as in it?17

Two points are particularly significant here. First, Gansfort did not reject the sacramental function of the Eucharist,18 nor did he negate the doctrine of transsubstantiation. On the contrary, he actually affirmed the necessity of the priest for that very purpose.19 The second point of interest is that, although Gansfort upheld the

efficacy of the sacrament, he lessened significantly the role and power of the priest by

suggesting that a sincere and pious lay person could elicit the presence of Christ through

faith.

Various historians have claimed a connection between the works of Wessel

Gansfort and those of another Dutch native, Cornelis Hoen, whose views came to

17 “Non hic dico, datum cuilibet homini Christiano, ut possit, cum velit, sacramentaliter per Eucharistiam habere praesentem: hoc enim solis datum est sacerdotibus. Sed hoc dico, vere praesentem commemoranti nomen eius, vere praesentem Dominum Iesum, non sola deitate sua, sed et carne sua, et sanguine, et humanitate tota. Quis enim dubitabit, corporaliter saepe praesentem Dominum Iesum suis fidelibus in eorum agonibus, non propter hoc dimisso in coelestibus confessu ad dexteram Patris? Quis dubitabit, ita posse hoc simul tempore fieri extra Eucharistiam, sicut in Eucharistia?” Gansfort, Opera, 697. 18 Spruyt, “Wessel Gansfort,” 134, points to Maarten van Rhijn as opposing Gansfort’s inclusion in the number of Dutch sacramentarians on exactly this point. Van Rhijn argues that Gansfort clearly upheld the continued practice of sacramental eating, and is therefore incorrectly considered a sacramentarian on this account. Van Rhijn, De invloed van Wessel Gansfort (The Hague: n.p., 1927), 41. 19 Both Williams (Radical Reformation, 31) and Spruyt (“Wessel Gansfort,” 133) affirm Gansfort’s belief in transsubstantiation, but remind us of his important qualification that this power is rendered ineffective without the faith and internal commemoratio of the believing recipient.

61

exercise significant influence over theologians such as Zwingli.20 But while the

possibility of Gansfort’s post mortem influence on Hoen exists, significant differences

remain between their theological formulations of the Eucharist. Unlike Gansfort, Hoen

attacked the doctrine of transsubstantiation, refuting the notion that Christ could be bound

to a single location, in this case the bread.21 His most significant departure from

Gansfort, however, was Hoen’s interpretation of Christ’s words in the institution of the

Mass. The words, hoc est corpus meum, which would later take center stage in the eucharistic debates of the , were understood by Hoen as hoc significat corpus meum.22 To add credence to this revolutionary claim, Hoen contended that the commemoratio demanded by Christ in his institution of the Supper was more appropriate in his absence than in his presence. Thus he concluded that Christ’s Real

Presence in the Eucharist was not only unlikely but actually impossible.

Wessel and Hoen are merely two examples of a disparate sacramentarian

movement with a long history in the Netherlands. Their ideas spread among educated

laity both in the Low Countries and in German territories, and their influence is evident in

the events of the unfolding Reformation. The doctrines introduced by Luther and

Zwingli, as well as by Karlstadt and later by the Anabaptists, often fueled sacramentarian

tendencies already present among their readers. Luther’s formulation of his eucharistic

20 Williams repeats the claim of previous historians that Hoen found Gansfort’s work on the Eucharist among his colleague, Jakob Hoeck’s library after the latter’s death. See idem, Radical Reformation, 107. It has been further contended that Hoen transmitted this treatise to Zwingli, and that it subsequently influenced his view of Eucharistic doctrine. Spruyt, however, rallies convincing evidence that this was not in fact the true sequence of events, and that, despite being impressed by Gansfort’s treatise, the document Hoen passed on to Zwingli was actually his own creation. It is now generally accepted, therefore, that the Epistola Christiana that Zwingli published in 1525 was indeed written by Hoen, not Gansfort. See Spruyt, “Wessel Gansfort,” 126-34. 21 Spruyt, “Wessel Gansfort,” 126. 22 Williams, Radical Reformation, 107, and Spruyt, “Wessel Gansfort,” 125.

62

theology was an ongoing process, which was probably completed by 1523.23 Yet even by

the time he composed De Captivitate Babylonica (1520), he had realized his basic

understanding of the sacrament as containing both a visible sign and a biblical promise of

grace. Although he firmly rejected the Church’s Aristotelian teaching on

transsubstantiation, Luther did not, with Hoen, go so far as to make the corporeal

presence of Christ impossible. For Luther, Christ was capable of ultimate ubiquity

because the qualities of his divine nature were also true of his human nature. Thus, if he

was spiritually present, he could necessarily be physically present as well.24 Even though

the bread did not become the body of Christ, nor the wine his blood, still Christ was

present, in, with, or under the elements of the Eucharist.

Zwingli disputed Luther’s position, which he saw as an unnecessary and injurious

remnant of papism. Zwingli’s own ideas concerning the Eucharist were solidified in

1523, when Hinne Rode visited him with a copy of Hoen’s treatise, an epiphany for the

Zürich pastor. He immediately appropriated Hoen’s translation of est as significat in

Christ’s institution of the Supper,25 and from this point on he was convinced that no grace

was conferred in the administration of it.26

As this brief overview suggests, eucharistic theology was a major point of

contention in the Low Countries during the early Reformation. Nor were disagreements over the Eucharistic confined to the intellectual stratum of society. At all levels of the

23 James M. Kittelson, “Martin Bucer and the Sacramentarian Controversy: The Origins of His Policy of Concord,” ARG 64 (1973), 166-83, here at 170. 24 Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 336 25 Williams, Radical Reformation, 178. 26 Ozment, Age of Reform, 332.

63 social spectrum, religious dissidents voiced anti-Roman views concerning the

Eucharist.27 Two trials that took place prior to the proliferation of Reformation thought in the territory (in 1518 and 1519) substantiate the existence of a strong sacramentarian current early, and among less-educated members of the population. The first involved

Lauken van Moeseke of Brussels, who was tortured, had his tongue cut, and was finally beheaded because he had “blasphemed the sacrament.”28 The following year, Katline of

Antwerp committed a similar crime. For her transgression, however, she received a much more lenient sentence, although her crime certainly was no less grievous than that of Lauken. She

. . . made a great tumult and commotion, speaking with blasphemous scorn and derision [about the holy sacrament], using many horrible words. Moreover, a good man heard the racket she was making and attempted to pacify her, but she responded with still more obscene, nasty, and hurtful words, attacking his honor, as well as that of his parents and his wife.29

On account of this rambunctious behavior, the court imposed a relatively minor (although unspecified) punishment. But Katline failed to comply with the orders of the court, so

27 Yet it is difficult during this first decade of the Reformation to categorize the affiliations of early dissidents. Several scholars have argued that Zwingli, rather than Luther, should be seen as the father of religious dissent in the Low Countries, since far more Reformation adherents followed his eucharistic theology than that of Luther. This is certainly true of the Anabaptists, who increased in number significantly in the 1530s. Indeed, several historians argue that, by the mid-sixteenth century, the vast majority of the reformatory inhabitants of the Low Countries gravitated toward Anabaptism, rather than Lutheranism. See, among others, Duke, “Religious Dissent,” 67, and L. J. A. van de Laar, “De Katholieke Restauratie te ’s-Hertogenbosch ca. 1525-1625,” in Zesde colloquium ‘De Brabantse stad’ (Antwerp: Provinciebestuur, 1983), 171-234, here at 202. Yet the notion of this progression as a straight line linking sacramentarians directly to Anabaptism is flawed. Many adherents of the Reformation followed a far more winding path in their theological journeys, as we shall in Chapter Three. 28 CD, 1: doc. 434, 2: doc. 389, and a summary of the case in 4: doc. 19. 29 “. . . in irreverencien ende versamadenisse vanden selven groot romoer ende gevechte gemaect heeft, vele leelycke sprekende, ende bovendien eenen goeden man, die huer versprack ende vermaende huer te scamene vore tHeylich Sacrament, vele leelycke, quade ende injurieuse woerden gaff, sprekende opte eere van hem, zynen ouders ende huysvrouw.” CD, 1: doc. 436. Also reproduced in AA, 7: 133.

64

the judges demanded that she make a pilgrimage to , banished her from the city

until the pilgrimage was completed, and fined her 24 gilders.30

These two cases demonstrate the existence of a latent sacramentarianism among

the general population of the Low Countries prior to the dawn of the Reformation. In the

years that followed, several other lay folk were charged with similar crimes of blasphemy

against the sacrament.31 It would be tempting to blame these later outbursts on the influence of Zwinglian theology or the growth of Anabaptist sects, and certainly many of those later charged were influenced by these two categories of belief. Nevertheless, the trials of Lauken and Katline confirm that lay sacramentarian discontent was already present in this region before the writings of the Reformation appeared on Dutch presses.

II. MANIFESTATIONS OF DISSENT

When the writings of Luther and other early Reformers began to sweep across the

Low Countries in 1519, they resonated with these pre-existing religious concerns to take hold among a relatively broad section of the population. This early phase of the

Reformation was characterized by a lack of organization, as those attracted to the ideas of the Reformers sought new means by which to express their religious discontent. Such expression manifested itself in diverse acts of anticlericalism, the proliferation of illicit texts, and the formation of clandestine groups.

30 In addition, they stipulated that, upon her return, she had to attend certain services in the St. Joris Church, and take part in the first general procession of the . Ibid. 31 For example, Kerstiaen Boye, who was tried in 1529. See AA, 7: 163. For other examples, see below, Chapter Three.

65

a. Anticlerical Sentiment

A widespread anticlericalism existed in the Low Countries long before

Reformation thought proper entered the territory. In Brabant, visible acts of

anticlericalism took the form of abuse of individual clerics, outbursts of , or

manifestations of theological discontent. While only the last form necessarily suggests

views that were linked directly to the Reformation, all three indicate some level of

popular discontent with the existing religious situation.

The earliest expressions of Brabantine anticlericalism occurred in Antwerp in

1522. In August of that year, municipal officials issued a request for information regarding an unnamed suspect, who had yelled disparaging comments at a priest of Our

Lady’s Church. Not only had the heckler verbally abused the preacher’s person, but he

had criticized the content of his sermon, complaining that “he preached things that were

wrong and that went against the Holy Christian faith.”32 Such an outburst is indicative of

more than mere anticlerical sentiment. The fact that the detractor criticized the content of

the sermon on doctrinal grounds suggests some element of substantive, probably

Reformation-influenced critique.

Perhaps less doctrinal in nature was the case of Langhen Steven, who assaulted a

monk in the same city in 1525. The sources provide no further details of the incident,

other than that the attack was physical in nature. It is unclear whether Steven’s grievance

32 “. . . groote injurieuse ende afdragende woerden gegeven heeft omme syns sermoens wille, seggende dat hy qualic ende tegens het heylige Kersten gelove gepredict hadde.” SAA, Gebodboeck, vol. A, fol. 103. Partially reprinted in CD, 4: doc. 94.

66 with the monk was personal or involved deeper matters of belief or anticlericalism.33 In either case, Steven’s outburst represented an isolated but not entirely uncommon occurrence. In the same year, Erasmus summed up the situation in the region as follows:

In the Brabantine city of ’s-Hertogenbosch, the people ejected all of the Friars Minor and the Dominicans. Now Margaret [of Austria], the emperor’s aunt, is besieging the city. In Antwerp illegal meetings take place outside the city walls. The people come together in flagrant violation of the edicts of the emperor, Margaret, and the magistrate, and the whole city is inflamed with dangerous tumult . . . . Most of the people in Holland, Zeeland, and Flanders know of Luther’s doctrines, and they hate the more than they fear the punishment of death.34

Anticlerical sentiment revealed itself further in sporadic outbreaks of iconoclasm, one of which was reported in Antwerp in 1525. In June of that year, certain individuals

stole crucifixes and images of the Virgin, which they threw into the canal surrounding the

city. Two months later, unable to apprehend those responsible, the magistrate offered the

significant sum of 100 gilders to anyone who provided the names of those involved.35 It is unlikely that such an act had direct connections to Lutheran teachings. Rather

Antwerpers, already disaffected with the clergy in their town, seized upon the criticisms

33 SAA, Gebodboeck, vol. A, fol. 118v. The summons of the magistrate is transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 324, and AA, 2: 315-16. 34 “Est civitas Brabantiae satis ampla frequensque, Sylvam Ducis appellant; hic populus ejecit minoritas et dominicanos omnes. Eam nunc obsidet Margareta Caesaris amita. Antuerpiae quidam ausi sunt extra civitatem concionari nec veritus est illo populus confluere, contemtis omnius Caesaris, Margaretae et magistratuum edictis. Itaque tota civitas illa fervet periculoso tumultu . . . . Maxima populi pars apud Hollandos, Zelandos et Flandros scit doctrinam Lutheri et odio plus quam capitali fertur in monachos.” Erasmus to Pirckheimer, 28 August 1525. CD, 4: doc. 358. For a more in depth discussion of early modern anticlericalism, see Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, eds., Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Studies in Late Medieval and Reformation Thought 51 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993). 35 “. . . afgeworpen hebben crucifixen, dbeelt van Onser Liever Vrouwen ende andere beelden, die houdende ende kervende, in versmadenissen ende ter oneeren Goids, zynre gebenedider moeder ende Goids heyligen.” CD, 4: doc. 360. One of the culprits came forward and agreed to turn in his accomplices in return for personal amnesty and a 50 gilder reward. An account of the iconoclasm also appears in Josse de Weert, “Chronijcke van Nederlant,” in Charles Piot, ed., Chroniques de Brabant et de Flandres (Brussels: F. Hayez, 1879), 91. Cited in CD, 4: doc. 307.

67

articulated by the early Reformers as an excuse to express their discontent in a violent

manner, sometimes against individual monks or priests, and in this case, against the

church’s property.

The comments of Willem van Swol evince a more explicitly doctrinal critique.

This unfortunate character met his fate in his home city of Mechelen (at that time seat of

Margaret’s court) in the early 1520s, where he was put to death for making blasphemous comments, including a public proclamation that “the entire church is not under the authority of the pope.”36 Such a statement implies some familiarity with the thought of

the Reformers, already circulating widely in the Low Countries by this date. The fact

that Swol was executed for this comment demonstrates both his personal commitment to

his views and the determination of the authorities to fight them.

b. Book Crimes

In September 1520, the papal legate Aleander arrived in Brabant to

investigate rumors of heresy at the Augustinian cloister in Antwerp.37 A few months

later, he traveled to Ghent and , where he proclaimed Luther’s excommunication

in the bull Exurge Domine and oversaw the burning of Lutheran books.38 There was

36 “Niet gheheel onder den Paus.” This quotation appears in a list of death sentences reported by the Antwerp pensionary, Jacob van Wesembeke, in 1569. See Wesembeke, Beschryvinghe vanden Staet ende voortganck der Religie in Nederlant ende saeken daerover ontstaen van den Jare 1500 aff ende principalick onder de Regeringhe van Coninck Philips de tweede inde Jaren 1565 ende 1566 (1569; Middelburgh: Adraen vanden Vivere, 1616), 10. 37 Verheyden, De Hervorming, 27. 38 Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 51. The bull was published by the Vorsterman press in Antwerp. See Wouter Nijhoff and Maria E. Kronenberg, eds., Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 3 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923), 2: 484, # 1342, and Maria E. Kronenberg, Verboden Boeken en Opstandige Drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Patria Vaderlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis in Monografieën 44 (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1948), 10, who provides a partial translation of the text.

68

much work for him to do. By 1521, Luther’s writings had circulated widely in the Low

Countries and would continue to do so despite the best efforts of Aleander and his

clerical colleagues. There was no shortage of other heterodox printing activity in Brabant

in the first decade of the Reformation. Indeed, in the years 1523 to 1540, 28 whole or

partial translations of the Bible were printed in the Dutch vernacular, in direct

contravention of the emperor’s edicts.39 Antwerp in particular became an active center of

unorthodox printing. The city’s long history of book production began already in 1481.

In the first four decades of the sixteenth century, an estimated 4,000 titles were printed in

the Low Countries, more than half of which emanated from Antwerp presses. Forty per

cent were religious in content, and more than half were written in .40 Not surprisingly, most individuals tried for crimes involving heretical books (including possession, sale, and printing of such works) came from Antwerp.

As will become apparent in the chapters that follow, there was an appreciable escalation in punishments for heresy after the 1529 edict. Prior to this legislation, the municipal authorities exercised great leniency in their treatment of heresy suspects, particularly those charged with book crimes and especially those in Antwerp. In 1525,

39 Jos Andriessen, “Het Geestelijke en Godsdienstige Klimaat,” in Walter Couvreur, ed., Antwerpen in de XVIde Eeuw, Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis (Antwerpen: Mercurius, 1975), 203-32, here at 209. 40 These figures from Alastair Duke, “Salvation by Coercion: The Controversy Surrounding the ‘Inquisition’ in the Low Countries on the Eve of the Revolt,” in P. N. Brooks, ed., Reformation Principle and Practice. Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens (London: Scholar Press, 1980), 137-54, here at 141. Jos Andriessen claims that 4,500 works were produced in Europe as a whole during this period, and that of these, 2,650 were published in Antwerp, and 1,164 were primarily religious in content. See idem, “Het Geestelijke en Godsdienstige Klimaat,” 205. Henk van Nierop contends that half of all books printed between 1500 and 1540 emanated from the presses of that city. See idem, “Censorship, Illicit Printing and the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to Be Free. Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands 9 (Zutphen: De Walburg Press, 1987), 29-44, here at 37.

69

Charles exerted some pressure on the Antwerp officials in an attempt to encourage them

to take a harsher stance against such offenses. In response, the city council published an

ordinance legislating more stringent penalties. The punishments they inflicted between

1525 and the emperor’s new edict of 1529 were, indeed, somewhat more severe than

those of the early part of the decade, but even so, the councilors continued to exercise a

remarkable degree of clemency.

Of the nine men charged with book crimes in Antwerp in the 1520s, four came

before the magistrate prior to the ordinance of 1525. Two were Antwerp bookbinders

convicted as Lutherans in 1522. Their penalty was to stand on the scaffold while

Lutheran books were burned in their presence, a humiliating and unpleasant fate, but a

minor one in comparison to the financial and physical punishments of fines, banishment,

or incarceration.41 In the same year, two other bookmen, a printer and a seal maker

(zegelsteker) suffered a similar punishment.42

In the first half of the 1520s, then, the Antwerp high court punished four offenders for book crimes. All four were sentenced to nothing more severe than an act of public humiliation. In 1525, however, the city magistracy promulgated an ordinance, specifically concerned with book-related offenses, which legislated far more stringent penalties for those convicted in the latter half of the decade. The municipal authorities declared that they,

. . . having first considered the matter extensively and desiring to follow the statutes of his Imperial Majesty, order and command the following

41 CD, 4: doc. 100. 42 In addition, they were sentenced to wear sanbenitos, white penitential garments bearing yellow crosses in front and behind, for the rest of their lives. However, shortly after their initial sentencing, the council revoked the stipulation concerning the sanbenitos and the men were released. CD, 4: doc. 101.

70

throughout the city: no printer within this city or margraviate shall print books concerning the Holy Scripture or other material, unless he includes in the book the name of the author who wrote the book, the date when it was printed, his own name, and information on where it was published. Furthermore, if it is a book concerning the Holy Scripture, then he first must obtain the consent of the ordinaris, with permission from the University of Leuven, sealed with the seal of the same, before he is allowed to sell it.43

For those who failed to adhere to the requirements of this ordinance, the magistrate

prescribed loss of citizenship, and a subsequent ten-year banishment from the city.

The wording of this legislation reveals that the municipal authorities issued the

ordinance at the command of the central administration. The opening words of the

document state that the emperor had ordered such limitations be placed on bookmen, on

pain “of life and goods.”44 This wording signifies that the transgression of the emperor’s demands could be considered a capital offense, punishable by loss of life and confiscation of goods. Charles made this declaration, however, not in an edict, but in an open letter, intended to be molded into law by the officials of each city. For their part, the Antwerp governors (undoubtedly the letter’s most important target, given the number of bookmen in their city) interpreted the emperor’s demands in a more lenient fashion than he had perhaps intended. Instead of imposing mandatory capital punishments and confiscations

43 “. . . by goeder deliberatie ende rypen raide daerop yerst ghehadt hebbende, achtervolgende den statuyte vander keyserlycke majesteyt, tselve stadt houdende; cundigen ende laten weten, van sheeren ende vander stadt wegen, dat wy gheordineert ende ghestatueert hebben, ordineeren ende statueeren midts desen, dat gheen prenter binnen deser stadt oft mercgreefscape gheenrehande boecken prenten en sal der Heyligen Scriftueren oft anderen materien aengaende, ten zy dat hy stelle in zyne boecken ende noeme den authoer, die deselve gemaect heeft, met oeck den datum wanneer die gheprent waren, zynen naem, zyn marck ende diese gheprent heeft, ende de plaetse, straete ende huys, waer die ghedruckt ende gheprent gheweest hebben, te wetene: eest materie der Heyliger Scriftueren aengaende, dat hy den yerst sal moeten hebben consent van den ordinarys met approbatien vander Universiteyt van Loven, metter selver seghel beseghelt, eer hy die sal mogen vercoopen.” SAA, Gebodboeck, vol. B, fol. 114. Transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 261. 44 “Al eest zoe, dat onse aldergenedichste heere de Keyser met zynen openen brieven anderwylen heeft doen condigen ende verbieden, opte verbeurte van lyve ende van goeden, dat gheen boecvercoopere, librarier, prenter oft andere . . . .” Ibid.

71

as penalties for disobedience, they opted instead for banishment, limited to a period of ten

years. What is more, in the years following the publication of this edict, the magistrates

continued to impose even more temperate sentences, ignoring the terms of their own

legislation.

On the day that this ordinance was published, two offenders were sentenced in

Antwerp. Jan Berckmans and Hendrik Peters had sold heterodox books, in Berckmans’

case, song books containing unspecified “heresies,” and in the case of Peters, explicitly

Lutheran texts.45 In both cases, the city council noted that these crimes transgressed the mandates of the emperor (rather than their own mandate). Perhaps for this reason, they did not inflict the punishments legislated by their own ordinance issued that day, which would have included a revocation of their citizenship rights and banishment from the city for one decade. Rather, Berckmans received a more lenient six-year ban, while Peters was sent on a pilgrimage and banned perpetually from the city.46

A year after the publication of the city ordinance, three more offenders were charged with selling Lutheran books. In each case the guilty party received a sentence more lenient than the city ordinance dictated. Tried on 30 October 1526, Hans van

Remunde, Hendrik Henricxsens, and Tanneken Zwolfs, were sentenced to go on

45 “Jan Berckmans, scheemakere, oermidts dien, dat hij sekere boecxkens diveerscen lieden vercocht ende ghedistribueert heeft, dewelcke bevonden zijn inne te houdene ketterye ende grote oneere vanden Heylighen Sacramente . . . tegens de mandementen ende bevelen van onsen aldergenadichsten heere den Keyser.” 14 February 1525. CD, 4: doc. 259. “Henrick Peters, boecvercoopere, overmidts dien dat hij Luytersche boecken ende andere alhier vercocht heeft, smakende ketterye, tegens den mandementen ons heeren sKeysers.” 14 February 1525. CD, 4: doc. 260. 46 For Berckmans: “. . . blyven buyten die woonen, den tyt van sesse jaren, op daten van desen ingaende, op zijnen hals.” CD, 4: doc. 259. For Peters: “[Hij] sal porren, binnen sonneschijne, vuyter stadt ende vrijheit, ende, binnen den derden daghe, vuyten mercgraefscape van Antwerpen, ende doen een pelgrimagie ten Heyligen Drie Coningen tot Coelen, ende, na de brieven daeraf ghesonden, nyet weder inne comen, op zijn vorste lit.” CD, 4: doc. 260.

72

pilgrimages, upon the completion of which, they were allowed to return to the city if they secured the permission of the municipal authorities.47

The only case in the 1520s to which explicit reference was made the city’s own

ordinance regarding publications was that of Cornelis vander Plassen. Tried in October

1528, vander Plassen was charged with selling heterodox books. The charges also

alleged that he had “sold certain books containing known lies and heresies, and these

contained no titles or any indication of where they were printed.”48 All of the infractions

listed violated the ordinance issued by the council in February 1525, for which the

punishment should have been banishment for ten years. However, the councilors

imposed a lesser banishment of just one year.49

Throughout the 1520s, then, the Antwerp city authorities displayed a consistent

policy of clemency toward those charged with book-related crimes. Even after the

intervention of the emperor forced them to promulgate more stringent legislation in 1525,

they continued to visit more lenient penalties on convicts than even their own laws

dictated.

47 These cases appear in CD, 5: docs. 542 and 543 respectively. The documents contain notations affirming that Hans van Remunde and Tanneken Zwolfs both obtained permission to return, but that Hendrik Henricxsens did not. No reason for this is given. 48 “Hy alhier in de stadt sekere boecxkens, wesende famose libellen ende inhoudende herezye, sonder ennigen titule noch oock nyet vuytwysende waer die geprint syn geweest, vercocht heeft gehadt.” 5 October 1528. CD, 5: doc. 735. 49 “. . . te porren, bynnen zonneschyne, vuter stadt ende vryheyt, ende, bynnen den derden dage, vuyten mergraefscape van Antwerpen, ende buyten der selver vryheyt ende mercgreefscape moeten bliven continuelycken, sonder weder inne te comene, den tyt van eenen jare lanck geduerende, op zyn vorste leth.” Ibid.

73

c. Conventicles

The early 1520s saw the creation, discovery, and trial of several conventicles in

Brabant as elsewhere. Again, Antwerp appears to have been a center of clandestine

activity, although the conventicles drew their members from networks of reform-minded

individuals in cities throughout the region. Conventicles were also uncovered in the

northern territories, particularly Amsterdam, at this time. Later in the decade, it became

apparent that there were close inter-city ties between members of these groups.50

Typically, conventicle members came together to secretly read the Bible, discuss

Reformation ideas, and to exchange prohibited writings. Some organized lessons and instruction in reformatory doctrine, while others formed small house churches where the

Gospels were read and sermons were preached.51

In March 1524, the high court of Antwerp released the names of 38 men and women, demanding that they appear to answer charges that they were members of an heretical conventicle in the city. More specifically, the council alleged that they had held secret meetings in a house on the Eyckstraet, where they had purportedly “given lessons and interpreted the and other holy writings, all against the mandates of his

Imperial Majesty.”52 Surprisingly, despite the fact that their alleged crimes bore harsh

penalties under the emperor’s edicts, the city council promised willing confessants

enormous leniency. Were they to admit their involvement voluntarily, the councilmen

50 Alastair Duke has noted the existence of conventicles in Amsterdam in 1523. See idem, “Building Heaven,” 61. For connections between the members of conventicles in various cities, see below, Chapter Three. 51 See below, Chapter Three, on the circle of Claes vander Elst. 52 “. . . daermen lesse gedaen ende gheinterpreteert heeft de heylighe Eeuwangelien ende andere heylige scriften, contrarie den gheboden vander Keyserlicke Majesteit.” 5 March 1524. Record published in AA, 7: 129-33, here at 129-30.

74

promised that they would extend the utmost grace (gracie) and mercy (genade), provided that they ceased their clandestine activities. If on the other hand, they refused to appear to answer the charges and were later found to have belonged to the group, they would face any punishment the court deemed appropriate to their crime.53

True to their word, the councilors extended complete clemency to all 38 people

who confessed their crime during the course of the month. In each case, a note follows

the defendant’s name, declaring that he or she “obtinuit veniam.” The one exception was

Adriaen de Schildere, who failed to appear to answer the charges. The magistrates

imposed upon Adriaen (albeit in absentia) the punishment of a pilgrimage and banishment from the city and margraviate for six years.54

Again, this case is illustrative of the Antwerp magistracy’s desire and ability to

avoid the harsher penalties legislated by the emperor’s decrees while maintaining an

appearance (to satisfy the emperor as well as deter aspiring law-breakers) of vigilance in

their fight against heterodox behavior. But, just as the emperor forced the Antwerp

magistracy to impose somewhat harsher penalties on those charged with book crimes in

the latter half of the 1520s, so 1525 was a turning point in their treatment of

conventiclers. In that year, another conventicle was discovered, centered this time

around the person of Gielis, the former preacher of Melsen. Gielis was charged with

participating in this conventicle along with Sebastiaen Noutsenus and Lieven and

Liesbeth Zomere (man and wife).55 In November 1525, Lieven and his wife were both

53 Ibid., 130. 54 Ibid., 131-32. 55 Lieven Zomere was a baker from Ghent who had been found in possession of Lutheran books in that city already in 1522. The authorities in Ghent took his case seriously, interviewing several of his friends and

75 banned for ten years for attending a gathering at the home of Noutsenus, at which Gielis had led a discussion. The trials pertaining to this conventicle revealed that Gielis, known to be “infected with the Lutheran heresy,” had organized regular conventicle meetings and even given lessons, instructing other members of the group in Lutheran doctrine. All those tried in connection with this conventicle were sentenced to banishment for periods ranging from ten years to eternity,56 an indication that the magistrate was beginning to

take a more severe stance against underground Lutheran networks.

The writings of Martin Luther first appeared in the Low Countries in early 1519

and were immediately popular among a broad range of the population. Nevertheless, despite the rapid spread of Luther’s works, it is somewhat artificial to see 1519 as a watershed moment in the religious history of the territory. The fact that Reformation ideas resonated so deeply with the inhabitants of the Low Countries resulted in large part from the strength of religious dissent prior to their arrival. Already at the end of the acquaintances in an attempt to gain as much condemnatory information as possible. During the course of their investigation, witnesses testified that Zomere boldly claimed to possess at least 19 Lutheran books, and that he had declared that he “would rather go to the fire than be forced to renounce his Lutheranism,” and that he “would rather be a Turk than be forced to give up his Lutheranism.” (“. . . hy er noch xix boucxkins hadde vanden voornoemden Luuter, maer zoude lievere int vier gaen dan Luuter af gaen . . . hi ooc liever Turck wesen zoude dan Luuter af gaen.” Account of the trial of Lieven Zomere, 10 April 1522. CD, 4: doc. 75.) They also interviewed Jan Herrentals, a monk, who testified that Zomere had passed an insulting note to him during a sermon he preached one day. At the end of the sermon, Zomere followed him to his convent, and yelled, “You pope! You fraud! What has the world come to that you, a pious teacher, want to rewrite godly doctrine, proclaiming your false teaching to the people?” (“Ghy pape, ghy cappenot, waer hebdy ter freten gheleghen, dat ghy zulc eenen goddelicken leeraer, doctryne, goddelycke leerighe wilt te nieuwten bringhen met uwer valscher leeringhe, die ghy den volcke te kennen gheeft?” Ibid.) Zomere refused to grant any peace to this monk, following him on several occasions and hurling various physical objects in addition to his verbal assaults. Yet, despite his erratic behavior, open profession of Lutheran beliefs, and book possession, Zomere’s sentence was apparently light, as evinced by the fact that he reappears in court records on several occasions in the following years for new crimes. After his conviction in Ghent, Zomere relocated to Antwerp, where he and his wife appeared before the city magistrate in 1525, accused of participating in this Lutheran conventicle. See AA, 7: 143-44). 56 Documents pertaining to this case are to be found in AA, 7: 143-44.

76 fifteenth century, an intensification in lay piety, coupled with the influence of humanism and sacramentarianism paved the way for the acceptance of Reformation thought when it arrived in 1519.

III. DISSENT IN THE CITIES

In each of the major Brabantine cities, Brussels, Leuven, and Antwerp, the early

Reformation manifested itself in slightly varied ways. For early adherents of the movement, the situation in each of these urban centers was somewhat different, a fact that influenced the shape and success of early dissent. A cursory review of the Reformation movement in these cities will demonstrate the importance of networks of dissent during the early Reformation in Brabant.

a. Brussels

Brussels, like the rest of Brabant, was home to a high level of pre-Reformation discontent with the Roman Church. Between 1500 and 1518, many arrests were made for heresy, most of which involved some form of sacramentarianism.57 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the teachings of the Reformers resonated with the inhabitants of this city.58

57 Four people were executed for the crime in Brussels during this period. Verheyden, De Hervorming, 53. 58 A limiting factor to any assessment of the extent of Protestant thought in sixteenth-century Brussels is the fact that the archive containing most information pertinent to this search suffered almost complete destruction when it was burned during war with the French in 1695. Sources from other archives enable the assessment that here follows. Such an investigation is further complicated by the fact that many religious malcontents were not in fact Protestants, but critics who wished to voice their concerns, but remain within the Roman church. It was not until the mid-thirties that the adherents of the new theology began to organize themselves into

77

Already in 1520, Margaret of Austria sent Remacle d’Ardenne, a member of her

Privy Council, to Brussels to investigate rumors of Lutheranism in the city.59 Although

early Reformation thought clearly gained some adherents in Brussels, there were only 21

executions for heresy between 1520 and 1550, just two of which took place in the

1520s.60

Those who were tried for crimes of belief in Brussels tended to come from the

higher social strata of the city. Tapestry weavers, goldsmiths, and artists in particular

were disproportionately well-represented. These professionals had extensive ties to

fellow artists in other Brabantine cities, networks that become apparent when we consider

where Brussels artists fled when prosecuted. Several tapestry weavers fled to Leiden in

the northern Low Countries, where they were charged with heresy again ten years later.

Likewise, Joris van der Beke, a tapestry weaver who relocated to Antwerp, was

prosecuted there by the Council of Brabant in 1543.61 In Chapter Three we shall consider

the trial of one such group of Brussels artists, arrested for their participation in a

conventicle in that city in 1527. Although the vast majority of those involved in this trial

were citizens and residents of Brussels, they clearly had extensive ties with reformers in

other cities of Brabant and Holland.62

coherent units, beginning with segregationist groups of Anabaptists. In general, however, there was no overt exodus from the organized church, and many who secretly adhered to the teachings of the Reformers chose to remain within the arms of Catholicism well into the sixteenth century, a significant proportion of them abandoning Protestantism during the reign of Philip II. See Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation. 59 Account of Remacle d’Ardenne, October 1520. CD, 4: doc. 33. 60 See chart in A. L. E. Verheyden, Le Martyrologe Courtraisien et Le Martyrologe Bruxellois (Vilvorde: R. Allecourt, 1950), 46. 61 These accounts are mentioned in Johan Decavele, “De Opkomst van het Protestantisme te Brussel,” in Noordgouw, Cultureel tijdschrift van de Provincie Antwerpen 19-20 (1979-83), 25-44, here at 35. 62 See below, Chapter Three.

78

Although Protestant ideas appealed primarily to an artistic elite, the lesser

burghers were not untouched by the dissemination of Reformation thought. On several

occasions, arrests of suspected heretics led to riots in the streets of Brussels. In January

1544, two men, Gillis Tieleman and Joost Insberch, were executed in Brussels for heresy.

The event caused such commotion and strong opposition among the crowd of onlookers

that the shooting guild had to be called in to calm the disturbance.63

Such examples suggest that Reformation teachings took some hold among the

population. However, many of the trials that took place in Brussels did so under the

auspices of the Council of Brabant rather than the local city officials. When the council

secured transfer of a heresy case to its jurisdiction it inevitably moved the proceeding to

Brussels. Although a relatively large number of trials took place in the city, the suspects

often originated elsewhere in Brabant. Of those executed in Brussels, only 10% were

residents of the city itself, the rest were brought in just for trial or sentencing.64 In terms of religious prosecutions, then, Brussels played a minor role in the early century, especially in comparison to its Brabantine neighbors, Leuven and Antwerp. Yet the small number of trials does not necessarily suggest a scarcity of reforming voices in the city. It simply indicates that the repressive measures taken by the authorities (local, but also central) were successful in keeping Protestant residents of Brussels underground or causing them to flee to other cities where they could practice their beliefs with greater ease.65

63 Wesembeke, Beschryvinghe, 14-15. 64 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 26-27. This figure includes the entire period of the sixteenth century. For the early Reformation period, the percentage of indigenous Brussels residents is probably even lower. 65 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 27.

79

b. Leuven

Home to the faculty of theology of the Catholic University, Leuven was a difficult city in which to be a religious dissenter. Having condemned Luther’s works in 1519, the

Leuven theologians fought consistently to banish Reformation thought to blossom in their town. At the same time, Leuven was home to a wealth of educated thinkers, many of them Latinate, with easy access (licitly or otherwise) to the early writings of the

Reformers. During the first half of the sixteenth century, between 80 and 90 people were prosecuted for crimes of heresy in Leuven.66 Notable in these trials is the fact that the suspects were usually arrested in large groups rather than individually, as was the case in

Brussels and elsewhere. One such prosecution took place in 1534, when 15 people were tried as Lutherans. Again in 1542, the authorities arrested 28 burghers on charges of heresy.67 Each group of arrests terrified the residents of Leuven and caused them either to cease their unlawful gatherings or to conduct themselves with greater discretion.

Two features of the groups prosecuted in 1534 and 1542 stand out. First, in both cases, the individual members had extensive ties with heterodox thinkers elsewhere in

Brabant. Several members of the 1534 circle had been involved in an Antwerp conventicle led by Claes vander Elst, of which we shall hear more in Chapter Three.68

66 Duke, “Building Heaven,” 65. 67 The account of these arrests, which were made during the night by the Attorney General of the Council of Brabant and his officials, who broke down doors of houses and took whole families from their beds is emotionally recalled by Francisco de Enzinas in his Bericht over de Toestand in de Nederlanden en de Godsdienst bij de Spanjaarden, Ton Osinga and Chris Heesakkers, trans., Amsterdamse Historische Reeks 28 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2002), 38-40. 68 Among those arrested Jeronimus Hiuweel, Pieter van den Bossche, and his wife had all been implicated in the vander Elst circle. See below, Chapter Three.

80

The trial of 1542 (thoroughly documented by Francisco de Enzinas, a Spanish humanist

arrested the following year, who shared a jail cell with several of the 1542 arrestees), is

likewise characterized by an extensive network of reform-minded individuals both within

Leuven and in Brussels. The second remarkable feature of these groups is closely tied to

the first: they were composed almost entirely of educated, prominent burghers, who

maintained such intercity connections via family ties and professional relationships. Nor

were the members of these two groups the only heresy suspects with elevated social

positions. Of the 80 or so arrests made for heresy between 1530 and 1550, information

concerning their social standing is extant in about 65 cases. None could be considered

poor, despite the fact that poverty was widespread in Leuven during this period.69 Over half of the arrestees were either associated with the university (as students or former students) or were high-level burghers, as indicated by the nature of their jobs, families, or commercial and political functions. The other half were priests, civil servants, tradesmen, and guild masters. Only one alleged Protestant could be considered financially disadvantaged, and he seems to have been a former monk.70 All of this

information suggests that early Protestantism in Leuven was limited to the more

educated, intellectual levels of society. The uneducated and poor, although well

represented in the general population, seem to have taken little interest in the new

religious teachings.

69 For more on the social position of those arrested for heresy in Leuven, see Raymond van Uytven, “Invloeden van het sociale en professionele milieu op de godsdienstkeuze: Leuven en Edingen,” Bronnen voor de religieuze geschiedenis van België, Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijden, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 47 (Louvain: Bureaux de la R. H. E. Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1968), 259-79, here at 260. This point is also noted by Duke, “Building Heaven,” 65. 70 For details on all of this see van Uytven, “Invloeden,” 261-62.

81

c. Antwerp

Antwerp’s significance in the early sixteenth century was primarily a function of its vibrant mercantile community. Following the collapse of the trade city of Bruges in the late fifteenth century, Antwerp grew to become the principal European hub for the trade of spices (primarily from Portugal), German precious metals (notably copper and silver), and English cloth.71 Thousands of merchants and artisans immigrated to the city, some on a temporary basis, others permanently.72 As its commercial importance grew,

Antwerp became one of the most populous cities in Europe, with almost 100,000 inhabitants by mid-century.73

Antwerp was also an important publishing center in the sixteenth century. Not only did the printing industry bring great wealth to the city, but it facilitated the publication of scores of heterodox works, which were then transported via the trade routes throughout Europe and beyond. But there was also an indigenous audience for these works. The Low Countries were among the most literate territories in Europe

71 Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation, 3. 72 An Kint notes that the height of Antwerp’s immigration came between 1526 and 1542, with more than 2,000 new residents arriving each year. See Community of Commerce, 33-48. 73 These figures appear in Ibid., 24-26. She posits that Antwerp’s population grew from 55,000 in 1526 to 84,000 in 1542. It reached its peak of 105,000 in 1568, in comparison to Paris, which housed 130,000, and London, which had just 80,000 inhabitants at mid-century. Historians differ in their interpretations of the effects of the city’s rapid urban growth. Herman van der Wee attributes to it the creation of a middle class, as those at the edges of society grasped economic opportunities afforded them by the burgeoning markets. Hugo Soly, on the other hand, views the economic growth in a more negative light, insisting that it led to an economic and social polarization in the city. There is no doubt that this was a period of privation for many in Europe, as grain prices rose, doubling in Antwerp in the period under consideration. Yet the city did not witness grain riots of the sort experienced in other Brabantine centers such as Brussels and ’s-Hertogenbosch in the 1520s and 1530s. For more information, see Herman van der Wee, The Growth of the Antwerp Market and the European (fourteenth-sixteenth centuries), 3 vols. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1963); Hugo Soly, “De dominantie van het handelskapitalisme: stad en platteland,” in Els Witte, ed., Geschiedenis van Vlaanderen van oorsprong tot heden (Brussels: Historische Getuigen, 1983); and Kint, Community of Commerce, 26, 77-116.

82

during this period, and Antwerp in particular possessed a well-educated population.

Between 1529 and 1600, the schoolmaster’s guild registered 372 new teachers, many of

whom came from outside the city. Almost half of this number were women. Nor was

education the preserve of the elite. Poorer citizens were able to educate their children,

even the girls.74 The schools constituted one of the means by which Reformation ideas

crept into Antwerp. Ordinances issued in the city in 1526, 1545, 1546, and 1550

condemned heterodox teaching by suspect educators, several of whom were prosecuted

for this crime.75

Due to the size of the parishes in the city, religious affiliations in Antwerp were

rather weak, a fact that further aided the spread of the Reformation. Until 1477, Antwerp

was organized as a single large parish, centered around the Church of Our Lady.

Thereafter, the city was divided into five separate parishes, but even then, each one accounted for more than 10,000 souls. In comparison to London, which possessed over one hundred parishes, each caring for just over 1,000 souls, and the cities of Brussels,

Ghent, and Mechelen, which each contained an average of 5,000 souls per parish,

Antwerp’s parishes were so large as to render the effective care of souls difficult if not impossible.76 In addition, the city lay within the diocese of , whose , when

74 See Kint, Community of Commerce, 75-76 and Henry L. V. de Groote, “De Zestiende-Eeuwse Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” in Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis in zonderheid van het oud Hertogdom Brabant, 3rd edition, 50 (1967), 179-318. 75 See below, Chapter Seven. Many of these teachers had themselves been educated by heterodox humanist masters, and Charles’s governors vigilantly attempted to cleanse the Antwerp schools of their influence. As new schools sprung up within the city, the central government struggled to maintain some oversight of their orthodoxy, legislating for example, that only the canons of the Church of Our Lady (Onze Lieve Vrouw Kerk) were allowed to instruct students in Latin. De Groote, “Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” 182-84. 76 This argument is made by An Kint, Community of Commerce, 149-52. For a more general treatment of clerical organization in Antwerp, see Jos van den Nieuwenhuizen, “De parochiale organisatie van

83

not absent from the diocese entirely, resided in the city of Cambrai, over 100 miles

southeast of Antwerp. He therefore exercised little authority in the city, leaving most

tasks to be performed by the canons of the Church of Our Lady. Although the canons

themselves were learned, they too were frequently absent, so that their preaching and

sacramental duties devolved upon poorly-educated vicars and priests.77 The result was a

lack of cohesion on the parish level. Local parishes did not organize community events,

such as games or meals. Nor, in city-wide events such as processions, did the city’s

inhabitants identify themselves on the basis of their parish affiliations.78 It comes as no

surprise that the ideas of the Reformers were able to gain ground in a city that possessed

such loose ecclesiastical affiliations and a largely ignorant or absent clergy ill-equipped

to contest them.

Much of Antwerp’s early reforming impetus can be specifically attributed to the

work of the Augustinian in the city. Several friars in this monastery, located in

the heart of Antwerp, had known Luther personally. The prior, Jacobus Praepositus, had

been a student of the Reformer in Wittenberg,79 where he received his bachelor’s degree

in theology.80 As early as 1519, Praepositus began spreading Lutheran thought both in

the monastery and in the city.81 One chronicler of the period noted that the Augustinians

in Praepositus’s cloister, “were convinced by the writings of Martin Luther, and took it

Antwerpen tijdens de Middeleeuwen,” in Pascua Medievalia. Studies voor Prof. Dr. J. M. de Smet, (Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven, 1983), 15-27. 77 Marnef, Antwerp in the Age of Reformation, 48-50. 78 Kint, Community of Commerce, 152. 79 Andriessen, “Het Geestelijke en Godsdienstige Klimaat,” 208. 80 E. M. Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles: des origines a la mort de Léopold I (Brussels: Bibliotheque Royale Albert I, 1980), 2. 81 Verheyden, De Hervorming, 27.

84

upon themselves to scrutinize several articles of the Roman church, in which they

considered the church to be acting incorrectly, notably those regarding .”82

So fierce was their preaching against the established church that they struggled to maintain control over the congregations, who received their message with great excitement.83

Charles’s central authorities censured Praepositus for his Lutheran preaching, then

arrested him in 1521. After a short detention, he abjured his errors on 9 February 1522,

in a formal in the church of St. Gudule in Brussels.84 He was sent thereafter

to a cloister in Ypres but, continuing to preach Lutheran doctrine, was rearrested, only to

escape in August of the same year.85 But the exit of Praepositus did not signal the end of

Lutheranism at the cloister in Antwerp. So entrenched was Lutheran thought in that

community that the new prior, Hendrick van Zutphen, continued where his predecessor

had left off.

The ongoing Protestant ferment in the monastery did not escape the notice of the

central authorities. In October 1522, Margaret of Austria sent a commission to Antwerp

to assess the situation. Public support for the friars ran so high, however, that the city

magistrate was forced to issue an ordinance demanding

82 “. . . veel gheestelijke ende principlijcken augustijn-monicken door de boecken ende schriften van Martijn Luther beweeght gheweest om te ondersoecken verscheyden articulen, daer sy dochten de Roomsche kercke in gheabuseert was, principelijck int stuck van de aflaten.” Van Meteren, Nederlandsche Historie (1608), fol. 10v, cited in CD, 4: doc. 36. 83 “[Zij] preeckten seer daer teghen met soo grooten toeloop des volckes, dat de kercke (nu S. Andries prochie-kerke) de menichte niet houden conde, soo dat sy moesten gaelderyen om hooghe maken om het volck op te staen en te sitten.” Ibid. 84 For a transcription of his recantation, see CD, 4: doc. 65. 85 See CD, 4: doc. 96. Praepositus fled from Ypres to Wittenberg. From there he received a pastorate in , where he served as a Protestant minister for 38 years, until his death in 1562. On his life, see Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles, 3.

85

that no one, be he man, woman, or child, is to cause any obstruction in words or deeds to the lord commissioners who have been sent by our lord the emperor in order to investigate the Augustinians in this city, to determine if they are infected with any heresy.86

The townsfolk apparently heeded the orders of their municipal leaders, and the

commission conducted its investigation into the Augustinians. Finding them indeed

infected with Lutheranism, the officials arrested and imprisoned them at , just

outside Brussels, to await trial.87

This inflamed the ire of the Antwerp burghers. The new prior of the convent,

Hendrick van Zutphen, was not taken to Vilvoorde with the other friars but was placed under house arrest in the convent of St. Michael in Antwerp. At the end of September, a group of some 300 burghers, mostly women, rioted outside the cloister, demanding his release. Although several officers of the law were inside the cloister at the time, the

women caused such a commotion that Zutphen managed to escape. One contemporary

chronicler recounted the events in this way:

On St. Michael’s day, a great disturbance occurred in Antwerp at the hands of certain wicked women, concerning an Augustinian preacher who had been detained, and placed under house arrest by the margrave in the cloister of St. Michael. In his room there, the women caused an enormous commotion, about three hundred of them, such that they damaged his room, dragged him out, and took him back to his old cloister. From there, he fled the next day to Martin Luther [in Wittenberg].88

86 “. . . day nyemant, wie dat hy es, man, vrouwe, oft kinderen, gheenen oploop en doen, in woorden noch in wercken, den heeren commissarissen, die van onses [sic] geneedichs heeren sKeysers wegen alhier comen selen omme te examinieren de religieuse Augustynen, die noch alhier syn, oft sy besmet syn met enige ketteryen.” SAA, Gebodboeck, vol. A, fol. 103v. Transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 105. 87 The friars were released after formerly recanting in the church of Our Lady in Antwerp. See Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles, 3. 88 “. . . op Sinte Machielsdach, doen was t’Antwerpen een groot rumoer van quade Wyffs der causen van eenen Augusteynschen Predicant, die in de munte quam, ende die Marckgrave leyden hem gevangen in Sinte Michiels Clooster, in een camer; hier door rees een groot rumoer, soo dat er wel drie hondert Vrouwen quamen, ende deden op die camer groot gewelt, soo dat sy hem vuyt cregen, ende leyden hem in syn Clooster, des anderen daechs ginck hy oock naer Martinus Luyter toe.” F. G. Ullens, Antwerpsch

86

Margaret of Austria was greatly distressed by the events at the cloister and insisted that the people of Antwerp be taught a lesson.89 Although the city authorities did not act swiftly enough to prevent Zutphen from escaping to Saxony, they did arrest

several of the women to appease their regent. However, in the weeks following, the

councilors released all of them, except Margriete Boonams, who they sent on a

pilgrimage to Cyprus and banished perpetually from the city.90 Still incensed by the actions of the Antwerp mob, Margaret sought to make an example of the Augustinian cloister. She traveled personally to Antwerp, witnessed a eucharistic procession from the cloister, and then ordered the monastery completely destroyed.91 The building was razed in January 1523.92

Following the demolition of their monastery, the friars who had been removed to

Brussels were released, with the notable exception of Henricus Voes, Johannes vanden

Esschen, and Lambrecht Thorn. Having been found guilty of heresy, Voes and Esschen were sentenced to death by fire. Convicted on the same charges, Thorn requested extra time to contemplate his crimes and rethink his position theologically. The central

Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574, Pieter vander Eyk, ed. (Leiden: n.p., 1743), 19. See also the letter of Hendrick van Zutphen himself to his Augustinian brothers in Wittenberg, in which he relates the details of the above events, and tells of the anger of “the Godless Jezebel, Margaret.” CD, 4: doc. 110. Zutphen himself remained in Germany for the next two years. In September 1524 he traveled to Holstein to preach a sermon, was seized by a group of peasants, who turned him in to the authorities. He was subsequently tried and executed in December 1524. On this see Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles, 4. 89 “Ende doe wert mevrauwe Margriete seere verstoort ende wilde hier over iusticie ghedaen hebben, so dat die sommeghe die stadt rumen moesten; ende daer wierden iii oft iiii vrauwen ghevangen, die corts daer naer los ende vry wt quamen.” Die excellente cronike van Vlaenderen, suppliment, fol. 13, transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 97. 90 For details of her sentence see CD, 4: doc. 104. 91 “. . . facta splendida supplicatione, eucharistiae sacramentum processione ex augustiniano monasterio relatum in aliud, templum totum dirui iussit.” Letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johannes A. Brassicanus, in CD, 4: doc. 109. 92 For the financial accounting of the monastery’s destruction see CD, 4: doc. 121.

87 authorities granted his request and transferred him to a prison in Vilvoorde, where he remained until his death in 1528.93

Meanwhile, his two Augustinian brothers were not so fortunate. Voes and

Esschen, both originally from ’s-Hertogenbosch, were publicly burned in Brussels on

Saturday, 1 July 1523, becoming the first officially “Protestant” martyrs of the

Reformation.94 Their deaths caused outrage among reform sympathizers throughout

Europe. Erasmus and Luther both referred to the scandal of these executions in their correspondence, and Luther wrote an open letter to the Christians in the Low Countries

(Eyn brieff an die Christen ym Nidderland) expressing his horror at their executions.

You have been given the task of showing the entire world that the Gospel is not only to be heard and understood, but also that you are the first to suffer shame, damage, fear, distress, prison, and danger for the sake of Christ. And you are so strengthened and full of fruits that you have been showered and enriched with blood of your own. For among you the two noble ones of Christ, Hendrick and Jan, have despised their lives, so that Christ and his word might be praised. Oh how contemptuously were these two souls executed!95

The execution of the two Augustinians was proof, for Luther, that God had blessed their brethren in the Low Countries, as the first examples of martyrs for the message of the

93 Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles, 4-7. 94 The Antwerp Chronykje explains their deaths in the following way: “. . . twee van dien Breurs genoempt, Hendrick ende Jan, twee Gebroeders van t’ Sertoghenbossche, die werden te Brussel gevoert, om dat se die articulen niet afgaen en wouden, soo werdden sy ontweyt, ende aldaer verbrandt, t’ Saterdaechs op onser Liever Vrouwen visitatie avont, in Julio.” Antwerpsch Chronykje, 19. For comments on how their martyrdom was received and lauded, see Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe, Harvard Historical Studies 134 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 139-50. 95 “Denn euch ists fur al- / ler wellt geben, das Evangeli nicht alleyne zu / hören und Christum zurkennen, sondern auch / die ersten su seyn, die umb Christus willen itzt / schand und schaden, angst und nott, gefengnis / und ferlikeyt leyden, und nu so voller frücht / und sterck worden, das yhrs auch mit eygenem / blutt begossen und bekrefftigt habt, da bey / euch die zwey edle kleynod Christi, Hinricus / und Johannes zu Brussel yhr leben geringe ge- / acht haben, auff das Christus mit seinem wortt / gepreyset wurde. O wie verachtlich sint die / zwo seelen hyngericht.” Martin Luther, Eyn brieff an die Christen ym Niderland, 1523. A pamphlet copy of this letter is contained in the Konincklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, Knuttel, 22b, 5 fols., here at fol. 3. The letter is transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 158, and WA, 12: 77-80.

88

Gospel. Nevertheless, although God might allow some good to come from their deaths,

Charles and the executing authorities acted “contemptuously” in performing such an

act.96

Nor was the outrage caused by these executions limited to intellectuals. Several witnesses to the executions were moved to support the cause of the friars against what they perceived to be the overly zealous, intolerant authorities. Many immediately lauded

Voes and Esschen as martyrs.97 Contemporaries wrote that the executions had the

opposite effect to that for which Margaret had hoped. The destruction of the Augustinian

cloister and the cessation of Protestant preaching along with it, caused local Lutheran

sympathizers to meet secretly, organizing themselves into a nascent underground

counter-church.

The residents of Antwerp were frustrated that they could no longer hear the teaching that they considered to be the true word of God in the churches and cloisters. Instead, they gathered within, outside, and around the city, in woods and fields, and even in the ships, in order to hear the word preached there. They even continued to do so when several of their teachers were captured, drowned and executed.98

The third imprisoned Augustinian, Lambrecht Thorn, was also the focus of much

dissident attention. Having “rethought” his position, the authorities in Brussels

eventually sentenced him to perpetual imprisonment on bread and water. However, he

96 Luther also composed a chorale in memory of Voes and Esschen, entitled Ein neu Lied von den zweyen Märterern Christi, zu Brüssel von den Sophisten zu Löwen verbrant. Transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 160. WA, 35: 411-15, 487-88. 97 Among the number of admirers of the two Augustinian martyrs were Hendrick Tsas and Jan der Kinderen. As we shall see in Chapter Three, the execution of the two Lutherans kindled their own Reformation sympathies and spurred them to attend secret conventicles of like-minded folk. 98 “Dan ghelycken de inwoonders van Antwerpen, ontstelt synde om dat haer niet gheoorloft was inde kercken ende cloosters te hooren die leere die sy meynden ghelyckmatich te wesen den woorde Gods, hebben haer vergadert binnen, buiten, ende ontrent de stadt, in bosschen ende velden, iae inde schepen, om aldaer soodanighe leere te hooren, ende niet teghenstaende dat eenighe vande leeraers inde schepen of elders achterhaelt, verdroncken, ghexecuteert ende veriaecht werden.” Wesembeke, Beschryvinghe, 11.

89

was allowed to receive visitors, and a circle of supporters visited him regularly, even

bringing him Lutheran books to read, and discussing theology with him.99

Meanwhile, attempting to contain the indignation in Antwerp, Margaret legislated

that sermons were to be preached only in the parish churches, not in the city’s cloisters or

elsewhere.100 This legislation met with little success, however, as is evinced by examples

such as that of Gielis of Melsen, who, as we have seen, led conventicles in the city and

came to Antwerp frequently to preach openly.101 When, in July 1525, Gielis failed to appear to preach to a large crowd that had gathered to hear him, an Augustinian named

Nicholas preached in his stead. He was quickly apprehended by city officials and led away in chains. The municipal officials subsequently found Nicholas guilty of transgressing the edicts regarding preaching and sentenced him to death.102 During his

examination, however, a large crowd of townspeople gathered outside the city prison “to

resist what was about to happen.”103 Unwilling to provoke the kind of uproar that had

greeted the executions of Voes and Esschen, the city officials of Antwerp secretly led

Nicholas to the nearby shipyard, where the executioner placed him in a sack and drowned

him in the River .104 Despite the best efforts of the authorities to dispose of the

matter quietly, unrest arose immediately after the execution. On 6 September 1525,

Michiel Bramaert was tried in the Antwerp court for blasphemy committed in response to

99 See below, Chapter Three. 100 Chronyckje van Antwerpen, 24. 101 In September of 1525, four Antwerp residents were tried for their involvement in a conventicle, led by this same Gielis. Bastiaen Noutsen, Jodocus Lamberti, Lieven Zomere, and his wife Lysbeth were all tried and banished in November of the same year for housing Gielis and attending secret gatherings led by him. For details of this case, see AA, 2: 318-19, and AA, 7: 143-44. 102 See Chronyckje van Antwerpen, 24-25, cited in CD, 4: doc. 342. 103 “om te resisteren die daer tegens hadden willen doen.” Ibid. 104 See the account of the episode, taken from Rabus, Historien der heyligen auszerwölten Gottes Zeugen, 6: 36-37, and transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 343, and Chronyckje van Antwerpen, 25.

90

the execution of Nicholas. Having verbally abused Mary and the (for which his

tongue was split), he went on to “. . . speak out with offensive and caustic words against

the sentence that was carried out here in the city against the apostate monk. His words

and conduct smacked of sedition and public nuisance.”105 For his offense, the city council banished Bramaert for ten years.106

Despite ordinances in which the city officials forbade their citizens from openly

criticizing judicial decisions in cases such as that of Nicholas, unrest continued,

manifesting itself in outbreaks of iconoclasm in the summer of 1525.107 Just six years

after the first appearance of Luther’s writings in the territory, Reformation thought had so gripped the population of Antwerp that the most strenuous efforts of the central and local authorities were powerless to stop it. Far from eradicating Protestant sentiment, the actions of these officials only incited reform-minded burghers to action or sent them underground into better-organized conventicles, as we shall see in the following chapter.

IV. CONCLUSION

In the late medieval period, the Low Countries was brimming with anticlerical sentiment and lay criticism of the organized church, predisposing it to elements of the

Reformation message when they arrived in the early sixteenth century. The intellectual and commercial infrastructure of cities such as Brussels, Leuven, and Antwerp enabled

105 “. . . sprekende oeck opte justicie, die alhier gedaen geweest hadde aenden apostaet ende monick, met meer andere leelijcken afdragende woerden, smakende seditie ende moyterie.” Ruling of the Antwerp magistrate, 6 September 1525. CD, 4: doc. 367. 106 An account of this case is also given in the Antwerpsch Chronykje, 26, although the author uses the name Michiel Smits in place of Bramaert. 107 CD, 4: doc. 360.

91 the rapid and broad dissemination of scores of heterodox texts during the first decades of the Reformation. Religious dissidents quickly organized themselves into clandestine groups, where they read translations of the Scriptures, instructed each other in

Reformation doctrines, and heard visiting dissidents preach. By the mid-1520s, a veritable underground counter-church had formed in the larger Brabantine cities, connecting them with networks of dissidents throughout the Low Countries, and providing an outlet for the reforming zeal that had revealed itself in popular protests in

Antwerp, Brussels, and elsewhere.

The government’s response to the diffusion of the Reformation in Brabant was mixed. Local officials were slow to react to the threat. The early 1520s, they conducted trials for heresy, most of which resulted in only minor penalties for the transgressors.

City councilors managed to avoid imposing many of the harsher penalties recommended by the central authorities, exercising severity in their punishments only when they perceived that the stability of their city was in danger. The central government, on the other hand, responded swiftly and with force. Immediately after Luther’s works appeared in the Low Countries, central authorities cooperated with papal officials to destroy them, and to punish those who distributed or possessed them. The conflicting attitudes of the local and central authorities resulted from the ambiguity of early imperial legislation on heresy, which led to jurisdictional confusion and tension between the local and central authorities. Such confusion is evident in the 1527 trial of the Claes vander Elst conventicle in Brussels.

92

CHAPTER THREE THE CLAES VANDER ELST CIRCLE

I. UNVEILING DISSENT IN BRUSSELS

In April 1527, Margaret of Austria ordered the arrest of a group of over sixty

Brussels residents for allegedly participating in a conventicle led by one-time priest,

Claes vander Elst. The investigation that followed was short but thorough. Officials

interrogated each suspect on multiple occasions (some as many as eight times1), recorded

their depositions, shared and verified their testimonies with other suspects, examined

witnesses, and imposed sentences. The breadth of the sources in this case makes it one of the most valuable of the period.

Testimonies from more than fifty deponents offer a window into early

Reformation belief among reform-minded laity in the cities, as well as insight into the books and debates that circulated among them. In addition, the details of the case demonstrate the importance of organized networks in the formation and perpetuation of early Protestant groups, as most members of this particular conventicle were related by family ties or professional connections. Many were master tapestry weavers and artists in Brussels, two even served as court appointees of Margaret of Austria.

Moreover, this case sheds light on the response of the general population to such large and public trials. Several sources comment on the reactions of the residents of

Brussels to the proceedings, outlining the steps taken to appease crowds that gathered to

1 The records of the trial can be found in ARA, Audientie, 1177/6, fols. 1-102 (Hereafter, folio numbers refer to this dossier, unless otherwise noted.) Fols. 94-97v contain lists detailing the number of depositions for each suspect.

93 voice their opposition. Finally, the case is valuable for the broader purposes of this study in that it illustrates the jurisdictional confusion inherent in the prosecution of religious crimes at this early stage in the formulation of Charles V’s anti-heresy program. As we shall see, Margaret of Austria took a commanding role in these proceedings, granting oversight of the trials to the Council of Brabant, to the exclusion of the local municipal authorities. Nicholas Coppin and Johannes Macquet likewise played important roles in their capacity as ecclesiastical inquisitors. Unlike later trials, these two authorities apparently shared jurisdiction in this case, from the earliest stages of the investigation to the final sentencing.2

2 This proceeding has not been wholly overlooked in recent scholarship. Johan Decavele dedicated an article to an overview of the trial, and includes some of its details in a second study, as part of an effort to examine the development of early Protestant movements in Brussels. Decavele, “De Opkomst van het Protestantisme te Brussel,” in Noordgouw, Cultureel tijdschrift van de Provincie Antwerpen, 19-20 (1979- 83), 25-44, and idem, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid in de Grote Nederlandse Steden: Claes van der Elst te Brussel, Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Leiden (1524-1528),” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 70 (1990), 13-29 respectively. In addition, Jozef Duverger has written a short article on the trial, particularly the involvement of the city’s artistic elite. Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel en het proces tegen een aantal kunstenaars (april-juni 1527), Wetenschappelijke tijdingen 36 (1977), 221- 28. Brief mention of the case has also been made by several art historians chronicling the lives of Brussels artists who were involved in this conventicler, in particular, . See Alexandre Pinchart, “Annotations,” in Les Anciens Peintres Flamands, Leur Vie et Leurs Oeuvres, J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle, eds., Complément du Tome II (Brussels: F. Heussner, 1865), 286-88; Jan-Karel Steppe, “‘De overgang van het mensdom van het oude verbond naar het nieuwe.’ Een Brussels wandtapijt uit de 16e eeuw ontstaan onder invloed van de Lutherse ikonografie en prentkunst.” De Gulden Passer 53 (1975), 326-59; N. Beets, “Een godsdienstige allegorie door Barent van Orley,” Oud-Holland 49 (1932), 129-37; and idem, “Een godsdienstige allegorie in Houtsnede,” Oud-Holland 49 (1932), 182-90. The series of documents that chronicles the case was apparently first discovered by Alexandre Pinchart in the mid-nineteenth century. Particularly concerned with the lives of Brussels artists, Pinchart shared the information with his contemporary Alphons Wauters, and the two men used the documents to compose an account of the life of Bernard van Orley. In 1910, the documents pertaining to the case were bundled together by archivists in Brussels. Shortly thereafter, however, the documents seem to have gone missing, only to reappear sporadically in the coming years. These difficulties in locating the series of documents could explain why they have been used so infrequently in recent scholarship on heresy prosecutions in Brabant. See notes of Pinchart and Wauters in CD, 5: doc. 612.

94

II. CLAES VANDER ELST

Born in Brussels in 1493, Claes vander Elst matriculated at the University of

Leuven, earning a degree in theology in the early 1520s. By then an Augustinian, he received a position as vice-curate in the St. Jacob’s church in Antwerp in 1524.3 Shortly after Easter 1524, when vander Elst had occupied this position for only a few months, the

Leuven inquisitor, Ruard Tapper, summoned the young priest to answer for certain heterodox proclamations he had made in sermons preached during Lent.4 Although the specific content of vander Elst’s alleged errors remains a mystery, Tapper convinced him to revoke his heterodoxies in front of the entire Leuven theological faculty.

Thus Tapper succeeded in his mission, so that the pastor [vander Elst] admitted his errors shortly after Easter, making certain promises to the entire theological faculty of Leuven (which was gathered to hear him.) He acknowledged and abjured his errors, assuring them that he would thereafter proclaim only the true Christian religion and would leave behind his Lutheran heresy.5

But Tapper’s apparent success was short-lived. Immediately upon his return to

Antwerp, vander Elst reverted to his former heretical ways. By July, reports of his relapse into Lutheran preaching had already made their way back to Leuven. The theology faculty responded quickly, explaining the charges against vander Elst to the other pastors of Antwerp and warning them to avoid similar errors.

3 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 14, and E. M. Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles: des origines à la mort de Léopold I (Brussels: Bibliotheque Royale Albert I, 1980), 8. 4 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 29. 5 “Sic autem Tapperus commissionem suam executus est, ut pastor agnoscens errores suos post Pascha tenderit Lovanium et coram tota facultate theologica eius causa congregata errores suos agnoverit et abjuraverit, et promiserit se deinceps christianam religionem propugnaturum ac haeresim Lutheranam expugnaturum.” Excerpt from Jean C. Diercxsens, Antwerpia Christo nascens et crescens, 7 vols. (Antwerp: J. H. Soest, 1773), 4: 10-13, transcribed in CD, 4: doc. 222.

95

Although it pains us, we must now admit that we have heard from good witnesses (whose testimony is beyond reproach) and are therefore persuaded, that Claes [vander Elst] has relapsed into more serious errors, which we now declare to you so that you may work against his destructive teachings as much as you are able, lest his errors envelop you also . . . . Because we cannot ignore such problems in questions of faith, we are sending to you our best and most esteemed officials.6

Later in the same month, the Leuven officials arrived in Antwerp and dismissed

vander Elst from his post.7 After his expulsion, vander Elst journeyed to Wittenberg,

aided by the Lutheran king, Christian II of Denmark.8 Willem van , a servant of

Christian II, brought vander Elst back to the Low Countries in 1526. Himself a partisan

of Luther, Zwolle had previously been arrested for heresy on the orders of Margaret of

Austria, and imprisoned in Vilvoorde. The personal intercession of Christian II secured

his release, but the experience did not quench his reforming zeal. Zwolle continued to

openly profess the Lutheran faith and surrounded himself with like-minded souls,

including vander Elst.9 On Maundy Thursday, three days before Easter in April 1526,

Zwolle brought his friend vander Elst to the home of the famous court painter, Bernard

van Orley, in Brussels. Orley had met Zwolle several years earlier, when the Danish

6 “Iam autem, proh dolor, plurium fide dignorum testimonio, quibus assensum negare non possumus, persuasum habemus [personam] antedicti Nicolai in graviora relapsum, quem vestris dominationibus insinuamus, ut pestiferi hominis dogmatibus (quantum in vobis est) obviam ire studeatis, ne illius errata vos involvant . . . . In materia fidei dissimulare non possumus, eaque de causa mittimus praesentem nostrum officiarium vestris dominationibus optime notum.” Letter from Leuven theological faculty to chapter of Our Lady in Antwerp, 5 July 1524. CD, 4: doc. 223. 7 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 15. 8 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 19. As we shall see, vander Elst clearly had some association with Christian of Denmark and his staff. Decavele’s assertions regarding his trip to Wittenberg, however, I have been unable to verify. 9 In his zeal, Zwolle eventually challenged the doctors of theology in Leuven to a disputation. But Zwolle’s answers to the eight questions they posed convinced them of his heresy. The Great Council of Mechelen condemned him on 25 September 1529, and had him burned on 20 October. For information on Willem van Zwolle, see Ferdinand van der Haeghen and Marie-Thérèse Lenger, Bibliotheca Belgica. Bibliographie générale des Pays-Bas V (1964; Brussels: Cultur et Civilisation, 1979), 908-09.

96 royal family commissioned him to paint their portraits, but he was unfamiliar with

Zwolle’s companion, who was disguised as a Spanish sailor, complete with hat and beard.10 Here, vander Elst would preach the first in a series of sermons to groups of between 20 and 75 listeners. It was the discovery of these clandestine gatherings that led to the arrest of 63 participants one year later.

III. VANDER ELST’S SECRET SERMONS

Following his initial meeting with Bernard van Orley, vander Elst preached nine sermons during Easter week of 1526. Orley hosted the first gathering on Maundy

Thursday, inviting his close circle of artistic acquaintances and family members. Over the course of the following four days, vander Elst preached at similar gatherings in houses around the , attracting increasingly large groups of participants.

Neither the attendees nor vander Elst himself left notes detailing the content of these sermons, so any information that can be gleaned concerning their substance must be drawn from the depositions of attendees, given one year later.

What the depositions do make clear is the time, location, and duration of the sermons. Each suspect was questioned as to which sermons he or she attended, where they occurred, and who else they remembered seeing there. Their testimonies reveal that the first two sermons took place in the home of Bernard van Orley, vander Elst preaching once in the morning and once in the evening. On the following day, Good Friday, vander

Elst preached two more sermons, in the morning at the home of Hubrecht Sternaer, a

10 See Response of Bernard van Orley, 4 May 1527. Fols. 81-83. See also Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 19, and Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 224.

97 former tapestry weaver turned traveling salesman, and at the house of Quinten “in den

Sak” in the evening. Vander Elst preached two or three sermons on Easter Saturday, all at the home of Jan der Kinderen, a lawyer in the court of Cameryke. Another two sermons were preached on Easter Sunday, this time at the house of Peeter de

Pannemaker, another famous tapestry weaver, who worked at the court of Margaret of

Austria. Finally, the ninth sermon took place again at the home of Hubrecht Sternaer on

Easter Monday, and was followed by a luncheon in the courtyard of Willem vander

Cammen, because Sternaer’s house could not accommodate the crowd that had gathered.11

The testimonies of 63 suspects are extant. Of those, 60 defendants specify the number of vander Elst’s sermons they attended. Thirty-eight people attended between one and five sermons, the remaining 22 between six and nine:

Number of sermons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Responses of deponents 10 7 8 12 1 6 6 4 6

The fact that the vast majority of attendees went to multiple sermons indicates the high level of interest vander Elst generated among this group. Over half of the participants attended four or more sermons, suggesting a genuine eagerness to hear vander Elst speak.

Despite the fact that there were large groups of people wandering the city in search of Claes vander Elst and his next preaching location, the authorities were slow to detect their illicit activities. Not until one year later, on 25 April 1527, did they learn of

11 This information is drawn from a broad selection of testimonies in the ARA, Audientie, 1177/6 file. For details of the relocation of the luncheon, see fol. 22.

98

the priest’s hectic preaching schedule in the city, when Grietken van den Bossche, a

servant of Peeter de Pannemaker (host of the Easter Sunday sermons) made a formal

complaint to the authorities in Brussels.12 She testified before two ecclesiastical officials

that her master, his wife, and several of their acquaintances met daily in a secret “school,”

where they discussed the new religious ideas. She claimed that this group questioned

several precepts of the Roman church, including fasting and the existence of purgatory

and hell. The officials passed this information to Nicholas Coppin, the of

Leuven, who initiated a full investigation.13 The information gathered by Coppin and his

fellow investigators reveals a great deal about those who participated in these secret

meetings in terms of their connections to each other, their adherence to particular

Reformation beliefs, and the tenets of faith proposed by vander Elst in the sermons he preached.

a. Conventicle Attendees

The investigators included occupational information on most members of the group. Almost half were women, most of whom were related by marriage or family ties to other participants. But the women were by no means passive members of the group.

Of the 23 or so women whose testimonies have survived, three were wives whose

husbands attended the gatherings at their instigation. Four others recruited friends and

12 Duverger notes that Grietken had recently been released from the service of Hendrick Tsas (another attendee of vander Elst’s sermons) and had found work with Pannemaker. The possible resentment caused by her dismissal by Tsas was not, however, investigated by the authorities as a motivation for turning her new master in. See Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 225. 13 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 31.

99

relatives to participate. Another eight women were married to fellow participants, but

attended a number of sermons greater than or equal to their spouses.14

Several attendees had professional or kinship ties to other participants, who may

have encouraged them to attend. The vast majority of those eventually apprehended were

associated in some way with the artistic elite of Brussels. They included the famous glass

painter Nicolas Rombouts; some of the most important master tapestry weavers of their

day, such as Christiaen der Moyen, Hendrick Tsas, Willem de Kempeneer, and Jan

Ghietels, as well as Peeter de Pannemaker, master tapestry weaver in the court of

Margaret of Austria; and Bernard van Orley, reputedly her favorite court artist.15 Orley’s

elevated status served him well. His fellow arrestees were imprisoned in the Brussels

jail, while he, well-known by those in the court, was permitted to remain under house

arrest in the home of the ecclesiastical notary.16

In addition to their artistic associations, the group was also tightly connected by bonds of kinship. At least four of them were related directly to vander Elst, and another went to hear him because they had been in school together years earlier.17 Several

participants were related to each other, including the Orley family, from which the father,

three brothers, and their respective wives were represented in the group. In addition,

14 For details on attendance information, see below, Appendix II, “Sermon Attendees, 1526.” 15 For details, see Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 20-22, who points out that vander Elst’s images of the Roman Church as the whore of Babylon and the seven-headed beast (both popular artistic representations of the day) would have resonated deeply with such an artistically-oriented audience. 16 Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 223. Until the documents of this trial were discovered, little was known of Orley. He descends from a line of patricians in Brussels, born to a father who was also a well-known artist. So important was Orley in his day that when Albrecht Dürer visited Brussels in the early 1520s, Bernard, as the court artist of the regent, hosted a lavish banquet in his honor. For what biographical information is known, see Pinchart, “Annotations,” 286-87. 17 Those related directly to him include Willem de Kempeneer (although his connection is obscure), fol. 10v; Margriete, wife of Peeter de Pannemaker (vander Elst was her nephew), fols. 9v-10; and Hendrick Tsas (cousin of vander Elst), fols. 4-5. Philips de Mol attended school with vander Elst, fol. 15.

100

there were two pairs of men related to each other as brothers-in-law,18 and one set of

sisters.19 Several participants encouraged their household servants to attend the meetings,

at least three of whom took their advice.20 Interestingly, none of the servants attended

more than four meetings, suggesting that they were either uncomfortable with the

gatherings (as Aerdt vander Brugge claimed to be) or simply uninterested in their

content.21

Among participants of both sexes, the depositions reveal a broad array of motivations for attending. Many simply followed the advice of friends or family members, but a few had followed vander Elst’s preaching career since his time in

Antwerp. Anna Reynhout, who attended four of the Easter sermons, admitted that she had heard vander Elst preach in Antwerp. His preaching impressed her, and she decided to hear him when he came to Brussels.22 Similarly, Hubrecht Sternaer, who hosted two

secret gatherings, admitted that he was initially attracted to vander Elst’s preaching after

hearing him in Antwerp. Sternaer asserted that he had heard vander Elst at least five or six times during his short tenure in Antwerp.23 It seems that vander Elst’s reputation preceded him in Brussels and that he had a sizeable underground following already upon his arrival in the city.

18 These were Willem de Clerck and Willem de Kempeneer (fol. 13), and Willem vander Cammen and Hendrick Sternaer (fols. 20v-22). 19 Betteken de Latersse and Anna vander Cammen, fols. 39-40. 20 Namely Jan Bacx, servant of Peeter de Pannemaker (fol. 14v); Aerdeken vander Brugge, servant of Bernard van Orley (fol. 10v); and Joos, servant of Jan Ghietels (fols. 70-70v). 21 Although three servants is too small a number from which to draw sweeping conclusions, such a general pattern does fall into line with that noted by Raymond van Uytven (for Leuven) and A. L. E. Verheyden (for Brussels) in terms of the socio-economic status of early adherents of Reformation thought. See above, Chapter Two. 22 Fol. 20. 23 Fols. 21-22v.

101

Unusual but telling was the reason given by Christiaen de Zomer for his attendance at one of the Easter Monday sermons. He admitted to the ecclesiastical officials that he had been present at the sermon, but he protested that he had been out drinking with his wife and, out of sheer curiosity the two of them simply followed a large crowd of people:

. . . He noticed that many people were going into a certain house, and so he went in also, hoping to find out what was going on in there. And he followed the crowd, which led him into a room containing about 40 or 50 people, and more were still arriving. Then a man with a beard entered the room and started to read from a book and to preach (although he doesn’t remember the content of what he said), and he led his wife out of there, both of them wishing that they had never come.24

When he realized that the crowd was headed to hear a sermon, de Zomer was gravely disappointed and wished he had simply gone home. De Zomer’s testimony is particularly revealing in that it creates a tangible image of the interest created by vander Elst’s preaching program. Not only were these covert gatherings large, they were apparently visible on the streets of Brussels. The participants were clearly not overly anxious to cover their illegal tracks either from the law, or from inebriated passers-by.

Nor were de Zomer and his wife the only people who attended just one sermon.

Three other arrestees reported negative experiences at the sermons, upon the basis of which they decided never to return. One, Aerdt vander Brugge, a servant in the Orley household, attended both Thursday sermons (which took place in his residence), but

24 “. . . sach hij int voerβ huys / vele persoonen gaen ende soe ghinck hy oeck daer inne begherende / te wetene wat men dare doen soude ende hy volghde den / anderen persoonen ende quam in een camer daer veele persoonen / waren ende noch quamen. Wel tot xl oft l persoonen. Ende daer quam / oeck eenen man met eenen baerde die daer in eenen / boeck las ende preeckte maer en heeft hy nyet onthouden / wat hy preeckte ende hy leyde syn huysvrouwe mede de welcke / hem die spreeckt gheerne beledt hadde dat hy daer nyet gegaen en hadde.” Testimony of Christiaen de Zomer, fol. 12.

102

realized by the end of the second that vander Elst was speaking “scornfully”

(verachtinge) of the church, and decided not to follow him elsewhere.25 Likewise,

Catheryne Cleerckx, wife of Willem de Kempeneer, attended one of the Thursday

meetings but knew immediately that its content was “ungodly” (nyet godlycke). She

refused to accompany her husband to the second Thursday sermon, which he attended

without her.26 Even Hubrecht Sternear, who admitted having heard vander Elst

previously in Antwerp, and who hosted two of the gatherings, testified that he realized at

some point that what he was hearing might be considered sinful in the eyes of the church.

He confessed his attendance to a priest, who refused to absolve him. Consequently, he had not received communion since.27

Most of the group attended multiple sermons during Holy Week 1526, for a

variety of different reasons. One common motivation was the execution of the two

Augustinians, Voes and Esschen in Brussels in 1523. At least three of vander Elst’s

followers had witnessed these executions, and all of them registered open disgust at the

event. Hendrick Tsas and Hendrick Houwaert were present for the burnings at the Grand

Place in Brussels on 1 July 1523. Both men subsequently asserted that the friars were true martyrs,28 a fact that suggests that they had Lutheran sympathies already several

years prior to their involvement in the vander Elst circle. Similarly, the Cameryck

lawyer, Jan der Kinderen, a leader of the group, had been present for the executions. Jan

25 Testimony of Aerdeken vander Brugge, fol. 10v. 26 Testimony of Catheryne Cleerckx, fols. 10-10v. 27 Testimony of Hubrecht Sternaer, fols. 21-22v. There is no reason to doubt the truth of Sternaer’s story, since it would have been a simple matter of course for the inquisitors to verify his claims of confession and abstention from the Eucharist with his parish priest. 28 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 16.

103

vander Eycken, a witness in the 1527 trial, testified to having heard der Kinderen say that

the two victims did not deserve to die.29 When vander Eycken questioned him as to what

he meant by this, der Kinderen added, “If I had to die, then I can only hope that I would

die in their state.”30 Clearly der Kinderen felt some degree of sympathy, not just for their plight, but for the religious opinions for which they were condemned.31

b. The Content of the Sermons

Because Claes vander Elst did not leave notes or treatises on the contents of his

sermons or his own beliefs, there is no way of knowing the theological substance of his

preaching with any degree of certainty. However, during the course of the investigation,

the inquisitors questioned each arrestee concerning his or her memories in this regard,

and from their responses (which reinforce one another remarkably well), it is possible to

piece together an approximation of the beliefs of vander Elst himself and those of his

audience. These lay recollections are valuable too in conveying to the modern reader the

degree to which an uninstructed group was able to decipher a complex reform agenda.

Many deponents initially claimed to remember few or no specifics regarding the

contents of the sermons they heard. However, Nicholas Coppin and his colleagues were

anxious to draw this information from the arrestees since these details would provide the

theological basis for the heresy charges against them. Thus, those who pled ignorance

29 Fol. 47. 30 “Soude ick moeten sterven en soude wel willen / in hueren staet sterven.” Fol. 47v. 31 “Ware op hy deponent antworde ende / seyde hoe meester Jan soude dan willen Luthers syn, maer / hy meester Jan en antworde daer op nyet.” Ibid. Significantly, though, when vander Eycken responded that, if this were the case, then der Kinderen must be a Lutheran, der Kinderen replied that he was not. It seems that Jan der Kinderen was consciously opposed to certain precepts and actions of the Roman Church, but equally consciously he did not align himself specifically with Luther.

104 during their first depositions, often “remembered” more details during their second or subsequent interrogations.32 Coppin listed the themes mentioned most frequently by the arrestees, which he entitled “Propositions Made and Preached by Master Claes vander

Elst in the City of Brussels.”33 He identified eleven propositions in his list, but the deponents discussed four other themes with sufficient regularity to warrant brief consideration here, alongside Coppin’s own list.

The first of the topics omitted from Coppin’s list was vander Elst’s apocalyptic identification of the church as the seven-headed beast, or the whore of Babylon. Four of the depositions mentioned this imagery, although in two of them, the deponents claimed that they did not understand vander Elst’s allusions.34 Johanna Walschen testified that vander Elst had spoken about a red whore, in reference to the apocalypse, indicating that she had some understanding of the fact that vander Elst was drawing upon this illustration as an apocalyptic image.35 Hendrick Rosteyt explained that vander Elst had used this

32 It is possible that the arrestees were tortured in their later depositions though no specific mention of this is made in the trial documents. Although it was not unusual for torture to be used to extract confessions in heresy cases, Charles V sanctioned it explicitly only in 1526, and its application was not fully systematized until 1529, two years after the trial of the vander Elst circle. 33 “Dit zyn de propositien gehouden ende gepredict by / meester Claes vander Elst inde stadt van Bruesele.” Fols. 99-99v. This list has been transcribed by Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” appendix. 34 One of these was Joos de Puttere, who claimed that vander Elst spoke about “een roye hoere,” although he was unable to link this statement even with a description of the church. See fol. 13v. The second deponent was Jan Bacx, who heard vander Elst mention a seven-headed beast and the whore of Babylon in his last sermon on Easter Monday, but did not recall in what context these images were discussed. See deposition of Jan Bacx, fol. 14v. It is worthy of note that de Puttere and Bacx were both uneducated servants. It is possible, therefore, that vander Elst’s apocalyptic imagery appeared strange to them because they were unfamiliar with it. Better educated members of the group were probably more able to place these allusions and therefore grasp vander Elst’s broader meaning, which could be why they did not make special mention of them in their depositions. 35 “. . . vande rooder hoeren, allegeande apocalipsen.” Testimony of Johanna Walschen, 20 May 1527. Fol. 17.

105 image “as an allegory for the clergy, who inveigle money from the world through their cunning.”36

Another theme common to several of the depositions was purgatory. Several arrestees heard vander Elst claim that purgatory (and some of them added hell) does not exist. Betteken de Latersse said that in his Easter day sermon, vander Elst claimed that “.

. . there is no purgatory, and that none is necessary, for a man suffers enough here on earth with his wife and children, and a woman with her husband and children.”37 Such statements were affirmed in other depositions and from witnesses who had heard members of the conventicle proffer similar views of their own.38 Individual deponents

also mentioned holy oil and relics as topics on which vander Elst had preached, but their

assertions were isolated incidents, and it is therefore fair to assume that they were either

mistaken or that vander Elst did not emphasize these doctrines sufficiently for other

participants to remember them.39

The eleven propositions compiled by Coppin were without question those most

frequently cited in the trial depositions. A sufficient number of deponents mentioned

36 “Meester Claes daer mede gelyckte den geestelycke staet, die met subtelheyt tghelt vander weerelt vercreeght.” Testimony of Hendrick Rosteyt, fol. 13. 37 “Seggende / oeck datter egheen vaghevuer en es ende dat een man / vaghvuers genoch hadde met synder huysvrouwe ende syne / kinderen, ende die vrouwe met haren man ende haren / kinderen.” Testimony of Sister Betteken de Latersse, 8 May 1527. Fols. 39-40, here at fol. 39v. The designation Sister precedes Betteken’s name in all the court records, although none contain a clarification of its meaning. She apparently has no spouse or children, and it is possible that she belonged, at some point, to a cloister, but from the extant documentation, it is impossible to be sure. 38 The deponents Marie (wife of Hendrik Tsas) and Hendrick Houwaert both affirmed vander Elst’s statements in this regard. See fols. 12 and 48 respectively. In addition, Grietken vanden Bossche (who reported the conventicle to the authorities) claimed to have heard Hendrik Tsas say that he did not believe in purgatory or hell. Fol. 62. 39 Jacob Tseraerts and Aerdeken vander Brugge both mentioned holy oil, but neither remembered what, specifically, vander Elst had said in this regard. See fols. 11v and 10v respectively. Ardt van Oukele was alone in mentioning relics. Fol. 12.

106

them almost verbatim, that it is fair to assume that they reflect a relatively accurate

recounting of vander Elst’s words. What follows is a consideration of these precepts,

grouped by topic.40 From the information provided by the deponents, it is possible to

examine their understanding of vander Elst’s doctrinal positions, and to consider more

broadly how these topics fit into the general development of early Reformation thought in

the Low Countries.

i/ Propositions concerning fasting

• “That people may eat whatever food they wish on any day and at any time, because what goes into the mouth does not infect the soul.”41 • “That people ought to fast at all times. That is to say, that they should eat two or three sober meals each day, which is better than eating once until they are full. And there is no salvation in the fast, nor should people seek it there.”42

At least eight suspects testified to having heard vander Elst preach the exact words of this first proposition in one of his Easter sermons.43 Three more deponents

further testified that the preacher had said that, during a fast, it was better that a person

eat two or three moderate meals, rather than limit their intake to a single meal “and then

feel sick afterwards.”44 All of these precepts refer primarily to the Lenten fast, which

was going on precisely at the time of vander Elst’s Easter sermon series in 1526. When

40 The groupings and the headings that accompany them are my own, but the bullet-point propositions are quoted directly from Coppin’s list. 41 “Item datmen van allen spisen naden gebrycken / t’allen daghen ende tyden want dat inden / mont gaet en besmet de ziele nyet.” List of Nicholas Coppin, fol. 99. 42 “Item datmen altyt behoirt te vasten te weten de twee oft drye / reysen sdaighs soberlyck te eeten ende dat bat gevast is dat / eens vol eeten ende dat int vasten egheen salicheyt en is gelegen / oft soeken en soude.” Fol. 99v. 43 See testimonies of Valentyn van Orley (fol. 7v), Marie van Meereghem (fol. 8), Agnes Segers (fol. 9), Peeter vanden Bossche (fol. 11), Willem Leemans (fol. 11v), Willem de Clerck (fol. 13), Jan Ghietels (fol. 13v), and Giet Imbrechts (fol. 15v). 44 Testimony of Hendrick Hiuweel, fol. 10v, and Jan de Vogheleer, fol. 18v. “. . . hy seyde dat beeter / vasten was alsmen ii oft iii reysen luttel adt, dan alsmen mer eens / en eedt end soe veele dat men daer sieck af es.” Testimony of Johanna (wife of Jan de Vogheleer), fol. 18.

107

questioned as to their Lenten eating habits, many of the defendants testified that they had

transgressed the church’s injunctions in this regard, without receiving prior permission

from their parish priests.45 Not only does this behavior suggest that many participants

understood this part of vander Elst’s sermons, but that they immediately assimilated his

teaching into their own religious practices, even if it meant disobeying the church.

ii/ Propositions critical of the clergy

• “That the priests do wrongly to turn from the people during Mass, so that no one can hear or understand what is said.”46 • “If a person is pure then he has no need to enter a cloister. If he is not pure, then a simple desire for purity will not make him so.”47 • “That people are required to confess only to God and to their neighbor, against whom they have sinned.”48

Statements such as these were common complaints raised by Luther and several

of the early Reformers, and continued a common trajectory of late medieval piety in the

Low Countries in which the laity had increasingly sought religious edification in the vernacular. Often, this trend manifested itself in the desire for Bibles and prayer books in their own languages, but it was not an enormous leap to move from these to calls to hear

Mass in the vernacular also. This proposition seems to have resonated deeply within this group of dissenters, as a significant number articulated this proposition verbatim in their

45 See, for example, the testimony of Betteken de Latersse, who admitted eating eggs and meat during Lent, and encouraging Johanna Walschen and her sons to do the same, fols. 39-40. 46 “Item dat de priesteren doen de messen qualyck / doen dat zy hen vanden luden keeren diese hoeren / ende alsoe die nyet en verstaen.” Fol. 99. 47 “Item dat zoe verre een menssche reynick is dat hem / van egheender noot en is in een cloester te gaen ende / renicheyt te geloven ende en is hy nyet reyninck zoe / en sal hen egheen geluste van reyninckheyt hulpen.” Ibid. 48 “Item datmen hen alleen behoirt aen God te bichten / ende aen zyn eeven menssche dien men misdaen / heeft.” Ibid.

108

testimonies.49 Late medieval Mass was a highly mystical event for the lay congregation.

In larger churches, the priest would have been at least partially obscured by a rood

screen, minimizing the congregation’s view of the ritual sacrifice.50 The fact that the

Mass was conducted in Latin, a tongue foreign to almost all lay participants, further

distanced them from the ritual work of the priest.

In addition to criticizing this linguistic segregation, a couple of deponents added

personal complaints regarding the Mass. Jan Bacx echoed vander Elst’s assertion that it

was wrong for the priest to turn away from his congregation, and added that the Mass had

become nothing more than a “money-fest.”51 His comment could refer to the financial

demands of the collection plate, indulgences or cash , the sale of candles, or the endowment of Masses for the dead, all complaints that were common in anticlerical circles in the Low Countries at this time. Bacx, however, was alone in making this connection in his deposition, and it seems unlikely, therefore, that the complaint originated with vander Elst.

In her testimony, Agnes Segers specified that the reason the priests should turn to the people was so that they would understand what was being said. In order to achieve this, she said that the Mass should be celebrated “as it is in Germany.”52 Perhaps vander

Elst had mentioned the Lutheran vernacular preaching that he had witnessed during his

time in Wittenberg. He was certainly critical of Latin Masses and was reported by more

49 Including Peeter vanden Bossche (fol. 11), Willem de Clerck (fol. 13), Jan van Conincxloo (fol. 13v), and Marie van Meereghem (fol. 8). 50 Susan C. Karant-Nunn points out that for some, the rood screen and the Latin form of the Mass only added to its ritual mystique. See idem, Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany (New York: Routledge, 1997), 108-10. 51 “. . . het was al een geltfeeste.” Fol. 14v. 52 “. . . gelyck in Duesschelant datmen / die verstonde.” Fol. 9.

109

than one deponent as having mocked the practice. He made a word-play on the Dutch

word for Mass (misse), stating that when the priests turn away, the Mass is truly “missed”

by the congregation. But vander Elst’s critique was, at its core, completely serious. At

least one attendee reported hearing him say that he “would rather go to the fire” than

perform Mass as he once had.53

Vander Elst’s criticism of cloistered life was another theme repeated almost verbatim by the members of the conventicle during their depositions. Of those who mentioned this issue, only two added further comment. Peeter de Pannemaker said that it was better for a woman to take a husband than enter a cloister.54 Hendrick Tsas went a

step further and suggested that vander Elst had claimed that, by joining an order, a person

“buries himself.”55 Neither elaborated on the meaning of these additions, but they again

suggest that vander Elst either discussed these themes during his sermons, or that these

men independently interpreted his words in this way.

Vander Elst’s contention that Christians are not compelled to confess to a priest

but to God alone was likewise affirmed in several depositions. Valentyn van Orley, the

only deponent to elaborate upon this proposition, explained that he had confessed at

Easter the previous year, but added that, had he heard the sermon before confessing, he

would not have done so.56 Again, Valentyn’s reaction exemplifies an immediate

53 “. . . soude liever int viergaen,” testimony of Betteken de Latersse, fol. 40. 54 Fol. 3. 55 “hem doet begraven.” Fol. 4v. 56 “. . . dat men nyet sculdich en is den minsthen te biechten . . . nochtan hy die spreeckt te paessthen lestgeleden te bichte geweest ende ten heyligen sacramente als hy seght, seggende oeck dat tgheene dat meester Claes vander biechten preeckte was naedat hy die spreeckt te biechte geweest hadde ende t’onsen heer nochtan al hadde hy tselve te voren gehoort, hy en soude daer over nyet hebben geloven te biechten.” Fol. 7v.

110

assimilation of vander Elst’s teaching and is another example of a proposition upon

which his listeners were willing to act without hesitation.

iii/ Proposition concerning the consecration of the bells

• “That people ought not to consecrate or baptize the bells. The bells honor the Gospel, but there is no need to honor the bells.”57

Few scholars have addressed the ritual importance of bells in the lives of the early

modern laity, but the fact that this complaint was among those most frequently voiced by

the vander Elst group suggests that it was an issue of some significance. Integral to late

medieval Catholicism, church bells were employed for a variety of purposes, from

informing the townsfolk that a service was about to begin, to alerting them of an

approaching storm. The tolling of the bell was also used to signal a variety of other

miraculous moments: baptismal rites and funeral processions, for example, were

preceded by the sacred bells. More liturgically significant was the role of the bells in the

institution of the Eucharist during the Mass. The bell rang just prior to the moment in which transsubstantiation occurred, alerting the congregants to the imminence of that divine event.58 So popular was this ritual that Luther even allowed its continuance in his

new liturgy.59

What vander Elst and his followers appear to criticize in this particular proposition is not the use of the bells, per se. Rather, they condemned the superstitious aura that had grown up around the practice. By the sixteenth century, the bells had come to signify

57 “Item datmen de clocken nyet en behoiren te wyden oft te doopen / want waert sake dat de clocke daer evangelie wel luydde / zoe en waert egheen noodt clocken te luyden.” Fol. 99v. 58 Karant-Nunn, Reformation of Ritual, 112. 59 Karant-Nunn, Reformation of Ritual, 127.

111

objects possessing divine power, local congregants believing that they were able to ward

off dangerous weather and the like. The bells were often consecrated or even baptized,

rituals that were thought to impart sacred power to these objects. Post-Reformation

pastors who censured such superstitious views among their congregants were likely to

face some degree of resistance.60 Vander Elst and his followers here criticize the

veneration and consecration of the bells in order to renounce the superstitious beliefs

surrounding them. They complained that such (in this case the bells) should serve

only to point to the object of true devotion. The icons are not themselves worthy of

veneration. Vander Elst’s assertion here is that the bells obfuscate true devotion to the

Gospel message. The Gospel proclaims the message of God and it alone is to be

“consecrated.” In the view of this group, the bells contain no sacred power in their own

right, and operate as nothing more than a reminder of the sanctity of the Gospel itself.

iv/ Propositions concerning the Eucharist

• “That people ought to receive the holy sacrament in both kinds.”61 • “It is not to be believed that our Lord comes in a piece of bread, because he sits at the right hand of his father, where he shall remain until the last day. Otherwise the creed must be false.”62 • “That a priest who is in mortal sin ought not to consecrate, nor does he have the power to do so.”63

60 Bob Scribner is one of the few historians to address the issue of the consecration of the bells specifically. He notes that, although this practice was condemned by the early Reformers, it continued well into the sixteenth and even seventeenth centuries in some areas. See idem, Religion and Culture in Germany (1400-1800), Lyndal Roper, ed., Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 81 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 286-87. 61 “Item datmen behoirt t’heylich sacramente te / ontfangen sub utraque oft onder beyden / gedende.” Fol. 99 62 “Item dat nyet te gelooven en is dat ons heer in een brooken / compt want hy sidt aenden rechten zyde oft hant zyns vaders / daer hy blyven sal sitten totten lesten daghe toe, oft den credo moet / valssche zyn.” Ibid. 63 “Item dat een priester in doot sonden zyn nyet / en consacreert noch macht en heeft te consacreren.” Ibid.

112

• “That when a person receives the holy sacrament without any regret for his sins, and with the intention to continue sinning, he receives the sacrament like Judas, namely, as a piece of bread and nothing more.”64 • “That a person should receive the holy sacrament only in faith, and that a person who receives the bread thinking on the passion of our Lord and expecting to receive the spirit of our Lord, has truly received the body of our Lord.”65

Taken together, these statements form a radical view of the sacrament of the

Eucharist. Gone is any element of transsubstantiation, and even Luther’s compromise position of consubstantiation would be difficult to argue in this system. Moreover, this was the topic most often cited by the conventicle members as a proposition expounded upon by vander Elst in his sermons. It seems that he discussed eucharistic theology in each of his nine sermons, addressing one or more of these propositions in each case. This was an issue that divided the Brussels group. While most of the members regurgitated vander Elst’s claims without comment, at least two (Jan der Kinderen and Peeter de

Pannemaker) wholeheartedly rejected his eucharistic beliefs. A brief consideration of the content of vander Elst’s propositions will enable us to examine the points with which der

Kinderen and de Pannemaker took issue.

The first two of vander Elst’s statements concern the nature and content of the eucharistic offering. The remaining three speak to the reception and efficacy of the same.

Vander Elst’s assertion that the laity ought to receive the Eucharist in both kinds apparently met with no opposition from any of those present. Nor did this proposition conflict with the views of other early Reformation writers, who agreed with the Utraquist

64 “Item dat zoe t’heylige sacrament ontfanck nyet hebbende leetwesen van zyn / mesdaet ende prepoost van nyet meer te sondighen die ontfangt / gelyck Judas te weten als een stuck broots ende anders nyet.” Fol. 99v. 65 “Item datmen t’heylich sacremente alleen int geloeve ontfanck / soude ende dat een messche ontfangt een stuck broets ende / duenkende opte passie ons heer ende inden geheeft om d’lichaem / ons heer tot t’ontfangen heeft warectelyck t’lichaem ons heeren / ontfangen.” Ibid.

113

principle of communion in both kinds. Luther had already written extensively on the

subject in both his Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament des heiligen wahren

Leichnams Christi (1519)66 and De Captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium

(1520).67 Vander Elst’s second assertion, concerning the Real Presence of Christ’s body

in the sacrament, was decidedly un-Lutheran. Indeed, Luther’s eventual position of

consubstantiation could not be incorporated in such a statement. This point, along with

the remaining three propositions, caused much disquiet in the group.

The question of what exactly rendered the sacrament efficacious had exercised the

minds of theologians since the twelfth century. Because the debate involved the issue of

clerical authority, it reemerged with new vigor during the period of the Reformation. In

both its twelfth- and sixteenth-century manifestations, two opinions dominated the

dispute. The first was that the sacrament was efficacious ex opere operato, by virtue of

its very performance. The second was that the sacrament worked ex opere operantis, as a

function of the sincerity and intent of the person receiving it.68 Proponents of the latter view turned to the twelfth-century theologian, , as their champion.69

Opposing Lombard and his sixteenth-century followers was a group that claimed Thomas

Aquinas and as their intellectual forebears. They proposed that the efficacy

66 WA, 2: 742-58. 67 WA, 6: 484-573. 68 Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 217. 69 After Pope Leo the Great accepted deathbed confession in the fifth century, people began to question the need of penance. Obviously, if was granted just moments prior to death, no acts of penance could be expected. This raised the question that, if this absolution was effective, could not all absolution be effective without penance? Amid this confusion, Lombard emerged with the belief that contrition was to satisfaction in rendering forgiveness.

114 of the sacrament was not dependent upon the attitude of the sinner, but on the words of the priest and the mystery of the sacrament itself.70

Vander Elst’s assertion that the faith of the recipient transformed the host into the body of Christ fell clearly on the Lombardian (and also now Lutheran) ex opere operantis side of the debate, thereby rejecting the Thomist view, which would become official

Roman doctrine. Not in line with Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist, however, was vander Elst’s contention that the body and blood of Christ were not truly present in the elements of the sacrament.71 The debate concerning the Real Presence raged among

Reformation thinkers throughout the 1520s, culminating in the Marburg Colloquy of

1529. By the time the Brussels group met to hear vander Elst’s sermons in 1526, Luther and Zwingli had already formed opposing camps. Karlstadt too had rejected the notion of a bodily presence already in 1524, and in 1525 Zwingli published the Epistola

Christiana of Cornelis Hoen, in which Hoen argued that in Christ’s declaration hoc est corpus meum, the word est would be more properly rendered significat.72 Zwingli interpreted this change to mean that the sign (in this case the bread) is different from the thing signified (here the body of Christ), and that the Holy Spirit is able to impart grace in the sacrament spiritually, without the physical means of transsubstantiated bread. Thus the sacrament becomes a declaration of grace received, ex post facto, as opposed to an instrument or vehicle of grace.

70 Thomas N. Tentler, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 19-27. 71 See Chapter Two for more lengthy discussion of sacramental theology in this regard. 72 Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24. See above, Chapter Two for more information on Hoen.

115

Zwingli’s writing on this matter explained his position concisely, yet none of the

images he used in his interpretation of the supper appear in the depositions of the vander

Elst group. In addition, none of them mention Zwingli as an author with whom they were familiar. One writer whose works did circulate quite broadly within the group, however, was Oecalompadius. Early leader of the Reformation in , Oecalompadius began his career as a believer in the Real Presence, but by 1524, he had rejected this view and moved to a spiritual interpretation closer to that of Zwingli, whose views he went on to defend at the Colloquy of Marburg. In 1525, Oecalompadius composed his Genuina

Expositio on the Eucharist, a document in circulation among the members of the vander

Elst group. Many of the conventiclers in Brussels were of one mind with Oecalompadius on other issues too. At the Basel disputation of 1526, he condemned the concepts of

Johannes Eck on the issue of purgatory and intercessory prayers, both topics that frequently arose in the sermons of vander Elst and the depositions of his followers.

Not all of those present at the conventicles accepted vander Elst’s view of the

Eucharist. Peeter de Pannemaker and Jan der Kinderen, noted their opposition to vander

Elst on this point. De Pannemaker explained that, when visiting der Kinderen after one of the first sermons, der Kinderen said, “‘What was vander Elst talking about when he said that our Lord is not present in the bread or host?’ and Jan [der Kinderen] concluded that vander Elst spoke wrongly in saying this, and I [de Pannemaker] agreed with him.”73

In his own deposition the following day, der Kinderen corroborated de Pannemaker’s

73 “. . . die welcke hem antworde / hoe dat meester Claes soude gesermoent hebben dat onse Heeren / nyet en was int broot oft ostie seggende alsdoen meester Jan / dat tselve qualycken geseght was. D’welck hy Peeter oeck / seyde dat qualycken geseght was.” Testimony of Peeter de Pannemaker, 9 May 1527. Fols. 2-3v, here at fol. 3.

116

testimony. Der Kinderen affirmed that he had heard vander Elst preach on the sacrament, claiming that the body and blood of Christ were not present therein. When der Kinderen heard this he “didn’t want to believe it, and from then on, considered Master Claes to be suspect.”74

It is a truism to say that the word Lutheran was used for a plethora of heterodox

views in the early sixteenth-century Low Countries and that the theological beliefs of

these early dissenters were not always Lutheran in content.75 This is certainly the case

with vander Elst and his followers. Although vander Elst himself spent time in

Wittenberg and may have known Luther personally, he parted with the Reformer’s

thought on several foundational issues. Nor was he a dedicated follower of Zwingli, it

would seem. Rather, his views echo sentiments expressed by several of the most

influential voices of the Reformation, Oecalompadius not least among them.76

Furthermore, individual members of the group knew enough and cared enough to oppose vander Elst on this issue. De Pannemaker and der Kinderen freely voiced their disagreement with the preacher regarding his eucharistic views, gravitating closer to the opinions of Luther on this matter. Such disagreements even within one small group of religious dissidents attest to both the inchoate confessional nature of the early

74 “. . . hem nyet en / wilde geloven, ende van doen voerts hiel[d]e hy den / selven meester Claes suspect.” Testimony of Jan der Kinderen, 10 May 1527. Fols. 6-7, here at fol. 7. 75 On this point, see Chapter One, note 23. 76 Historians of the Netherlands have long assumed that there is an almost straight line from the thought of the pre-Reformation sacramentarians in the territory to the later Anabaptists, who adopted Zwingli’s teachings on the Eucharist. The vander Elst conventiclers problematize this hypothesis, however. As we shall see, several members of this group were sought as heretics later in the century, but none of them were suspected of Anabaptism. This suggests that many who held so-called sacramentarian views did not, in fact, ultimately find a place in the Anabaptist camp but were able to incorporate these views in mainstream Reformation theology.

117

Reformation in the cities of the Low Countries, as well as the independent attitude of its early adherents.

c. Books and Ideas

The depositions cast some light on where defendants such as Jan der Kinderen gleaned their theological insights. These influences can be deciphered from a consideration of the books that circulated among the members of the group. When investigators searched their homes during the course of the trial, they discovered an abundance of illicit writings which the participants had been sharing with one another for several years. Many of them possessed Dutch translations of Luther’s German New

Testament. Hendrick Tsas admitted possessing a copy of this book, clarifying further that it was the version that had been printed two years previously.77 Johanna Walschen

(also known as the widow Muellers) possessed a variety of biblical translations. She admitted to having read the New Testament and the Old Testament, including specifically the books of Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.78

Another book that circulated widely among the members of the group was the

Lord’s Prayer and Luther’s explanation of it. Luther’s original version, Eine kurze Form

77 “Gevraeght synde dat hy anders egheen boecken / en heeft dan het nyeuwe testament in Duyssche d’welck es / geprint geweest over twee jaren.” Testimony of Hendrick Tsas, 10 May 1527. Fols. 4-5, here at fol. 5. Johan Decavele suggests that this was almost certainly the translation, based on Luther’s German Bible, which was printed by Adriaan van Berghen in Antwerp in 1525. See idem, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 24. It is also possible, however, that it was the copy of the same translation, published by H. Frank in Basel, the same year. See J. Brandt, Nederlandse Bijbels en Hun Uitgevers 1477-1952 (Amsterdam: Proost en Brandt, n.d.), 8. 78 Testimony of Johanna Walschen, 20 May 1527. Fols. 17-17v.

118

des Vater Unsers, was published in 151979 but did not appear in Dutch translation until

1522 (from Jan Seversz. in Leiden) and then in 1524 (in Antwerp).80 Luther’s works had

been outlawed in the Low Countries, ever since the promulgation of the Edict of Worms

in 1521. Two of the deponents, Marie van Meereghem and Jan Soliet, insisted that they

had possessed Luther’s book prior to its official prohibition. Both of them claimed to

have rid themselves of the offending book once the ban was issued. Marie declared that she had simply lost track of it,81 while Soliet argued that he had burned his copy.82

When the authorities searched the home of Valentyn van Orley (father of

Bernard), they found there a copy of Luther’s Lord’s Prayer, disguised in the following

way:

There was one book in which was bound the Pater Noster of Martin Luther, which was still legible. And from the front of this book the title page had been ripped off and a new piece of paper pasted to it. Likewise, pasted into the same book was a copy of the New Testament of Martin Luther, which had also had its title page ripped out and a new piece of paper pasted to it, so that people could not tell what book it was.83

In addition to his camouflaged Lord’s Prayer and New Testament, Valentyn was found in

possession of an unspecified book of German theology,84 which was probably the famous

79 WA, 2: 80-130. 80 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 24. 81 “. . . sonder eenen boecxken inhoudende den pater noster van Luther / ende es geleden vyf oft sesse jaren ende nae dat verbot dyen aengaenden / gedaen es geweest en weet sy nyet waer t’selve boecxken gebleven es.” Testimony of Marie van Meereghem, 14 May 1527. Fols. 8-9, here at fol. 8v. 82 “Bekent oick dat hy hier voertyts gehadt / heeft den pater noster van Luther den welcke hy / verbert heeft doen het verbot daer af gedaen was.” Testimony of Jeronimus Soliot, 12 June 1527. Fol. 73v. 83 “Een boecxken waer inne gebonden / was den pater noster van Merten Luther gelyck men conste / gelesen ende doen afgetogen was eensdeels het papier dat vast / gepapt was opt dieerste blat, Inhoudende den tytele / Item was noch gebonden int voerβ boecxken dat Nieuwe Testament bestrenen voer Martin Luther, gelyck oeck int irste blat / bleeck, nae dat afgetogen was het papier d’welck opt selve / irste blat gepapt was om datmen den titele nyet leesen en / soude alsoe t’scheen.” Second deposition of Valentyn van Orley, 18 May 1527. Fol. 16v. 84 “Item noch een boecxken inhoudende / de summe vander Duysschen theologie in Duyssche.” Ibid.

119

De Summa der godliker scrifturen, first published in Leiden in 1523.85 This handbook on religious life circulated widely and in several languages during the early Reformation.

Although it pointed to the inadequacy of good works in achieving salvation and emphasized the notion of justification by faith, it was not necessarily considered a

Reformation text.86 It was, however, a book popular among the circle surrounding

vander Elst, the preacher himself being an enthusiastic advocate of the work. Hendrick

Tsas testified that vander Elst had given him and two other members each a copy of the

Summa.87

Indeed, members of this group frequently shared books with one another. The lawyer, Jan der Kinderen, gave or loaned out several books, many of them Lutheran in tone. Among them were Luther’s writing on the seven penitential , in which he instructed Christians not to rely on their own good works for salvation but on the mercy of God alone.88 In addition, when the authorities searched der Kinderen’s house, they found a plethora of heterodox texts, including Luther’s Liber resolutionum et

85 For the best modern consideration of this important Reformation work, see Johannes Trapman, De Summa der Godliker Scrifturen (1523) (Ph.D. Diss., Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1978). 86 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 23-24. 87 Including Betteken de Latersse, who confessed to having read several books, and whose nephew testified that she possessed copies of various Old Testament prophets. See testimony of Hubrecht Sternaer, 31 May 1527. Fols. 21-22v, here at fol. 22v, and Hubrecht Hiuweel, fol. 10v. The only member of the conventicle whose reading tastes were not entirely in line with those of the other members was Nicholas Rombouts. Although he was found in possession of several of the same books as his fellow arrestees, he also had a collection of books on the arts, which was an anomaly in this group. See the testimony of Nicholas Rombouts, 18 May 1527. Fol. 16v. 88 Die seven penitencie psalmen, printed by Claes de Grave in Antwerp, 1520. For details of this tract, see Nijhoff and Wouter Nijhoff and Maria E. Kronenberg, eds., Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 3 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923), 1: # 1426, and Casper C. G. Visser, Luther’s Geschriften in de Nederlanden tot 1546 (Assen: van Gorcum & Co., 1969), 32-33.

120

conclusionum de indulgentiis, and other Lutheran writings, although der Kinderen denied

knowing that they were Lutheran in origin.89

Jan der Kinderen was exceptional among those arrested in 1527. The books

found in his home formed only the tip of the iceberg of his religious learning and

knowledge of Reformation doctrine. As the trial progressed, several witnesses testified

that they had heard der Kinderen engage in heated debates about doctrine and theology.

Highly educated, he was the only member of the group whom we know to have been fully Latinate. Born in Antwerp in 1470, der Kinderen completed his studies in Leuven in 1485 and then studied law in Orléans from 1490 to 1496. By 1520 he was already on

the payroll of the court of Brabant, and by the time of his arrest he had achieved the

distinguished position of advocate in the court of Cameryck.90 He was a leader of the

Brussels group and was well-acquainted with the writings of Luther, Melanchthon,

Bugenhagen, and Oecolampadius. Various witnesses testified that they had heard Jan der

Kinderen speak on topics ranging from the priesthood of all believers to the insufficiency

of good works (including the fast), and indulgences.91 Der Kinderen was a well-

informed, independent thinker who openly differed with Claes vander Elst on several

theological points, such as vander Elst’s beliefs concerning the Eucharist.

89 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 25. See also the testimony of Jan der Kinderen, 17 May 1527. Fols. 15v-16, here at fol. 16. 90 Decavele, “Opkomst,” 28. 91 See among others the testimonies of Sister Catheryne vander Meeren, 11 May 1527. Fols. 42v-43; Sister Magdalene Hackyns, 11 May 1527. Fols. 43v-44; and Lambrecht Thorn, 14 May 1527. Fols. 46-47.

121

Jan der Kinderen also exhibited a somewhat controversial (and unusual at this

early stage in the Reformation in the Low Countries) position regarding predestination.92

The issue was first raised in the deposition of Marie van Meereghem, der Kinderen’s wife. She testified that her husband had had an altercation with the suffragan bishop of

Cameryck on the subject the previous year.93 The inquisitor then deposed all who had

been privy to the conversation. Their statements confirmed the assertion of der

Kinderen’s wife, and added that the confrontation took place during a meal at the home

of a certain monk in Anderlecht, near Brussels.94 One observer noted that, while speaking about the accidental death of a person in the town, Jan der Kinderen insisted that “. . . it had to happen that way because it was predestined by our Lord. And he would not budge from this opinion, despite the fact that the suffragan raised many

arguments to the contrary in an attempt to change his mind.”95

This conversation is revealing on several levels. First, it suggests a considerable

degree of theological sophistication on the part of der Kinderen, who was trained not as a

theologian but as a lawyer. So confident was he in his religious understanding that he

was willing to debate high-placed religious leaders on these issues. Several of his

opponents were monks, at least one was a deacon, and der Kinderen’s main opponent was

a bishop. Not only does this demonstrate a certain superciliousness on the part of der

92 Johan Decavele posits that der Kinderen was the first Netherlandish thinker to speak in this way on this topic. See Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 23. 93 Testimony of Marie van Meereghem, 14 May 1527. Fols. 8-9, here at fol. 8v. 94 In his deposition, Conerus Stoops, the deacon of St. Gudule’s Church in Brussels, claimed that he had witnessed the first part of the discussion but left quickly because the debate had become so fierce. Testimony of Conerus Stoops, 29 May 1527. Fol. 49v. 95 “Meester Jan sustineerde dat noottelyck / was alsoe te gebuerene want van onsen heere gepredestineert / was. Daer by blyvende hoe wel de voerβ suffragan ter / contrarien veel allegeerde om hem vander selver opinien te tracteren.” Testimony of Ghiselbertus Trysens, 29 May 1527. Fols. 49v-50.

122

Kinderen, but it suggests that the potential repercussions of proffering theologically

heterodox opinions in such company did not concern him. This fact is a commentary on

the religious climate in Brussels in the years leading up to this trial. Those with

controversial opinions did not fear the wrath of the clerical authorities, and felt

sufficiently free to express their views even in the presence of religious officials. It is

tempting to attribute such behavior simply to der Kinderen’s own fearless personality, yet

it fits with the larger image of this group as a whole. As we have already observed from

the testimony of the drunken Christiaen de Zomer, they made little attempt to disguise

their activities, suggesting that, when discussing religious issues, they feared neither

secular nor ecclesiastical law.

Der Kinderen also walked a dangerous line in terms of his personal associations

and book-lending practices. The investigators quickly realized that he did not limit his

suspect activities to this Brussels group, but had been heavily involved in heterodox

conversations with two from the cloister of Jericho. The sisters, Magdalene and

Cathelyne, were called in to testify, along with other officials of the cloister. The story that emerged was that since 1524, Jan der Kinderen had corresponded and met with the two sisters regularly, visiting them quite frequently in their cloister and bringing them a steady stream of illicit books. At some point, the cloister’s father-confessor heard a rumor that der Kinderen was a Lutheran, so he instructed the brothers there not to allow his visits. In the months that followed, der Kinderen attempted to send letters to the sisters, but when the monks realized the origin of these letters, they intercepted them.

Der Kinderen even sent his wife to transport letters, but the monks uncovered this plan

123

too.96 When they were deposed, Magdalene and Cathelyne testified that, over the course of several years, der Kinderen had brought them many books, including Luther’s Lord’s

Prayer, his exposition of the Psalms and New Testament, a Latin book entitled Cantica canticorum, and one other book on the Eucharist.97

Another recipient of der Kinderen’s visits and books was the imprisoned

Augustinian, Lambrecht Thorn. Incarcerated for his heterodox views at the same time as

Voes and Esschen, Thorn escaped capital punishment by requesting extra time to

“reconsider” his religious opinions. Thereafter, his sentence was commuted to life

imprisonment on bread and water.98 During his incarceration, he received frequent visits

from various members of the vander Elst circle, who brought him food, wine, and a

selection of unlawful reading materials.

Just as there had been a swell of public sympathy for Thorn’s two executed

Augustinian brothers, so too many considered Thorn a victim of the authorities’ zealous

religious policies. Consequently, a variety of laymen and women, as well as Thorn’s

fellow Augustinians, formed a sort of support network for the imprisoned . Neither

the local nor central authorities in Brussels made any overt attempts to rein in such

demonstrations of support.99 Willem vander Cammen admitted visiting Thorn up to ten

96 See testimony of Joos Cornelin, 11 May 1527. Fols. 41-41v. 97 Decavele posits that this was Luther’s Ein sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sakrament of 1519, translated into Dutch as Een sermoen van den hoochwaerdighen sacrament des heylighen warachtigen lichaems ons heeren Ihesu Christi, which was published in 1521 by Jan Seversz. in Leiden, and which was possibly the source of der Kinderen’s strong opinions on eucharistic theology. See Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 25. As we shall see, however, der Kinderen possessed several books, displaying a variety of opinions on eucharistic theology, any of which he could have lent to the sisters, although I agree with Decavele that it is most likely that he shared Luther’s sermon with them since it most closely reflected his own view on the matter. For the testimonies of witnesses in this regard, see fols. 41-45v. 98 For the details of Thorn’s arrest and imprisonment see above, Chapter Two. 99 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 18.

124 times during his imprisonment, “because a certain friar named Ingel told him that Thorn was a good Christian man and that he was worthy of alms.”100 So vander Cammen visited him regularly and gave him money. Ingel was not the only one pushing the

Brussels faithful to support Thorn. In his sermon on Easter Saturday, vander Elst encouraged his listeners to visit Thorn, calling him their “brother-in-arms”

(medebrueder), whom they were duty-bound to support. After this exhortation,

Christiaen der Moyen collected money for the imprisoned Augustinian.101

Not all of the arrestees admitted to having visited Thorn. Several, however, did confess that they had sent him food (despite the fact that he was sentenced to a diet of bread and water.) One deponent even admitted transporting food and wine to Thorn from a friend of his in Antwerp.102 At least six deponents acknowledged visiting Thorn personally, some of whom made only single visits, while others (such as Willem vander

Cammen) saw him frequently. Margriete, wife of Peeter de Pannemaker went to visit

Thorn secretly, without telling her husband, suggesting that there may have been some opposition to such visits within the group.103

100 “Hy die spreeckt hier voertyts besocht / opde steenporte Lambrecht den gedegradeerde augustyn viii, ix oft / x reysen, ende dat vuyt dyen want een minderbrueder geheeten Ingel / seyde dat een goet kersten man was begherende datmen hem / aelmoesen doen soude.” Testimony of Willem vander Cammen, 29 May 1527. Fol. 20v. Johanna Walsche also admitted sending money to Thorn. Fol. 17v. 101 “Meester Claes seyde totten / auditueren ten vordele van Lambrecht sittende opde / steenporte dat waert soe datter yemant devotie hadde / tot Lambrechte voerβ datmen hem wat ghane want / huere mede brueder was oft dyer gelycke worden. Ende dat yemandt hem dragen soude, gaf oeck hy die spreeckt / alsdoen eenen Stuiver, welck gelt ontfinck / [Christiaen] der moyen / nae syn leste onthouden.” Testimony of Hubrecht Sternaer, 31 May 1527. Fols. 20-22v, here at fol. 21v. 102 See testimony of Valentyn van Orley, 13 May 1527. Fol. 7v. Anna (wife of Jan Dons) also admitted sending food (fol. 15), as did Johanna Walsche, who had her children deliver it to him (fol. 17v). 103 Fols. 9v-10. Others who visited Thorn include Everaert van Orley (fol. 12v), Valentyn van Orley (fols. 7v-8), Anna vander Cammen (fol. 20), Willem vander Cammen (fol. 20v), Jan der Kinderen (fols. 46-47), and the children of Johanna Walsche (fol. 17v).

125

Nor were these visits innocent. When he realized that several of the conventicle

members had relationships with Thorn, the inquisitor Coppin decided to depose the prior.

Thorn testified that der Kinderen had lent him various illicit works over the previous

couple of years, including Oecalompadius’s commentary on Isaiah and a work by

Bugenhagen on the Psalter.104 Others brought him Reformation texts as well, including

his former Augustinian brother, Peeter from Mechelen, who produced a copy of

Melanchthon’s writing on the epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians.105 Thorn also

received a letter from Luther himself, who sought to comfort the monk in his

incarceration, to send him greetings from his former prior, Praepositus, and to convey his

own support, expressing his sorrow that, although he had been the first to teach the

doctrines for which Thorn was incarcerated, he had not himself been found worthy to

suffer for their cause.106

That Thorn received works from authors with such a variety of theological

viewpoints is indicative of the fluid nature of the early Reformation. Moreover, it is

remarkable that it took the authorities at least three years to put a stop to these illicit

visits, discussions, and sharing of illegal works.

104 “. . . [Jan der Kinderen] gebrocht heeft ende geleent ecolompadum / opden profeet Ezaeam, ende oeck Pomeranum / opden Souter.” Testimony of Lambrecht Thorn, 14 May 1527. Fols. 46-47, here at fol. 46v. It is likely that this was the 1526 translation of Bugenhagen, published by Johannes Hoochstraten in Antwerp. See Kronenberg, Verboden Boeken, 77. For information on the text, see Nijhoff and Kronenberg, eds., Nederlandsche Bibliographie, 1: 191-92, # 508. 105 Ibid. 106 “Me miserum, qui primus ista docuisse iactor, et novissimus et forte nunquam vestrorum vinculorum et ignium particeps esse dignus sum.” Luther to Lambrecht Thorn, 19 January 1524. CD, 4: doc. 191.

126

Thorn died unconfessed in his jail cell on 15 September 1528, and was buried under the scaffold in Brussels.107 His involvement in this trial is significant because it illustrates the extent and success of networks of dissent in the early years of the

Reformation. Not only was Thorn’s plight made known by religious dissidents who preached about him, but there was an organized effort to raise funds for him and sustain him with literature and food. His supporters formed an extensive alliance of like-minded souls willing to transgress the law to supply him with prohibited reading materials and to discuss heterodox religious ideas on a regular basis during his incarceration. These associations of aid included not only his fellow religious, but lay sympathizers such as those in the vander Elst group, untrained in theology but sympathetic to the plight of a fellow believer, whom they thought was being persecuted for his views. Even though the members of this conventicle disagreed vehemently on certain points of theology, they were able to form a cohesive, united front, a fellowship of dissent in support of one whom they saw as an oppressed spiritual brother.

IV. THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES

As with most religious prosecutions during this period, three sets of authorities participated in this trial. Still early in the century, the emperor’s edicts had not yet transferred responsibility for religious crimes entirely away from the inquisition to the secular officials. Thus the ecclesiastical inquisition, under the leadership of the inquisitors Nicholas Coppin and Johannes Macquet, formed the first arm of the

107 CD, 5: doc. 731.

127

prosecution. Inquisitors were present at all the depositions and took an active role in the

questioning of suspects. The second arm was the regent, Margaret of Austria, and her

advisory councils, most notably the Council of State and the Council of Brabant. Finally, the local Brussels authorities also held some jurisdiction in the case since the arrestees were inhabitants and burghers of their city. In later years, authority in such trials fell almost completely to the municipal authorities, whose city councils eventually took over investigation, prosecution, and sentencing in such cases. In 1527, however, this system was not yet fully in place, leading to a confusion of ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions and competing agendas among the three ruling parties.

Margaret of Austria initiated the trial, ordering the arrests and overseeing the proceedings. She also chose the inquisitors and assigned ultimate authority to the

Council of Brabant.108 But the municipal authorities insisted on maintaining some

involvement. The arrests caused great unrest in the city, as dozens of tapestry weavers

and their apprentices found themselves out of work now that their masters had been

apprehended.109 The local authorities feared that the malcontents would band together and attempt to set the prisoners free, as had happened in Antwerp with Hendrick van

Zutphen just three years earlier.110

It came to the attention of the ambtman111 that certain ill-willed people had formed a plan to liberate Peeter de Pannemaker and the other prisoners, and to set them free from the prison this very evening. He therefore told my lord Chancellor, and it was decided to send that night for the armed

108 In a document detailing the financial accounts of the inquisitor and his assistants, the notary remarks that the trial was ordered by Margaret and the Council of Brabant. Fols. 63-63v. 109 Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 223. 110 See above, Chapter Two. 111 The ambtman was the head prosecutor for civil crimes. English contains no corresponding title, so I will here maintain the original Dutch usage.

128

guard, which the ambtman did . . . and they went from street to street, especially in the districts where the arrested Lutherans lived, to make sure that no secret meetings took place anywhere.112

Without the local connections of the municipal authorities, it is unlikely that

Margaret and the Council of Brabant would have known about such rumors. Although the Council of Brabant sanctioned the response of the ambtman to send in the armed guard, Margaret was still determined to limit the role of the municipal authorities. In

June, two months into the proceeding, Margaret instructed the chancellor to assume control of the prosecution and sentencing of the suspects, thereby excluding the ambtman and the city council of Brussels. She wrote:

With regard to the consultation of the ambtman and the municipal rulers of Brussels, pursuant to their privileges and the placards of the emperor, with regard to their burghers who are charged with Lutheranism, and on the advice of our Council . . . we order you to serve diligently and to guard the honor, law, authority, and profit of the emperor, and to punish those you find guilty, in order to set an example for others.113

Margaret here instructed her chancellor to take control of the investigation,

without regard for the involvement of the city’s ambtman, who would normally have

jurisdiction over such cases. At this point in the development of Charles’s anti-heresy

program, the roles of each governing body were still somewhat unclear, so Margaret’s

112 “Item want ter kennissen van myn heeren den amptman / gecomen was dat eenighe quaetwilligen geseet ende / vuytgegaen hadden den de Pannemaker ende dander gevangenen / irst aengetast waeren dat de selve pannemaker ende dander / Luteraenen dien avont met veel volck vuyten gevanckenisse / gehaelt souden wordden, heeft hy daeraf geadverteert myn / heeren den Cancellier ende is alsoe gesloten datmen dien nacht / inder stadthuys soude doen waken de guldebruers, d’welck / myn heer damptman heeft doen doen . . . omgegaen van strate te strate ende besonder inde wyken / ende quartieren daer de Luteraenen woenachtich waeren om alsoe te beletten datter nerghens gheen vergaderinghe / van volcke gemaect en soude wordden.” Fol. 61. 113 “Quant à la sollicitacion de l’amman et gens de la loy de Bruxelles prétendans, selon leurs previlèges et les laccars de l’Empereur, avoir la cognoissance de leurs bourgois accusaez de la secte luthérane, eu sur ce l’advis du Conseil . . . nous vous ordonnons le faire dilligamment et y garder l’honneur, droit, auctorité et prouffit de l’Empereur, et tellement chastier ceulx que trouverez culpables que autres y prendent example.” Margaret of Austria to chancellor of Brabant, Jerome vander Noot, 7 June 1527. CD, 5: doc. 613.

129

demand did not directly violate any laws. However, her letter ominously foreshadows

the jurisdictional battles that would rage between the local and central officials in the

coming years.

V. SENTENCING

Despite its relative thoroughness, the investigation of 1527 did not last very long.

Between the end of May and mid-July, all of the accused were sentenced.114 As we have seen, however, there was more than one legal authority operating in this case, and that fact is reflected in the sentencing. Margaret of Austria was apparently successful in excluding the local municipal officials from the juridical procedure, as their voice is completely absent in the sentencing documents. All sentences were imposed by the two remaining parties, Margaret’s own judges, the Council of Brabant (under the leadership of the chancellor) and the ecclesiastical inquisitors, led by Nicholas Coppin and Johannes

Macquet. Both promulgated separate sentences, again illustrating the confusion produced by the slow progression in the development of Charles V’s religious policy in the territory.115

114 Johan Decavele asserts that sentencing took place on 15 June 1527, but he bases his view only on one set of notes from the Council of Brabant and does not take into account sentences imposed by other parties, at other times. See Decavele, “Opkomst,” 31. 115 This is the only case I have encountered where two separate sets of sentences were simultaneously imposed. Decavele contends that the public prosecutor demanded the death penalty for some of the suspects. However, I have found such a request nowhere in the documentation, and Decavele himself provides no citation. As we shall see, it seems rather to have been the case that the secular authorities treated the defendants with a large degree of leniency. What is more, the death penalty was not systematically legislated for crimes of conventicles and book possession until 1529, so the legal foundation for such a demand would also have been somewhat limited. See Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 27.

130

a. Ecclesiastical Punishments

At least one of the inquisitors, Coppin or Macquet, had been present at every

deposition heard during the course of the trial. The theological nature of many of the

interrogations suggests that the inquisitors probably composed many of the questions, and

consequently had a thorough grasp of the extent of each participant’s heterodoxy. They

meted out two types of penalties: monetary fines (to compensate the ecclesiastical

authorities for the costs of the investigation) and acts of penance, to be performed at

specific times and locations determined by the inquisitors.

Records of the financial penalties imposed by the inquisitors survive for 48 of the

63 suspects. The fines ranged from 2 to 38 Rhenish gilders. In several cases, the

penalties corresponded directly to the extent of the suspect’s involvement in the events of

Easter week 1526. For example, because Berbele, wife of Willem de Clerck, attended

three sermons, she was fined 3 gilders. The same was true for Peeter vander Bossche

with 6, Catheryne, wife of Aerdt van Onkele with 4, Hendrick Rosteyt with 6, and so

on.116 In other cases, however, Macquet did not base his calculations on a direct ratio of sermons-to-fine.

At least 21 defendants received fines that exceeded the number of sermons they had attended. The inquisitors fined them more either because they had deposed extra

116 The following people were sentenced in this way: Anna (wife of Jan Dons), 3; Jan Bacx, 4; Jan de Buyellere, 6; Elizabeth (wife of Valentyn van Orley), 3; Berbele (wife of Willem de Clerck), 3; Jan Dons Jr., 4; Peeter vander Bossche, 6; Catheryne (wife of Aerdt van Onkele), 4; Willem de Clerck, 7; Magriete Cluuckers, 7; Hendrick Rosteyt, 6; Elizabeth (wife of Everaerdt van Orley), 2; Geertruyt (wife of Jan Bacx), 4; Jan Ghietels, 3; Giet Imbrechts, 3; Magriete (wife of Hendrick Rosteyt), 4; Everaerdt van Orley, 4; Johanna (wife of Jan de Vogheleer), 6; Aerdt van Onkele, 7; Joos de Puttere, 2; Lysbeth (wife of Joos de Puttere), 3; Jan Screyborch, 4; and Jan de Vogheleer, 5. See account of Johannes Macquet, fols. 26- 26v.

131

witnesses in their cases (thereby driving up costs), or because they considered them

leaders of the conventicle. For example, Hendrick Tsas attended five sermons but was

fined 14 gilders. Macquet noted that several witnesses were deposed during the course of

his interrogation, making his trial more expensive.117 Jan der Kinderen and Peeter de

Pannemaker received by far the highest fines in the group, der Kinderen owing 38

gilders, de Pannemaker 30. In each case, Macquet had called witnesses to testify (as

many as 11 of them in the trial of Jan der Kinderen), and considered these two men

ringleaders of the conventicle.118

The inquisitors followed a similar rationale when they imposed ecclesiastical

penalties. They first demanded penance that would suffice “in recompense for the

scandal caused, and as a visible sign of repentance.”119 To satisfy this requirement, they required each defendant to attend services at the St. Gudule Church in Brussels. The number of sermons the convicts were required to attend corresponded exactly to the number of vander Elst sermons they had witnessed, as though the orthodox preaching at

St. Gudule could erase a direct proportion of heretical sermons by vander Elst. While in attendance at these services, the conventicle members had to sit on a raised platform at the front of the church with bared heads so that all congregants could see who they were.120 In addition, the inquisitors stipulated that, from thenceforth, the accused had to

abide by the rites of the Roman Church and to partake of its sacraments. They were

117 The same was true of Valentyn van Orley, in whose record it was noted that he had books in his house, the inventory of which would have increased the costs. Ibid. 118 Ibid. 119 “In reperationem scandali et ut in vobis et quolibet / verum exterioris penitencie signa appareat vos.” Sentences of Nicholas Coppin, n.d. Fols. 84-85v, here at fol. 85. 120 Ibid. See also fols. 90-90v.

132

forbidden to dispute articles of faith in secret or in private for the rest of their lives.121

This sentence was imposed upon 42 of the conventiclers. In five cases, the additional requirement that the defendant carry a burning candle during a specific procession was added to the penalty.122 Again, all five had participated more heavily, either by attending

more sermons than their fellow participants, or encouraging others to accompany them.

Among the members singled out by the ecclesiastical officials for additional

penalties was Valentyn van Orley, whom the inquisitors required to publicly abjure his errors, in punishment for the possession of illicit books. For their excessive involvement in the affair, Hendrick Houwarts and Jan der Kinderen were required to do the same.123

Seven others, all of whom had been involved on a deeper level, had to wear a red cross in

perpetuity.124 Yet of all of those accused, the most elaborate ecclesiastical punishments were reserved for Bernard van Orley and Nicholas Rombouts.125 In addition to the

requirements imposed on the other collaborators, Orley had to provide a certain amount

of wine to St. Peter’s Church in Leuven,126 while Rombouts had to publicly recant, carry

a candle in certain processions, and provide wine to the Church of St. Anne in

Brussels.127

121 Ibid. 122 Namely in the case of Betteken de Latersse, Christiaen der Moyen, Hubrecht Sternaer, Hendrick Tsas, and Johanna Walschen, fol. 85. 123 Ibid. 124 Namely Margriete (wife of Peeter de Pannemaker), Marie van Meereghem (wife of Jan der Kinderen), Peeter de Pannemaker, Anna vander Cammen, Willem vander Cammen, Agnes Segers (wife of Bernard van Orley), and Hubrecht Sternaer. See Sentences of Johannes Macquet, fols. 86-7, here at fol. 86v. 125 In neither case are records extant detailing the financial penalties imposed by the ecclesiastical officials. It is likely that their fines also exceeded those of the other defendants. Duverger erroneously notes that the sentences of Rombouts, Tsas, and Bernard van Orley are not known, but this is only true of their financial punishments. See Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 226. 126 See sentence imposed by Johannes Macquet, n.d. Fols. 75-76. 127 See sentence imposed by Coppin and Macquet, 18 July 1527. Fols. 65-65v.

133

In imposing their sentences, the ecclesiastical inquisitors clearly differentiated between those with only a minimal, personal involvement in the secret meetings, and those who were involved in the organization of the conventicle, or who had participated more thoroughly in other ways, such as possessing and lending heretical books.

b. Secular Punishments

The secular officials did not exercise the same differentiation in their sentencing decisions. Records have survived of penalties imposed by the Council of Brabant upon

41 of the defendants in this case.128 On 17 July 1526, Charles issued an edict pertaining directly to conventicles. This law demanded fines for those convicted of participation, ranging from 20 gilders and a three-month ban for first offenses, to 80 gilders and eternal exile for repeat offenders.129 Twenty-nine of the Brussels group were fined the 20 gilders stipulated by this law, regardless of the level of their involvement.130 Although the imperial authorities initially observed the terms of this edict, the council appears to have

128 It is almost certain that every participant received punishments from both the Council of Brabant and the ecclesiastical inquisitors. Documentation is missing in several cases, however. No financial penalties by either authority are recorded for Lysbeth Ghysel, Magriete Ghysels, Jan van Lemucken, Philips der Mol, Nicholas Rombouts, Bernard van Orley, Agnes Segers, Jacob Tseraerts, or Christiaen de Zomer. 129 “. . . ende dit al, op peyne, voor die eerste reyse dat men bevonden ende achterhaelt sal wesen, ende met kennesse van zaeken te wette verwonnen, te verbuerene twintich Carolus guldenen, ofte by ghebreke dat hy die niet en moghte betalen, drie maenden vut onsen lande van Vlaendren ghebannen te wordene, zonder daerinne den voorseyden tyt gheduerende weder te moghen commen, op arbitraire correctie; voor die tweede reyse, op peyne van veertich Carolus guldenen, ofte by ghereke van dien als vooren, een half iaer uut onsen voorseyden lande ende graefschepe ghebannen te wordene, op ghelycke payne als boven; ende voor die derde reyse, op peyne van tachentich Carolus guldenen, ofte by ghebreke van dien, eeuwelick ghebannen te worden uut onsen voorseyden lande ende graefschepe van Vlaenderen, zonder daerinne te moghen commene, op verbuerte van lyfve ende goede.” Edict of 17 July 1526. Full text in Charles Laurent and J. Lameere, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922), 2: 402-05, here at 404. 130 Jan de Buyellere and Johanna de Walschen received higher fines (40 gilders and 400 gilders respectively) probably reflecting their personal wealth rather than the extent of their crimes. For details of penalties imposed by the Council of Brabant, see the accounts of Henricx de Hane, Receiver of Exploits. CD, 5: doc. 617.

134 shown a tremendous degree of leniency in enforcing these penalties. In 15 of the 31 cases, when the defendants argued that they were too poor to pay the imposed fines, the council subsequently amended their punishment. In most cases they forgave it completely (although several managed to pay later), or they contracted a special payment plan, as in the cases of Hendrick and Magriete Rosteyt. Indeed, Jan and Geertruyt Bacx appeared before the council and requested, in view of their poverty, to pay their sentence in jail time as opposed to money. The councilors granted their wish and the couple spent one month incarcerated on a diet of bread and water.131

Eleven defendants received additional penalties from the Council of Brabant.

Each were conventicle members considered most culpable in the affair. Although they were fined the initial 20-gilder penalty, the council imposed additional punishments of banishment or confiscation. Magriete and Peeter de Pannemaker, Marie van Meereghem and Jan der Kinderen, Anna and Willem vander Cammen, Berbele and Valentyn van

Orley, Hendrick Houwarts, and Hubrecht Sternaer were banished within the city of

Brussels (meaning the defendant’s right to travel was taken away) for a period of two to six years. In addition, the council attempted to confiscate up to one third of the defendant’s goods, which were to go to the profit of the emperor, as the edict demanded.

However, because none of the defendants were able to withstand such an excessive confiscation, in every case the council either reduced this requirement to a fine or removed it completely.

131 Ibid.

135

The three most culpable offenders, Jan der Kinderen, Bernard van Orley, and

Peeter de Pannemaker, all lost their positions – de Pannemaker and van Orley as artists at the court of Margaret of Austria, and der Kinderen as legal representative for the court of

Cameryck. Even on this level, however, the secular authorities showed some clemency.

Peeter de Pannemaker, who had been granted an imperial exemption from his confiscation, was re-employed by Charles shortly after the close of the trial.132 Although de Pannemaker was a favorite of the emperor and his regent, such clemency on the part of Charles was highly atypical, especially for a religious offense. Over the course of the next two decades, such magnanimous gestures would cease entirely.

The case of the vander Elst circle demonstrates clearly that the Council of Brabant initially enforced the terms of the emperor’s 1526 legislation to the letter. But when several convicts complained of the financial hardship caused by these penalties, the council offered more clemency than the edict allowed. What is more, the case reveals that, at this early stage in the development of the emperor’s religious policy, the roles of the temporal and ecclesiastical officials remained unclear, resulting in a double layer of sentencing. The central authorities and the ecclesiastical inquisitors each assessed the participants and imposed sentences separately. The local authorities were wholly shut out of the process, from the original investigation to the eventual sentencing. It would be two more years before Charles’s administration introduced legislation clarifying the judicial situation and transferring responsibility in such cases away from the ecclesiastical arm and into the hands of the local authorities.

132 This according to Duverger, “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel,” 227.

136

VI. RETURNEES

This trial did not signal the eradication of the Lutheran sympathies of those involved. Despite and promises to remain within the bosom of the Roman church, several defendants reappear later in the historical record, charged with similar offenses. Not least of these was the group’s ringleader, Claes vander Elst.

Vander Elst was not prosecuted in the original trial, having left Brussels shortly after his Easter sermon series. He traveled to the northern Low Countries, where he formed or augmented relationships with several prominent burghers of Leiden and

Amsterdam. In April 1528, the Court of Holland arrested him in Leiden, along with two women, Dignum Gerijtsdochters and Neeltje Symon Claesdochter.133 All three were charged with heresy, and the house where they had been living was searched, uncovering a collection of heretical books. The subsequent depositions of the three offenders indicate that vander Elst had formed close ties with several Amsterdammers, who were subsequently brought in to testify. A number of prominent citizens were among them, including three officials from the Amsterdam city council.134 In addition, the authorities summoned several Leiden residents, and accused them of housing vander Elst during his stay in that city.

According to the court records, vander Elst and his two female accomplices made full confessions of their heresy, although the texts of their statements have not

133 Decavele, “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid,” 27. 134 The Prosecutor, Hubrechtsz., as well as Cornelis Bellinck and Pieter Colijn. See Ibid.

137

survived.135 During the course of the investigation, the officials of the court of Holland

and the deacon of Naeldwyck, acting as their ecclesiastical inquisitor, corresponded with

Nicholas Coppin concerning the case, although these letters, too, have been destroyed.136

Although there was clearly an extensive investigation, no sentence was ever pronounced against vander Elst who died on 25 July 1528, just three months into his incarceration.

Nevertheless, the investigation emphasizes again the importance of geographically- dispersed networks of dissent in the early Reformation in the Low Countries. Vander

Elst clearly had significant connections in several cities of the northern and southern Low

Countries, and formed associations with prominent burghers in each of them.

Meanwhile, vander Elst’s followers in Brussels continued to thrive after his departure. They were led for a time by the Amsterdam preacher, Isebrand Schol, who was aided by Michel le Chartreux and Cornelis de Cordelier.137 Again, the fact that these

men were originally from Amsterdam affirms the existence of an extensive network of

religious dissenters who actively supported each other in this early period. Schol had

previously worked as an underground religious leader in Antwerp, where he was twice

brought in for questioning but both times released.138 In July 1534, his fortune ran out.

He and his two assistants were arrested in Brussels and condemned to the flames. Schol

135 The records of the investigation can be found in CD, 5: doc. 740. 136 “Loys Wielant, clercq van de greffe, die mit zekere beloeten brieven van den voirs. Hove gereyst is tot Mechelen aen mijn heere die grave van Hoechstraeten, stadthouder generael, ende meester Nicolaes de Monitbus, inquisiteur generael, roerende een meester Claes [vander Elst], gevangen tot Leyden, ende heeft mijn voirs. heere die stadthouder hem mit brieven gesonden tot Loven om den voirs. inquisiteur generael, die hem wederomme brieven van antwoirde gelevert heeft.” Ibid. 137 Braekman, Le protestantisme à Bruxelles, 8. 138 A. L. E. Verheyden, De Hervorming in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in de XVIe eeuw (Brussels: Synode van de Protestantse Kerken, 1949), 55.

138

was executed by fire on 27 July, his two accomplices suffering the same fate eight days

later.

Their sentences were so severe in large part due to events that had transpired in

the seven years between the original trial and this final episode. On 14 October 1529,

Margaret of Austria ushered into law her new anti-heresy edict. Far more severe in its

punishments than those that had preceded it, this legislation demanded capital

punishment for transgression.139 The original trial of vander Elst’s 63 followers took

place in 1527, two years before this new legislation was enacted. According to the

preceding edicts, banishment and confiscation were the harshest penalties meted out for

such a crime. The intensification of these punishments, and the arrest of Schol,

Chartreux, and Cordelier caused fear to ripple through the circles of religious dissenters

in Brussels. In the same year, 1534, four members of the original group came under

suspicion of heresy and fled the city.140 Willem de Kempeneer also reappeared in the

court records of Brussels, charged with heresy in 1543. He was banished and his goods

confiscated, although his sentence was later commuted for a fee.141 The fact that these

same offenders reappear under similar charges after so many years suggests that the

religious network they had already forged in the late 1520s was strong enough to survive

an extensive trial, the loss of its original leader, and punishments for all its members.

139 See above, Chapter Two, for details of this edict. 140 They were Peeter vander Bossche, his wife Magriete Cluuckers, Jan de Buyellere, and Johanna Walsche. For details see Decavele, “Opkomst,” 39-44. 141 In 1544. Ibid.

139

VII. CONCLUSION

The case of the vander Elst conventicle reveals a great deal about the nature of early Reformation dissent in the cities of the southern Low Countries and the authorities’ attempts to combat it. This case demonstrates three features of the early Reformation in the Low : the nascent form of proto-Protestant belief, the importance of networks of dissent, and the relative audacity exercised by groups of religious non- conformists.

Those involved in the vander Elst circle exhibited a flexibility of belief that rendered them willing to work with others who did not share all of their own theological convictions. Jan der Kinderen and Peter de Pannamaker are two examples of this type of open religiosity. Although they vocally disagreed with vander Elst on several points of doctrine, including the Eucharist, they remained leaders in the conventicle of which he was a part. This early stage in the formation of Protestant theological identity enabled a period of cooperation among dissidents. They formed a fellowship of dissent, united by their status as religious renegades, if not by their agreement on all points of doctrine.

Within this unity, a certain amount of religious individualism flourished. Characters such as der Kinderen who were educated enough to read the works of the Reformers for themselves, formed independent opinions on points of doctrine. Even those without an extensive education, such as Betteken de Latersse, or Valentyn van Orley, took vander

Elst’s teachings quite literally, changing their religious behavior immediately in order to follow his directives (Betteken with regard to the fast and Valentyn in confession).

140

Networks of family and professional relationships extended throughout the city of

Brussels and well beyond. The existence of such networks enabled the members of this

group to bring vander Elst to Brussels in the first place, and then provided refuge for him

in Leiden after the conventicle was discovered. Even this single group of dissenters

possessed close ties with like-minded dissidents in at least four cities spanning the north and south of the territory.

The behavior of the group as a whole during Holy Week 1526, illustrates the audacity with which these early dissidents exercised their religious freedoms. They demonstrated little fear of the authorities, openly debated points of doctrine, and gathered in large groups, visible to all on the streets of Brussels. Such behavior suggests the general population had not yet come to fear Charles’s religious program. Nor ought they to have. The Council of Brabant exhibited a lenient attitude to these offenders, initially

imposing the terms of the emperor’s edicts, but later moderating their punishments.

Fines were reduced, banishments were minimized, and one of the convicts (Peeter de

Pannamaker) was even able to regain employment at the royal court in the aftermath of

the trial. Not only were the punishments more lenient than the edicts dictated, but the

jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities was still incredibly vague during this trial. The

remaining evidence suggests that the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities worked

independently in trying this case, even to the point that they imposed completely separate

sentences. The local officials, who should have had a commanding role in the

proceedings, were effectively shut out of the process by Margaret of Austria, who

transferred control of the trial to her own officials in the Council of Brabant.

141

The inchoate nature of Charles’s religious policy in the early years of the

Reformation produced the jurisdictional confusion and leniency of sentencing so evident in this proceeding. The failure of his officials to impose strict sentences on religious convicts served only to bolster their resolve and led to a growth in early Protestant dissent. All of this would change, however, with the introduction of new legislation on

14 October 1529, a turning point in the severity of imperial regulations regarding heresy.

From this point, the edicts imposed harsher penalties (including the expanded use of capital punishment), secularized the prosecution of heresy, and began to centralize

Charles’s control of the judicial system. As is evident in the treatment of those members of the vander Elst circle prosecuted in the years following 1529, this new, better- regulated system operated far more effectively, ensuring the enforcement of harsher punishments, and ultimately driving religious dissidents underground. As will become apparent in the chapters that follow, the increased severity of these post-1529 edicts raised the ire of local authorities and caused great tension between them and their imperial rulers.

142

PART III THE PORTUGUESE NEW CHRISTIANS

INTRODUCTION: THE PORTUGUESE AND ANTWERP

By the mid-sixteenth century, Antwerp had established itself as the most commercially profitable Habsburg city, providing seventy-five percent of all mercantile revenues.1 The trading nation of Portugal generated a significant proportion of this wealth, using the port city of Antwerp as a mid-point in the transport of expensive spices from the Portuguese Indies to the Ottoman Empire.2 Already in 1511, the magistrate of

Antwerp donated a house to the Portuguese community, which served as a commercial center and residence for their consul.3 Many of Antwerp’s Portuguese merchants were

New Christians, descendants of Jews who had been forced to convert to Christianity by

Manuel I of Portugal (r.1495-1521) in 1497.4 By the early sixteenth century, one or two generations after the forced conversions, the majority of Antwerp’s New Christians lived as Catholics, attended Mass and participated in the ecclesiastical life of the city.5

1 From 1542 to 1545, Charles V levied a one-percent tax on all exports. Antwerp provided three quarters of all returns. Amsterdam was next, with just five percent. An M. Kint, The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp (Ph.D. Diss., Columbia University, 1996), 2. 2 Their cargoes included pepper, cinnamon, mace, nutmeg, cloves, pimento, ginger, sandalwood, wormwood, camphor, and ivory. Cecil Roth, Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948), 21. 3 Joaquim Mauricio Lopes, Les Portugais à Anvers au XVIieme siécle (Antwerp: J. E. Buschmann, 1895), 9. This large house, “La Maison du Portugal,” was located on the Kipdorp, where it remained until 1817. 4 Herman P. Salomon, Portrait of a : Fernão Álvares Melo (1569-1632), Fontes Documentais Portugesas 18 (Paris: Centro Cultural Português, 1982), 15. 5 The city records show that the Portuguese participated regularly in Antwerp’s frequent ecclesiastical processions and were among the more generous donors to the city’s Christian charitable institutions. Perhaps most notable in this regard was the Portuguese Baron of Rhodes, Simão Rodrigues d’Evora, known as “Petit Roi,” who established the hospital of St. Anna, added a garden chapel, and provided the institution with a perpetual donation of money to ensure its continued operation. See Lopes, Les Portugais à Anvers, 12-17. Petit Roi’s son, Willem Taudeloo, was a monk who left his cloister and was accused of heresy in 1529. For details of his case, see AA, 7: 166-78.

143

The Habsburgs profited immensely from the presence of the Portuguese traders and the vast wealth they produced. On occasion, Charles V benefited personally, through loans provided or brokered by individual Portuguese businessmen, who helped finance the emperor’s frequent military forays in the empire and beyond.6 Yet, despite the financial importance of the Portuguese New Christians to the municipal life of Antwerp and the economic well-being of the empire, they had a volatile relationship with their imperial host. At times, Charles grew suspicious concerning the sincerity of their

Christian faith. In contrast, their direct overseers, the city administrators of Antwerp, were far more confident (or apathetic) regarding the authenticity of their religious convictions. The New Christian community provided the financial foundation of

Antwerp’s mercantile supremacy and the city council was unyielding in its defense of these most valuable residents. At several points during the 1530s and 1540s, the city authorities of Antwerp clashed with Charles over their religiously-ambiguous Portuguese residents. These clashes exacerbated existing tensions between the local and imperial authorities, increasingly drawing the emperor into the affairs of their city.

Charles’s suspicions of the New Christians led to several trials during the course of the 1530s and 1540s, in which various New Christian merchants were accused of

Judaizing. Between 1526 and 1549 the emperor underwent a complete transformation in his attitude toward the New Christians. In 1526 he welcomed them into his lands, granting them the freedom to settle and trade there. Two decades later, in a reversal of his former policy, he expelled the New Christians from his Low Countries territories.

6 Diego Mendes was notable in this regard. See below.

144

The following two chapters explore the circumstances that led to this dramatic and economically devastating decision.

I. CONVERSION, EXPULSION, AND ESCAPE: THE JEWS OF PORTUGAL

In 1496, King contracted a marriage with Isabella of Castile.

As a concession to his new bride, Manuel agreed to expel all Portuguese Jews, as her mother and namesake had done four years earlier in Spain.7 The king initiated a series of repressive laws culminating in the edict of 1497, which outlawed the practice of and ordered the of all Portuguese Jews. This forced baptism created an enormous community of New Christians.8 Although involuntary, their baptism changed the religious status of these converts, placing them under the jurisdiction of the Church and later, the inquisition.9 Fearing the latter, many newly-baptized Christians fled to

7 Jan A. Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales à Anvers de 1488 à 1567. Contribution a l'histoire des débuts du capitalisme moderne (1925; New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), 555. 8 The designation New Christians will be employed throughout this section. Contemporary authors, including the Portuguese New Christians themselves, used the term. Other authors labeled them , but this word, which translates as pigs, carried a negative connotation and has therefore been avoided. The term , frequently used in modern discussions of Spanish New Christians, is not used since it is of recent origin and bears little relation to contemporary classifications in the Low Countries. On the forced baptism of the Portuguese Jews, see Salomon, Portrait, 15. Manuel’s original edict called for the conversion or expulsion of the Jews, but when it appeared likely that a large number of them might actually leave, taking their lucrative businesses with them, Manuel simply declared them all Christians so that they would remain in the country. See also Marianna D. Birnbaum, The Long Journey of Gracia Mendes (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2003), 19. In his own history of the incident, the Antwerp pensionary, Adriaan Herbouts, described the “baptism” of the Jews as consisting of a forced gathering in which they were involuntarily sprayed with baptismal water by the priest and declared to be Christians: “De maniere oft solempniteyt geobserveert in dit dopsel soude geweest zyn, dat diegheene die den last hadde omme alsulcken persoonen te baptizeerene, gedaen habbende sekere ceremonie daertoe dienende, heeft genoemen eenen quispel met wywater oft fontwater, spreyende over dengheenen die daer vergaedert waeren ende geseidt ‘Ego baptiso te in nomine Patris et Filii, etc.’” See notes of Adriaan Herbouts, (n.d.) AA, 7: 393-97, here at 395. 9 A papally-sanctioned inquisition was introduced into Portugal only in 1536 under King Juan III (r.1521- 1557). After the of the Jews, Manuel I extended certain legal protections to the New Christians for a period of 20 years (later extended to 36), during which time he hoped that they would assimilate into the larger Christian culture. When Manuel’s son, Juan III came to the throne in 1521, he instituted a series of increasingly stringent laws against the New Christians, culminating in a request to the

145 lands in which they could practice their former religion unmolested. The majority, however, remained in Portugal, where they accepted the terms, ostensibly or otherwise, of Manuel’s forced conversion.10 But their assimilation into Christian society was slow and they faced persistent hostility from their Old Christian neighbors. Even the designation New Christians perpetuated a semantic segregation, preserving the status of

the converts as a distinct and separate group.11

Those new converts who settled in Christian lands eagerly attempted to

demonstrate and confirm the orthodoxy of their faith. They filled their commercial

records with consciously Christian language and frequently used Christian symbolism.

Equally religious language permeates their wills, which commonly included donations to

Christian poor houses.12 Of those who fled , most went to Morocco, the

pope that an inquisition be established. For various reasons, the request was not approved until 1536, when the Portuguese Inquisition was created on the Spanish model. The first auto-de-fé was held in in 1540, and the first executions (of twenty offenders) took place in an auto-de-fé in the same city in 1544. The overwhelming majority of early cases tried by the Portuguese Inquisition involved New Christian apostates. See Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 26; Salomon, Portrait, 19-25; and Jonathan I. Israel, Diasporas within a Diaspora: Jews, Crypto-Jews and the World Maritime Empires (1540-1740) S. Katz, ed., Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 30 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 41-44. 10 Ben-Zion Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain from the Late XIVth to the Early XVIth Century (1966; London: Cornell University Press, 1999), 28. Official rabbinical teaching legislated that, in a situation of forced conversion, Jews should flee to lands where they would be free to practice Judaism. The Rabbis distinguished between New Christians, who were unable to relocate and therefore had been forced to convert, and meshumadim, who chose conversion and were thereafter considered apostates from Judaism. According to rabbinical teaching, those who continued to worship as Christians violated Jewish law, forfeited their status as Jews, and were no longer welcome within the community. Although not directly pertinent to the current discussion, these rulings offer insight into the Sephardim’s self-conceptions and understanding of what it meant to be Jewish in terms of ethnicity and practice. 11 Birnbaum, The Long Journey 12. On the self-segregation of the New Christians, see also Israel, Diasporas, 42. The underlying hostility to the New Christian population manifested itself most evidently when plague broke out in Lisbon in 1506. A popular uprising ensued, in which the New Christians were immediately singled out, blamed, and systematically massacred by the crowd. For a discussion of the massacre, see Salomon, Portrait, 16-19, and Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 555. 12 In Antwerp, their record books begin and end with signs of the cross, and the Christian admonition: “ende zyt Gode beloven.” Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 548-49.

146

Ottoman Empire, or cities in Italy where the practice of Judaism was legally sanctioned.13

In 1532, Juan III of Portugal issued a decree forbidding the New Christians from leaving

Portugal to relocate to lands in which Judaism was legal. The penalties for disobedience ranged from confiscation of goods to exile or death, with concomitant punishments for

those who aided them in their flight.14 The king’s decree appears to have had little effect, however, as the flow of New Christians continued unabated.

The most common destination for Portuguese refugees was the city of Salonica in the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Thessalonica, ). Upon arrival there, most of these New Christians turned, or returned, to the practice of Judaism.15 Salonica enjoyed a long history of religious toleration under Muslim rule, and members of the Sephardi diaspora had been resident there at least since their expulsion from Spain.16 By 1517, the

13 Namely Ferrara, Venice, and Ancona. Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 7, and Israel, Diasporas, 9-10, 48- 58. 14 See Ordinance of Don Juan, King of Portugal, 14 June 1532. AA, 7: 196-201. 15 By the early 1530s, the New Christians of Portugal were separated from the forced conversion of 1497 by at least one generation. There has been extensive debate as to whether the New Christian community maintained secret Jewish practices and instruction in Portugal, or whether they lived from 1497 on as Christians. The majority of modern commentators believe that the Jewish converts eschewed their former religion. See Ellis Rivkin, “How Jewish Were the New Christians?” in J. M. Sola-Solé, S. G. Armistead, and J. H. Silverman, eds., Hispania Judaica. Studies on the History, Language, and Literature of the Jews in the Hispanic World 1 (Barcelona: Puvill-Editor, n.d.), 103-15; Alexandre Herculano, History of the Origin and Establishment of the Inquisition in Portugal, John C. Branner, trans. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1926); Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain; Hans Pohl, Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen (1567-1648): Zur Geschichte einer Minderheit, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beihefte 63 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1977); Salomon, Portrait; and Israel, Diasporas. Historians who contend that the New Christians maintained a secret adherence to Judaism include Gérard Nahon, “Les marranes espagnols et portugais et les communautés juives issues du marranisme dans l’historiographie récente (1960-1975),” Revue des études juives 136 (1977), 297-367, who provides a general summary of the literature, and Israel S. Révah, “Pour l’histoire des marranes à Anvers: recensements de la ‘Nation Portugaise’ de 1571 à 1666,” Revue des études juives 122 (1963), 123-47. 16 The Ottomans conquered Salonica in 1517, but already prior to their arrival, the city had been ruled by . The Ottomans did not modify the rights the previous Muslim rulers had accorded the Jews. For information on the Sephardi community in Salonica, see Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 75-114. On the history of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire in general, see Aryeh Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal, and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984).

147 city was home to an estimated 3,143 Jewish households and 930 Jewish bachelors. By mid century, it had become known as the “second ,” and was home to more

Jews than its namesake.17

The question as to whether early modern New Christians maintained secret

Jewish practices despite their forced conversions is one that has exercised the minds of scholars for decades. Opinions on the matter remain sharply divided. The debate, which erupted initially between Israel Révah and Saraiva, has become increasingly nuanced in recent years. On one side, historians such as Heim Beinart and Kaspar von

Greyerz subscribe to the notion that the converted Jews did maintain some degree of their ancestral religion, even as they lived outwardly as Christians.18 Such assertions are based

not just on the fact that so many New Christians were tried and condemned for Judaizing,

but because they often preserved vestiges of Jewish practice in their new, Christian

rituals.19

Historians such as Ellis Rivkin and Benzion Netanyahu reject the notion that the

New Christians were secret Jews.20 Rivkin, in fact, sees the entire question as a dead

17 Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 80. 18 Kaspar von Greyerz, “Portuguese Conversos on the Upper and the Community of Sixteenth-Century Europe,” Social History 14:1 (1989), 59-82. 19 Gérard Nahon summarizes the findings of M. Amilear Paulo in his “Les marranes espagnols et portugais et les communautés juives issues du marranisme dans l’historiographie récente (1960-1975),” Revue des Études juives 136 (1977), 297-367, here at 316. Other historians who uphold the existence of a latent crypto-Judaism include Yitzhak Baer, Israel Révah, Kaspar von Greyerz, and Heim Beinart. Some examples of the incorporation of Jewish practices into Christianity are evident in the depositions of the New Christians apprehended in Middelburg in 1540, see below, Chapter Five. 20 Other historians in this camp include Saraiva, Hans Pohl, Herman P. Salomon, and Alexandre Herculano. and others have criticized such historians, claiming that they are pushing a Zionist agenda, by arguing that the New Christians bore no traces of Judaism in order to emphasize the persecuting nature of the inquisition’s treatment of them. For an overview of this debate, see David L. Graizbord, Souls in Dispute. Converso Identities in Iberia and the Jewish Diaspora, 1580-1700 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 9-11.

148

letter, insisting that there is no evidence to suggest the continuing existence of a latent

crypto-Judaism.21 I would suggest that this debate is flawed from the outset, because it focuses on the wrong question. Determining the religious belief of an historical subject is

a perilous task, and in attempting to neatly categorize the New Christians as either

faithful Catholics or secret Jews, the historian falls into the same quagmire occupied by

the inquisitors themselves. David Graizbord has recently suggested that even individual

converts themselves may not have understood their own affiliations or reasons for

converting.22 Perhaps, then, a more fruitful question would be, What were the motivations underlying the conversions of the New Christians? Certainly many of them subscribed to Christianity for the remainder of their lives and raised children who did the same. But what of the others? Why did so many flee to the Ottoman Empire and convert to Judaism if this was not a religion with which they were previously familiar?

Several possible motivations present themselves. The first was the simple desire to escape the inquisition. As long as they resided in Portugal, New Christians lived under the constant fear of persecution. Those who fled to other Christian lands found respite for a while, but they were often not free from suspicion for long. Those who went to the

Levant, however, settled in a land free of inquisition, where religious laws were far more tolerant than in western Europe.23 This explains why they would travel to the Ottoman

21 Ellis Rivkin, “How Jewish were the New Christians?” in Sola-Solé, Armistead, and Silverman, eds., Hispania Judaica, 103-15, here at 106. Netanyahu concurs, adding that the Jewish authorities at the time viewed the New Christian conversions as deliberate and irreversible. See the overview provided by Nahon, “Les Marranes Espagnols et Portugais,” 308. 22 David L. Graizbord, Souls in Dispute. 23 This point is made also by Israel, Diasporas.

149

Empire, but not necessarily why they converted to Judaism. The reasons for this change

were often economic.

David Graizbord has provided manifold examples in which the religious

affiliation of the New Christians was entirely malleable, some even switching back and

forth between the two religions as economic expediency demanded.24 Indeed, Jewish

traders fared far better than their Christian counterparts in the Ottoman lands.25 Some

New Christians were even excluded from certain trade agreements that were open to their

Jewish counterparts.26 On the other hand, there were distinct commercial advantages for

Jews, particularly those of Iberian descent, who typically maintained their linguistic unity

and close contacts with their former homelands.27 Although the Ottoman Empire was

generous in its tolerance of Jews, it imposed enormous restrictions upon traders from

western Europe, with whom it was at war throughout this period. Because of these

ongoing hostilities, western merchants often required the services of cultural, linguistic,

and commercial intermediaries who could oversee their trade arrangements in the Levant.

With their linguistic capacities, business acumen and cultural knowledge of the Ottoman

Empire, the Sephardim fit this role perfectly.28

Although Jewish inhabitants of Ottoman Lands did not possess the full rights of

their Muslim rulers, they enjoyed a wealth of legal freedoms. They were permitted to

build and maintain and schools, and could administer their communities in

24 See Graizbord, Souls in Dispute, 102-104 and passim. 25 See Israel, Diasporas, 62-63. 26 Israel, Diasporas, 62-63. 27 Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 12, who draws on Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice: The Social Institutions of a Catholic State to 1620 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971). 28 This point is made in Israel, Diasporas, 3.

150 accordance with Jewish law in all matters that did not directly affect their Muslim hosts.

As determined by Islamic law, they were classified as dhimma, a special category of non-

Muslim subjects. Although technically inferior in legal terms, the state protected them and subjected them to the same laws as Muslims in matters of taxation.29

In addition to these financial imperatives, there was the very real force of peer pressure. Many New Christians relocated to the Levant to reunite with fellow countrymen who had done so years earlier. Often, they found that their old neighbors had converted (or reverted) to Judaism, and strongly encouraged them to do the same.30

Stranded in a new land, with no other ties, the force of such a strong sense of group identity should not be underestimated.31 In fact, New Christian communities in the

Levant organized most of their activities on the basis of their nations of origin, even naming their synagogues for their homelands: Portugal, Castile, Aragon, and so on.32

29 The Jews’ inferior legal status surfaced in the exercise of the law of sürgün, whereby the state could forcibly relocate them. Sürgün was a policy developed by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire for the purpose of city-building. Beginning in the fifteenth century, when they wished to quickly populate an area, they simply moved one or more of the non-Muslim communities living in the Empire. This policy was not applied only to Jewish residents but to several non-Muslim communities during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Although it was surely an emotionally trying policy, the rehousing often worked to the economic advantage of those relocated. See Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 78-80. For a broader discussion of the legal and social status of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, consult Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire. 30 Graizbord, Souls in Dispute, 91. 31 The sense of group identity among displaced New Christians was considerable. Even while in Portugal, before their flight, they found themselves united by their very designation as New Christians. They were prevented from holding office and subject to enormous prejudice from those within the Old Christian community, a state of societal exclusion which cemented their status as a unified “out” group. The existence of such a strong group identity is further evinced by the fact that, when the king initially attempted to introduce an inquisition to Portugal in 1515, the New Christian community organized itself sufficiently to postpone his plan by raising money in gift to him for the following two decades. See Rivkin, “How Jewish Were the New Christians?” 15. 32 Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 12 and Israel, Diasporas, 45. Although some of them surely became Jews out of sincere religious conviction, it is striking that many of the bonds that united them and provided cohesion and a sense of group identity for them, were non- religious in nature. They shared family and national bonds, as well as important trade partnerships that provided them with social stability in their new home.

151

None of these factors negate the very real possibility that New Christian conversions to Judaism were entirely religiously motivated. However, the New

Christians who fled to the Ottoman Empire present a compelling example of the mixed motives at work in such religious decisions. They illustrate well the dilemma faced by

Charles V, who sought to isolate insincere New Christians, while offering clemency to those who were faithful adherents of the Christian church. Then as now, determining the religious identity of the New Christians was no simple task.

II. SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF: CHARLES V AND THE NEW CHRISTIANS

Repeatedly assailing the eastern edges of his empire, the Ottoman Turks presented a constant and ultimately insurmountable challenge to Charles for his entire tenure as

Holy Roman Emperor. Charles responded with a string of military campaigns in the

1530s and 1540s. At the same time, the emperor was occupied on a second front, battling nascent Protestantism in his realms, particularly in his Netherlandish holdings. Rumors of New Christian apostates (that is, New Christians who had converted to Judaism) traveling through Antwerp to the Ottoman Empire united Charles’s two foremost concerns: his fight against heresy and his struggle against his Ottoman foe. He feared the possible military consequences of the alleged collaboration between the New

Christians and his Turkish enemy. Already in 1530, an imperial commissary accused the

New Christians of secretly sending arms to the Turks.33 Although such reports were

33 “. . . etiam quosdam arma offensiva ad eosdem Turcas secreto mittere.” Letter of Cornelis Schepperus, 19 July 1530. AA, 7: 191-96, here at 192.

152 never formally substantiated, they were sufficiently plausible to cause Charles to take defensive measures against this potential fifth column. In addition, he pursued the New

Christians as religious criminals, whose conversion to Judaism constituted a crime of .

It will become evident in Chapters Four and Five that Charles’s policy toward the

New Christians oscillated throughout his reign, as he promulgated and then anulled a series of edicts pertaining to them. However indecisive the emperor’s stance, it was not arbitrary. When he believed the Portuguese to be sincere converts to the Catholic faith, he welcomed them to his lands, offering them financial and legal incentives to relocate.

Later, when Juan III established an inquisition in Portugal, Charles’s attitude toward the new immigrants changed. From this point on, he considered those who fled Portugal religious fugitives, attempting to escape the just arm of the inquisition. Charles viewed them as disingenuous converts to Christianity, and attempted to bar them from his lands.

The vascillations in the emperor’s policies are somewhat obscured by the fact that, for much of his reign, he was involved in political entanglements that kept him away from the Low Countries. Particularly in the 1530s, Mary of Hungary oversaw his policies regarding the New Christians. Her attitude to the Portuguese immigrants was less indulgent than that of her brother. Less concerned with identifying those who were true converts, Mary dealt with the New Christians ruthlessly. At several points in the

1530s and 1540s, Charles intervened, overturning rulings she had made.

153

III. ANTWERP: RELIGIOUS AND MERCANTILE HAVEN

In its position as a mercantile center and a commercial gateway to the Levant,

Antwerp received New Christian immigrants of two sorts: those who relocated there on a permanent basis, living in the city as loyal Christian subjects, and those who passed through Antwerp temporarily, on their way to the Ottoman Empire, where they would renounce the Christian faith and return to Judaism. It was the latter group that caused such controversy in the city and drew the local authorities and the emperor into a spirited and increasingly intense jurisdictional competition in the mid-sixteenth century.

For their part, the municipal authorities were less eager then their emperor to distinguish true from false New Christians. As a center of trade, the city had much to lose from policies that pursued their New Christian population. The most obvious danger was the loss of revenue that would result from any disturbance of the Portuguese merchant community. A vital component of the local economy, the city would suffer financial ruin were they to take their business elsewhere. A second, but no less weighty consideration for the municipal authorities was the political autonomy they so jealously guarded. The city councilors strongly objected to any intervention by the emperor into the religious and commercial life of Antwerp. As a consequence, they consistently took the side of New Christians prosecuted under the emperor’s anti-heresy ordinances.

Between 1530 and 1545, the city officials clashed with Charles in the trials of twenty-six allegedly Judaizing New Christians.

154

Kaspar von Greyerz has characterized the council’s treatment of the New

Christians as a form of “tolerant protection,”34 suggesting that the councilmen actively

tolerated the religious heterodoxy of the New Christians in order to ensure their

continued residence in the city. But a close examination of the council’s actions in these

trials reveals that their protection of the New Christian apostates was not founded in any

ideological conception of religious toleration. Rather, it was a complex strategy in

defense of their own power. Their “tolerant” approach was merely a by-product of

economic expediency and political resistance. Religion played almost no role. In fact,

the religious infractions of the New Christians rarely appear in the correspondence or deliberations of the municipal authorities. On the contrary, in the vast majority of their appeals to Charles and his officials, the defense of their political autonomy and the commercial health of their city were the council’s primary concerns.

Between 1532 and 1544 Charles’s imperial officials accused various New

Christians of apostasy. During the first few years of this period, the Antwerp council

formulated and articulated its opposition to Charles and its defense of the New Christians

in an increasingly determined manner. Initially, Charles seems to have been swayed by

their arguments, as he enforced his anti-heresy edicts selectively. As the century wore on

and Charles’s attitude to the New Christians hardened, the Antwerp councilors’ economic

and political arguments met with less success. Forced to defend their Portuguese

inhabitants on the basis of other claims, the magistracy of Antwerp formulated, in 1544, a

complex theological defense of the New Christians. Although goaded by considerations

34 Kaspar von Greyerz, “Portuguese conversos,” 63.

155

of economic pragmatism and political survival, the municipal authorities articulated one

of the first theologically founded policies of religious toleration.

Chapters Four and Five follow the progression of the jurisdictional tug-of-war

between the emperor and the city officials of Antwerp. Chapter Four focuses on several

New Christian trials generated by the emperor’s early promulgations regarding the

immigrants. A consideration of the three most prolific cases will reveal the arguments by

which the Antwerp magistracy formulated and asserted its jurisdictional claims. In most

cases, the imperial officials bowed, at least partially, to their demands. Chapter Five

analyzes the changes that took place in the emperor’s policies toward the New Christians

after the intensification of inquisitorial activity in Portugal in 1544. In the years

following this development, Charles’s attitude toward the New Christian immigrants

hardened, culminating in the expulsion order of 1549. This chapter will demonstrate that,

although the Antwerp officials successfully limited imperial intervention throughout the

1530s, by 1545 the situation had become irreversibly polarized, and the municipal

authorities ultimately lost their battle to maintain local autonomy over this type of heresy

prosecution.35

35 The documentation regarding the New Christian trials is held in several Brabantine archives. Even in the location of the extant documentation, a shift is notable from 1540. For the most part, records of New Christian prosecutions prior to 1541 are contained in the municipal archives of Antwerp, since this was the venue in which the trials themselves took place. After 1540, however, the majority of documentation is to be found in the archives of the various provincial and imperial holdings, now in Brussels and Anderlecht. This shift is no mere coincidence. Because most of the later trails were administered by the Council of Brabant rather than the local council, the extant documentation is contained in the archives of that imperial body.

156

CHAPTER FOUR POLICIES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, 1526-1540

I. THE EARLY YEARS

Charles V’s approach to the New Christians was initially quite welcoming,

suggesting that he believed them to be sincere converts to Christianity. In 1526 he issued

a decree allowing them to live and trade in the Low Countries, an invitation he renewed

in 1529.1 Charles authorized New Christian merchants to travel through the Low

Countries, take up residence, and conduct trade there on the condition that they pursued

no activity in opposition to the Christian faith.2 Furthermore, if legal proceedings were

already underway against any such persons, he instructed his local officials to release

them immediately, without charge or penalty.3

Just one year later, in 1530, rumors began to circulate that some of the New

Christians in the Low Countries might be secret Judaizers. Still the emperor did not

rescind his prior invitation, but he did establish a commission to investigate the matter.4

The formation of this commission constituted a watershed in Charles’s relationship with the local rulers. It drew him into direct conflict with the Antwerp authorities, who felt

1 The initial letter of 1526 is no longer extant, but it apparently circulated widely in its day. Reference to it appears in much of the legal documentation of the 1530s and 40s. 2 “. . . [zy] geobtineert hebben consente ende ottroye om in desen Onsen herwaertsovere te mogen commen, wesen, lyden ende passeren, huere goeden ende coopmanscapen te mogen vercoopen oft vermangelen ofte commuteren ende huere behoeften coopen, ende inden zelven Onsen landen te moghen rusten . . . behoudelyck dat zy egheen saken en doen oft vervolgen tegens onse Heylige geloove . . . .” Decision of the emperor, 27 February 1529. Full text in AA, 7: 181-83, here at 182. 3 “. . . indien eenighen van hen verworvene eenich arrest te doen, dat zy die terstont lichten costeloos ende schadeloos . . . ” Ibid., 183. 4 There is no extant documentation suggestive of a particular event or occurrence that drove the emperor to take this action. In correspondence related to the establishment of the commission, only vague rumors of New Christian misdeeds are mentioned.

157 that this new body’s sweeping legal powers infringed directly upon their autonomy. The commission’s mandate was to arrest suspected secret Jews, interrogate them concerning their plans to travel east, and try and punish them as necessary. Accomplices would be treated in like manner.5 Moreover, Charles demanded that, if the city officials of

Antwerp had already arrested any New Christian suspects, they were to hand the cases over to the new commission, which would complete the trial.6 This provision in particular angered the Antwerp authorities, for in essence, Charles had granted the commission the power, if not the title, of an inquisitorial body: to investigate rumors of heresy, apprehend suspects, interrogate them (by torture if necessary), and deliver final sentences.

But Antwerp lay in the duchy of Brabant, a territory that had consciously and resolutely rejected the imposition of such a . After Charles’s failed attempt to introduce a centralized inquisition in the Low Countries in the early 1520s, Brabant had secured for itself a stipulation ensuring that an official inquisition would never operate in the region.7 Instead, heterodox Brabanters were tried by secular officials in accordance

5 Charles appointed Cornelis Schepperus (1502-1555) commissary general of the imperial commission. Schepperus was a writer and statesman of high repute, who worked under the regents Margaret and Mary. So extensive were his diplomatic travels (frequently in the Ottoman Empire), that he almost immediately appointed a vice-commissary, Jan Vuystinck, to share the burden of his work. Vuystinck enjoyed the same power as Schepperus, enabling him to extend the work of the commission yet further. On Schepperus, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (1890; : Duncker & Humblot, 1967-70), 31: 93-7. What little information is available concerning the Vuystinck family can be found in Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, 10 vols. (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1870-1944), 1: cols. 1506-08. Details of the mandate of the commission, quoted in a letter of Cornelis Schepperus can be found in AA, 7: 191-96. 6 “. . . si quae illos habere contigerit et quaecumque ea fuerint, ubivis gentium repertos et reperta capiant seu capi ac carceribus detineri faciant, et officialibus ac judicibus ordinariis locorum in quibus capti fuerint, tradant, ut, in eos summarie procedendo, processus forment, instruant, decidant et expeditam justiciam . . .” Ibid., 193. 7 Indeed, when the famous inquisitor Titelmans was installed in neighboring Flanders, Brabant successfully refused him entry into their territory. For an overview of the legal situation with regard to heresy trials, see above, Chapter One.

158

with Charles’s frequently updated anti-heresy edicts. At no point did the city

administrators overtly identify the imperial commission as a form of inquisition, but they

repeatedly complained that it usurped their rightful authority and encroached on their

legal jurisdiction. As they had before, the municipal officials of Antwerp consistently

refused to surrender control of heresy cases to Charles’s governors in Brussels,8 and their

attempts in this regard were no less zealous in the case of the New Christians.

Despite the opposition of the Antwerp authorities, the imperial commission went

to work immediately, apprehending four New Christians in Antwerp in February 1531.

Antonio and Adam Vaes, Diego Lopez, and Alonzo Fourco had arrived in Antwerp from

Portugal on 15 February, with a cargo of merchandise they intended to trade.9 Upon their

arrest, the men protested that they had come legally to Antwerp, had abided by the

provisions of Charles’s 1526 edict, and intended no harm to his Christian lands. Yet the

commissioners seized them and confiscated their goods. Because they had come to

Antwerp in good conscience, not knowing of the operation of this newly-established

commission, they requested that the emperor pardon and release them.10 Charles was sympathetic to their request. He attached an apostil to their petition, ordering their release, “pursuant to the letter of permission from the year 1526,” which they had quoted in their defense.11

8 See Chapter One. 9 One contemporary chronicle describes the four as “Jews,” a designation revealing of a lack of nuance in the popular understanding of their New Christian status: “. . . Met die vlote quamen veer joden over want / sy waeren wt portegael verdreven en trocken na duytslant.” De Vos, ed., Chronijk der Nederlanden en bijzonder van Antwerpen, beginnende met den jare 1472, en eindigende met 1556 (Antwerpen: Egide van , 1564), SBA, HS11285, fol. 30v. 10 The text of their depositions is in AA, 7: 184-85. 11 “. . . en ayant regard aux lettres de pas de l’an XXVI, par eulx allégez . . .” Ibid., 185.

159

That Charles was willing so readily to overrule his own commissioners demonstrates the flexibility of his policy toward the New Christians at this early stage.

The commission’s mandate provided sufficient legal grounds on which to arrest and question the four, even if insufficient evidence was available to proceed. Yet the emperor stood by his earlier judgment and sanctioned their immediate release. He demonstrated no suspicion with regard either to the sincerity of their Christian faith or their intentions in coming to his lands. Events of the coming months would convince Charles that his was a naïve attitude, prompting him to adopt an increasingly stringent policy toward the

Portuguese New Christians. The creation of his imperial commission provided the necessary bureaucratic framework to enforce these new and harsh measures, much to the increasing frustration of the Antwerp authorities.

II. TURNING POINT: THE ARRIVAL OF LOYS GARCEZ

In July 1531, just five months after the establishment of the imperial commission, the Low Countries welcomed the emperor’s father-confessor, Juan de Quintana, to the port city of Bruges. During his visit, a young boy of Portuguese descent named Loys

Garcez sought out the royal confessor and relayed to him a most incredible story. Garcez explained that he had been born in Lisbon to a Christian father, who was a physician to the king of Portugal. Although he had been raised as a Christian by his mother, she was, apparently unbeknownst to her own husband, a Jewess. While Garcez was just a young boy, his mother secretly fled Portugal with him and his four siblings. They stole away by ship to Antwerp, hoping to find passage to the Levant, where she could practice her

160

secret Judaism without fear of inquisitorial scrutiny.12 The family remained in Antwerp

just one month, during which time they were aided and advised by four Portuguese

merchants resident in the city for several years and well-known for their exemplary

business dealings. The boy alleged that his mother met frequently with these four,

namely Gabriel de Negro, Emanuel Serano, Luis Perez, and Diego Mendes. The men

advised her to board a merchant ship from Antwerp to Salonica in the Ottoman Empire,

where neither her husband nor the Portuguese king would find her. She followed their advice and with their help, sailed with her children to Salonica, where they remained for six years. There, the male children were circumcised and the family lived as practicing

Jews.13

Appalled by his new life, the boy escaped and attempted to return to Portugal to find his father. En route, he made his way to Rome, where he confessed and performed penance for having lived as a Jew. He now claimed that he had returned to Antwerp in order to arrange the final leg of his journey to Portugal with the help of these same four men. Upon reaching Antwerp, however, he found the four unwilling to send him back to

Portugal. Rather, they attempted to persuade him to return to Salonica, becoming

12 “. . . zyn moeder was een Joedinne ende zyn vader Kerstene, doctoer in medecinen ende medecin vanden Coninck van Portugal, waeromme zyn voers. moeder met hueren voers. kinderen, heymelyck ende sonder weete van hueren voers. man, den welcken zy liet in Portugal, heeft haer geabsenteert van Portugal ende is gecoemen met hueren voers. kinderen tot Antwerpen . . .” The account of Garcez’s story is given in the notes of the Antwerp pensionary, Adriaan Herbouts, in AA, 7: 201-05, here at 202. 13 “. . . hebbende groote conversatie met vier persoonen, te weetene: met Gabriel de Nigro, Emanuel Serano, ende noch II andere, te weetene: Diego Mendis ende Loys Peris . . . heeft haer gehaest te vertreckene van Antwerpen nae Salonica, met hueren voers. kinderen ende dat by informatie, raede, ende advys vanden voers. persoonen . . . heeft gehouden tot Salonica, den tyt van V oft VI jaeren, ende heeft hem laeten besnidene ende geleeft als een ander Joede.” Ibid., 202.

161

aggressive and expelling him from their company when he refused to do so.14 This hostile encounter had convinced him to seek out the imperial confessor in Bruges.

The confessor immediately conveyed Garcez’s report to the emperor’s commission in Brussels, the details of which were particularly troubling because of the accusations concerning the four Antwerp merchants. Not only did Garcez claim that,

“although they give the outward appearance of being Christians, nevertheless, secretly they live as Jews,”15 but his testimony suggested that they operated a well-established, effective system for shuttling religious refugees (or apostates, as the authorities would have seen them) from Christian Portugal to Islamic , where they shunned

Christianity and lived openly as Jews. Such allegations struck at the heart of the emperor’s fears that the New Christians were actually secret Jews. Indeed, not only did they apostatize from their Christian faith, but they apparently collaborated with Charles’s hated Ottoman enemies. Garcez even went so far as to accuse those who fled to the

Levant of passing imperial secrets to the Ottoman Turks, claiming that “. . . of all the

New Christians who come here from Portugal, most go on from Antwerp to Salonica with the help of the four men previously mentioned. Through these New Christians, the

Turk knows all the secrets of Christendom.”16

14 “[Hij] is gecoemen inde stadt van Roomen, aldaer hy hem heeft gebiecht ende heeft penitencie gedaen, omme dat hy hem hadde laeten besnidene ende geleeft als een Joede . . . de voers. IIII persoonen hem raeden dat hy wederomme reysen soude by zynen vader ende moeder tot Salonica, ende want hy daerinne maeckte swaricheyt, soe hebben zy hem qualyck toegesproecken, gedreygt ende van henlieden gejaecht.” Ibid., 202-03. 15 “. . . hoe wel zy hen draegen voere het volck als Kerstenen, leven nochtans int heymelyck als Joeden.” Ibid., 203. 16 “. . . alle die Nieuwe Kerstenen die vuyt Portugal hier coemen in desen landen, meestal trecken voerts nae Salonica ende dat by informatie vanden voors. IIII persoonen, daerdoere die Turcke weet alle die secreeten van geheelen Kerstenrycke.” Ibid., 203.

162

The revelations of Loys Garcez ushered in a period of intense scrutiny of the

Portuguese New Christians in Antwerp. The emperor was shaken by the accusations that these foreign inhabitants were less than sincere converts from Judaism and equally disturbed by the possibility that they traded imperial secrets with his Muslim enemies.

Charles responded immediately and decisively, ordering his commissioners to detain the four merchants, as well as any other suspicious New Christians of Portuguese descent.

Of the four, Diego Mendes was arrested,17 along with Emanuel Serano, who was released

shortly thereafter because one of his servants was found to have lied in testimony made

against him, thereby creating a mistrial.18 The commissioners failed to arrest Gabriel de

Negro, who had fled.19 Although they offered rewards for information leading to his arrest, he managed to elude the authorities for almost a decade.20 No sources regarding

the fourth man, Luis Perez, are extant. It seems that the authorities did not detain him,

and it is likely that he fled like his counterpart, de Negro.

In addition to these four men, the commission apprehended 13 other New

Christians for suspicious behavior.21 In making these arrests, the imperial commission

17 Details of his trial follow below. 18 AA, 7: 204. 19 Goris suggests that the Antwerp city council deliberately stalled the commissioners in order to enable de Negro to flee to Germany. See Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 563. However, I have been unable to locate documentation to substantiate this assertion. 20 Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 563. Neither de Negro or Serano reappear in the historical record for another ten years, when they emerge in connection with the Middelburg group and are charged with similar offenses. See below, Chapter Five. 21 Namely, Jehan Belins, Meestere Jerome, Francisco Roderiguez, Gregorio Lompez, Manuel Garchez, Nicolaes Loys, Jehan Monigues, Jaspar Gommes, Philippe Bas, Fernando Jacobo, Gonsilvo Alvarys, Jehan Mendes, and Meestere Bernaert. Accounts of the Margrave, 1533-1534. AA, 7: 305. It is possible that the last person here mentioned, Meestere Bernaert, is actually Luis Perez, one of the four men specifically named in Garcez’s testimony. The name Luis Perez appears in the text of the original statement, made in Spanish by Garcez. However, the document was translated shortly thereafter into Dutch and in that version, the name Luis Perez is replaced by the single appellation, Bernaerdt. See the notes of the city pensionary, Adriaan Herbouts, July 1532. AA, 7: 201-05.

163 took control over what would traditionally have been a municipal affair. Their unwelcome intervention sparked a fierce struggle between the imperial authorities and the city officials of Antwerp. Charles’s resolute opposition to the alleged apostasy of the

New Christians was not matched by the actions of the Antwerp city council. They appeared unconcerned by the suggestion that their city was filled with a fifth column of heterodox New Christians. Rather, their actions in the trials suggest that they believed they had more to fear from a politically ambitious emperor than from a group of

Judaizing merchants. A consideration of the trials of three prominent New Christians will illustrate the Antwerp council’s two overriding concerns: the economic well-being of their city and their political autonomy. In their eyes, Charles’s imperial commission presented an imminent threat to both of these prerogatives.

III. THE TRIALS OF THE 1530s

The three trials under consideration all took place within a five-year period in the mid-1530s. The accusations leveled against each defendant were similar and focused primarily on the insincerity of his Christian faith, his illegal business dealings, and his attempts to help secret Jews flee Portugal and travel via Antwerp, to the Levant. Two of the trials began as an immediate result of Garcez’s testimony and the third developed as an indirect consequence of his revelations. A cursory overview of the identity of those accused, as well as the charges and outcomes of their trials will provide the foundation necessary to examine the city council’s actions in these proceedings.

164

a. Diego Mendes

Diego Mendes may well have been a household name throughout much of the

Mediterranean in the early sixteenth century. Of Portuguese birth and Jewish decent, by

the mid-1530s he was the head of the wealthiest mercantile house in Europe. His lineage

can be traced to the Jewish financier, Abraham Beneviste, who died in his native Aragon

in 1452.22 A descendant of Beneviste fled Spain in the Jewish expulsion of 1492 and

went to Portugal with his two young sons, Semah and Meir. Establishing lives as New

Christians in Portugal after the forced conversion of 1497, the brothers took the Christian

names Francisco and Diego Mendes.23

In 1512, one year after the Antwerp magistrate donated a nation house to the

Portuguese merchant community, Diego Mendes arrived there to run the continental arm

of his family’s vast commercial empire.24 Under his supervision, this Antwerp branch soon outshone the Iberian original. He developed ties with the Affaitati trading firm in

Italy and worked closely with the powerful Fugger banking house. Already in 1527, he brokered loans to Charles V of up to 30,000 ducats and at the time of his arrest, was arranging a 200,000 ducat loan from the King of Portugal to the emperor, to aid Charles

22 Roth, Doña Gracia, 10. 23 Ibid. The Mendes trading house has a high profile in modern historiography partly because it was one of the most affluent in Europe, and partly because of Diego’s sister-in-law, Gracia Nasi, who has been described, rather flamboyantly by Cecil Roth as “the most noteworthy Jewess in all history” (Doña Gracia, 14). The wife of Francisco Mendes, she administered the business jointly with Diego after her husband’s death. When Diego died, Gracia took over complete control of the family business. She moved from the Low Countries to Salonica and then on to Constantinople, where she eschewed Christianity, lived as a practicing Jew, and achieved great renown for her work in establishing the Jewish community there. For more details on Gracia Nasi (formerly known by her Christian name, Beatrice de Luna), see Roth, Doña Gracia and Birnbaum, The Long Journey, which contains the most recent bibliography. 24 Birnbaum, The Long Journey, 20.

165 in his wars against the Turks.25 Records of the period often mention the Mendes banking house, but in terms of monetary assets this facet of the business was secondary to its commercial dealings.26 So influential was the Mendes trading empire that the financial well-being of many merchant houses in Antwerp depended upon Mendes’s continued success. For this reason, his arrest alarmed not only the Portuguese king, who had close ties to Mendes, but also the merchants of several other trading nations.

Mendes was the most prominent individual named by Garcez, and the boy’s testimony indicated that he was the most culpable.27 When first questioned by the

imperial commission, Mendes denied the allegations, claiming that the boy fabricated his

story at the instigation of Emanuel Charonne. Formerly a consul for the Portuguese in

Antwerp, Charonne was a competitor of Mendes, who had excluded him from various

trading partnerships. Mendes accused Charonne of urging the boy to concoct a story in

order to cast aspersions on his otherwise untainted reputation. He admitted that he knew

Garcez, but he told the commissioners that the boy was dishonest and had fled Italy to

avoid the gallows.28

25 Details of the earlier loans can be found in Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 563. Funds for the loan from Juan III to Charles V were to come from Mendes, and the loan was to be brokered by the Fugger bankers in Germany. Details of the stipulations of this loan and Juan’s fears that the trial of Mendes would impede the transfer of funds are found in several documents pertaining to the Mendes case. See, for example, Ruy Fernandez, factor of the King of Portugal, to the Antwerp pensionary, Adriaan Herbouts, 21 July 1532. AA, 7: 206-08, and the decision of Mary of Hungary, (n.d.) Ibid., 214-15. 26 Roth, Doña Gracia, 12. 27 Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 562. 28 “. . . deselve Diego verclaert heeft dat hy desen jongen wel kendt, ende dat de selve jonge, comende nw lestwerven vuyt Italie tot Antwerpen, was zeer qualyck inde habiten ende was gedisponeert, alsoe hy seidt, oft hy vander galgen gedroopen; ende weesende tot Antwerpen, is terstont opgenoemen geweest byden ouden Facteur Signor Emanuel Charonne, diewelcke hem heeft zeer wel getracteert ende gehouden in zyn huys, omme van hem te weetene alle secreten. Seidt voerts dat hy firmiter houdt dat dese jonge, doer inserantie ende ingeven vanden voirs. facteur, is gereyst geweest tot Brugge aenden voers. biechtvader ende aldaer gedaen de voers. accusatie, omme hem te vaingerene vanden voers. Diego ende Gabriel de Nigro, omme dat zy beiden met Jan Kock de principaele zyn geweest die, over II oft III jaeren, het contract hadden

166

During the course of the commission’s investigation, however, it became clear that Mendes was engaged in some questionable dealings, financial and religious. This raised suspicions among the commissioners, who arrested him on 19 July 1532.29 The commission charged Mendes with three infractions: running an illegal monopoly on spices; living as a secret Jew; and organizing a network to shuttle New Christian apostates from Portugal, through Antwerp to the Ottoman Empire.30 At the time of his arrest, the commissioners also confiscated Mendes’s goods, which included merchandise held in his warehouse in Antwerp, some of which he was storing for other local traders.

They did not remove the goods but placed them under supervision, refusing access to anyone else and thereby effectively placing an embargo on Mendes’s trading operations for the duration of the trial.31

gemaeckt aenghaende der specerie ende by welcken contract de voers. facteur hem bevont grootelyck bedroogen to zyne . . .” AA, 7: 204-05. 29 Ibid., 212. 30 Documentation of the prosecution’s original accusations against Mendes is no longer extant. However, a summary of the charges against Mendes reports the allegations in the following way: “. . . nonobstant que a l’aige de xij ans il / eust este baptise tenoit encoires la dicte foy judaicque ayant / fait aucunes adorations a la mode judaycque adressoit et / favorisait les nouveaulx Cretiens venans du Portugal, passant / par Anvers pour aller a Venise et d’illec a Constantinoble, et / qu’il avoit plusiers biens d’enrees et marchandises appertenans / aus dicts nouveaulx Cretiens, subgectz du Turck, ennemy de la foy / Catholicque.” 17 September 1532. ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 6. In addition, a report by Hondewyns, secretary of the emperor has also survived, which provides an overview of the charges. See ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 5, 24 August 1532. 31 The King of Portugal and his consul, Ruy Fernandez, both petitioned the emperor to have Mendes’s goods released so that they could collect revenues owed to them on merchandise in his care. The King of Portugal was running a monopoly of spices in Antwerp (illegal at the time) with the help of Diego Mendes and stood to lose a great deal financially if Mendes was convicted. He and his consul addressed letters to both the magistrate of Antwerp and to the emperor, describing the debts owed to the Portuguese king by the Mendes trading house and complaining that the goods currently under sequestration in the trial rightfully belonged to him. Fernandez explained that Mendes owed the Portuguese king 200,000 ducats, which Juan in turn had promised to provide as a loan for the emperor in his war against the Turks. He requested that the goods be returned to him, so that he could sell them to repay the debts owed by Mendes to the king and other subjects of Portugal. He further warned that many Portuguese merchants were in danger of bankruptcy if the trial was not conducted expeditiously and the impounded goods immediately returned. Fernandes sent letters to the magistrate on 20 and 21 July 1532 (AA, 7: 205-08), to Charles V, n.d. (Ibid., 212-14), and to the queen regent, n.d. (Ibid., 238-39). King Juan III wrote to the magistrate of Antwerp on

167

Because of his high profile and economic value to the city, many important

individuals petitioned on behalf of Mendes during the course of the proceeding. The

intricacies of the case will be discussed in greater detail below, but at the end of the two-

month trial, Mendes was released for the enormous sum of 50,000 ducats.32 Yet the short

duration of this trial and the simplicity of its sentence conceal a complex proceeding that pitted the municipal authorities of Antwerp against their imperial overlord, Charles V.

b. Jan de Belins

On 19 July 1532, the same day on which Mendes was apprehended, the imperial commission arrested Jan de Belins, another New Christian merchant recently arrived in

Antwerp from Portugal. The authorities alleged that, although he had been baptized as a

Christian, Belins lived secretly as a Jew. Unlike Mendes, Belins was not accused of

helping other New Christians travel to the Levant, but was himself charged with

attempting to flee to the Ottoman Empire.33

Extant documentation pertaining to Belins’s trial is minimal and focuses on

arguments between the city officials and Charles’s queen-regent, regarding where he

ought to be tried. His case is included in the discussion below because it illustrates again

2 August 1532 (Ibid., 210-11). In addition, the King of England wrote in defense of Mendes and his merchant partners. The letter from the king is no longer extant, but reference is made to it in an unsigned summary of the case, dated 17 September 1532: “Pareillement les Roix de Portugal et d’Angleterre ont escript / en sa faveur pour ces factores des marchans de Portugal et / autres qu’ont leurs biens es mains du dict Diego Mennis [sic].” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 6, fol. 3. 32 Details of this arrangement are included in the notes of G. Pensart, secretary to the emperor, 10 September 1532. ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 4. See also the decision of the queen, 13 September 1532. AA, 7: 241-47. 33 Notes of Adriaan Herbouts, (n.d.) AA, 7: 253-55.

168

the competing jurisdictions at play. The struggle became moot, however, when Belins

paid 3,000 ducats to Charles’s attorney general, who subsequently dropped the case.34

c. Anthonis Fernandes

Anthonis Fernandes was a New Christian merchant deeply involved in the business dealings of the house of Mendes.35 In December 1533, he was en route from

Antwerp to Lyons, France, in pursuit of a business transaction. While he was passing

through the territory of Gaesbeke, a group of men on horseback ambushed Fernandes and

took him prisoner, claiming that they did so by order of the queen-regent. After detaining

Fernandes for a couple of hours, another company of men arrived claiming that Charles

had instructed them to free Fernandes and transport him to Valenciennes. This apparent

rescue was a foil, however, as the second group of horsemen led Fernandes away and

imprisoned him in the castle of Écaussines, where he remained for almost a year.36

Initially, no charges were brought against him, but a summary of the case written in May

1534, six months after his apprehension, outlined the allegations against him. The

34 Ibid., 255. See also a brief account of the case in Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 568. 35 Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 568. 36 “Le dict , en passant par la terre et seigneurie de Gaesbecke, a esté assally d’aulcuns gens de cheval, lesquelz l’ont abbatu de son cheval par terre et se sont efforchez de le voulloir prendre et saisir au corps prisonnier . . . jusque à ce que cinq ou six autres hommes de cheval sont illec survenus, eulx disans avoir autre charge de Vostre dicte Majesté affin de l’eslargir et de le mener et conduire saulvement jusques en la ville de Valenciènnes; que le dict Anthoine, pensant estre rélaxé, s’est party d’illec, avecq la compaignie d’iceulx gens de cheval et est arrivé en la ville de Haulx.” Magistrate to Charles V, (n.d.) AA, 7: 265-67, here at 265. Details of the arrest are also contained in a letter to Mary of Hungary. In this letter, the author notes that Fernandes’s captors “geseyt dairaff last te hebbene van Uwer Majesteyt,” indicating that Mary ordered the illegal arrest. Magistrate to the queen, 2 September 1535. Ibid., 334-39.

169

contents reveal the now familiar litany of religious and trading offenses, almost identical

to those leveled against Mendes, who was named as one of Fernandes’s accomplices.37

Fernandes’s trial lasted considerably longer than those of Mendes or Belins. He was eventually released, pursuant to the stipulations of a letter issued by the emperor in

1537.38 But the dishonorable circumstances of his arrest and his lengthy detention by imperial officials caused great consternation among the Antwerp authorities. Because the emperor’s men arrested and held him outside the jurisdiction of Antwerp, the city officials had little influence over his trial. Nevertheless, they objected to the extra legal nature of his apprehension and demanded that he be released to their custody so that due process might be followed.

It is worthy of note that in each of these trials, the magistrate of Antwerp defended the Judaizing suspects in direct opposition to the emperor. In none of the trials did the city officials argue that the accused was innocent, or claim that the charges were unfair. Rather, their concern centered on the fact that the emperor, via his commission, was overextending his legal rights by wresting control of cases that belonged in their courts.

IV. LOCAL AUTONOMY VS. IMPERIAL AMBITION: THE CONCERNS OF THE ANTWERP AUTHORITIES

One might expect the Antwerp authorities to have reacted strongly when allegations surfaced that New Christians resident in their city were actually secret Jews.

37 See the notes of Adriaan Herbouts, 34 and 35 May 1534. AA, 7: 282-85. 38 See below.

170

Yet their actions in these three trials focus almost entirely on non-religious concerns.

Most documentation generated by the council makes no mention of religion at all. Only

in the case of Diego Mendes was there discussion of the religious allegations, which

centered around the accusation that Mendes was a Judaizer, outwardly feigning

adherence to Christianity while secretly retaining Jewish beliefs and practices. Even in

this case, where religion played a central role, not the Antwerp authorities but Mendes

himself challenged the charges. In fact, he demanded that the religious accusations be

transferred to an ecclesiastical judge, insisting that the contention that he was a secret Jew

constituted “a crime of heresy which is completely ecclesiastical in nature, and subject

therefore to the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical court.”39 Jaspar Stynen, lawyer for the

city council of Antwerp, was present at Mendes’s initial hearing before the imperial

commissioners and noted that they were “bewildered” and somewhat aggravated by his

demands.40

Despite their visible irritation, the commissioners took Mendes’s claims seriously.

After careful deliberation, they ruled that the charges pertaining to Mendes’s alleged

Judaizing be dropped. To this end, the Council of Brabant issued an interlocutory

judgment stating that Mendes would no longer be answerable to charges of heresy or

Judaizing,41 a decision upheld by the queen, who confirmed Mendes’s exemption from

39 “. . . lequel crime d’heresie est totalement ecclesiastique / subiect a la congnaissance de iuge ecclesiastique . . .” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 5, fol. 4. 40 “Ick hebbe wel gemerct dat die Commissarysen, d(e) Advocaet ende Procureur perplex zyn geweest met dese exceptien ende hen dairvoere nyet en hadden verhuedt.” Letter of Jaspar Stynen, 13 August 1532. AA, 7: 234-36, here at 235. 41 “[Mendis] ne sera tenu de encoires respondre / au dict procureur sur la dicte charge d’heresie (ou juiyserie) dont il entend / d’estre absolz . . .” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 6, fol. 4.

171

the charges.42 The Antwerp council celebrated this decision and twice reminded the

emperor of Mendes’s exemption from all questioning concerning his religion.43 The only accusations remaining in the commission’s case involved mercantile crimes: that he operated an illegal monopoly and that he unfairly favored (fellow) Judaizers in his business dealings. These charges, argued the Antwerp authorities, fell squarely under the purview of the local courts.44

It was the question of jurisdiction that drove the Antwerp council’s actions in all

three of the trials under consideration. The city feared that the imperial commission’s

encroachment on its authority would have two detrimental consequences: it would curtail

their political independence and the mistreatment of the New Christian merchants would

send an alarming message to the other foreign traders resident in their city. Were these

merchants to leave, the economic foundation of Antwerp would collapse, bringing ruin to

the city.

a. Economic Fears: The Dangers of Merchant Unrest

There is ample evidence that the council’s concerns were well-founded, for the

trials of the 1530s caused great disquiet and anxiety within Antwerp’s merchant

community. The day after Diego Mendes’s arrest, the leaders of six merchant nations

jointly composed a letter of protest requesting that the Antwerp magistracy intervene on

42 Decision of the Queen, 13 September 1532. ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 7. 43 See magistrate to Charles, 21 July 1532. AA, 7: 208-10 and ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 6, fol. 2. 44 “. . . des autres charges la / cognoissance en debvoit completes et appartenir a la loy de la dicte / ville d’Anvers requerant sur le tout droit en ordre luy estre / fait.” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 6, fol. 2.

172 his behalf.45 They were particularly shocked that Mendes had been detained, not by the city council, but by the emperor’s commission, and they feared that other members of their community were now subject to the same danger. Responding to the traders’ concerns, the Antwerp councilmen warned Charles of the financial devastation that would befall both the city and the empire if the merchants’ fears were not assuaged.

They recounted the shocked reactions of the foreign traders, who

are greatly amazed by these events, saying that the city of Antwerp offers them little protection and that the privileges of the town are fictitious, so that, despite these laws, they can be accused of any manner of crime. Their persons and goods could be arrested and held by outside courts and judges, in violation of the city’s privileges, as has happened to Diego.46

The emperor’s commission did not operate within the legal framework of

Antwerp, by which the merchants previously felt protected. They viewed the

commission’s actions as arbitrary and illegal, and felt vulnerable to the unexpected and

apparently unrestrained actions of the emperor’s officials. Unless the magistrate aided

them, they warned, they could never feel safe in the city of Antwerp.47

45 See letter from the consul of Portugal and the consuls of Spain, Genoa, Florence, Lucca, and Germany to the Antwerp magistrate, 20 July 1532. AA, 7: 205-06. 46 “. . . les marchantz sont fort esmerveillez, disans que jusques ores n’ont sceu qu’ilz estoient en la dicte ville d’Anvers en si petitte protection et que on leur pouroit inculper aucune chose prévilégée non véritable, affin, soubs umbre d’icelle, les accuser de plusieurs autres choses, leurs personnes et biens traicter et manier en autres cours et justices, autrement que ensuivant les dictz préviléges appartient, comme à la personne du dict Diego fait a esté.” Antwerp magistracy to Charles V, 2 August 1532. Ibid., 210. The same merchants expressed similar fears following the arrest of Anthonis Fernandes. As in the case of Mendes, they feared that “plussieurs marchans sont grandement troublez et murmurent fort, disans que le mesme que est advenu au dict Anthoine leur polroit demain ou après-demain advenire et que partant, ilz ne seroient francs ne libres, ains journellement en dangier d’estre oppressez et travaillez.” Magistrate to Charles V, (n.d.) Ibid., 265-67, here at 266. 47 “. . . que bientost et facillement, par envie ou autrement, l’on pourroit ou vouldroit charger les ditz marchans, ou aucuns d’eulx, de quelque délict ou crime de lèse-Majesté divine ou du prince, comme ilz entendent que l’on veult charger le dit Anthoine Fernandis, tellement que jamais ilz ne seroient asseurez ne en repos.” Magistrate of Antwerp to the queen, 2 September 1535. Ibid., 330-33, here at 331.

173

The merchants voiced similar concerns at the arrest of Anthonis Fernandes. They

were so vehement in expressing their distress that Antwerp’s lawyer, Jaspar Stynen,

insisted that the city appeal directly to the Secret Council of the queen and demand that

Fernandes receive due process in the case, “in order to pacify the foreign merchants, who

whisper greatly about these events.”48 During Fernandes’s lengthy incarceration, the

traders’ fears intensified, and their whispering grew into open demonstrations of

dissatisfaction. Some of them even took to the streets to voice their alarm.49 Their

disaffection was so strident that much of the correspondence pertaining to the case

mentions the tumult and uproar they caused.50

Of particular concern to Antwerp’s trading community was the fact that, in the

trials of Mendes and Fernandes, the imperial commissioners had opened and examined

the financial accounts of these business leaders. In the process, they had made public all

manner of private, even secret, fiscal information. The merchants were particularly

troubled by the case of Mendes because he was the factor, or representative (facteur) of

several other foreign trading houses. In this capacity, he oversaw their commercial

affairs, and his record books contained their financial information as well as his own.51

The merchant leaders complained that “[Mendes] was physically arrested and not only

48 “. . . soe soude my goetduncken, onder correctie, dat goet waere dat de stadt, om de cooplieden te payene, een supplicaie overgave inden secreten Raide, versueckende dat men den gevangenen, huere ingesetenen, administrere de voers. lantrechten, achtervolgende den voers. privelegien, om die vreempde cooplieden, die hieraf oeck murmereren, te payene ende te contenterene . . .” Jaspar Stynen to Adriaan Herbouts immediately following the arrest, 13 December 1533. Ibid., 268-69, here at 268. 49 In a draft of a letter to the imperial officials in Brussels, the magistrate explains that the merchants voiced their complaints “niet alleene opter stadthuys, ende elders opten straeten.” See Ibid., 288-90, here at 289. 50 See, among others, the notes of Adriaan Herbouts, 1534, in which he describes the “great uproar” among the merchants, Ibid., 260-61, and the request of the magistrate to Charles V, 1534, which describes the “tumult and rumors” that circulated among them, Ibid., 263-64. 51 See advice of Jaspar Stynen, (n.d.) Ibid., 261-63.

174

were his goods recorded and inventoried . . . but what is more, his books, records, and

other personal accounts were examined in the presence of his enemies and other

suspicious people . . .”52

In this early trial, the concerns of the merchants and the fearful admonitions of the

Antwerp administrators did not fall on deaf ears. Charles ordered the attorney general of

Brabant to consider their pleas and advise him as to the proper course of action. The attorney general replied that it would behoove Charles to take seriously the threats of the foreign merchants and to tread carefully in this regard.53 Because Charles was absent

from the Low Countries at this time, Mary of Hungary stepped in to assume a more

commanding role. She accepted the advice of the attorney general and conceded that all

contracts made by Mendes would be honored. She was not, however, willing to release

the records and merchandise sequestered at his house, but she did assure the merchants

that these belongings would be examined only by neutral parties and the secrets

contained therein carefully guarded.54

In 1532 Mary heeded the concerns of her brother and his commission, acting with

restraint in her treatment of Mendes’s accounts, moderation she would not demonstrate

two years later when the same issue resurfaced in the trial of Anthonis Fernandes. When

his case began in early 1534, Charles was still attending to business elsewhere in the

empire. Mary appointed Christiaen Baers, secretary of the Council of Brabant, to

52 “[Mendes] a esté prins et arresté au corps, et ses biens non seullement escriptz et inventoriez . . . mais que plus est, ses livres, papiers et aultres secretz visitez, en présence de ses malveillans et gens suspectz . . .” Ibid., 206. 53 See the advice of the Council of Brabant, 24 August 1532. Ibid., 237-38. 54 “Quant à ce que le Facteur requiert, que du moins les dictz livres soyent visitez par gens neutraulx . . . la Royne y aura regard et pourverra comme de raison, et seront les choses tenuez secrètes, sans que l’estat et secretz des merchans soyent divulgéez.” Decision of the governess, (n.d.) Ibid., 214-15, here at 215.

175

represent the imperial commission in the investigation of the affair. Despite the cautious

approach taken by the Council of Brabant two years earlier, this time the queen showed

little regard for the concerns of Antwerp’s merchants. She instructed Baers to select and

depose witnesses and, more importantly, to seize Fernandes’s records. She specifically

told Baers to go to the merchant’s house in Antwerp and “open all the offices and secret

places of Anthonis. Once this is done, take possession of the books, records, accounts,

and letters, and keep hold of these things in so far as they are pertinent. Read, transcribe,

and copy their contents as necessary to the benefit of this case.”55 On the same day,

anticipating their opposition to these instructions, she informed the council of Antwerp

that Baers was on his way to their city and demanded that they provide him with all

possible assistance and cooperation.56

The Antwerp city fathers immediately sought the legal counsel of Jaspar Stynen.

Incensed by the queen’s actions, Stynen recommended that they oppose Baers to the full

extent of their powers, using the privileges of the city as the basis of their defense.57 This

they did, refusing Baers access to the accounts of Fernandes, explaining that his

examination of these records “would be against the privileges [of Antwerp], the Joyous

Entry, and the written laws of the land, since the aforementioned Anthonis is a resident of

55 “. . . sal Uluyden doet openinge doen vanden contooren ende secreten plaetsen des voers. Anthonis ende dat gedaen, neempt ende aenveerdt in uwen handen de vors. Boecken, registeren, memorialen ende brieven, omme vanden selven te neemene ende te behoudene, soe verre des noot zy, alsulcken visie, lecture oft copie als behooren sal ende ghy bevinden sult van noode weesende ten oerboore ende prouffyte vander saecken ende appendentien derselver . . .” Letter of commission of Christiaen Baers, 14 January 1534. Ibid., 270-72, here at 271. 56 See the queen to the magistrate of Antwerp, 14 January 1534. Ibid., 272-73. 57 Stynen advised the councilmen to appeal the permission of Baers to the Chancellor and Council of Brabant, asking them to prevent the legal proceeding from continuing any further. This, he admonished, was the duty to which they swore an oath upon assuming office and they were therefore “compelled by reason of honor” to intervene in this situation. See advice of Jaspar Stynen, 1534. Ibid., 261-63.

176

the city and has been for many years.”58 The councilmen informed Baers that they had

already sent a complaint to the queen and that, until they received an answer from her,

they would not allow him to see Fernandes’s accounts.

Realizing that he had reached an impasse, Baers went to the house of Fernandes

with several of the aldermen of Antwerp. Together they affixed the seals of the city and

the emperor to Fernandes’s books to ensure that they would not be stolen and to prevent

Baers from secretly violating their arrangement.59 At this point it seemed that the

Antwerp council had been successful in barring Baers from the accounts, but the

councilors failed to gain the support of the queen-regent. Despite the attempts of the city council to protect Fernandes’s records, Baers and his fellow-commissioners eventually broke the seals and seized the documents in March 1535.60

The city officials were outraged. In an irate letter to the queen, they explained

that, against their explicit orders,

Master Christiaen returned to the house of Anthonis, bringing with him two commissioners approved by the Council of Brabant. They opened his accounts, which had been sealed with the seal of our lord the emperor and with the seal of the margrave and two seals of the aldermen of Antwerp, all of which Baers and his men removed. And this they did in the absence and behind the back of the margrave and magistracy of this city.61

58 “. . . tselve zyn soude tegen den privilegien vander vors. Stadt, de Blyde Incompst ende den notoiren lantrecht, want de voers. Anthonis is een ingesetene vander stadt ende over veele jaere geweest heeft . . .” Response of the city council to Christiaen Baers, 21 January 1534. Ibid., 274-77, here at 275. 59 Details of the sealing of the accounts are mentioned in a marginal comment, written on a copy of the letter to Baers. See Ibid., 276. 60 This date is given by Adriaan Herbouts, (n.d.) Ibid., 277-79. 61 “Meester Christiaen, met twee Commissarisen daertoe inden Raide van Brabant gecommitteert, dairnae gecommen zyn inde stadt van Antwerpen ende hebben, ten huyse vanden voirs. Anthuenise, zyn comptoir opgedaen, dwelck besegelt was metten segel Ons Heeren des Keysers ende metten segele vanden Merckgreve ende twee segelen vanden Scepenen van Antwerpen, welcke segelen zy hebben afgedaen, ende dat in absencie ende sonder aensien oft wetene vanden Merckgreve van Antwerpen ende desen supplianten.” Magistrate of Antwerp to the queen, 2 September 1535. Ibid., 335.

177

The indignation of the Antwerp officials is palpable. Not only had Fernandes been illegally arrested and imprisoned outside his place of residence, but now the queen’s officials had surreptitiously entered his house and pilfered information from his private records. Despite the clear contravention of the instructions of the Antwerp officials, the queen-regent was ill-disposed to answer their pleas.62

The fury of the Antwerp authorities was rooted in their concerns for the economic well-being of the city. If the imperial representatives continued to upset the foreign merchants, they would eventually leave Antwerp, an outcome they and the emperor could ill afford. The city’s lawyer, Jaspar Stynen warned the city magistracy that, if they did not take action in defense of Fernandes,

. . . no merchants (neither those who already live in Antwerp nor those living abroad who keep factors there) will want to come to the city any more, nor to send their factors. Rather, they will leave Antwerp if they see that they or their factors are likely to be investigated, their accounts and private records opened, and all their letters, records, and financial accounts are seized without any accusations being made or any due process being followed. Surely great turmoil would follow from such a situation, not the least of which would be the absolute destruction of our city.63

62 On the contrary, she stalled their defense of Fernandes by demanding that they send copies of the specific privileges on which their case rested. See the note of the queen to the council of Antwerp, 5 October 1535. SAA, Vierschaar 316, fol. 2. The council failed to produce any such privilege, causing the queen to renew her demand several times in the following six months. The final request was made on 11 May, 1536. Goris appears to misunderstand this document, which he presents as a conclusion to the case. In actuality, it is merely a complaint from Baers to the queen, in which he requests that she press the council of Antwerp with regard to the missing privileges. In the margin there is a note that the queen gave the city officials eight days to produce the necessary documentation. See AA, 7: 423-24. Also, Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 570. 63 “. . . alle andere cooplieden, soe bynnen Antwerpen nu woenende ende andere heure facteurs daer hebbende, wesende in andere landen ende provincien, en sullen tot Antwerpen nyet meer willen commen noch facturs daer committeren, maer vertrecken vuyt Antwerpen, als zy souden sien dat zy oft huere facteurs daer alsoe getracteert souden wordden ende heure comptoiren ende secreten opgeslagen ende alle die brieven, registeren ende munimenten ewech genomen, hen ongehoirt in rechte ende sonder vonnisse daerop gegeven te zyne, met meer andere inconvenienten die ter destructien vander stadt daervuyt souden moegen volgen.” Advice of Jaspar Stynen, (n.d.) Ibid., 261-63, here at 262. This fear that the merchants would leave the city was apparent already in Mendes’s trial. In a letter of 1532, the councilors warned Charles that the complaints of the traders were so great that “si, en ce que dit

178

The jurisdictional violation the emperor’s officials made by examining the

private accounts of the merchants had far-reaching consequences in Antwerp. It

undermined the authority and independence of the city administration. What is

more, it caused anxiety and panic among the city’s most financially beneficial inhabitants, thereby threatening the economic well-being of the city.

b. Jurisdictional Defenses: The City Council’s Legal Autonomy

While the Antwerp officials were deeply concerned about the economic welfare of the city, they also felt that the emperor’s commission infringed upon their political and legal autonomy. The commission’s disregard for angered the councilors, who already felt that the comission’s very existence compromised their jurisdiction.

The commission’s abuse of due process was most notable in the case of Anthonis

Fernandes. The Antwerp officials claimed that the nature of Fernandes’s arrest defied the dictates of honor and common law. The queen, if indeed she had ordered it, had transgressed the bounds of respectable behavior, stooping so low as to have horsemen feign help in order to secure the arrest of their loyal resident. In actual fact, although the apprehension may have been ignoble, it was incredibly shrewd, for the privileges of

Antwerp, to which the councilors had referred in Mendes’s trial, extended only to arrests made within the bounds of the city. Furthermore, the queen detained Fernandes in the

est, ne seroit pourveu, que la principale et grande partye des marchans estraingiers déslogeront, que seroit, comme dessus, très-excessive domaige et destruction.” AA, 7: 210. Likewise, the alliance of merchant leaders, aware of their importance to the city issued a veiled threat to the municipal authorities. They informed the council that its assistance in trial would ensure that the city’s foreign merchants would “continuer et augmenter leur résidence en ceste ville.” Ibid., 206. The clear implication was that if the magistrate failed to support them, they might abandon the town, taking their vast wealth with them.

179 territory of Gaesbeke, which lay not only outside the city walls of Antwerp, but outside the city’s territory altogether. Consequently, the city’s rights could not be marshaled in his case.64

Although they could not rely on their privileges to enforce it, the municipal authorities nevertheless insisted on due process in the trial. In addition to their ardent remonstrations against the illegal nature of Fernandes’s arrest, the Antwerp authorities also objected to the failure of the emperor’s commission to bring charges against him within three days. According to the common law of Antwerp, and of Brabant as a whole, failure to indict Fernandes within three days of his arrest should have resulted in his release. Yet Fernandes was held for almost six months before he was officially charged.65 The magistrate further complained that Fernandes had twice been tortured during his detention but that on neither occasion were they informed of his plight.66

64 This point is noted in a letter of advice sent by the Antwerp lawyer, Jaspar Stynen to Adriaan Herbouts, 13 December 1533. AA, 7: 268-69. 65 “. . . den gemeynen lantrechte van Brabant, nae denwelcken een officier, die eenen persoen gevangen heeft, m oet den gevangene, bynnen den derden daige nae de gevanckenisse, voer recht presenteren ende hem doen ticht ende aensprake, opte pene vanden gevangene dairnae byden rechters vande steden oft plaetsen dair onder hy behoirt, los ende vry ontslagen te worddene.” Magistrate of Antwerp to the queen, 2 September 1535. AA, 7: 334-39, here at 334. Were Fernandes to have been held on a civil charge, the law of the duchy dictated that he be released pursuant to the payment of a set amount of bail. See magistrate to Charles V, (n.d.) Ibid., 263-64. The magistrate also makes the point in this letter that several of Fernandes’s household servants petitioned the magistrate on his behalf, also protesting the delay in his indictment. 66 “. . . Fernandis is aldus buyten lants soe lange gevangen gehouden geweest ende is geleet geweest tot II reysen opte banck ende torture, sonder recht oft justicie….sonder byzyn oft wetene vanden Officier ende justicie vander stadt . . .” Magistrate of Antwerp to the queen, 2 September 1535. AA, 7: 337. According to the privileges of Antwerp, in order for a citizen to be tortured, he first had to undergo a process of denaturalization (ontpoortering), whereby his rights as a burgher were revoked. Such a process was not required for legal residents who did not possess full citizenship, but as a resident alien (ingezetene) of their town, the authorities should still have been advised of Fernandes’s torture. See Wim Meewis, De Vierschaar: De Criminele Rechtspraak in het Oude Antwerpen (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 1992), 79.

180

Even if the commission had observed due process in these trials, the Antwerp officials would still have protested its involvement. Because the New Christians were legal residents of their city, the council members insisted that they had jurisdiction in this matter. Although the Portuguese merchants were not burghers (poorters) of Antwerp, as legal aliens (ingezetenen) they possessed certain rights. Included among them was the provision that any charges brought against them in the city would be administered and tried by the city council, not the provincial governors in Brussels, or officials commissioned by the emperor.

In their letter to the magistrate regarding Diego Mendes, the merchant leaders alluded to these rights, claiming that the emperor’s commission had no jurisdiction over

Antwerp’s residents. They argued that, as a foreign merchant resident in the city,

Mendes was entitled to a trial by the city fathers, and that neither his goods nor his person could be seized or removed from their jurisdiction.67 In a letter to Charles, the magistrates echoed these assertions, claiming that:

. . . this city has been granted many privileges, including the provision that in all legal cases touching body or member (be they civil or criminal), the burghers and other inhabitants of this city ought to be judged by the burgomasters and aldermen . . . which privileges your Majesty and your predecessors promised to observe and uphold through your Joyous Entries.68

67 “. . . en cas criminel, que l’on pourroit tousjours faire lever l’arrest des biens baillant caution de la valeur d’iceulx, et que la personne ainsi criminellement accusé(e), ne pourroit estre transporté(e) de ceste ville, mais illecques tenu(e), tellement que on pourroit avoir accès au prisonnier, pour lui conseiller en ses deffenses, et que l’on luy debvroit, par devant vous, mes dictz Seigneurs, faire l’admise charge et procéder avant et faire droit, de tiers jours en tiers jours, jusques à ses condempnation ou absolution.” Ibid., 205. 68 “. . . icelle ville est dotée de plusieurs préviléges et, entre autres, que tous les bourgois et autres inhabitans d’icelle ville debvent, en tous cas, civil ou criminel, touchant corps ou membre, estre justiciables par devant les dictz Bourgmaistres et Eschevins . . . lesquelles préviléges par Vostre Majesté et prédicesseurs sont, par leurs Joyeuses Entrées, promises de observer et entretenir . . .” Emphasis added. They go on to claim that it is “sur icelles préviléges, droitz et usances, les marchans estraingiers de plusieurs divers nations et pays, eulx confiant, transfèrent leurs biens et marchandises en icelle ville résider,

181

Mendes’s own lawyer made the same argument, claming that neither the commission, nor the Council of Brabant had jurisdiction over his client, but that the Antwerp magistracy alone should oversee the case:

[This case] does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Council of Brabant, nor of you imperial commissioners. Rather, it ought to be tried before the rulers of Antwerp, for [Mendes] is their inhabitant and should be tried according to their privileges.69

The city council also argued that the commission overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries by attempting to transfer (leveren) the New Christian cases from the Antwerp

court to the Council of Brabant in Brussels. In Mendes’s trial, the queen evaded the

claims of the Antwerp officials by seeking to classify the case as reserved. As a reserved,

or exceptional case, the trial could have been removed to the judgment of the emperor

and his officials in the Council of Brabant, thereby excluding all other judges, such as the

city officials of Antwerp.70 The Antwerp authorities objected, insisting that the classification of the case as reserved was invalid, and that the trial should therefore remain in Antwerp:

comme d’ancienneté ont fait, que est où dépend le bien de la dicte Vostre ville et de la totale Duchée de Brabant.” Magistrate of Antwerp to Charles V, 2 August 1532. Ibid., 208-10, here at 208. 69 “. . . de ce n’appertendroit / la congnessance en al premiere instance ou conseil de / brabant ne per devant vous messeigneurs les commissaries / Aus par devant eulx d’Anvers pour ce qu’il est leur / inhabitant et ensuyvant leures privileges.” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 5, fol. 5. 70 “. . . se cas ce dessus mencione pour austant qu’il / toucher la dict Diago Mendis [sic] est cas privalege et exempt / dont a L’empereur, nostre Seigneur ou a mes seigneurs les chancellier et / autres de son conseil en brabant par seclusion de tous / autres juges la cognaissance de appertenir.” ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 5, fol. 2. The designation of a case as reserved was infrequently applied. The most common instance was for crimes of laesae majestatis, which could be applied to some forms of heresy. For more on the use of these legal classifications in Brabant, see above, Chapter One. For the development of the definition of heresy as a crime of laesae majestatis, see Goosens, Les Inquisitions, 1: 9-10, 29-37, 49-50, 176-79; and James D. Tracy, “Heresy Law and Centralization under Mary of Hungary: Conflict between the Council of Holland and the Central Government over the Enforcement of Charles V’s Placards,” ARG 73 (1982), 284-307.

182

. . . these accusations and offenses are not in fact reserved. Rather, they concern the transmission of merchandise and the conduct of Diego’s business dealings. This being the case, in accordance with the privileges of the city, the trial ought to be conducted and judged by the aforementioned supplicants [the aldermen of Antwerp] . . . .We therefore request that it please your most sacred Imperial Majesty to order your commissioners to desist with regard to these non-reserved accusations. And if you wish to bring any other charges against Diego, we ask that they be handled by the burgomaster and aldermen in your high court of Antwerp, in accordance with the said privileges of the Joyous Entry.71

With Charles V still absent, administration of the case fell to the chancellor, head

of the Council of Brabant. He sent three of the emperor’s advisors, all members of the

Council of Brabant, to Antwerp to participate in the trial.72 This was a wise but

compromise solution. It averted a protracted battle with the aldermen of Antwerp, since

the trial would remain in the city. At the same time, it afforded the imperial officials a

certain amount of influence in the proceedings, via their provincial representatives. Such

a solution was chosen in order to “avoid any debate with regard to the jurisdiction of the

queen.”73 This statement is significant because it demonstrates an understanding on the

part of the emperor’s officials that the conflict between the city and imperial

71 “. . . lesquelz accusations et délictz les treuvent non estre prévilégiez, mais plus touchans le fait de la marchandise, et au cas que en ce le dict Diego auroit mésusé ou délinquez, icelle cause debveroit, ensuivant les préviléges, compter et estre traictié par devant les susdictz supplians….Supplient partant que le plaisir de Vostre très-Sacrée Impériale Majesté soit de ordonner que les dictz commissaires, touchant les autres articles non prévilégez, désister de ultérieur congoissance. Ains se vouldroit, à cause d’icelle, prétendre aucunnement contre icelluy Diego, que se seroit par devant les dictz Bourgmaistres et Eschevins, ou en Vostre Vierschare d’Anvers, comme ensuivant les dictz préviléges et Joyeuse Entrée est de raison.” Request from the magistrate of Antwerp to Charles V, 2 August 1532. AA, 7: 208-10. 72 “. . . au nom du dict seigneur empereur a / connus et especialement auctorizez maistres Loys de / Heylwygen, Jehan vander Betien, et Josse vander Dusschen / tous conseillieurs de dict seigneur empereur en son conseil de / Brabant pour eulx transporter en la dicte ville d’Anvers / et pardenant eulx favor et instruier de proces du dict Diago Mendis.” Report of Hondewyns, ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 5, fol. 2. 73 “. . . pour eviter question et debate en matiere de / jurisdicion la Royne . . .” Report of Hondewyns, Ibid., fol. 2.

183

administrators was a jurisdictional battle. Furthermore, it acknowledges the possibility

that in this case, the queen’s authority could, in fact, have been compromised.

When Jan de Belins was tried just one month after Mendes, the Antwerp council

again defended its right to judge the case in Antwerp, basing its claim on privileges

purportedly confirmed to the city by the emperor during his Joyous Entry. Juliaan

Woltjer has pointed out that towns and cities often marshaled vague “privileges” in

defense of their actions, but that few such claims had any basis in legal reality.74 This seems to have been the case in this instance. When the emperor’s commissioners apprehended Belins, the queen immediately insisted that the trial be moved to Brussels.

The Antwerp council initially refused to release him, defending their position on the basis of the age-old privileges of the city. On this occasion, however, the queen called their bluff and demanded that the councilors produce authentic copies of the specific privileges in question.75

The magistracy of Antwerp experienced some difficulty in producing a specific privilege. In a panic, they sought advice from their lawyer, Jaspar Stynen. Stynen urged the council to send copies of the privileges, if they could put their hands on them, but pragmatically, he wrote, “I doubt that you possess privileges that you could physically

74 Juliaan J. Woltjer, “Dutch Privileges, Real and Imaginary,” in J. S. Bromley and E. H. Kossmann, eds., Britain and the Netherlands: Some Political Mythologies. Papers Delivered to the Fifth Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference 5 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975), 19-35. 75 The original letter containing the demand of the queen has been lost, but it is mentioned in an advisory note sent to the council by their lawyer, Jaspar Stynen on 23 November 1532. Full text in AA, 7: 249-51.

184

send to us in this situation.”76 Should this prove to be the case, he counseled the

magistrates to reword their petition and phrase their request as follows:

. . . with regard to the case of the New Christians, we have been able to find no particular privilege. However, because these same New Christians are come to this city and were apprehended here, we believe that the old customs and practices of the city, as well as the common and written law demand that [they] be served with justice in the same place in which they were arrested, not led from there to be imprisoned and tried elsewhere.77

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if no specific privilege could be found, then the councilors were well advised to fabricate “customs” in their stead.

So eager were the magistrates to oppose the queen and maintain control of the case, however, that they did manage to unearth a privilege in support of their jurisdictional claims, including its details in their response to the queen’s demand.

Thus, in the name of this city, we hereby request that the attorney general of Brabant not imprison and remove from the city of Antwerp the New Christians who have recently arrived here. And in support of this request, we the supplicants hereby submit an old privilege, bestowed upon our city by the late Duke John in the year 1364, which states among other things, that every person who is within the city of Antwerp, or who comes and resides there desiring to live honestly, must receive justice and sentencing according to the laws of the said city . . .78

76 “. . . dairaff wy nochtans twyfelen oft Ghy sulcken previlegien hebdt, dat Ghy in dien gevalle die sult by copien overseynden.” Letter of Jaspar Stynen and Jan vander Goten, 23 November 1532. AA, 7: 249-51, here at 250. 77 “. . . aengaende den saken vanden voers. Nyeuwen Kerstenen, egheen besundere previlegie en vinden; mair want diezelve Nyeuwe Kerstenen bynnen deser stadt zyn gearriveert ende aldair wordden bevonden, zoe verdunct ons dat, nae gemeyne gescrevene rechten ende oick nae den notoiren rechten, ouden hercomene ende costumen in dese stadt ende andere steden . . . behoiren ende zelve steden ende plaetssen dair zy bevonden wordden met rechte aengesproken te worddene, ende dairvuyt niet en moegen vervuert ende gevangen oft geleydt wordden om elders tegen hen te procederen, ende des te meer als zy dair recht begheren, gelyck dese gedaen hebben.” Ibid., 250-51. 78 “. . . dairvoere die supplianten, vuyten naemen vander stadt, souden willen sustineren dat die Procureur- Generael in Brabant vuyter voirs. stadt nyet en soude moegen vueren oft leyden, als gevangenen, die Nyewe Kerstenen binnen derselver stadt gearriveert synde, ende om desen genoech te doene, gheven die supplianten hiermede overe een oudt previlegie, der voirs. stadt verleent by wylen Hertogen Janne, vander daten duysent drye hondert sessenviertich, inhoudende, onder dandere, dat men elcken mensche die binnen der stadt van Antwerpen is oft compt ende recht begheert, hem recht ende vonnisse doe, gelyck dat der voirs. stadt recht ende weth inne heeft . . .” Magistrate to the Council of Brabant, (n.d.) Ibid., 257-60, here

185

This letter is the last extant document pertaining to the trial of Belins. It appears

that no response was forthcoming before the attorney general dropped the charges against

him. Yet, the fact that the Antwerp authorities were able to meet the queen’s challenge

and substantiate their claims to legal jurisdiction is significant, and indicates the extent of their willingness to defend their local autonomy against the encroachments of the imperial authorities.

The skirmish between Mary of Hungary and the council of Antwerp is indicative of the queen’s growing influence over the trials of the New Christians. Charles was absent from the Low Countries for the majority of the 1530s, during which time Mary acted in an increasingly independent manner with regard to these trials. The decision taken by the Council of Brabant in the Mendes case did not curtail her authority, but it did avert a direct confrontation between her and the Antwerp magistrate. In terms of

Antwerp’s attempts to defend its autonomy, this was far from a lasting solution.

V. A TEMPORARY PEACE

In August 1532, in the midst of the Mendes and Belins trials, Charles V issued an edict forbidding more New Christians to enter the Low Countries with the intention of traveling to the Levant. This edict came in direct response to the revelations of Loys

Garcez and reinforced the mandate of the emperor’s commission. It did not, however,

at 258. Génard also reproduced the text of the original privilege of 1364, cited by the councilors. The pertinent section of the privilege reads: “. . . ende oec mede willen Wi dat alle coepmanne ghebruke der vryheyt, die Wi ende Onse vorderen hem ghegheven hebben, ende dat men elken mensche, die binnen der stat van Antwerpen is of coeme, ende recht begheert, dat men hem recht ende vonnisse doe, ghelike dat der voers. stat recht ende wet in heeft.” Ibid., 258, fn. 1.

186 signal an enduring intensification of Charles’s policy toward the New Christians. Just three months later, in November 1532, he annulled the August edict and instructed Mary of Hungary to discontinue any cases pending against merchants of the Portuguese nation, and not to initiate new ones. The emperor claimed all of this was done at the behest of his brother-in-law, the Portuguese king, to ensure the continuation of mutually beneficial relations between their two lands:

Thus we desire that the affairs, business dealings, and all other matters pertaining to the lord king, my brother-in-law, together with his consuls, businessmen and all that concerns his said realm and subjects, is to be respected and conducted with favor in my aforementioned lands, as if these dealings were my own, in consideration of the alliance and goodwill between us and our houses.79

Charles hereby ruled that the Portuguese merchants remain unhindered in their business dealings. No prosecutions were to be instigated against them on the basis of their business practices. He made no mention of possible religious infractions in this letter, nor did he instruct his queen either to prevent or initiate prosecutions in this regard. Yet

Charles’s officials in Brussels seem to have heeded his injunction, as no trials against any members of the New Christian community occurred for over a year, until the highly irregular arrest of Anthonis Fernandes in 1533. In ordering this arrest and overseeing the trial, the queen acted in contravention of Charles’s instructions to her in November 1532.

Throughout this proceeding, the emperor is notably absent from the correspondence. The magistrate of Antwerp addressed two letters to Charles, but no responses are extant, nor

79 “A ceste cause, Madame, Ma bonne Seur, désirant les affaires, négociations et choses du dit Seigneur Roy, Mon Beau-Frère, ensemble ses facteurs et négociateurs et tout ce que concerne son dit royaulme et ses subgectz, estre repectez, traictez, pourtez et favorizeez en Mes dits pays, comme les Miens propres, pour considération de l’alience et amyté d’entre Nous et Nos Maisons . . . .” Charles V to the queen, 27 November 1532. Ibid., 251-52.

187 are any alluded to in other documentation concerning the trial.80 Nor do extant sources contain details of the final sentence in the Fernandes case. It seems, however, that a letter from Charles V to the local and provincial officials of Brabant was instrumental in the concluding phase of the trial.

Charles wrote this letter in 1537, in response to a petition he received from the

Portuguese merchants in Antwerp. The merchants made reference to the 1532 edict of the emperor, in which he forbade New Christians to come to his Low Countries unless they had his individual and express permission. The Portuguese merchants argued that these provisions seemed applicable only to those New Christians “seeking to journey to

Salonica or elsewhere in order to apostatize the Holy Catholic faith,” but not those who sought to “live as good and true Christians, having been baptized and seeking to live

Christian lives.”81 They assured Charles that they belonged to the latter group and were willing to live peacefully and pay the levies and taxes expected of all foreign merchants.

They also promised not to travel from the Low Countries without his express permission.

Demonstrating his flexibility in this early phase, and his willingness to bend to the requirements of individual circumstances, Charles capitulated to the requests of the

Portuguese merchants. He overruled his prior edict and instructed the leaders of Antwerp and Brabant to allow these New Christians to come, live, and trade in Antwerp and other cities in the Low Countries. As long as they were willing to pay the taxes and fees

80 Both letters specify only the year and not the date in which they were sent, 1534. See AA, 7: 263-64 and 265-67. 81 “. . . lequel édict toutesfois samble estre à entendre des Nouveaulx Cristiens qu’ilz se vouldroient transpoorter en Salonicque ou aultre part, pour apostager de la sainte foy catholicque, et ne fait vraysamblablement à entendre des bons Nouveaulx Cristiens, désirans vivre comme bons et vraix Cristiens baptisés sont tenus de vivre.” Request to the emperor, 15 February 1537. Ibid., 431-32, here at 432.

188

contributed by other foreigners resident in the city, the emperor gave them permission to

“come and go between here and Portugal or any other Christian realm, freely and without hindrance . . . as is allowed to all other foreign merchants.”82

After their long and protracted battles with the queen-regent, this initial

concession by Charles surely came as a relief to the city council. But Charles’s letter

contained even more favorable news. He declared that the New Christians were exempt

from any legal charges brought against them during their time in Portugal or elsewhere,

prior to their arrival in the Low Countries. What is more, if they were indicted while

living in the Low Countries, they were not to be removed from their city of residence

during the course of the proceedings. He concluded that these New Christians “are to be

treated as if they are our own burghers and inhabitants of the said city of Antwerp.”83

This declaration was a significant victory for the magistrate of Antwerp. The emperor bowed to their request that the New Christians not be removed from their city for trial in Brussels. Moreover, he decreed that their cases be conducted in the Antwerp court. The mandate also represented a victory over Mary of Hungary, by preserving the legal jurisdiction of the city governors, and minimizing imperial interference into their affairs. The Antwerp council could now assuage the fears of their merchant residents by assuring them, on the authority of the emperor, that they were to be treated as native inhabitants of the city, protected by the same laws and privileges extended to their

82 “. . . joyaulx retourner au dicte royaulme de Portugal / ou es autres pays royaulmes et provinces Cristien que bon leur semblera / librement et franchement . . . qu’il est permis a tous autres marchans estraingiers.” Letter of the emperor, 27 February 1537. ARA, Audientie 1417/15, doc. 2, fol. 2. 83 “. . . Nous leur avons consenty et accorde / que a la cause dicte ilz ne seont tirez ou attraiz ne amenez / prisonniers ou autrement travaillez en corps ne en biens hors d’icelle / notre ville d’Anvers ne d’autres villes et lieux de notres pays de pardeca . . . . Et que ausurplus les dicts / supplians soient en ce traictez comme noz propres bourgoiz et habitans / de la dicte ville d’Anvers.” Ibid., fol. 2.

189 neighbors and fellow traders. For the next three years, the emperor’s concessions achieved a peaceful balance in the city. During that time there were no new trials against any Portuguese merchants in Antwerp, and proceedings already underway (including that of Fernandes) appear to have been abandoned.

In 1539 the emperor returned to the Low Countries, and his truce with the New

Christians continued for another two years. This was not, however, the end of the city’s troubles concerning the New Christians. In 1540, imperial officials discovered a flotilla of ships in Middelburg, several miles up the coast from Antwerp, containing more than fifty New Christian immigrants. They had come to the Low Countries from Portugal with the apparent intention of fleeing the inquisition in that country and continuing on to the safe haven in the Ottoman Empire. The names of those directing this human cargo included several of the New Christians implicated in the testimony of Loys Garcez almost ten years earlier.

The discovery of the Middelburg New Christians occurred while Charles was still in Algiers, battling the Turks. Mary of Hungary once again took the lead in the investigation, proceeding with rigor. The initiation of this trial and the events that followed in its wake generated a gradual but irrevocable change in imperial policy toward the New Christians. By 1549, the emperor had completely reversed his position, issuing a command to expel the New Christians from the Low Countries. It is this dramatic progression of events to which we turn in Chapter Five.

190

CHAPTER FIVE LOCAL RESISTANCE AND IMPERIAL POWER

The New Christian trials of the 1520s and 30s reveal a significant degree of

oscillation in the legislative actions of Charles V, who was constantly torn between

competing priorities. On the one hand, the economic benefits the New Christians brought to the region and the empire made him reluctant to treat them with great severity. On the other hand, determined to take a strong stance against all forms of heresy, he could not disregard allegations of their apostasy. Charles’s internal conflict manifested itself in a fluctuating policy toward the New Christians. He forbade them to immigrate to his lands in 1532, but welcomed them to come, live, and trade freely in 1526, 1529, and 1537. The

1540 discovery in Middelburg1 of a flotilla carrying New Christian immigrants from

Portugal initiated a gradual change in Charles’s treatment of these religiously ambiguous

émigrés, from one of conflicted leniency, to one of determined intolerance, culminating in their expulsion from his lands in 1549. This chapter will examine this dramatic transformation in the emperor’s policy.

The trials of the 1540s bear witness to an increasing focus on the religious and theological aspects of the New Christians’ alleged crimes. Unlike the cases of Mendes,

Fernandes, and Belins (considered in Chapter Four), in which religious issues played only

1 Middelburg was a vital commercial center to the north of Antwerp. In the late fourteenth century, when the river Zwin in Bruges began to silt up, the merchants of Bruges relocated. Although most came to Antwerp, a large number moved to Middelburg, attracted by the privileges extended to them by the counts of Zeeland. See Jacques Paviot, “The Portuguese in Bruges,” in International Trade in the Low Countries (14th-16th Centuries): Merchants, Organization, Infrastructure, ed., Bruno Blondé, Peter Stabel, Anke Greve, Studies in Urban Social, Economic, and Political History of the Medieval and Early Modern Low Countries (Leuven: Garant, 2000), 55-74.

191 a peripheral role, in the trials of the 1540s, the personal beliefs and practices of each suspect were closely scrutinized in an attempt to uncover conclusive evidence of apostasy. This new focus on the religious nature of the New Christians’ crimes emanated in large part from the increased activity of the Portuguese Inquisition in the mid-1540s.

From this point, Charles viewed New Christian immigrants as apostate refugees, fleeing the justice of the Portuguese Holy Office. His increasingly hard-line stance challenged the magistracy of Antwerp to develop new strategies in their defense. Although ultimately in vain, their efforts were significant nonetheless. Whereas in earlier trials, the councilors had based their defense of the New Christians on appeals to the city’s economic and legal privileges, during the 1540s, they developed theological arguments in favor of limited acceptance of their New Christian subjects, which constituted the first overt articulation of a policy of religious toleration in the city.

I. THE MIDDELBURG NEW CHRISTIANS, 1540-1542

In December 1540, Jerome Zandelin, receiver (rentmeester) of the emperor in

Zeeland, apprehended 43 New Christians, recently arrived in Middelburg on a fleet of fourteen ships. They had sailed from Portugal through England to Middelburg on their way to Antwerp.2 Zandelin suspected that these travelers were fleeing the newly- established inquisition in Portugal, which had performed its first auto-de-fé in Lisbon

2 “Alhier in Zeelandt zyn onder andere / schepen gearriveert xij oft xiiij scepen vuyt portingael / gelaeden met ’sconincx specerien inde welcke mede / overgecomen zyn diversche joeden, diemen noimpt nyeuwe / kerstenen . . .” Letter of Zandelin, 4 December 1540. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 30-30v, here at fol. 30. The New Christians had been warned that their ships might be searched by the emperor’s officials and their goods confiscated. For this reason, they did not travel directly to Antwerp, but made a stop in Middelburg.

192 earlier that same year. He recognized some of their names from investigations already underway in Antwerp3 and arrested them at the command of the queen.4

It is not surprising that these names would be familiar to Zandelin. At this point, eight years after the Diego Mendes trial, Emanuel Serano (the fourth man arrested as a result of the testimony of Loys Garcez)5 had reappeared in Antwerp. The Antwerp high

court had tried and acquitted Serano just one week before the Portuguese ships sailed into

Middelburg.6 The prosecutor demanded that Serano be executed as a heretic, but the

3 “. . . overmits huere woenkere ende andere / delicten zoe men zeyt, vuyt Portingail gevloeden zyn / met hemlieden brengende grote menichte van coopmanscap, / gelde, wissel brieven . . . ende andere goeden.” Ibid., fol. 30. Roth and Birnbaum suggest that information concerning this group of New Christians was passed on to Jan Vuystinck, Charles’s assistant commissary general, by an informer in Milan. When Juan III of Portugal instituted the Portuguese Inquisition in 1536, so many New Christians fled to Spanish-held Milan that an investigation was begun by Vuystinck and the imperial commission. One of those detained was Gaspar Lopes, who allegedly provided information about the Middelburg group, admitting that their intention was to travel to Salonica. Roth and Birnbaum suggest that Vuystinck subsequently tipped Zandelin off to the presence of the New Christians on this flotilla. See Cecil Roth, Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948), 36, and Marianna D. Birnbaum, The Long Journey of Gracia Mendes (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2003), 31. See also Ernest Ginsburger, “Marie de Hongrie, Charles-Quint, les veuves Mendès, et les néo-Chrétiens,” Revue des études juives 89 (1930), 179-92, here at 180. Zandelin himself, however, explains his motivation for making the arrests in the following way: “Tselve tot mynder kennisse gecomen ende geadverteert / zynde datmen gelycke nyeuwe kerstenen oft Joeden tot / Antwerpen geapprehendeert heeft. Oeck datter vele / vanden principale als Gabriel de Negre ende andere / fugityff zyn hebbe my gevonden ande selve scepen ende / aldus vander Keiserlijke Majesteit wegen gearresteert alle de persoenen / wesende vander nacie vanden nyeuwe kerstenen voorβ / mitsgaders alle de goeden die ick bevonden hebbe hemlieden / toebehoerende dair van ic eenige bevonden hebbe.” Letter of Zandelin, (n.d.) ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 30. 4 “. . . de nyeuwe kerstens ende huere / goeden, de welcke tot Middelburch duer bevel vande Majeste vander coninghinne Regente / gevanghen ende gearresteert zyn.” Ibid., fol. 35. 5 See above, Chapter Four. 6 Unlike the accusations leveled against New Christian in the previous decade, those leveled against Serano were almost entirely religious in character. The prosecutor alleged that, although baptized and raised as a Christian, Serano later spurned his Christian faith and returned to Judaism, the religion of his parents. Other heretical crimes followed, such as eating forbidden foods during the Lenten fast, singing and dancing on Fridays, and observing the Jewish Sabbath. “. . . versmadende het heyligen kersten geloove, hadde hy, binnen drie oft viere jaeren herwaerts, hem gegeven totter Joetscher wet, volgende de vestigien van syne ouders, die Joeden geweest hebben; ende, in verachtingen vander voirs. kersten geloove ende den geboden der Heyliger Kercken, hadde de verweerdere inde Vastene, op Vrydaghen ende andere verboden tyden, gegeten vleesch, eyeren ende diergelycke verboden spyse, bedryvende, in contemptie vander passien ende doot Ons Heeren, meer genuechten van singhen, dansen ende op instrumenten te spelen opte Vrydaghen

193

Antwerp authorities managed to release him without penalty.7 One of the leading merchants among the Portuguese in Antwerp, Serano’s was a high-profile case, one that

Zandelin, more than fifty miles away in Middelburg, would certainly have known about.

a. Arrests and Investigation

Having apprehended the fleet of ships and impounded its goods, Zandelin was confronted by one of the ship’s passengers, who produced a letter of safe conduct which he claimed had been granted him by the emperor. Zandelin wrote immediately to Mary of Hungary, asking that she verify the letter and instruct him how to proceed in the matter.8 The response of the queen is no longer extant, but it appears that she encouraged

Zandelin to initiate a thorough investigation of each prisoner. Indeed, the authorities in

dan op andere daghen . . . onderhoude oick syn Saboth opten Saterdach ende nyet opten Sondach . . . .” Extended sentence of Emanuel Serano in AA, 7: 449-55, here at 450. 7 Serano denied, point for point, each accusation of the prosecutor. He insisted that he had never fallen away from his Christian faith, had favored Saturdays no more than any other day of the week and, in response to the claims of Garcez, denied that he had threatened the boy in any way. Furthermore, he contradicted witness testimony that had been brought against him and cast doubt on his own confession, made the previous month. Serano’s trial was conducted before the high court in Antwerp, not the imperial commission or the attorney general of Brabant. Perhaps for this reason, the Antwerp city councilors, in their capacity as judges in his case, issued a highly favorable sentence. Despite the numerous allegations of the prosecutor, the council found Serano not guilty and released him without penalty. He did not even have to pay court costs. Ibid., 452-55. 8 “. . . heeft my geproduceert copie van zeker privilege / dat schynt hemlieden byder Keiserlijke Majesteit verleent te wesen, dair van / ick mynen heere de copie hier mede zende. Biddende mynen / heere de Majesteit vanden Coninginne hieraf te willen spreken / ten eynde ick weten mach wair nair my te reguleren.” Letter of Zandelin, 4 December 1540. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 30v. Charles V was absent from the Low Countries at the time. Early in 1541 he left to prepare to fight his Ottoman enemies in Algiers. In his absence, Mary of Hungary took on increasing control of the New Christian trials.

194

Brussels sent instructions, detailing exactly how to question each witness.9 They instructed Zandelin to focus on questions such as:

For what reason they left Portugal; whom they know in these lands; whether they know any merchants in Antwerp or elsewhere (if so, get their names); if their parents were Christians or if they are descended from Jews; when and where they were baptized . . . .”10

After gaining this basic information with regard to their ancestry and the purpose of their

travel, Zandelin was to inquire into their beliefs, particularly with regard to the Virgin

Mary, the crucifixion, confession, and the Eucharist. Finally, if any were unwilling to

answer or gave contradictory responses, Mary commanded that Zandelin employ

torture.11

It is notable that these questions already display a far more religious focus than any interrogation in the New Christian trials of the previous decade. In Mendes’s case, an interlocutory judgment had excluded religious questioning from the trial entirely. In the case of Anthonis Fernandes, religious infractions were included in the charges against him, but his mercantile dealings remained the primary focus of his captors. Now in 1540,

9 The text of the document is not signed, but the heading reads, “Interrogatoir om te ondervragen de Joeden / oft nyeuwe Kerstene nyeuwelicke [gecomen] vuyt / Portugale ende gearrestert / byden [Rent]meester van Zeelandt tot / Middelbourg.” 6 December 1540. ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 2, fol. 1. 10 “. . . Vuyt wat orsake dat zy vuyt portugale vertrocken / zyn….Wat kennisse zy in dese lande habben oft zy / eenige coopluden kenne tot Antwerpen oft elders / herwartsover. De selve te noemen met name ende / toename . . . . Item oft hueren vader ende moeder kerstene zyn / geweest oft nyet ende oft zy nyet en zyn comen / van Joeden// Item wanner ende waer zy kerstene gewoerden / oft gedoept zyn in wat kercke ende bysdom . . .” Ibid. 11 “Ende zoe verre yemant ontwillich ware / te deposeren oft te antwoerden den selven daertoe / bedwingen met tortur ende pynen / Ingelich in dyen men bevindt dat zy nyet en / antwoerden gelick behoert de selve te / pynen ende te torturen.” Ibid., fol. 3.

195

the chief concern of the authorities in Brussels was overwhelmingly religious.12 These

questions were, of course, purely prescriptive, but Zandelin took them seriously, and

transcriptions of the subsequent depositions reflect his close adherence to them.

The list of questions was sent to Zandelin on 6 December 1540. Ten days later,

on 16 December, Charles issued an edict in response to the discovery of the flotilla. The

edict was directed specifically at the authorities in Antwerp, the eventual destination of

the apprehended suspects. It is the first of the emperor’s edicts to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the religiosity of the New Christians. In it, Charles distinguished between New Christians who possessed a verifiable Christian faith and those who simulated Christianity, maintaining Jewish beliefs in their hearts. These Marranos, he claimed, feigned Christian faith in order to enjoy the privileges granted to other Christian inhabitants of the city:

It has come to our attention that in recent years, various people have come to our city of Antwerp claiming to be New Christians. There they live under the privileges granted by us. Nevertheless, they are not in fact real Christians but Jews or Marranos who, in the secrecy of their homes, live according to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews . . . . These people want to enjoy the privileges accorded by us (which were given only to true Christians), in direct opposition to our intention and purpose in providing these privileges, to the great scandal of our holy Christian faith, and to the disadvantage of the community. We greatly desire to put a stop to this, because we want good Christians to enjoy our privileges but the Jews and false Christians to be punished.13

12 The document containing these questions is unsigned. Along with the date is the notation that it was written in Valenciennes, a town in the southern Low Countries. Charles V was resident in Valenciennes at this time (his edict of 16 December 1540 was written there). It therefore seems likely that one of his advisors (probably a religious advisor) had a hand in the composition of the document. 13 “Alsoe tonser kennesse gecomen es, dat bynnen onser voirs. stadt van Antwerpen, zedert corte jaeren herwaerts gecommen ende gearriveert zyn diversche persoonen, hen seggende nyeuwe kerstenen, levende onder ’t previlegie by ons verleent, ende nochtans egheene kerstene en zyn maer Joeden oft Maranen, secretelyck houdende bynnen huere huysen de wet ende ceremonyen vanden Joeden . . . ende nyet min willen gebruycken tvoirs. previlegie, den warachtigen kerstenen verleent, directelyck tegens onse meyninge ende intentie ende tot groote schandalizatie van onsen heyligen kerstene geloove ende tot achterdeele

196

In none of his previous edicts did Charles so explicitly recognize the distinction between

those who pretended Christianity and those who actually possessed true faith. By the end

of 1540, he was clearly aware that two groups of New Christians existed. He remained

willing, at this point, to punish only those who were secret Jews. This nuanced

understanding enabled Charles to welcome New Christians deemed orthodox in their

beliefs while promoting harsh measures against those found guilty of Judaizing.

b. The Depositions: December 1540 to March 1541

In total, Jerome Zandelin deposed 43 New Christians in three separate rounds of

questioning in Middelburg between December 1540 and the following March.14 Nine suspects were questioned more than once and at least two were tortured.15 The subjects

ranged in age from children of seven or eight to old men of 80, with an equally varied

array of occupations represented. Several were merchants with many contacts in the New

Christian community of Antwerp. Others had just one family member resident in the city

or knew no one at all. Most were petty artisans, while at least one admitted that she had

vander gemeyne welvaert. Soe eest day wy, willende hier inne versien, ende opdat de goeden kerstenen onse voirs. previlegie moegen genuyeten, ende de Joeden ende andere geveynsde ende gesimuleerde kerstenen gestrafft worden . . . .” Edict of Charles V, 16 December 1540. Full text contained in J. Lameere and H. Simont, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922), 4: 269. 14 Charles Rahlenbeek asserts that the New Christians were apprehended in Middelburg, but transferred to Vilvoorde, near Brussels, for interrogation. I have found no evidence to substantiate this claim. Indeed, Jerome Zandelin signed all deposition documents and he notes specifically that he is writing from Middelburg. See Charles Rahlenbeek, “Les Juifs à Anvers,” in Revue de Belgique 8 (1871), 137-46, here at 139. 15 Thorough transcriptions of each round of depositions are to be found in ARA, Audientie 1177/2. For the depositions of 19 December 1540, see fols. 125-45; 7 February 1541, fols. 9-13; 16 March 1541, fols. 63- 68v.

197 no marketable skills and expected to make a living by begging.16 All were questioned by

Zandelin, according to his directions, and their responses noted in detail.17 Collectively, they named 42 contacts in Antwerp, many of whom appeared in more than one deposition, and most of whom were merchants in the city whose names are familiar from the arrests made in 1532.18 When questioned as to their reasons for coming to the Low

Countries, almost half (17 of the 43) said that they had fled the famine and consequent excessive cost of food in Portugal, many also claiming that contacts in Antwerp had informed them that grain, or the cost of living in general, was cheaper in the Low

Countries.19 Fifteen of the deponents admitted either to being New Christians or being born to parents who were Jews. Most of these were older members of the group who had either fled Spain themselves or had parents who had done so during the expulsions of

1492.20 All of the male prisoners were examined to establish whether or not they had

16 For details regarding the depositions, see Appendix III, “Middelburg Depositions, 1540-1541.” 17 The contents of these sources must be read critically. Zandelin’s latent hostility to the New Christians was reflected in his reporting of their answers. In most cases, however, the answers to the religious questions he posed appear quite frank. Many apprehendees admitted to being born into formerly-Jewish households, although they maintained that they were raised as Christians. The case of Loys Fernandes demonstrates, however, that some of their answers were indeed disingenuous, as he changed his story while undergoing torture. It seems that their claims that they fled Portugal to avoid the famine must, therefore, be read with a large degree of skepticism, since Loys, at least, admitted to having fled the inquisition. 18 See Appendix IV, “Antwerp Contacts, 1540.” 19 For example, Gomar Dias came with her husband, explaining that they hoped to make a living in Antwerp for them and their children: “. . . zeyde dat zy gecomen was / vuyt Portugael in desen landen om de famine ende tyt / aldaer, omme hier met huere man de cost met werken te / winnen voer heur ende heure kinderen.” ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 136v. Martyn Alfonso, a 76 year-old man from Alther, also cites famine and the cost of food as his reason for leaving Portugal with his wife, Leonora Fernandis: “. . . overmits den hongeren tyt / ende dierte zynde in Portingael . . . .” Ibid., fol. 133. Even nine year old Maior Fernandes had heard that “coren harwaertsover in goed coepe was.” Ibid., fol. 132. 20 One of those claiming this status was the 80 year-old Loys Fernandes, who explained that he fled Spain during the expulsion, was subsequently imprisoned in Portugal, and underwent a forced baptism under King Manuel I: “Ende is hy deposant gevloeden vuyt / Spaengien commende eerst in Portingael, wiert hy ende alle / dandere zyne complicen gevangen byden coninck Emanuel / ende par fortje aldaer gedoopt . . . .” Ibid., fol. 143.

198

been circumcised. Only five of the 23 men on board were circumcised, all of whom were

aged 50 or older.21

As he had been instructed, Zandelin interrogated the prisoners with regard to their faith. Their answers demonstrate that most of the New Christians had only a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. Three cases were exceptional. When questioned concerning the “holy faith, the sacraments and ordinances of the holy church and the circumstances of Christ’s life,” the merchants Jacomme de Lyma and Thomas Fernandes, as well as a cloth worker named Garcia Rodrieges were the only ones who answered “as a good Christian ought.”22 The remaining 40 prisoners possessed a variety of beliefs,

ranging from the genuinely ignorant to the overtly heretical.23 Fifteen are described by

Zandelin as knowing nothing at all about their faith. They could not answer even the

most basic questions. Eleven of them mentioned a belief in the mother of Jesus, although

several of those did not know her name. Eight were unable to say where Jesus had lived,

in heaven or on earth. Fifteen testified that they had attended either the Eucharist,

confession, or both, but only six of those demonstrated any understanding of it. One

deponent claimed that the sacrament contained the body of Mary rather than Jesus, and

one held that it contained the presence of Jesus, Mary, Peter, and Paul.24 Questioned as

to whether they knew and could recite the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo, four

21 Each male testimony makes reference to the deponent’s status with regard to circumcision, concluding with the affirmation “als blyckt,” suggesting a physical examination. In the case of 17 year-old Emanuel Rodriges, Zandelin specifically notes that an examination was conducted: “alst blyckt / blyckt [sic] by visitacie aen hem gedaen.” Ibid., fol. 134. 22 “Gevraecht opt heylige geloeve, de sacramenten ende ordonancien / vander heyliger kercke ende de circumstancien vandier, wist / daer op prompelyck ende wel tantwoirden als een goet / kersten toebehoirt.” See testimony of Jacomme de Lyma, Ibid., fol. 142. The same is true for Thomas Fernandes (fol. 139v), and G[ar]cia Fernandes (fol. 128). 23 For details on what follows, see Appendix III, “Middelburg Depositions, 1540-1541.” 24 Respectively Gomar Dias (fol. 136v) and Branke Fernandis (fol. 67v).

199

knew no prayers at all, five knew them in Latin (in which case they did not understand

them), eleven could recite them in their native language, and eleven more had no

understanding whatsoever of the content of the prayers.

Nine of the prisoners were deposed a second time, either to delve deeper into their

beliefs, or to reexamine them concerning the contacts they claimed to have had in

Antwerp. Thereafter, on the 5 January 1541, two of the prisoners were singled out for

examination under torture: Loys Fernandes, an 80-year-old man, originally from Spain,

and Marco Fernandes, a 40-year-old spice merchant and friend of Loys. The point on

which Zandelin took particular issue with these two men concerned their belief about the

crucifixion. Both men denied that the Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. The first

of the two to be tortured, Loys gave testimony that seems to have implicated Marco.

Loys confessed to having been born a Jew and having lived as one in Spain. Upon

fleeing to Portugal in 1492 he was arrested by the king and forcibly baptized. He

admitted to keeping the Jewish Sabbath and refusing to eat pork. Yet he insisted that he

believed in Jesus and his mother but defiantly refused to agree that the Jews had killed

Jesus, saying that this story had been fabricated by evil men in Portugal.25 Even under

torture, Loys refused to amend his testimony concerning the crucifixion, adding significantly, that he had fled Portugal because the king wanted to initiate an inquisition against the New Christians. He explained that he feared being burned by that inquisition, but if he were to be burned, he would prefer that it happen in the Low Countries, where

25 “[Hij]geloeft / nyet dat de Joden onsen heere gecruyst hebben, maer dat quaede / luyden in Portingael die om een vuiteyn souden quaede getuygenisse / gheven gedaen hebben, zeggende dat de Jooden ons heere gecruyst / hebben.” Testimony of Loys Fernandes, 19 December 1540. Ibid., fol. 143v.

200

no one knew him.26 Loys closed his testimony with the declaration that Marco Fernandes had encouraged him to come to the Low Countries, promising to give him money to sustain him upon arrival. Immediately thereafter, Zandelin brought Marco in to be questioned under torture. Like Loys, Marco refused to affirm that the Jews had crucified

Christ, but other than this omission, no details of his beliefs were noted.27

Marco Fernandes does not seem to have been punished for his denial of Jewish

responsibility for the crucifixion. Loys Fernandes, on the other hand, received

particularly harsh treatment. Working against him was the fact that the ship’s crew, when

interviewed, stated under oath that Loys had confessed his intention to remain for the

winter in Antwerp, then to travel in the summer to Salonica.28 Not only was Loys apparently a secret Jew but, like others before him, he was using Antwerp as a stopping point on his way to Turkish lands. Furthermore, he had admitted that his true motivation in fleeing Portugal was to escape the newly-instituted inquisition, thereby affirming the old and terrible fears of the authorities in Brussels. Zandelin reported Loys’s heresy and alleged travel plans to Mary of Hungary, declaring that he had ordered his execution by fire. He requested that, pursuant to his investigation of this group, the queen “promulgate

26 “. . . hy vuyt Portingael / gevloden was deur vrese van daer gebrandt te worden, seggende / dat hy liever waer hier gebrandt aldaermen hem deposant nyet / en kendt dan in Portingal, te meer mitsdien dat de coninck / van Portingael van nyeux hadde ter kerken doen publiceren / een half jaer geleden, als datmen inquisicie doen soude opde / nyeuwe kerstenen.” Testimony of Loys Fernandes, 5 January 1541. Ibid., fol. 145. 27 Ibid., fol. 145v. 28 “. . . hy hem antwoirde als / dat hy dese winter wilde blyven tot Antwerpen ende met de somer / woirde hy van daer vertrecken . . . seggende dat zyn intentie / was te trecken naer Veneghe ende dan naer Salonique . . . .” Ibid., fol. 144.

201 an edict or ordinance, demanding that all officials be rigorous in their treatment of these

New Christians.”29

c. Conflicting Imperial Policies

With the exception of Loys Fernandes, the Middelburg New Christians were

guilty of little other than a gross ignorance of the Christian faith they claimed. Although

Loys and Marco Fernandes both refused to affirm Jewish responsibility for the

crucifixion of Christ, only Loys received a sentence of death on this count.30 Perhaps

29 “. . . la majesté la Royne que sa dicte maieste en fit / faire unge placaet ou ordonnance selon le quot ces officiers / se seroient leurs riguer toussant laffaire des nouveaulx / cristiaens.” Letter of Zandelin, 13 February 1541. Ibid., fol. 2. There is no evidence that the queen took Zandelin’s advice, but it is possible that local officials were encouraged in some way toward rigor, as is evinced by a letter from the Antwerp magistrate later in the same year. In it, the council request control over the cases of New Christians. The letter makes reference to an investigation concerning Gabriel de Negro, a New Christian originally sought following the testimony of Loys Garcez, and one of the Antwerp contacts most frequently mentioned in the depositions conducted by Zandelin in Middelburg. De Negro was not on the ship, but many of the goods found there contained his seal, and six of the Middelburg deponents mentioned him as a contact in Antwerp. (See letter of Zandelin, 17 March 1541. Ibid., fols. 17-17v.) The Antwerp magistrate defended its ability to judge de Negro’s case, arguing that they had been consistently loyal to the emperor in enforcing his previous laws. (“Et se sont aussy tousiours monstre obeyssans / en ce que votre Majeste leur a commande comme ilz sont tenuz / de faire. Et combien que peult sambler quil les dicte remonstrans / se deussent avoir au faict du dict de negro . . . .” Letter of Jan vande Werve and Guillamme van Halmale. Ibid., fols. 28-29, here at 28.) It seems, however, that the pleas of the Antwerp council went unheeded once again, for Zandelin confiscated the goods of de Negro, which he had found on the ship, inventoried them and sold them for a 700 livre profit. (“. . . et a grandt prys vendu les biens confisques et / entre les aultres ceulx de Gabriel de negro montans / ensamble environ la somme de vijc livres de gros monnaie / de flandres.” Letter of Zandelin, 17 March 1541. Ibid., fol. 17.) 30 He was not, however, executed. It appears that he escaped immediately following his final deposition. In a letter to the queen three days later, Zandelin describes him as a . See Zandlin, 8 January 1541. Ibid., fol. 50. Even among the New Christians who were direct converts from Judaism and knew little of Christianity, it is possible that, had they been asked, they would have been equally uninformed about their former religion. Jonathan Israel notes that most New Christians who fled Portugal did so from a fear of the inquisition (like that voiced by Loys Fernandes) rather than a desire to return to the Jewish faith, in which many of them were poorly instructed. See Israel, Diasporas, 42-45. In addition, given the poor training and frequent absences of the clerics in Brabant, it is possible that the Old Christians would have been as poorly instructed in Catholic doctrine as their New Christian counterparts. On the generally poor instruction of the laity in the southern Low Countries, see Léon-E. Halkin, De hervorming in het zuiden: staat en kerk tegenover de ketters (Utrecht: W. de Haan, 1952), 252.

202

because of the lack of overt apostasy, no edict was forthcoming immediately following

the depositions concluded by Zandelin in March 1541. By this time, the emperor had left

for Algiers, where he would battle (ultimately in vain) his Ottoman enemy, and the only

ordinances Mary of Hungary promulgated in his absence were those enjoining

processions and prayers for his victory.31 In addition, the end of 1541 saw the trial and

execution in Lisbon of Loys Diaz, a former Jew who believed himself to be the true

Messiah. Diaz was tried with 83 of his disciples, nine of whom were executed with him,

and another 20 burned in effigy.32 One might imagine that the continuing imperial focus on Charles’s Ottoman enemies, coupled with the trial of such a radical former Jew, would have led to harsher measures against the New Christians. But this was not the case.

Zandelin continued to hold the Middelburg New Christians captive well into 1542, pleading repeatedly but fruitlessly with the authorities in Brussels to decide on the matter quickly.33

The situation of the New Christian prisoners changed only after they themselves

lodged complaints with the emperor. In an undated letter, probably written at the end of

1541 or beginning of 1542, the prisoners complained of mistreatment at the hands of

31 See Liste Chronologique des Édits et Ordonnances des Pays-Bas: Règne de Charles-Quint (1506-1555) (Brussels: Gobbaerts, 1885), 252, 256, 260-61, and 428. This volume was constructed by a committee of unnamed scholars as a companion volume to the Recueil, op.cit. It is intended to be a comprehensive overview of the ordinances of the period, but several (including some of Charles’s edicts regarding the New Christians) are omitted. 32 There is no overlap between the followers of Diaz in this trial and the New Christians apprehended in Middelburg in 1540. However, a list of their names and details of their infractions and punishments is contained in a document written in Zandelin’s hand two days after the executions, suggesting that he took some interest in their cases. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 105-09. 33 “Ende gemerct dese saicke haest / begeert overmits den crys vanden scippers die de persoenen / van huere scepen gaern overslegen waeren Oeck dat ick / alle de goeden in arreste houde Soude ic by mynen heere / begeren desen bode in diligencie te willen doen expedieren.” Letter of Zandelin, 4 December 1540. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 30-30v, here at 30v.

203

Zandelin, alleging that he broke the emperor’s promise of safe-conduct, issued in 1537.34

In their petition, the New Christians complained that no official charges had yet been brought against them. They requested that, if Zandelin was to bring specific charges against them, their case be heard in the Antwerp court, pleading, “Sir, if we have unwittingly transgressed your ordinances, we humbly ask that we be judged by the burgomaster and aldermen of Antwerp, according to the written law.”35 It is striking that

this group of Portuguese émigrés, many of whom had never been to Antwerp, should

want to be tried by the unknown justices of that city. One can only assume that word had

reached them, probably through their contacts in Antwerp, that the judges there were

well-disposed to help them, as was indeed the case.

The Middelburg group lodged their complaint just one year after the emperor

promulgated his edict denouncing insincere New Christian immigrants. Their allegations

of mistreatment struck a chord with Charles and he softened his approach in their case.

In March 1542 he issued another edict, reaffirming the privileges he had granted in

1537.36 What is more, in the text of this ordinance, he publicly chastised Jerome

Zandelin for his inappropriate handling of the affair:

Recently, several of our officials, notably our receiver of Zeeland [Zandelin], have committed great injustices against these said supplicants, taking their persons, wives, children, families, goods, money, and

34 ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 95-102. 35 “Sire, si nous avons transgressé sans le savoir vos ordonnances, nous vous demandons en grâce d’être jugés par les bourgmestres et échevins d’Anvers, selon le droit écrit.” ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 49, quoted in Rahlenbeek, “Les Juifs,” 140. 36 Goris asserts that this group of New Christians gave Charles 10,000 florins to encourage this concession. However, the document from which he draws his evidence actually describes the fate of a different group of New Christian immigrants, arrived in 1544, which Goris confuses with the 1540 group. For details of their trials, see below. See Jan A. Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales à Anvers de 1488 à 1567. Contribution a l'histoire des débuts du capitalisme moderne (1925; New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), 575.

204

belongings under arrest. This they did on the premise that they are Jews, Marranos, heretics, apostates, and members of forbidden sects. The receiver and his men claimed that theirs is a privileged case, to which the said permission [of 1537] does not apply . . . .37

Clearly appalled by Zandelin’s treatment of these prisoners, the emperor went on to review the permissions accorded to New Christians in 1537, to which the Middelburg group referred in their letter, and to affirm the validity of their claims to these provisions:

Having considered this issue, we are favorably inclined to the supplication of these New Christians, hereby declaring our intention that the said supplicants, with their wives, children, families, goods, money, and belongings, shall be allowed to come and trade in our lands of Flanders, and to make use of the laws, freedoms, and exemptions which other foreign merchants enjoy. They shall pay the duties, taxes, and other charges that foreign merchants are accustomed to pay, pursuant to the contents of the privilege of 27 February 1537, which we hereby approve and confirm.38

It is noteworthy that, although Zandelin was harshly censured in this edict, he had

taken no action without first gaining the approval of the queen or her council in Brussels.

When he first apprehended the Middelburg group, it was at her instigation. Immediately

thereafter, he sought the queen’s advice as to how he ought to proceed in light of the fact

37 “. . . depuis naguerres plussieurs Noz officiers, et mesmement Nostre Recepveur de Zeeland- Bewesterschelt, se seroient advanchez d’insérer plussieurs grosses foulles à aulcuns des ditz remonstrans ayans leurs personnes, femmes, enffans, familles, biens, deniers et denrées prins et arrestez, soubz umbre quele dit Recepveur et aultres Nos officiers ont volu imposer à iceulx ainsy foullez d’estre Juyfz, marans, hérétiques, apostates, et de semblables réprouvées condictions et sects, soustenans que, pour estre telz cas prévilégiez, en iceulx ne debvoit militer le dit prévilége . . . .” Edict of Charles V, 10 March 1541. AA, 7: 460-62, here at 461. 38 “. . . ces choses considérées, inclinans favorablement à la supplication des ditz Nouveaulx Christiens supplians, avons déclairé et déclairons par cestes que Nostre voulunté et intention est que les ditz supplians, avecq leurs femmes, enffans, familles, biens, deniers et denrées quelzconques, puissent et pourront hanter et fréquenter Nos ditz pays de par-deçà, et y user de telz droictz, libertez et franchises dont usent et peulvent user aultres marchans estrangiers par my payant les tonlieux, droictz et debtes que les ditz estrangiers sont accoustumez de payer, selon le contenu du dit prévilége du XXVIIe de Février en l’an XVc trente-six [1527, n.s.]” Ibid., 461-62.

205

that one of the arrestees had a safe-conduct from Charles.39 In each case, the queen

encouraged Zandelin and his officials to pursue the case, and there is no evidence that she

opposed the interrogations in any way. But in the text of this 1542 edict, Zandelin

appears as a renegade officer, acting against the wishes of his commander-in-chief. In

reality, however, he was working closely with Mary, the second-in-command, and if

abuses occurred, they did so under her watchful eye.

Here again, as in the late 1530s, it appears that Charles’s sister and queen-regent

was far more active than he in the preliminary prosecutions against New Christian

suspects. She had exercised powers that were rightfully hers in the absence of her brother

the emperor, but when Charles was petitioned personally on the issue, he reversed her

policies. A similar situation had occurred in the case of Anthonis Fernandes in 1533,

when the queen initiated an illegal arrest and lengthy detention, all of which was

invalidated by the emperor’s 1537 ruling.40 The case of the New Christians in

Middelburg offers another example of the growing differences between the emperor and

Mary of Hungary. Having twice opposed the queen directly, Charles began, after the

Zandelin trial, to oversee New Christian business personally. From this point forward he, rather than Mary, was instrumental in shaping imperial policy toward the New Christians.

II. TURNING POINT: 1544

In the edict of March 1542, Charles achieved his most stable equilibrium in his relationship with the New Christians. Just one year earlier, he had promulgated an

39 See above, footnote 8, and Letter of Zandelin, 4 December 1540. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 30-30v. 40 See above, Chapter Four.

206 ordinance in which he distinguished for the first time between faithful and apostate New

Christians, according rights only to those possessing verifiable Christian beliefs. In

March 1542, he again ruled in their favor, affirming the rights first bestowed upon them in 1537, with the result that no prosecutions of New Christians are recorded for the remainder of 1542 or 1543. 1544, however, marked the first step in what would become a complete reversal of Charles’s policy toward the New Christians.41

While Charles trained his eye on heresy at home, the new Portuguese Inquisition intensified its own nascent activities. In 1544, twenty New Christians were executed at an auto-de-fé in Lisbon.42 This increased inquisitorial activity caused a renewed exodus of New Christians from Portugal. Many went to Italy, but more came to Antwerp, as the city saw its most concentrated influx of Portuguese New Christians in that year.43 This increase alarmed Charles. His view of the Inquisition was far from negative. In his mind, it was a legitimate legal body whose purpose was to root out heresy, and flight from such an institution was therefore a partial admission of guilt. Charles was in no hurry to welcome New Christians, whom he now considered fugitive apostates, into his lands.

41 This date coincides with the cessation of several of the emperor’s military hostilities. Charles engaged in frequent military activity in the early 1540s. In 1543, he defeated the armies of Marten van Rossem in the Low Countries, capturing the territories of Gelders and Zutphen in the north. One chronicler of the period describes the battle in the following way: “Rossems gewelt heeft Brabant gestelt / in berrende colen / schoon dorpen gevelt godts vrinden gequelt / wat batet verholen.” It then goes on to describe Charles’s victory over him. See SBA, HS11285, fol. 37v. In 1544, Charles declared war against France. The ordinances of the period reflect an intensifying concern with this imminent threat, demanding prayers and processions for the emperor’s military ventures. See ordinances of 28 August and 24 October 1543, and 7 May 1544 in Liste Chronologique, 270 and 272. In September 1544, Charles effected the Peace of Crespy, which freed him to focus on other issues, including the fight against heresy. 42 Salomon, Portrait, 21. 43 Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 576.

207

Moreover, Juan III had spent many years attempting to establish an inquisition in

Portugal, and he was eager to prevent apostatizing New Christians from escaping it. He

issued laws on four separate occasions, forbidding anxious New Christians from fleeing

the country. Knowing that many escapees sought refuge in the Low Countries, he

appealed to his imperial brother-in-law to aid him in this task.44 In 1544, the Portuguese

king warned Mary of Hungary that another fleet of ships carrying apostate New

Christians fleeing the inquisition was making its way to the Low Countries, bringing with it valuable merchandise and goods from Portugal. In a repeat of the 1542 events in

Middelburg, Mary subsequently blocked the fleet, arrested the New Christians on board, and had them questioned by imperial commissioners concerning their reasons for leaving

Portugal. After paying a significant sum of money to the emperor, the group was released in May 1545.45 Despite their eventual discharge, it was the arrival of this flotilla

and others like it, that raised anew the emperor’s fears of apostate immigrants. This time,

he did not mitigate the work of his sister, but affirmed her harsh stance and heeded the

admonitions of his brother-in-law in an edict published in June 1544. Charles included

an explicit reference to incoming flotillas of Portuguese New Christians:

44 Juan promulgated edicts forbidding New Christian flight in 1521, 1532, 1535, and 1547, each effective for periods from three to ten years. See Kaspar von Greyerz, “Portuguese conversos on the Upper Rhine and the converso community of sixteenth-century Europe,” Social History 14:1 (1989), 59-82, here at 62. 45 Details of this flotilla are contained in a request sent to the Bishop of Arras by the magistrate of Antwerp. In it, they explain: “Que après estans aulcuns des dicts Portugalois arrivez de pardecha en l’an XLV, la Royne-Régente, advertie que iceulx se seroient céléement et secrètement retirez avecq leurs biens, hors des terres et Royaulme de Portugal, les auroit pour icelle cause et aultres présumptions, résultantes contre eulx, faict prendre et arrester, et depuis ordonné Commissaires pour les oyr et examiner et prendre information sur la cause de leur retraicte du dict Portugal, et que après, non-obstant les procédures à l’encontre d’eulx encommenchées, prinse et arrest faict ès leurs personnes et biens, auroyent de tout esté relaxé, et mis en leur première et entière franchise avecq consentement et octroy de povoir librement converser de demourer ès pays de pardecha, parmy la somme de dix mille florins, qu’ilz payarent au prouffict de Sa Majesté . . . .” Request of the magistrate of Antwerp to the Bishop of Arras, (n.d.) AA, 2: 227-37, here at 227-28.

208

. . . These people are fugitives from the Kingdom of Portugal on account of the fact that, although they give the outward appearance of being Christians, nevertheless in truth they are Jews, apostates from our holy Christian faith. And some of them leave here, with the intention (as we have heard often enough) of traveling to Germany and Italy, and on to Salonica, and other lands ruled by the Turks, enemies of our holy Christian faith. When they reach these lands, they live as Jews, enjoying the riches they gathered when they lived in Christendom . . . .46

This portrayal of the New Christians contains none of the nuance apparent in Charles’s

1540 and 1542 promulgations. In those edicts, he demonstrated an understanding that

any blanket description applied to such a group concealed variations of belief, some of

which were not unwelcome in his lands. By 1544, however, all such distinctions have

disappeared, and he groups together all the New Christians arriving from Portugal, and

condemns them as secret apostates. They are no longer innocuous immigrants, attracted

to Antwerp by the mercantile success of the port, but apostatizing fugitives, fleeing the

inquisition of Portugal and ipso facto culpable.

From 1544 on, the King of Portugal is mentioned in all the emperor’s

correspondence regarding the New Christians, affirming Charles’s increased concern

with their status as evaders of the Holy Office. Keeping him apprised of developments in

46 “. . . die welcke fugityf zyn vuyten voirscreven Coninckrycke van Portugael, vuyt oirzake dat, hoewel zy hen vuytgegeven hebben als kerstenen, nyetmin zyn warachtige Joeden, appostaterende van onsen heyligen kersten geloove, ende eenige van hen zulcx verclaert, ende andere voir sulcke geabsenteert, in meyninge, zoe wy genouch geadverteert zyn, te vertrecken vuyt onsen voirscreven landen nae Duytschelant ende Italien, ende zoe voirts nae Salonnicque ende andere plaetsen, subgect den Turck, vyandt van onsen heyligen kersten geloove, aldair levende als Joeden ende dirigerende die goeden die zy in kerstenrycke vergadert hebben . . . .” Edict of Charles V, 25 June 1544. Full text in Lameere and Simont, Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas, 5: 74-75, here at 75. The allusion in the edict to the fact that the New Christian apostates take with them the great wealth they have accumulated in the city could be a veiled reference to Gracia and Brianda de Luna, the sister-in-law and wife of Diego Mendes. Mendes died in early 1543, and several months after his death the two women fled Antwerp, traveling initially to Venice and Ferrara, but eventually on to Salonica. Charles’s officials in Brussels did not learn of their flight immediately, and by the time the details emerged, the two had managed to smuggle their vast wealth out of the country with them. The dates of both Mendes’s death and the women’s flight are uncertain. For details of the legal battles concerning the estate, see SAA, Vierschaar 80 (unpaginated folios).

209 the Low Countries, Charles explained to his brother-in-law that some New Christians had recently arrived whom he had cause to suspect were really secret Jews:

These people secretly left your realm, and the majority of them arrived in the Low Countries with the last flotilla. They came namely to Antwerp, with the intention of passing from there to Salonica and elsewhere in Turkey, where they can live as Jews.47

Again, the dual fears of the emperor are evident: the specter of the Ottoman threat, and the feigned Christianity and suspect motives of the fleeing New Christians. The reality of the Turkish menace was more apparent than ever to Charles, given his defeat at the hands of his Ottoman foe in 1541. As a result of the confluence of these two dangers, the emperor’s treatment of the New Christians underwent a dramatic change in the latter years of the 1540s, beginning with the promulgation of his 1544 edict and culminating in the expulsion of the New Christians in 1549.

III. RESPONSES OF THE ANTWERP AUTHORITIES

The Antwerp authorities, so active in defending New Christians in previous trials, are largely absent from the story of the New Christians in the early 1540s. This is because Zandelin’s trial of the Middelburg New Christians took place not in Antwerp, nor even in Brabant, but in Middelburg in the province of Zeeland. The Antwerp authorities were only tangentially involved, their city being the stated destination of the

47 “. . . se soyent / ceteement et secretement retirez de / votre royaulme. / Et mesmement que grand / partie d’eulx estoyent avec la dernier flote / de mer arrivez es pays de pardeca / singularement en la ville d’Anvers / en deliberation de passe [. . .] vers / Salonicque et ailleurs en turquye / ou ilz pourroyent vivre comme Juifz.” Unsigned letter, 2 July 1544. ARA, Letteren 1668, 354-56v, here at 354-54v. This letter is unsigned, but we can assume that it was written by Charles because it contains repeated reference to the Portuguese king as “bon Frère.” Charles goes on to say that he has taken these New Christians into custody and has examined the ships’ masters with regard to them. I have been unable to find documentation of these interrogations.

210 occupants of the flotilla. But the decree of 1544 drew the Antwerp council once again into the center of the fray. In fact, this ordinance was addressed to the burgomaster and aldermen of Antwerp because the second fleet of New Christians had arrived directly in

that city, as confirmed by Charles in his letter to Juan III. Predictably, the municipal

authorities of Antwerp were as reluctant to publish the emperor’s 1544 edict as they had

been to cooperate in the New Christian prosecutions of the prior decade. They postponed

publication of the edict throughout 1544 and into 1545, taking their objections to the

queen.48

In explaining their refusal to publish Charles’s edict, the councilors focused once again on their own political autonomy and their economic fears, sparked by renewed discontent within the merchant population.49 At some point prior to mid-1549, they met with representatives of the emperor in Ripplemond, where they pled their case against the publication of the edict.50

Ultimately, their objections achieved nothing. On 17 July 1549, Charles issued a new edict that went further than any previous measure in its treatment of the New

48 Rahlenbeek, “Les Juifs,” 140-43. 49 In February 1545 the secretary of Antwerp, Jacob van Wesembeke, complained to the imperial officials because they had transferred a New Christian citizen of Antwerp to Brussels for questioning, against the privileges of the city. The prisoner is not named in the document, but he was a merchant accused of defrauding his creditors and defaulting on loans. The aldermen of Antwerp protested that, when they wrote to the Council of Brabant to contest the transfer of their citizen, “Maer hebt ons alleenlick / gesonden een missive inhoudende sekeren frivole ende impertinente excusatie . . . dat de statuyten ons genadichs heeren / inhouden souden datmen sommerlick in allen plaetsen soude procederen tegen sulcke / delinquenten . . . ,” suggesting that the imperial authorities were no more amenable to their complaints than they had been a decade earlier. (See Letter of Jacob van Wesembeke, 19 February 1545. ARA, Audientie 1504, doc. 8, fol. 1) See above, Chapter Four for manifestations of these concerns in earlier trials. 50 No documentation of this meeting exists. However, two letters of 1549 make reference to it . See ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fols. 93 and 94. In addition, a letter from the margrave of Antwerp to the queen-regent is extant, in which the margrave thanks Mary for her letter of safe-conduct to Ripplemond. See 19 August 1549. SAA, Vierschaar 80 (unpaginated folios).

211

Christians. The edict echoed the cautions of Juan III that the New Christians leaving his country were doing so solely to flee prosecution by the Inquisition:

They secretly observe Jewish ceremonies, not having any Christian faith, but merely giving the appearance of Christianity in their outward lives. And because they fear the reprisals of the King of Portugal against them on account of their misdeeds, they have left Portugal, and do so daily. And they come here (as more and more of them do every day) to our lands . . . .51

In addition to his anxieties about their religious heterodoxy, the emperor’s alarm at the sheer numbers of new immigrants is evident in the wording of this edict. That their numbers increase daily appears to have been a principal concern.

Furthermore, Charles revoked the privileges previously accorded to the New

Christians that had allowed them to live and trade in his lands. He ordered that, within one month of the publication of this edict, the New Christians had to leave his lands, taking their families and all their goods with them. This provision, however, was not applied comprehensively to all New Christians resident in the Low Countries. Rather,

Charles extended it only to “those New Christians who have come into our lands within the last six years in order to avoid the Inquisition of Portugal . . . .”52 Here again Charles singled out those immigrants who had arrived in his Low Countries since 1543 with the

51 “. . . sy onderhaudende die Juedsche ceremonien int heymelicke, niet hebbende van den kerstene ghelove, ende alleenlicke het selve dissimulerende by uutwendighe demonstratie, ende vreesende het castyement het welcke de voornomde conyngh van Portugael doet doen op huerlieder mesdaet, zyn vertrocken uut den conynghrycke van Portugael ende elders, ghelyck sy noch daghelicx vertrecken, ende zyn ghecommen ende gharriveert ende al noch commen ende arriveren meer ende meer in onse landen van herwaertsover . . . .” Edict of Charles V, 17 July 1549. Full text in Lameere and Simont, Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas, 5: 556-57, here at 556. Earlier in the edict, the emperor notes that he was informed of their apostasy by the inquisitors of the Portuguese king: “. . . Mids der inquisitie ende ondersouck twelck de conyngh van Portugael doet van hueren leven ende apostasye . . . .” Ibid. 52 “. . . allen nieuwen kerstenen ghecommen zynde in onse voorseyde landen van herwaertsovere, om te schuwen d’inquisitie van Portugal tsindert den tyd van zes jaren lestgheleden . . . .” Emphasis added. Ibid., 557.

212 sole intention of escaping the Inquisition. In his mind, those who had arrived prior to

1543 had done so for reasons other than a fear of prosecution. After this date, however, as his Portuguese brother-in-law reminded him, they had no other incentive for flight.

As in the ordinances of 1540 and 1542, Charles again distinguished between those who feign Christianity and those who may have sincere faith:

Here they live under the protection of the privilege which we previously granted to sincere New Christians, assuming them to be genuine. But in actual fact they are, for the most part, Jews and Marranos. Many of them have, over time, fallen back into their Judaism, observing and celebrating the Sabbath and other Jewish ceremonies in their houses and apartments. And this they do so secretively that it is impossible to completely prove or verify, no matter the enormity of the suspicion or evidence one might have.53

For Charles, this was the crux of the problem. Over time, he had come to understand the complex nature of the situation, and the difficulties involved in judging the authenticity of the converts’ faith. As was evident in his 1540 edict, he wanted to differentiate between those who were sincere converts to Christianity and those who were not. Yet here he admits that this was not always possible, because the evidence was sometimes insufficient. He knew that some among them might well be true Christians, but was unable to verify such claims. Under the circumstances, he considered it best to ban them all, a conclusion that would lead him once more into direct conflict with the municipal authorities of Antwerp.

53 “. . . Aldaer levende onder het dexele van den privilegie twelcke wy voortyds gheaccordeert hebben den oprechten nieuwen kerstenen, veysende hemlieden zulcks te zyne, ende nochtans wesende voor den meesten deel jueden ende maranen, ende andere met der tyd wederomme vervallende in huere juederye, haudende ende observerende in huere huusen ende wonynghen den Sabaoth ende andere juedsche ceremonien, so seretelicken dat men het selve niet ghevoelicken en can gheverifieren, hoe groote suspicie oft indicien men daer of heeft . . . .” Ibid.

213

As had been the case with the edict of 1544, the Antwerp authorities were reluctant to publish this 1549 ordinance. Anticipating their objections, Mary of Hungary wrote to the magistracy just two days after the edict was issued, instructing them to obey their sovereign and publish the decree.54 Likewise, the Council of Brabant encouraged the Antwerp authorities to publish the edict, warning them that it “would not please the emperor” were they to prevaricate in obeying his orders.55 On the same day, the imperial officials wrote to Claes vander Meeren, the burgomaster of Antwerp, urging him to publish the edict. Realizing that vander Meeren would argue for the sincerity of individual New Christians in Antwerp, the council proffered the following advice:

. . . If any of these New Christians, arrived within the past six years, desire to live in your city as men of good reputation, you can always petition his Majesty on their behalf, and he can rule in the case as he sees fit, and that will be the end of the matter.56

In both of the missives from the officials in Brussels, there is an air of genuine concern for the Antwerp council. Both warn that the emperor will not suffer any opposition on this issue and encourage the city authorities to act accordingly, even if this means that they must take up individual exceptions at a later date.

The Antwerp city councilors seem to have realized that they had little to gain from arguing with Charles’s underlings. Instead, the burgomaster petitioned the emperor directly. With extreme deference, he advised Charles that the Antwerp city council had

54 The queen to the magistrate of Antwerp, 19 July 1549. ARA, Letteren 1645/1, fol. 74. 55 “donner mescontentement a sa / Majeste,” Letter to the margrave of Antwerp, 5 August 1549. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 93. 56 “S’il y a aulcuns des dictes nouveaulx xpiens y venuz / depuis six ans lesquelz y desirent demeurer estans gens de / bonne fame et renominee vous le pourrez faire remonstrer a sa / Majeste, / laquelle en pourra dispenser ou aultrement ordonner / comme elle trouvera convenir, qui sera l’endroit ou seray fin a / ceste.” Letter to the burgomaster of Antwerp, 5 August 1549. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 94.

214

postponed publication of his edict and admonished him to consider the possible negative

effects that such a decree could visit upon their city:

. . . We have postponed the publication of your edict because of the magnitude of this matter. It seemed prudent for us not to publish it before bringing to your attention our objections with regard to the great prejudice, loss, and damage which would subsequently come to our city.57

Vander Meeren went on to warn Charles that this edict would severely hinder trade in the

city. The Antwerp council sent representatives to Brussels to discuss the matter with the

emperor in person, hoping that this approach would win him over to their side.

Apparently unwilling to address the council’s remonstrations directly, Charles

instructed the officials to direct their concerns to Perrenot de Granvelle, Bishop

of Arras. This they did, explaining the history of relations between them, the emperor,

and the New Christians, and enumerating the various negative effects of the emperor’s

recent edict.58 In a considered and detailed explication of their position, the councilors

assured the bishop that they were in the habit of obeying the emperor’s edict by refusing

entry into their city to any New Christians “suspected of apostasy and profession of

Judaism, whom we hold to be enemies of our holy faith.”59 The implication was, of course, that they continued to admit other New Christians not suspected of apostasy.

Twenty-five such immigrants had arrived in Antwerp during the six-year period mentioned in the edict:

57 “. . . Nous avons differe la publication d’icelluy pour ce que / a cause de l’importance de l’affaire nous sembloit ne la / debvoir publier avant avoir remonstre a sa Majeste le / grand prejudice perte et dommaige qui en pourra venir / a la ville Anvers . . . .” Claes vander Meeren to Charles V, 7 August 1549. ARA, Audientie 1177/2, fol. 92. 58 30 September 1549. Full text contained in AA, 2: 227-37. 59 “. . . suspectz d’apostasie et profession Judaicque et pour aultant comme ennemis de notre saincte Foy . . . .” Ibid., 229.

215

But the difficulty is that these New Christians say that they came here to the city of Antwerp with the intention of living as good Christians. They claim that they did not secretly leave the kingdom of Portugal to avoid the Inquisition . . . but that they came here in order to conduct business, having no intention of leaving or going elsewhere.60

As sincere converts to Christianity, the Antwerp authorities believed that this group of

New Christians deserved protection rather than expulsion.

As they had so many times before to various authorities, the city councilors

explained to Granvelle the economic motivations for allowing these New Christians to

remain in the city, arguments that echo those raised a decade earlier in the trial of Diego

Mendes. They explained the financial benefit accruing to the city from the work of the

New Christians. Much of these profits, they insisted, came exclusively from the

Portuguese merchants, who were more conscientious in their business dealings and were

less likely to default on their credit or fall into bankruptcy than other Antwerp

tradesmen.61 Furthermore, their financial acuity benefited the emperor himself, who had in the past received monies to fund his military adventures, “which finances cost him far less than if he had garnered them elsewhere.”62

The council’s petitions echo those recited by the magistracy in every legal

proceeding involving a New Christian defendant. What is new in their conversation with

the bishop, however, is a theological defense of the New Christians. They put forward

60 “Mais chiet la difficulté à l’endroict d’aulcuns des dicts nouveaulx Chrestiens, lesquelz se disent estre venuz en ces pays ichy, en la dicte ville d’Anvers, avecq intention de y demourer et résider et vivre des bons Chrestiens, sans que se soyent aussy retyrez du pays et du Royaulme de Portugal, secrètement et à la dérobée et pour fuyr l’inquisition . . . seullement pour venir résider et négocier icy et non pas soy retirer ou transporter ailleurs . . . .” Ibid. 61 “. . . car comme les dicts Portugalois sont industrieux et subtilz en faict de marchandise . . . qui est péculier aux Portugaloys et nouveaulx Chrestiens, le bruyct qu’ilz ont de bons et léaulx marchans, lesquelz ont tousiours très-bien maintenu leur crédit, et en ayt-on veu bien peu faillir ne faire backeroutte . . . .” Ibid., 233. 62 “. . . les finances luy ont venu à couster beaucoup moins que n’avoient faict aultresfois . . . .” Ibid.

216 the argument that all the New Christians ought not to be tarred with the same brush.

Although there may well be false Christians among them, as responsible leaders, it was incumbent upon the council members, the emperor, and indeed, all Christian rulers to distinguish among them, for it would be unfair to “reprove them all universally” on account of the transgressions of only one or two.63 The magistrates offered to collect letters from the New Christians, written by priests and bishops in the territories from which they came, verifying their Christian orthodoxy. They added that they would admit only those New Christians in possession of such documentation and concluded that this course of action would be fairer than expelling the good with the bad.64

The city council’s approach stood in direct opposition to Charles. Both parties acknowledged the difficulty of judging the sincerity of an individual’s faith and admitted that there were certainly Judaizers amid the sincere New Christians. However, each responded differently to this realization. For Charles, the most prudent course of action was to expel them all, apostate and Christian alike. In his mind, the souls of all the Low

Countries faithful were at stake and the danger was too high to allow the possibility that even a small number of secret Jews would slip into his lands. The Antwerp council, on the other hand believed the opposite to be true: the majority of the New Christians were

63 “. . . que pour ung mauvais dissolu prestre, moyne ou religieux, l’on ne doibt universellement réprouver toutz les prestres, moynes ou religieux.” Ibid., 231. 64 “. . . mais que par ce que l’on présuppose par cecy y pourroit estre obvyé n’admettant aulcun que l’on ne fust premièrement bien informé de sa vie, qualité et condicion, et que de ce apparut par attestation publicque de l’Évesque et diocésan du lieu d’où qu’ilz sont et ont hanté et demouré et aultres seurtez at asseurances que l’on pourroit prendre par aultres moyens, que l’on pourroit adviser en cest endroict.” Ibid. It is interesting to note that, just one year later, Charles would publish his Bloody Edict of 1550. When the council of Antwerp refused to publish this edict, it was because Charles had included the very stipulation they here suggest. Indeed, they (with the Council of Brabant) were so forceful in opposing the introduction of letters of Christian orthodoxy that Charles eventually amended the edict, freeing foreign merchants in Antwerp from exactly this requirement. See Lameere, Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas, 6: 55-76.

217

likely to be sincere in their faith. It was therefore unfair to punish them all for the crimes

of the minority. To city officials, temporal, not eternal considerations were paramount.

This difference in approach reflects two distinct understandings of the threat posed by

heresy and apostasy in general, and goes a long way to explaining the Antwerp city

council’s laxity in fighting heresy. Clearly for the emperor, the peril posed by heresy was

grave and eternal, while for the Antwerp authorities, it was not.

The attitude of the Antwerp councilors is apparent at other points in their letter to

the bishop, where they caution him to remember that, as Christians, they were enjoined

by biblical precept to attempt the conversion of those of other . Were they to expel

suspected Judaizers without first providing them with this opportunity,

. . . it would directly contravene the wishes and objectives of God, as well as the many precepts and traditions of the holy Scripture and our holy mother Church in this regard, by which we are obliged to do all that we can to convert the infidel Jews, Turks and others to our holy faith, and to educate, strengthen, and confirm them in it.65

The municipal authorities concluded their theological admonitions to the bishop with the

most serious of reminders concerning the biblical injunction against judging the

innermost beliefs of others. They advised him that Christians are “warned not to judge

secret things” and that only “the most shrewd of investigators would presume to judge the

hearts of men.”66

65 “. . . l’on viendroit à contravenir au vouloir et intention de Dieu et plusieurs préceptions et tradicions de la saincte Escripture de nostre saincte mère l’Eglise, en cest endroict, par lesquelles sommes tenuz et obligez de faire unq chacun son extrême debvoir d’attraire et convertir les infidelz Juyfz, Turcqz et aultres à nostre saincte Foy, et les instruyre, confirmer, et establir en icelle . . . .” AA, 2: 230-31. 66 “. . . laquelle comme communément l’on dict: de occultis non judicat, et que se debroeyent estre ung bien subtyl perscrutateur qui vouldroit juger du coeur de l’homme.” Ibid., 232.

218

The charges against these New Christians were primarily theological, and the

authorities of Antwerp attacked the very premise on which they were founded. They

even opposed the designation of these individuals as “New” Christians, arguing that,

“They do not deserve the name “New” Christians because (as they have explained), they

were baptized in their infancy, just as we were. Likewise, they were born of Christian

fathers and mothers, for which reason, it is not fitting to designate them “New” Christians

at all . . . .”67 What is more, they concluded, the 25 New Christians in Antwerp to whom the edict specifically referred (that is, those arrived since 1543) were indeed earnest in

their faith. So confident was the city council on this count that they, in concert with these

25 individuals, invited the imperial authorities to investigate the matter, that they might

be cleared of the charges:

They demand to be cleared and exonerated of this charge you wish to impose upon them, namely that they are Judaizers and apostates, and all the other indictments leveled by his Majesty. What is more, they have declared themselves willing to submit to any inquiry or investigation you desire in this matter, provided it is legitimate according to the law.68

In the early New Christian trials, such as that of Diego Mendes, the Antwerp

authorities avoided any discussion of the theological aspects of the cases, focusing

repeatedly on what they perceived as the two most significant threats posed by the trials:

that they would undermine the economic stability of the city and the political

independence of the council. By 1549 these two arguments had clearly failed to change

67 “D’avantaige que semle ne les mériter le nom de des nouveaulx Chrestiens, à cause que, comme ilz disent, ont esté trèstous baptisez en leur enfance, comme touts nous aultres, et esté néez de père et mère Chrestiens, parquoy ne semble les mériter d’estre appellez nouveaulx Chrestiens . . . .” Ibid., 234. 68 “. . . soy demandent purger et justifier de ce que l’on leur vouldroit imposer endroict de la dicte Juyfverie et appostasie pardevant Sa Majesté et tous altres jugemens, qu’il plaisra à icelle à ce commectre; que plus est, comme ilz disent, ne refusent aucune inquisition ou information que l’on vouldroit en cest endroict dresser à l’encontre d’eulx, pourveu quelle soit juridicque et légittime.” Ibid.

219

the direction of the emperor, who now demanded the expulsion of all newly-arrived New

Christians. In response to Charles’s imperviousness to their previous arguments, the

municipal authorities now formulated their plea on a different basis. Charles had steered

them toward the bishop, and they seized upon this opportunity to frame their opposition

in theological terms. As Charles had done in the edicts of 1542 and 1544, they here

demonstrated a more nuanced engagement with the issues, admitting the distinct

possibility that not all of the New Christians were sincere in their faith. They argued,

however, that not all of them were duplicitous either, and that if the authorities must err,

they must choose to err on the side of leniency, not only for the financial good of the city,

but to fulfill biblical injunctions enjoined upon all Christian leaders.

Throughout their interactions with Charles and his administrators, the Antwerp

city councilors had always taken a “tolerant” approach toward the New Christians.69 At every step in their defense of the Portuguese merchants, their tolerance was pragmatic, fuelled by their fears for the welfare of the city. They rallied several arguments against the foundations of Charles’s attacks. At first, the councilors formulated a political strategy, arguing that Charles’s accusations were a breech of the city’s privileges.

Whether the New Christians were innocent or not was irrelevant to this debate. The point

was that Charles had no right to try them. Because the New Christians were residents of

Antwerp, Antwerp’s officials alone held sway over their fate. This argument was based

wholly on the council’s fears regarding its political autonomy. In defending the

69 It is important to distinguish sixteenth-century toleration from its modern counterpart. In using this term, I do not intend to suggest that the Antwerp council sought any form of equality for the New Christians, but merely that they were willing to suffer them (to “tolerate” their presence) for the sake of a greater purpose.

220

Portuguese immigrants, the municipal authorities were defending their own jurisdiction against the encroaching bureaucracy of the emperor.

When they realized that Charles was unreceptive to their political claims, the councilors took a different tack, this time pointing to economic considerations. This was a wise strategy. Both the city and the emperor gained financially from the mercantile presence of the Portuguese, and the city council knew that Charles would work with them to preserve this vital source of revenue. For a short time, their predictions were correct, but even economic considerations were insufficient to sway the emperor indefinitely. In both of these lines of argumentation, political and economic, the Antwerp city council proffered a form of limited toleration predicated on wholly practical concerns. They were not interested in theology, but the stability and health of their city. However, realizing in 1544 that these pragmatic arguments had failed, the council was forced to develop a new strategy. By this year, the emperor had come to emphasize religion. He claimed that the Portuguese were true apostates, fleeing the inquisition in their native land. Again, the Antwerp officials sought to meet Charles where he was, seizing on religious matters as the foundation of their third line of reasoning. Their motivation in this attempt remained pragmatic, as before. This time, however, their focus on the religious question drove them to devise what was one of the first systematic, theologically-based theories of religious toleration. Fifty years before Castellio wrote and 100 years before Locke became renowned for the same, the city councilors of

Antwerp had created an effective, theologically sound argument in defense of religious toleration.

221

IV. THE FATE OF THE PORTUGUESE NEW CHRISTIANS

This development is significant in terms of the creation of a nuanced theological

understanding on the part of the Antwerp magistracy, and their ability to frame their

defense of their heterodox subjects in theological terms. However, their newest strategy

had little effect. The most energetic attempts of the city council on behalf of the New

Christians failed to alter Charles’s obdurate stance. He demanded that they publish the

edict of expulsion, which they ultimately did. Because the edict had no immediate effect,

Charles published it anew in May 1550. The emperor’s changed policies regarding the

Portuguese New Christians sent shock waves of fear through the community, and over

time the number of Portuguese diminished considerably. A small group of New

Christians remained in Antwerp for the following six years, comprised mostly of those

who had been resident there long before 1543, and who had established lives as faithful

Christians within the larger community.70 The others did not, however, emigrate en

masse to a particular city or territory but dispersed themselves in several locations,

notably Rouen in France, or later Amsterdam in the United Provinces.71 Their

geographic diffusion ensured that there was never again such a high concentration of

New Christian commerce or wealth as had been the case in sixteenth-century Antwerp.

70 Rahlenbeek, “Les Juifs à Anvers,” 143. Rahlenbeek goes on to trace the history of the New Christians under the reign of Philip II, during whose repressive rule many more left the city. They did not return in significant numbers until the in 1648, after which time they paid an annual fee of 5,000,000 florins in return for security in the city. 71 Goris, Étude sur les colonies marchandes, 599-602.

222

V. CONCLUSION

The trials of the Portuguese New Christians between 1532 and 1549 reveal a great deal about the complex and intersecting relationships of those in power. Chapters Four and Five have considered the changing nature of the contacts and conflicts between the

New Christians, the Antwerp municipal authorities, Charles V, Mary of Hungary, and various other imperial officials. The details of these trials and the legislation elicited in response to them reveal a complicated situation, in which the competing interests of city and empire did not lead to a simple polarization of objectives. For his part, Charles V (at times personally and at times via his subordinate officials) oscillated in his policies toward the New Christians. In the earlier period, his attitude toward them changed frequently, but at the end of the 1540s, his position hardened, becoming increasingly severe. The Antwerp authorities, in contrast, exercised a consistently resolute stance with regard to the New Christians. They persistently resisted the emperor’s attempts to curtail the freedoms of these new immigrants and fought to maintain their own control of the situation. A variety of considerations underlay the actions of each party, determining the course of events throughout the period.

The foremost concerns of the Antwerp authorities were the preservation of their political autonomy and the economic health of the city. They sparred repeatedly with

Charles and his queen-regent in defense of their right to try New Christian defendants in their own local court. When imperial officials requested that prisoners be transferred to

Brussels for trial, the Antwerp city council always refused, citing the ancient privileges of

223

their city in defense of their claims. It is a testament to their united resolve and political

fortitude that the councilors were able to win these battles on so many occasions.

In addition to their political anxieties, the Antwerp officials rebuffed

encroachments by the imperial authorities because of their concerns regarding the

economic health of the town. Quite realistically, they feared that Charles’s harsh

measures against the Portuguese would lead to a general exodus of foreign merchants

from Antwerp. This, in turn, would result in a financial crisis in both the city and the

empire, given Antwerp’s economic importance in this period. Despite their repeated

explanations of these justifiable fears, the emperor and his officials refused to be moved.

In the earlier trials, religion was conspicuous by its absence in the defensive

strategies of the Antwerp authorities. Wherever possible, as in the case of Diego

Mendes, they avoided a discussion of the religious charges, focusing instead on the legal

and economic allegations. It was only much later, in the late 1540s, that they changed

their approach to incorporate religious reasoning into their legal arguments. By this time,

Charles had reached the limit of his patience with the Portuguese New Christians and had

ordered their expulsion. The Antwerp councilors realized that their previous defense was

insufficient to persuade the emperor. At Charles’s instigation, they solicited the bishop of Arras, constructing a well-calculated theological defense of the New Christians. They argued on the basis of biblical injunctions, demanding the conversion rather than the expulsion of those deemed heretical, and admonished the bishop not to presume to judge the hearts of men by assessing the sincerity of another person’s faith. The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that the New Christians were to be left alone

224

because no one but God was able to judge their hearts. The Antwerp municipal

authorities did not go quite this far in their articulation of these claims, but they

established an early and defensible policy of toleration, and that in itself, was a highly

significant development.

In his treatment of the Portuguese merchants, Charles was tormented by

considerations on several fronts. During a period in which he was involved in direct

combat with the Ottoman Empire, Charles feared the dangers inherent in the travel

patterns of the New Christians. When he learned that they journeyed in large numbers

from Antwerp to the Ottoman Empire, he was justifiably troubled. In 1541, Charles

confronted the Ottomans in Algiers, only to succumb to their military might. The

emperor continually felt their presence, although he did not face them again directly until

1551, when they met in battle in the Mediterranean. Rumors that Portuguese secret Jews were traveling to Salonica and elsewhere raised for Charles the terrifying possibility of a

Judaizing fifth column in his midst. Such émigrés, feared Charles, gained access to imperial secrets during their time in Antwerp, transporting their knowledge of his lands and commercial secrets directly to the heart of his Ottoman enemy. These reports, coupled with allegations that the New Christians were engaged in secret military shipments to the Ottoman Empire, caused great alarm for an emperor at war.

Another of Charles’s concerns involved his complicated relationship with the local authorities of Antwerp. A consistent theme throughout this study has been

Charles’s attempt to centralize control of his Netherlandish holdings, not least with regard to religious policy. As he consolidated his rule over this jealously autonomous

225 territory, he sought to draw various areas of political and legal jurisdiction under his control. In terms of religious legislation, he achieved this with limited success through the promulgation and enforcement of his anti-heresy edicts. When it came to the prosecution of the New Christians, the city of Antwerp proved to be a stalwart adversary.

Not only was it a city with a long tradition of political and legal independence, but it was a vital commercial hub, and the city leaders were more than willing to use their economic leverage to promote their own agenda. Over time, however, on the limited issue of the

Portuguese New Christians, Charles was able to subdue the municipal authorities, and curtail their power almost entirely.

But Charles’s primary concern in his dealings with the New Christians was their ambiguous religious identity. Allegations that some of them were actually secret Jews, apostates from the Christian faith, weighed heavily on the emperor, who believed his main charge as ruler of the Low Countries to be the preservation of the Roman faith.

That this was a pivotal issue in his mind is evident in his actions at all stages in his relationship with the New Christian immigrants. When evidence of their heterodoxy surfaced, he took an uncompromising stance. In his 1530 edict, he established an imperial commission specifically to investigate their alleged religious infractions. Two years later, following the testimony of Loys Garcez, he issued an edict forbidding future immigration. Finally in 1544, when Portuguese inquisitors suggested that apostate New

Christians were fleeing the intensified activity of the inquisition in that land, Charles denounced these immigrants as heretics and refused them entry into his Low Countries.

Charles’s expulsion order of 1549 was no more than an intensification and reaffirmation

226 of the 1544 legislation, and the wording of the edict testifies to his conviction that enough false New Christians were included in the number of immigrants to warrant their expulsion en masse.

Yet despite his determined opposition to New Christian apostates, at various points when he was convinced of their Christian orthodoxy, Charles acted in their favor, even when doing so meant contradicting his highest officials or his own prior judgments.

Such was the case in 1532 when he revoked his own edict and reaffirmed his initial permission for them to come and settle, first extended to the New Christians in 1526 and

1529. Again in 1537, when a group of New Christians complained to him that they were sincere Christians and should not be punished with the apostates, Charles was sympathetic to their request and issued once again an open invitation to genuine New

Christians to settle and trade in his lands. Similarly, in 1542, appalled by the ill-treatment the prisoners had purportedly received at the hands of his Zeeland receiver, Jerome

Zandelin, Charles publicly reprimanded his own officials and demanded that the New

Christians be released and allowed to live and trade freely in the Low Countries. In each case then, it seems that Charles was sincerely concerned with the religious beliefs of his

New Christian subjects. He only took stringent measures against them when he was convinced of their apostasy.

Paul Kalkoff cites the Portuguese New Christians as one of the major influences on the early Reformation in the Low Countries,72 emphasizing their importance in the

72 Paul Kalkoff, Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in den Niederlanden, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (Halle: Verlag May Niemeyer, 1903), 39-40. Kalkoff draws his list from those groups mentioned in the correspondence of the papal nuncio, Aleander. The other influences he mentions include Antwerp Augustinians, followers of Erasmus, and German merchants.

227 spread of Reformation ideas via their trade routes. But our examination of their trials has demonstrated that the New Christian community in Antwerp was influential in other significant ways. The eventual fate of the Portuguese merchants profoundly changed the economic history of Antwerp. Their expulsion in 1550 caused the remaining New

Christian community to fear similar reprisals, until few of them remained in the city. As they left, they took with them not only vast quantities of personal wealth and merchandise, but the crucial life-blood of Antwerp’s commercial base. The city would not experience complete mercantile ruin until the reign of Philip II in the second half of the sixteenth century, but it never fully recovered from the financial losses effected by

Charles’s expulsion of the New Christian population.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the New Christian trials subtly changed the course of heresy prosecutions in the duchy of Brabant. Despite their spirited defense of their own political and legal jurisdiction, the city authorities of Antwerp ultimately lost their battle in these trials, being forced to cede increasing control to

Charles. This gradual aggrandizement of jurisdictional power enabled Charles to gain ground in his fight to centralize his legal authority in heresy proceedings. Furthermore, the shift from an economic focus in the New Christian trials to one based solely on religious considerations reconfigured the prosecution of heresy more generally. This more concentrated focus on the religious aspects of these offenses had repercussions on

Old Christian trials in the 1540s, as we shall see in Chapters Six and Seven.

228

PART IV BETWEEN THE SCAFFOLD AND THE STAGE: REDERIJKERS IN THE EARLY MODERN LOW COUNTRIES

INTRODUCTION: INTELLECTUAL CRIMES OF HERESY

Almost half of Charles V’s early anti-heresy edicts involved the sale and

possession of suspect books.1 As was discussed in Chapter Two, the penalties legislated

for such crimes initially included nothing more severe than pilgrimages and

banishments.2 A more significant turning point came with the edict of 14 October 1529.

Enacted in the name of the emperor, this piece of legislation was actually composed by

Mary of Hungary in the absence of her brother. The edict was a defining moment in the prosecution of heresy because it included, for the first time, the possibility of execution for intellectual crimes.3 The terms of the edict were both extensive and explicit, even including a list of individual writers whose works it declared heretical:

First, that no one, no matter his sex, nationality, estate or condition, shall at any point henceforth print, write, sell, buy, distribute, read, possess, receive, instruct, maintain, defend, communicate, or dispute publicly, in secret, or in conventicles the books, works, or doctrines which have been produced by the aforementioned Martin Luther, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Marcilius of Padua, Oecolampadius, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, Franciscus Lambertus, Johannes Bugenhagen, Otto Brussi, Justus Jonas,

1 Between 1520 and 1530, approximately half of the emperor’s edicts censured book-related crimes of heresy. The ratio declined significantly from 1530 on, as the edicts came to focus far more frequently on Anabaptist and New Christian offenses. 2 See, for example, the cases of Henrick Henricxsens, Hansken van Remunde, and Tanneken Zwolfs, above, Chapter Two. 3 For a discussion of how this edict brought about changes in the definition of heresy more broadly, see above, Chapters One and Two.

229

Johannes Pupper van Gogh, or any others of their sect or other heretical or erroneous sects, which have been damned by the Church.4

In addition, this edict specifically named certain editions of the New Testament that were

considered heretical and were consequently forbidden, as were future translations of the

Bible or any part thereof into languages other than Latin.5 The edict also forbade the printing and sale of books appearing anonymously, or without imprint of publication:

“Likewise, no books written in the past ten years are to be written or printed without declaration of the responsible parties, the publishers or copyists, or the time and place

where they were composed, written, or printed.”6

Finally, and even more significantly, after describing with such particularity proscriptions relating to book crimes, the edict went on to forbid the very discussion of religious questions by persons not affiliated with a recognized institution of theology:

“What is more, no one, regardless of his state or condition, is to discuss or dispute the

Holy Scripture, nor any matter of [religious] controversy, however complex, unless he be

4 “Premiers, que nul, de quelque sexe, nacion, estat ou condicion, ne s’avance doresnavant imprimer ou escripre, ou faire imprimer ou escripre, vendre, acheter, distribuer, lire, garder, tenir soubz soy ou rechevoir, preschier, instruire, soustenir ou deffendre, communiquer ou disputer publicquement ou secrètement, ou tenir conventicules ou assemblées des livres, escriptures, ou doctrines, ou aucunes d’icelles, qu’ont fait ou faire pourroient ledict Martin Luthere, Johannes Wicleff, Johannes Huiss, Marcelius de Pardua, Ecolampadus, Ulricus Zwinglii, Philippus Melanctonis, Franciscus Lamberti, Johannes Pomerani, Otto Brussi, Justus Josne, Johannes Pupperii et Gorcianus, ou autres acteurs de leur secte, ou d’autres sectes hérétiques, erronnées ou abusives, réprouvez de l’Église.” 14 October 1529. Full text in C. Laurent and J. Lameere, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506- 1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922), 2: 578-83, here at 579. 5 These were the New Testaments of Jan van Remund, Johannes Zel, and Adriaen van , all of which had been condemned by the faculty of theology at Leuven. For more on these publishers, see below, Chapter Seven. 6 “Ny semblablement aucuns livres que puis dix ans encà ont esté escripz ou imprimez sans déclaration des acteurs, des imprimeurs ou escripvains, ny du temps ou lieu esquels [sic] ils auroient esté composez, escrips ou imprimez.” Laurent and Lameere, Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas, 2: 579.

230

a recognized theologian, approved by a reputable university.”7 By means of this

prohibition, Charles extended the use of the death penalty and confiscation of goods

beyond those involved directly in the book trade, to those who were interested in and

discussed theological questions and ideas. The chapters that follow focus on these sorts of intellectual crimes.

In addition to members of conventicles who met secretly to discuss matters of scriptural interpretation, this provision in the 1529 edict most directly concerned those involved in positions of intellectual exchange in early modern Brabant. The three groups most affected were bookmen, teachers, and rhetoricians (rederijkers). All of them engaged in one form or another of intellectual exchange, functioning as cultural mediators, filtering, assimilating, and transmitting theological and cultural information.

They were not, by and large, wealthy, but their occupations endowed them with a certain amount of power, in that they were able to influence the knowledge and opinions of their fellow burghers.

As educators with access to the undivided attention of their students, teachers at all levels clearly occupied this mediating role. Rederijkers, too, performed a largely didactic function.8 Drawn mostly from the middle-class, they were educated, literate

burghers, who sought to hone their individual skills of argumentation and literary style,

7 “Et oultre plus, que nul, de quelque estat qu’il soit, ne s’avance communicquer ou disputer de la sainte Escripture, mesmement en matière doubtive, et dont seroit dificulté, s’ilz ne feussent théologiens bien renommez et approuvez par université fameuse.” Laurent and Lameere, Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas, 2: 580. 8 For a general introduction to the form and function of rederijker chambers in the Low Countries, see Bart Ramakers, Spelen en figuren: Toneelkunst en processiecultuur in Oudenaarde tussen Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijd (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996), and Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515-1556 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000).

231

but who also saw themselves as educators, examples of moral and civic virtue in their

communities. Groups of urban rhetoricians formed chambers of rhetoric

(rederijkerskamers), which closely resembled amateur guilds or confraternities, each

possessing a patron and a board of directors. The chambers were literary clubs, in

which rhetoricians met regularly to discuss new compositions, stage plays, and plan

community-wide performances. Although all rederijkers composed literary works, each

chamber had its own factor (facteur), the official playwright of the group, who was

responsible for producing pieces for public consumption and received a salary for his

work. Members paid yearly dues in addition to extraordinary fees to fund special events.9

In addition, many willed considerable amounts of money to the chamber upon their deaths, thus further ensuring the continued financial health of the organization.10 Most chambers possessed religious mottos or emblems, and some endowed altars in city churches, or conducted their own weekly services.

A largely urban phenomenon, the chambers were intricately involved in the ritual life of their communities. They produced plays and songs that were performed at civic events such as religious processions and the Joyous Entries of territorial rulers.11 Their

9 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 36-37. 10 Peter Arnade, Realms of Ritual: Burgundian Ceremony and Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), 169. 11 The ceremonial processions known as Joyous Entries (Blyde Inkomsten) possess their own historiography. Important as ritual events, welcoming new rulers to their lands, and renewing promises between the rulers and the ruled, they were also significant in terms of the art, architecture, and drama they incorporated. For more information, see, among others: Jean Jacquot, ed., Fêtes de la Renaissance II, Fêtes et Ceremonies au Temps de Charles Quint (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique, 1960); John Landwehr, Splendid Ceremonies. State Entries and Royal Funerals in the Low Countries, 1515-1791. A Bibliography (Leiden: B. de Graaf, 1971); John MacAloon, ed., Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1984); Mark Meadow, “Ritual and Civic Identity in Phillip II’s 1549 Antwerp Blijde Incompst,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998), 37-67; Bart Ramakers, Spelen en Figuren: Toneelkunst en Processie Cultuur in Oudenaarde

232

works were usually religious in content and quite often controversial. Although they

sought to entertain, the rederijkers conceived of their function as primarily didactic.

Theirs was an unusual middle position. They were not members of the Latinate

intellectual elite, but they did consider themselves pedagogues who sought to inform and

educate their broad public audiences. Because their works were composed in the

vernacular and performed orally, they attracted audiences from across the social

spectrum. Their works were controversial, yet comprehensible to educated and non-

educated alike, and Charles and his officials therefore viewed these cultural mediators

with a certain degree of apprehension, enacting legislation such as that of 1529, in an

effort to curtail their heterodox activities. However, despite the rigidity of this new legislation, surprisingly few of these cultural mediators were in fact punished to the fullest extent of the law.12

In the following two chapters, we shall consider the role played by the rederijkers

in Brabant in the early years of the Reformation, and the attempts of the emperor to

oversee their activities. Chapter Six outlines the development of rederijker literature in

the Low Countries, culminating in the religiously controversial tournament of Ghent in

1539. This event formed a watershed in the relationship between the rederijker chambers

tussen Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijd. (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1996); and Hugo Soly, “Plechtige Intochten in de Steden van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden Tijdens de Overgang van Middeleeuwen naar Niewe Tijd: Communicatie, Propaganda, Spektakel,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 97:3 (1984), 341-361. 12 Indeed, during the course of the century as a whole, only a handful of those condemned as heretics in the Low Countries were bookmen or cultural mediators. Henk F.K. van Nierop, “Censorship, Illicit Printing and the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to be Free. Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands 9 (Zutphen: De Walburg Press, 1987), 29-44, here at 38.

233 and the central government, and we shall examine the legislation produced by Charles in the aftermath of this event in an attempt to control these cultural critics.

Chapter Seven examines the trials of two rederijkers, Jacob van Middeldonck and

Peter Schuddemate, both charged with heresy in the early 1540s because of their involvement in the production of suspect plays. Although the trials of the two men shared many features, their outcomes were entirely contradictory: Middeldonck was released quickly and without penalty, while Schuddemate was executed for his offense.

By placing these two trials in the context of contemporaneous heresy proceedings, we shall attempt to answer the complex question of how two such different sentences could be reached for such similar crimes.

234

CHAPTER SIX

THE DRAMA OF DISSENT: REFORMATORY REDERIJKERS IN BRABANT

I. THE REDERIJKER TRADITION

By the first half of the sixteenth century, there were almost two hundred chambers

of rhetoric (rederijkerskamers) in operation in the Low Countries.1 The chambers

possessed a long and prestigious history in the territory, where their dramatic productions

and songs had already entertained inhabitants for centuries by the time of Charles V’s

accession. The productions of the rederijkers usually focused on issues of contemporary

interest. They were often sarcastic, critical, and humorous, and almost always popular

among a broad spectrum of the population of early modern urban centers. By the time of

the Reformation, the most prolific chambers in the Low Countries belonged to the cities

of Antwerp and Audenarde,2 but all major cities possessed at least one chamber, some supporting as many as six.3

The early history of the rederijker tradition in the Low Countries is somewhat

obscure. It is possible that the very first chambers can be traced as far back as the twelfth

century (in Aalst). In reality, however, these early chambers were no more than loosely-

1 Johan Decavele estimates the number to be 187. See his De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520-1565), Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 37, 2 vols. (Brussel: Paleis der Academië, 1975), 1: 193. See Chapter Three, “Rederijkers en dichters in de beginnende hervormingstijd,” in this volume for an excellent overview of the activities of rederijkers in Flanders during the period of the Reformation. 2 F. A. Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst in Belgie, sedert hare eerste opkomst tot aen de dood van Albert en Isabella (Brussels: M. Hayez, 1838), 153. 3 The Brabantine cities of Brussels, Leuven, and ’s-Hertogenbosch each had four, and Antwerp had three. The northern cities of , Leiden, , and Amsterdam each possessed two chambers. Figures (except for Antwerp) to be found in Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 251, n.12.

235

affiliated groups of performers who met occasionally to produce dramatic pieces. It was

not until the fourteenth century, during the rule of the Burgundians that these groups

organized themselves into official chambers of rhetoric, modeled on the French collèges

de rhètorique, which began earlier in the same century.4 In the late fourteenth century, the earliest city charters were awarded to rederijker chambers, the first being granted to the chamber of the Holy Ghost (De Heilige Gheest) in Diksmuide in 1394.5 Throughout

its history, the southern Low Countries dominated the territory’s rederijker tradition, but

chambers were established in most northern cities as well. Indeed, their development can

be seen as part of a more general expansion of theater throughout western Europe.6

To label all of these playwrights, thespians, and poets as rederijkers obscures the fact that each chamber possessed a complex hierarchy of organization, with positions ranging from the ordinary members of the chamber, to those who acted in their productions, to those at the top of the hierarchy who were paid to compose pieces for public consumption.7 From the small number of chambers for which registers are extant,

it seems that most included members from a relatively broad social spectrum, although

the majority were drawn from among artisans and merchants.8

4 Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst, 147-48. For further comment on the earliest rederijker groups, see Bert Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding: het Vlaamsche Rederijkerstoneel en de Opstand der XVIe eeuw (Antwerpen: N. V. de Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1941). 5 Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 161. 6 For greater elaboration on this point, see Arnade, Realms of Ritual, and George R. Kernodle, From Art to Theater: Form and Convention in the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944). 7 This point is made by D. Coigneau, “Rederijkersliteratuur,” in Marijke Spies, ed., Historische Letterkunde (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1984), 35-57, here at 38. 8 In 1534, one of Antwerp’s chambers, the Gillyflower (Violieren) complained of financial difficulties, resulting from the burden of having to support their poorer members. Indeed, for the chamber In Honor of Mary (Marien Theeren) in Ghent, extant records reveal a mixed membership, including a number of wealthy nobles, some clerics, a small number of women (32 of the 248 members) and a preponderance of guildsmen. See Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 173. Gary Waite found similar figures for the three Antwerp

236

Each chamber possessed several elders and , who helped organize the

activities of the group. They were led by a “prince,” who acted as the financial head of

the organization.9 Directly below the prince was the factor of the chamber. The factor

was the chamber’s official poet, who composed most of the plays and songs to be

performed by the other members and received a salary for his work.10 In addition to

producing scripts, the factors fulfilled certain educational functions, instructing the

younger members of the organization in his craft.11 He also acted as a public figurehead

for the chamber, representing it before the city’s administrators and maintaining order

among the organization’s general membership.12 Because he was responsible for the

content of the works performed by the members of the chamber, the factor was most

likely to be brought up on charges if the authorities later deemed those pieces heterodox,

as we shall see in the following chapter.

II. ANTWERP’S CHAMBERS

Chapter Seven examines the trials of two rederijkers accused of heresy, both of

whom were active in the chambers of the city of Antwerp. The oldest and most

chambers, with the exception of the Violieren, which possessed a higher number of artists than was the case in other chambers. Of the 76 rederijkers whose professions he was able to ascertain, only six belonged to the professional classes (including lawyers and schoolmasters), while the majority of non-artists were guildsmen. See “Table 2: Occupations of Antwerp’s Rhetoricians,” in Waite, Reformers on Stage, 57. For comments on the difficulties experienced by women who sought full incorporation into chambers of rhetoric, see Anne-Laure van Brauene, “Brotherhood and Sisterhood in the Chambers of Rhetoric in the Southern Low Countries,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36 (2005), 11-36. 9 Gary K. Waite, “Popular Drama and Radical Religion: The Chambers of Rhetoric and Anabaptism in the Netherlands,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, 65 (1991), 227-55, here at 229-30. 10 Waite, “Popular Drama,” 229. 11 Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst, 150. 12 Freddy Puts, “Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse rederijkserskamer De Goudbloem,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent, 23-24 (1973-1974), 5-34, here at 10-11.

237

prestigious of Antwerp’s three chambers was the Violieren. This grew originally out of the St. Lucas guild of artists, and when it received a charter as the city’s first official rederijker chamber in 1480, it maintained its close ties to the guild.13 The chamber was limited in size to 75 members, the majority of whom were engaged in various artistic professions outside of their voluntary work for the chamber.14 But the fifteenth century

was a time of enormous growth for rederijker chambers in the Low Countries, and the

Violieren’s restrictive membership quota was soon unable to accommodate the growing

interest in dramatic performance. Consequently, two other chambers appeared in the

city, the Marigold (Goudbloem) in 1490, and the Olivebranch (Olijftak, originally named

the Unesteemed) in 1510.15 The two oldest chambers, the Violieren and the Goudbloem

were the most influential, and both endowed altars in the city’s central church, the

Church of Our Lady.16

The composition of each of Antwerp’s three chambers was somewhat different.

The Violieren always maintained its connection with the St. Lucas guild of artists, and its

membership consequently included a higher percentage of artists, bookmen, and other

intellectuals than its two municipal counterparts. The Goudbloem was also rather

selective, and was composed of relatively high numbers of local aristocrats. The Olijftak,

the third and youngest chamber, possessed a less distinguished clientele, made up mostly

13 Floris Prims, “‘De Boom der Schriftuur’ te Antwerpen,” Antwerpiensia 13 (1939), 84-91, here at 84, and Philippe F. Rombouts and Théodore F. X. van Lerius, De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpesche Sint Lucasgilde (Antwerp: J. E. Buschmann, 1872). 14 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 52. 15 For information on the creation of the three chambers, see Waite, Reformers on Stage, 54, and August A. Keersmaekers, “De rederijkerskamers te Antwerpen: kenttekeningen in verband met ontstaan, samenstelling en ondergang,” Varia Historica Brabantica 6-7 (1978), 173-86, here at 174. 16 Puts, “Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse rederijkserskamer De Goudbloem,” 13.

238

of younger artisans and merchants, as was the case in most rederijker chambers outside

of Antwerp.17 All three of the chambers experienced long and successful lives,

continuing to perform their works well into the seventeenth century.18

Although Antwerp possessed only three officially-recognized chambers, other

associations of thespians also developed in the city. These were generally smaller and

less well-organized than the official chambers, and were often composed of younger

members who were honing their skills before attempting to gain membership in one of

the recognized groups. These smaller chambers came and went over time, and were

known collectively as porridge guilds (pap-gilden).19 Because they were not recognized

by the civic authorities, these guilds were somewhat uncontrollable and therefore often

frowned upon by the municipal rulers. They received no civic support and performed

their works in private homes or unauthorized, on the streets.20 The phenomenon of pap- gilden seems to have emerged in the wake of the striking success of Antwerp’s three official chambers.21

17 Keersmakers, “De rederijkerskamers te Antwerpen,” 177. 18 Keersmakers estimates that the Goudbloem and Olijftak died a slow death between 1640 and 1660. See “De rederijkerskamers te Antwerpen,” 177. Most chambers in the southern Low Countries experienced some degree of decline in the late sixteenth century, under the repressive rule of Philip II. There was a revival of rederijker activity at the turn of the eighteenth century. 19 Jan B. van der Straelen, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Rederykkamers (Antwerp: J.-E. Buschmann, 1863), 170. 20 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 55. 21 The earliest known establishment of a pap-gild is that of the Lilly (Leliken), which formed in the early 1530s. Waite, “Popular Drama,” 231. From the testimony of heresy suspects such as Jacob van Middeldonck (who we shall encounter in Chapter Seven), it seems that other pap-gilden flourished by the 1530s, including the one with which he was affiliated, the Damask flower (Damastbloem). See below, Chapter Seven.

239

III. REDERIJKER PRODUCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

For the earliest period of rederijker activity, few sources remain upon which to

build a picture of the type and quality of their productions.22 It is possible, nevertheless,

to glean some understanding of the primary involvements of rederijker chambers in the

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Throughout this period, they were heavily involved in

the lives of their cities, participating by invitation in almost all important city-wide events.23 Through appearances in the Joyous Entries of various rulers, the weddings of royalty, as well as frequent religious processions, rederijker chambers contributed to a flourishing culture of festive municipal ritual.24

The chambers produced an array of dramatic works. Included in their repertoire

were musical pieces, which took the form of refrains (or choruses), and ballads which

were often popular among city residents who memorized and sang them spontaneously in

bars or on the streets.25 At the end of the fifteenth century, they began to produce

morality plays, or zinnespelen. These were pieces of didactic drama, intended to pose a

question to the audience, and then to explore that question using allegory.26 Zinnespelen

contained neither concrete character portraits, nor intense action scenes. Rather, they

22 Johan Decavele, “Jan Utenhove en de opvoering van het zinnespel te Roborst in 1543,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 39-40 (1989-1990), 101-16, here at 102. 23 Frans H. Mertens and Karel L. Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen sedert de stichting der stad tot onze tyden, 8 vols. (1846; Antwerp: C. de Vries-Brouwers, 1975), 4: 271. 24 Coigneau, “Rederijkersliteratuur,” 35. Many of their performances in such events honored the Burgundian or Habsburg state rulers, although their participation in these festivals came at the invitation of city authorities. In a sense, the role of the rederijkers was to laud the imperial authorities, even as they and the cities they represented resented the encroachment of those same authorities on their territories, a point made by Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 160. 25 Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 229. 26 For various explanations of zinnespelen, see Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 23; Waite, “Popular Drama,” 229; and Coigneau, “Rederijkersliteratuur,” 36 and 44-46.

240

presented abstract figures, whose relationships to one another were often the most important feature of their appearance. The playwright manipulated the audience to identify with a particular character, and the play then proposed the correct course of action for that character in his or her situation. The plays often contained Biblical figures, representing good or evil, who attempted to sway the protagonist in this process.

Given their form and moral content, it is not surprising that many sixteenth- century zinnespelen contained religious themes and questions. As Reformation thought blossomed in the Low Countries, the rederijkers often took themes of the Reformers as subject material for their plays, boldly expounding upon clerical abuses and suggesting possible solutions.27 Because they presented their works in the form of drama,

employing humor and irony, the rederijkers were able to bring such questions to their lay audiences long after the discussion of religious issues had been officially proscribed by the edict of 1529. On occasion, however, the rhetoricians flirted dangerously close to the line separating sarcasm from sedition and were prosecuted as heretics.

With the development of zinnespelen came the concomitant creation of rederijker competitions (wedstrijden or landjuwelen) in which chambers from many different cities came together to perform, competing with each other for the title of best play. Often their performances were composed in response to a specific question posed by the organizer of the tournament. One of the earliest such competitions took place in Mechelen in 1493.

Antwerp hosted another in 1496, for which 28 chambers traveled to the city from all over the northern and southern Low Countries. Just six years later, in 1502, another

27 Leendert Meeuwis van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen uit de Eerste Helft van de Zestiende Eeuw, (Haarlem: Vijlbrief, 1937), 5.

241 competition was organized at Mechelen, and was attended by the rulers and Maximilian.28 Competitions such as these continued well into the sixteenth century, the largest taking place in Ghent in 1539, and Antwerp in 1561. Typically, the host city provided significant prizes for the winning chambers and runners up, including financial rewards as well as wine and food. Each chamber represented its home city and competed in its honor.29

Despite the civic prestige attained by the rederijker chambers, their plays and poetry cannot be considered high art. Rather, they were a form of media art, a direct reflection of the society in which they were created.30 Like other forms of religious drama, the rederijker productions were lay pieces that drew together an array of spectators.31 This medium was successful in reaching a broad, observing public as the plays were performed openly and free of charge. Like broadsheet and woodcut productions, theater benefited from the possession of a visual image, enhanced by a written (or in this case, verbal) explanation.32 Dramatic productions therefore functioned as a means by which the unlettered could be instructed in Reformation doctrines. In

28 Puts, “Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse rederijkserskamer De Goudbloem,” 8. 29 In addition to these main competitions, there were smaller, less prestigious events, usually involving refrains or songs rather than zinnespelen, which attracted smaller numbers of chambers and conferred less impressive prizes. See Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst, 151-52. 30 Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 6. 31 They formed part of what Glenn Ehrstine has called “community theater.” See idem, Theater, Culture, and Community in Reformation Bern, 1523-1555, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 12. Ehrstine contends that the reformers consciously used theater as a means of creating cultural identity among urban populations who had pre-existing complaints with the . While this thesis may well hold for the Swiss communities upon which Ehrstine focuses, it was less the case in the Low Countries. The rederijkers did not perform at the instigation or behest of certain reformers, but rather, raised religious concerns that were common to their territory, rarely favoring the ideas of one reformer over another in this early phase of Protestant confessionalization. 32 Ehrstine, Theater, Culture, and Community, 223 and 290.

242 addition, the plays could later be published and circulate widely among the more literate members of society.

IV. PLAYS AS PEDAGOGY

Although the rederijkers of the Low Countries saw their function as primarily didactic, they were concerned with other issues also, including a sincere desire to maintain the integrity and quality of the vernacular languages in which they performed.

Indeed, several rederijkers were profoundly influenced by the humanist tradition and sought to translate older Latin works into the vernacular, while others composed plays using ancient Roman and Greek characters.33 Yet there was a strong and enduring sense among the rederijkers that their mission was primarily one of pedagogy, their overarching goal being to raise the intellectual and religious standards of their fellow townsfolk at all societal levels.34

The pedagogical goals of the rederijkers are clear from the texts of their plays.

The reception of these works is somewhat more difficult to determine. Some historians have gone so far as to claim that the fact that common burghers of the Low Countries had any understanding of the Reformation at all is due in large part to the work of the rederijker chambers.35 While this is undoubtedly an overstatement, the rederijkers were successful in reaching a wide audience, thereby influencing educated and unschooled

33 See Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst, 149-66. 34 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 26. 35 Gilles D. J. Schotel contends that the rederijkers were successful in this regard because they “. . . waren uit hun midden, spraken hunne taal, wisten bij ondervinding hoe zij het best op hun verstand en hart konden werken.” See idem, Den Boom der Schriftueren van VI personagien, gespeelt tot Middelburch in Zeelant, den eersten Augusto in ‘t Jaer 1539 (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1870), v.

243

alike. Although certain sophisticated references would have been lost on the less-

educated burghers, the basic moral and storylines of their productions would have been

easily accessible to a broad range of audience members.36 There is even evidence to

suggest that in a few instances, rederijker material was used by schools in the instruction

of their students.37

Once Reformation ideas penetrated their homeland, the rederijkers embraced the

opportunity to transmit them to a wider public, encouraging their audiences to consider

the issues raised by the Reformers and follow the playwrights’ guidance as to suitable

responses.38 Given their penchant for pedagogy, rederijker productions had the potential

to become polemical in tone, which happened to varying degrees.39 The clergy of the

Low Countries resented the encroachment of the rederijkers into the territory of religious instruction. Yet they were somewhat powerless to stop the rhetoricians, for their plays remained popular among the townspeople. Clearly they drew on currents of thought that their fellow townsfolk found appealing on some level.40 The fact that many of the

comedic elements in their productions focused on clerical issues is further indication that

these anticlerical views were shared by a significant proportion of their viewers. Through

the wit of the allegorical zinnespelen, the rederijkers went beyond previous expressions

36 Waite, Reformers on Stage, vii. Ehrstine goes so far as to assert that such performances would have attracted even “peasants from the countryside as well as residents of nearby smaller towns,” though he does not provide evidence to substantiate such a claim. See idem, Theater, Culture, and Community, 39. 37 Such as in Ieper in the 1540s. Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 217. Peter Schuddemate was accused of using such texts in his classroom. See below, Chapter Seven. 38 Coigneau, “Rederijkersliteratuur,” 50-51. See below. 39 Historians differ as to the extent to which the rederijkers did in fact use their positions for religious polemics. Bert Ranke insists that in the early sixteenth century, theology “kreeg een plaats in het openbaar leven: de tooneelplanken dienden enkel nog als springtrede voor preek ende polemiek.” Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 34. 40 This point is made by Waite, Reformers on Stage, 121.

244 of anticlericalism, shrewdly coaching their broad audiences to consider controversial religious issues and question those in positions of clerical authority over them.41

The zinnespelen succeeded as didactic tools because they contained sufficient sophisticated references to keep their more learned audience members engaged, while remaining easily comprehensible in a less complex manner to those at the lower end of the educational pyramid. This ability to cross societal lines placed the rederijkers in a unique position to spread messages of religious reform when they first emerged at the beginning of the 1520s. Because of the complexity of their productions and their ability to disguise their religious views behind the veil of irony and comedy, it remains unclear for many rederijkers whether theirs was a conscious decision to promote a reformatory religious agenda, or whether they merely reflected the Volksziel of their times.42

V. CLERICAL CRITIQUE AND REFORMATION PROPAGANDA

It is important to note that, while certain rederijkers developed a religiously heterodox body of literature, there remained throughout the Reformation period an ongoing and rich production of wholly orthodox works as well. These writers often shared with their more reform-minded brethren a strong element of anticlerical sentiment, but their works were nevertheless consciously orthodox in tone and content. Two representatives of this type of overtly Catholic literature in the early sixteenth century were the female writer, Anna Bijns, and her contemporary, Cornelis Everaert.

41 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 201. 42 Z. E. H. Al. de Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” in Handelingen, Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 13 (1959), 23-59, here at 24.

245

Perhaps the most eloquent and widely-read rederijker of the sixteenth century,

Anna Bijns (1493-1575) was born in Antwerp in 1493. A schoolmistress in the city until

well into her eighties, Bijns composed a large body of poetry and refrains during the

course of her life.43 It remains unclear whether she was a member of any of the city’s

three chambers of rhetoric, although in light of her extensive output as a rederijker, it

seems likely that she had some degree of affiliation.44 Much of Bijns’s corpus has recently been edited and some of it translated.45 It reveals a voice of outspoken, witty,

but venomous opposition to the Protestant Reformation. She wrote on more than one

occasion of Luther as an immoral, dangerous heretic, who led people from the church and

stirred them to sedition. One of her poems she entitled, “If sin be virtue, Lutherans are

saints.” In it, she castigates Luther and his followers for turning the religious world

upside down, causing believers everywhere to question the very foundations of their

faith:

Nary a one’s a believer through and through But all, it seems, incline to doubts. Evil is named good, and what’s now called sin, Ere this had claim to title: good works. Faulted is all that fights ‘gainst flesh, While pleasing the flesh is held great virtue; Hence monks think the cowl too heavy a burden. Alas, has the Christian realm progressed

43 It is possible that she also wrote plays, although none have survived that are directly attributable to her. The recent literature on Bijns is considerable. For information on her life and works, see Lode Roose, Anna Bijns: Een Rederijkster uit de Hervormingstijd, Bekroonde werken 93 (Ghent: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, 1963); Waite, Reformers on Stage, 63-66; Herman Pleij, ed., ‘T is al vrouwenwerk. Refreinen van Anna Bijns (Amsterdam: Querido, 1987); and Kristiaan P. G. Aercke, ed., “Germanic Saphho: Anna Bijns,” in Katharina M. Wilson, ed., Women Writers of the Renaissance and Reformation (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987). 44 See Pleij, T is al vrouwenwerk, 112-13, and van Brauene, “Brotherhood and Sisterhood,” 30-32. 45 See in particular Hermina Joldersma, “Anna Bijns,” in Kristiaan Aercke, ed., Women Writing in Dutch (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994), 93-146, and Aercke, “Germanic Sappho.”

246

Through Luther’s doctrine, sheer bursting with error.46

Likewise, in the same poem, she goes on to reprimand the Reformers for their

iconoclasm, rejection of the clergy, and belief in the priesthood of all believers:

[Is] perverting God’s word to approve fleshly lusts, A virtue? To “interpret Scripture,” as it’s called In order to justify any false whim? . . . They gamble their money hand over fist And rob monasteries, churches, and cathedrals: If one could gain life eternal through this, They’ll soon rise to join seraphic choirs. Is it a virtue, to insult upright preachers, Despise saints and saintesses, the Mother of God? If sin be virtue, then Lutherans are saints!47

Bijns was equally disparaging of Anabaptism, which she saw as an outgrowth of the treacherous movement to which Luther gave birth, claiming in one poem that “They’re

46 “Lutter iemandt es recht gheloovich van gronde, Maer meest elck es tot twijfelinghen ghenegen. Tquaedt heet nu goedt en men achtet voor sonde, Dat goede wercken te heeten peghen. Men laket nu al, dat den vleesche gaet teghen; Dat den vleesche me gaet, wordt voor duecht gepresen. Dit doedt oock den muncken haer cappen verwegen. Och waer is kerstenrijck toe bedeghen Door Luthers doctrijne, vol erruers gheresen?” Original text in A. Bogaers and W. L. van Helten, eds., Refreinen van Anna Bijns (Rotterdam: J. H. Dunk, 1875), 138-40, here at 138. Translation in Joldersma, “Anna Bijns,” 120-123, here at 121. 47 “Eest duecht Gods woort naer svleeschs berueren trecken? Eest duegcht Devangelie te lesen quansuys, Op dat elck daer met mach sijn valsche cueren decken? . . . Tgheldt verdobbelen met vollen commen En cloosters berooven, kercken en dommen? Machmen hier mede den hemel winnen, Sij varen inden choor der seraphinnen. Eest duegcht, datmen straft doprechte predicanten, Gods moeder veracht, sancten en sanctinnen? Es sonde duegcht, de Lutheranen sijn sancten.” Bogaers and van Helten, Refreinen, 139-40. Translation in Joldersma, “Anna Bijns,” 122.

247

all sheets cut from the same cloth / And the Anabaptists have sprouted from the

Lutherans.”48

Yet Bijns’s criticism was not reserved only for those Reformers whom she saw as

enemies of the church. The church itself received the wrath of her quill. She was of the

opinion that the Reformation was, in large part, a reaction to the immorality and laziness

of the clergy.49 Nevertheless, harsh though it was, hers was the critique of one devoted to the existing form of the church, completely opposed to the Reformation, and to the notion of schism.

The same can be said of the other prolific Catholic rederijker of this period,

Cornelis Everaert (c.1480-1556). A cloth fuller and dyer from Bruges, Everaert was factor of two of the town’s rederijker chambers and wrote a large corpus of plays during the course of his career, including the vast majority of those that can be considered orthodox in their religious tone.50 Like Bijns, Everaert was an outspoken critic of the

church, but he was similarly loyal in his devotion to what he perceived to be an ailing

institution. Like his fellow-countryman, Erasmus, Everaert called for a reform from

within the Church, as opposed to the schismatic calls of Luther and his fellow Reformers.

48 “. . . het is al laken van eenen loye: / Uut Lutheranen sijn herdoopers ghesproten.” Bogaers and van Helten, Refreinen, 143. Translation in Joldersma, “Anna Bijns,” 102. 49 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 38. 50 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 106-07. For other information on Everaert, see N. M. Hüsken, “Cornelis Everaert en de Troon van Salomon,” Ons geestelijk erf 65 (1991), 144-64; J. W. Muller, Cornelis Everaert’s spelen als spiegel van de maatschappelijke toestanden zijns tijds, Verslagen en Mededelingen der Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie (Ghent: A. Siffer, 1907); J. F. Willems, “Cornelis Everaert: Tooneeldichter van Bruges,” Belgisch Museum 6 (1842), 41-66. For an edited collection of his works, see J. W. Muller and Lodewijk Scharpé, eds., Spelen van Cornelis Everaert (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1920).

248

At no time did he question the need for the clergy in the administration of the sacraments,

the need for lay obedience to the Church, nor the legitimacy of .51

Bijns and Everaert were united in their loyalty to the Roman Church, although they clearly saw this institution as flawed and in need of repair. Despite their fierce critique of clerical abuses, both of these authors upheld a belief in the legitimacy of the institution and the need for clerical leadership. Moreover, they were hostile toward the

Reformers, whom they saw as schismatics. In the case of Bijns and Everaert, it is easy to locate their religious affiliation in spite of their critique of the church. However, it is more difficult to discern the religious views of other writers. Many appear as outright adherents of the Reformation, given their anticlerical statements and lack of explicit affirmation of the Roman Church. Upon closer examination, however, the question of their religious allegiance is somewhat more complex. Scholars continue to disagree on the extent to which the rederijkers acted merely as educated critics of Catholicism, and the degree to which they were actually covert reformers, consciously using their position as educators and entertainers to promote a subtle Reformation agenda.

Rederijker chambers occupied positions of honor as representatives of their cities and self-appointed intellectual leaders. They were conscious of the necessity of maintaining civic unity and sought therefore to raise questions regarding religion without

inciting local populations to rebellion.52 In addition, because of the constant threat of the

emperor’s anti-heresy edicts, the rederijkers were generally subtle in the of

51 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 115 and “Reformers on Stage: Rhetorician Drama and Reformation Propaganda in the Netherlands of Charles V, 1519-1556,” ARG, 83 (1992), 209-39, here at 213. 52 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 103-04.

249 their religious predilections, making an assessment of their positions difficult to formulate. In order to determine whether a play can be considered “reformatory,” it is first necessary to define the criteria upon which such an assessment is based. Some historians define as reformatory those plays that display an insolent attitude to the Roman

Church in their tone or content, and which, for this reason, came to be considered heretical by the authorities of their day.53 Yet the definition of tone is difficult to pin down, and many “tonal” elements that are considered heretical in supposedly reformatory texts are also present in other anticlerical but orthodox writings. Historians of this view therefore ask, in addition, whether a specific work actually lays out and teaches heretical doctrines. This, they contend, is rarely the case.54

Because of the ubiquity of anticlericalism but the relative lack of a concomitant, clearly-articulated reform agenda in rederijker works, many historians contend that the plays appear heretical only in retrospect.55 They argue that rederijker works almost never advocated breaking from the orthodox church and were therefore more Erasmian in tenor than Lutheran – a view which falls directly in line with the school of Dutch history that maintains that Erasmus exerted more influence on the Reformation in general in the Low

Countries than did his Wittenberg counterpart, and particularly so in circles such as these,

53 Such an opinion is expressed by de Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” 24. 54 De Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” 57. Werner Waterschoot adds a further note of caution against making sweeping denunciations of an entire rederijker chamber as partisans of the Reformation, based on the assessment of a single play. Indeed, many of those rederijkers who took part in the writing and production of heretical pieces were often also involved in highly orthodox productions, including civic and religious processions in their towns. Werner Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers en de doorbraak van de reformatie in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden,” in Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent, 45-46 (1995-1996), 141-53, here at 149. 55 Floris Prims was among the first to caution against jumping too quickly to judgments of heresy. In particular, he warned that plays produced prior to the Reformation often appear heretical in the context of what Reformers such as Luther would later write, while in their own time and context they were merely critical of the church. Prims, “‘De Boom der Schriftuur’,” 91.

250

where the literary rederijkers were greatly influenced by the movement of Northern

Humanism of which Erasmus was a foundational character.56 However, many of the

most suspect rederijker works were produced in the 1530s and 40s, when the

Reformation was in full swing in the Low Countries. The ideas of Reformers such as

Luther were circulating widely by this time, and the rederijkers were well aware that

allusions to certain themes or motifs in their plays could not but elicit in the minds of

their more educated viewers direct reference to specific doctrines of the Reformers. It

therefore seems unlikely that these works appear more heterodox in hindsight than they

would have at the time. Surely in the context of the religious debates of the 1530s and

40s these plays would have taken on an enormously controversial tone. The question

remains, however, as to whether this is to be considered merely a call for reform or an

appeal for Reformation.

In recent years the activities of individual rederijkers in support of the

Reformation cause have been far better documented, calling this previous

historiographical view into question. Johan Decavele, for example, has documented

numerous cases in which individual rederijkers were accused of heresy because of their

work, or spouses who came under suspicion of heresy by association in such cases.57

Such scholarship provides compelling evidence to suggest that at least some rederijkers were producing works that were consciously aimed at promoting Reformation thought,

56 On this point, see Waite, Reformers on Stage, 102. Historians who fall into this category of thinking include de Maeyer, Gerrit A. Brands, and H. A. Enno van Gelder. 57 See Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 193-234, who points out that it is no coincidence that many rederijkers from the early Reformation period were punished as Protestant agitators during the years of the religious troubles in the second half of the sixteenth century. Indeed, in 1561 Brussels hosted a refrain competition. The three winners (Ambrosius van Molle of Lier, Willem van Haecht of Antwerp, and Cassiere of Den Bosch) all later turned to the Reformation. See Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 152-53.

251

rather than merely criticizing the existing church. When seen in this light, it is apparent

that the rederijkers actually contributed significantly to the proliferation and

popularization of Reformation ideas in the early sixteenth century.

Yet the problem of discerning a Reformation-minded writer from one who was

merely anticlerical remains. Literary critics such as J. B. Drewes have suggested that the

foci of a certain play might suggest Lutheran or other reformatory leanings. For example,

a concentration on issues of , or mankind’s fall into sin are seen by

Drewes as possible indicators of Lutheran tendencies.58 Drewes argues that it is possible

to determine the theological inclination of a particular play with greater specificity than is

usually the case.59 Much of his method of interpretation involves an analysis of the biblical quotations used by rederijker authors. Every religious zinnespel contains myriad biblical references, and Drewes draws information from these references based upon which Bible translations the authors used (did they extract passages from heterodox translations, for example?), as well as the context in which the references were made.60

For example, in the 1539 play, “Faith in Christ Alone, through the Word” (Tbetrauwen duer twoordt op Christum alleen), the playwright replaced the Jewish high priest,

Caiaphas as the judge of Jesus with a group of sixteenth-century inquisitors.

Furthermore, news of Jesus’s condemnation was delivered by means of a placard, not

58 J. B. Drewes, “Het Interpreteren van godsdienstige spelen van zinne,” in Jaarboek Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 29 (1978-79), 5-124, here at 42. Drewes’s article is the most sophisticated treatment of the religious aspects of rederijker literature from the perspective of a theologically-informed literary historian. 59 Drewes, “Het Interpreteren van godsdienstige spelen van zinne,” 54. 60 Drewes, “Het Interpreteren van godsdienstige spelen van zinne,” 18-26.

252

dissimilar to those being issued by Charles V and his governors.61 Clearly the author

sought to make a powerful critique of Charles’s religious policies, suggesting that the

execution of Protestants was tantamount in his mind to Caiaphas’s condemnation of

Christ.

Gary Waite further supports the notion that many rederijkers sought to promote

Reformation themes by tracing the changes in the themes of rederijker plays pre- and

post-1519 (when Luther’s writings first appeared in the Low Countries.) In the period

prior to Luther, Waite finds that most religious rederijker productions focused on the

following: devotion to the Virgin Mary; the sufferings of Mary and Jesus; the seven

sacraments of the church; and abuses and immorality among the clergy.62 As we shall

see when we consider the 1539 competition at Ghent, all of these themes, with the

exception of the last, are almost entirely absent from the plays of the post-Reformation

era, even those that can be considered orthodox.

However, many of the questions and issues defined as heterodox by historians

such as Drewes were raised by rederijkers who were explicitly orthodox in their religious beliefs. The question therefore remains a murky one. It seems that the most convincing explanation lies somewhere in the middle. There were certainly rederijkers on either end of the religious spectrum. Writers such as Bijns and Everaert are explicit in their allegience to the orthodox faith. Similarly, some of the most religiously questionable works were written by rederijkers who were later revealed as firm adherents of the

61 For comment see Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 32-33. For the text of the Bruges play, see Benjamin H. Erné and Leendert M. van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982), 1: 85-116. 62 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 42.

253

Reformation. By far the largest group, though, occupy the middle position. They were ardent critics of the Roman Church, whose anticlericalism was evidently informed by the ideas of Reformers such as Luther. However, it is not clear that they ever moved beyond an Erasmian position of “critique from within” the Church. It seems likely that their goal in writing zinnespelen was to lead people to question certain doctrines of the Church, and even to encourage them to agitate for change. They did not, however, go so far as to advocate an exodus from the established Church to take up religious arms with Luther and his fellow Reformers.

VI. RELATIONS TO GOVERNMENT AND CHURCH

The rederijkers trod a dangerous line in expressing any unorthodox beliefs, no matter how veiled, not least because they were engaged in the service of three powerful governing bodies: the local city rulers, the church, and the central government of Charles

V. Their primary duties were to city and church, given their frequent participation in civic rituals, most of which involved religious processions on local feast days.63 By the early sixteenth century, although the chambers still took part in religious festivities, they had effectively removed themselves from all clerical control, and participated in such rituals at the behest of the civic authorities.64 So close was their relationship to the city rulers that the local councils provided funding for the official chambers and prizes when they hosted competitions.65 This financial assistance ensured that the chambers could not

63 Prims, “‘De Boom der Schriftuur,’” 85. 64 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 32. 65 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 141, and Snellaert, Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst, 149.

254

focus their critical eye too keenly upon the city rulers for fear of losing their support.

Partly in consequence of this fact, the rederijkers turned instead to criticizing their

clerical overlords, which they were able to do while maintaining the financial backing of

the lay officials.66

The municipal authorities’ monetary support of the chambers demonstrates their

awareness that the work of the rhetoricians was influential in helping them promote the

honor and success of their city in regular ritual festivities.67 When inter-city competitions

were held, each chamber attended as a representative of its home town. At the

competition in Antwerp in 1496, every participating chamber had to compose a prologue

in praise of Antwerp. Arnade insists that such ritual performances served to unite the

cities of the Low Countries with each other.68 While this was perhaps the case, it seems

more likely that it fostered a deeper sense of civic community within each of the

disparate cities, via which each enhanced its sense of civic pride and communal identity.

The rederijkers lauded their home towns, increasing the pride and allegiance of their

fellow burghers, and fostering an atmosphere of civic competition in their inter-city

tournaments. It is possible that the larger consequence of this process was a unification of the territory as a whole, but the embellishment of local ties and allegiances seems to have been equally, if not more, important.

Arnade links the development of rederijker chambers directly with the growing

influence of Burgundian state power, which he sees as motivating their growth.69 He

66 Waite, Reformers on Stage, xvii. 67 Coigneau, “Rederijkersliteratuur,” 49. 68 Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 181. 69 Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 161.

255 emphasizes the fact that many chambers were founded during periods in which their cities suffered political losses at the hands of their Burgundian overlords. His suggestion is that the chambers heightened their profile in their cities at these times in an attempt to curry favor with their new rulers, to vie for positions in the new regime.70 In contradistinction to Arnade’s thesis, I would propose that, by the sixteenth century and the rise of the Habsburg power, the high profile of the chambers, and their continued participation in municipal affairs was actually an act of defiance against their imperial rulers, as opposed to an attempt to gain their esteem. While I would agree with Arnade that the rederijkers were rightly seen as “harbingers of municipal self-consciousness, as proud witnesses to a victorious burgher culture,” I would contend that theirs was an attempt to unify this municipal culture, to strengthen their civic identity, and to uphold it in the face of the threat of Habsburg encroachment.71

Every incoming state or imperial ruler was familiar with the chambers of rhetoric, as they performed at all the Joyous Entries of the . Certain rulers were even known to bestow upon a chamber permission to use their family crest as part of its official blazon.72 Over time, however, some rulers grew suspicious of the influence exercised by the rhetoricians. At the end of the fifteenth century Philip the Fair, for example, strongly suspected the rederijkers of being harbingers of unorthodox thought.

He therefore attempted to centralize the organization of the chambers into one single chamber, over which he would have ultimate authority. The immediate effect of this

70 Arnade, Realms of Ritual, passim. For specific examples in the case of Ghent, see 160-71. 71 The quotation is taken from Arnade, Realms of Ritual, 160. 72 Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 10.

256

policy seems to have been a decrease in the number of rederijker performances, but the

initial fear of Philip’s legislation soon subsided. The rhetoricians’ schedule resumed its

previous vitality, and Philip’s legislation appears to have had no long-term effect.73

Perhaps because of a fear of repeated intervention by the imperial powers, the rederijkers never turned their caustic criticism in the direction of their state overlords.74 They did,

however, anger them on many occasions, at no time more so than during the rederijker

competition hosted by the city of Ghent in June 1539. This contest signaled the height of

tensions between rhetoricians and their imperial rulers and had permanent consequences

for the freedom of rederijkers in the ensuing years.

VII. THE GHENT COMPETITION, 1539

The Ghent tournament of 1539 was a pivotal moment in the history of drama in

the Low Countries and, fortunately for historians, one of the best documented

competitions of the sixteenth century. It took place from 12 to 23 June 1539 and was

preceded by a refrain festival, which occurred in April of the same year.75 Chambers

from cities and towns in all corners of the Low Countries performed nineteen plays in

total.76 The competition posed the question, “What is the dying man’s greatest consolation?” to which each chamber had to respond in the form of a zinnespel.

73 Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 10. 74 Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 18. 75 Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 145. 76 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 25.

257

Antwerp’s Violieren chamber won the competition with a play entitled, “The

Resurrection of the Flesh” (de verrijsenisse des vleeschs).77

The nature of the question posed in this tournament was religious and, as we shall see, the majority of plays performed in answer to it can be considered heterodox on some level. The reformatory tone of so many of the plays brought the proceedings in Ghent immediately to the attention of the imperial authorities. Their view of the event was further darkened by the fact that an uprising against the emperor had occurred in the city in August of the same year, just two months after the competition. Although this revolt was motivated by overwhelmingly political factors (such as opposition to the taxes imposed by Charles), its chronological proximity to the heterodox rederijker contest solidified in the mind of the central authorities an enduring association between the rederijkers and revolution.78

In terms of their religious content, the Ghent plays represent a microcosm of the religious status of rederijker material in general in this period. A few were explicitly orthodox, while others incorporated varying degrees of reformatory tone and content. In addition, several of the plays present oblique challenges to the imperial authority of

Charles or hostile references to his policies of religious repression.

It is telling that in a competition that sought to answer the question, What was the dying man’s greatest consolation, no play responded that his comfort lay in the Church.79

77 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 33. The text of the Antwerp play is reproduced in Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 1: 269-302. For a list of all nineteen answers, see Appendix V, “Answers at Ghent.” 78 Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 146. For more general information on the Ghent rebellion, see Decavele, ed., Keizer tussen stropdragers. Karel V, 1500-1558 (Louvain: Davidsfonds, 1990). 79 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 17.

258

Had the playwrights sought to compose overtly orthodox answers, they would surely have included references to such clerical comforts as the sacrament of last unction, or

confession and absolution. Yet these themes were not forthcoming. Most of the plays

focused on a Christocentric answer, highlighting the grace, compassion, or resurrection of

Christ. Some pointed to Scripture as the final solace. None of these possibilities is, in isolation, necessarily reformatory. Such theological precepts as the sufficiency of Christ and the comfort of Scripture can well be encompassed in orthodox Roman theology.

Nevertheless, in the context of the early sixteenth century, when the teachings of

Reformers such as Luther proliferated widely in this territory, answers such as “Trust in

Christ Alone,” or “Hope in the Scriptures,”80 could not but evoke images of Luther’s

theology of sola fide and sola scriptura.

Indeed, a multitude of orthodox themes are notable by their absence from the

plays performed at Ghent.81 The mediation of Christ is emphasized, over against that of

Mary, who was typically seen as the intercessor for humankind in Roman doctrine.

Although Marian piety was in decline at this time, Catholic writers such as Anna Bijns

still ascribed significant power to the Holy Mother in this regard. Nor do the plays

mention the sacraments of confession or last unction, suggesting that even among loyal

Catholics in this period these were not focal points of faith. Only one play (by the

chamber of Loo) included reference to the Eucharist, focusing on the mystical aspects of

the Mass; and very little was said on the subject of images in any of the offerings. Again,

these absences could be interpreted as evidence of a lack of faith in the orthodox Church,

80 See Appendix V, “Answers at Ghent.” 81 For the following discussion, see van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 44-46.

259

in which both images and the Eucharist were foundational features. They could also,

however, evince a lack of interest in two themes that were central to many of the debates

of the Reformation. The debate over the theology of the Eucharist was fundamental to

the Reformation, one that only grew in significance during the course of the sixteenth

century. Exactly ten years prior to the Ghent competition, the key voices of the

Reformation had met at Marburg to discuss their differences on this essential point of

doctrine. Discussions over images were also central to the Reformation movement, and

incidents of iconoclasm occurred in the Low Countries already in the 1520s.82 Is it not likely that, if the playwrights of 1539 were steeped in Reformation thought and doctrine, they would have seized upon these two issues as points upon which they could attack their Catholic overlords? And yet they did not. Nor did the orthodox playwrights choose to defend these points of Roman dogma against the Reformation writers who denounced them.

Although it is difficult to distinguish loyal anticlerical sentiment from reformatory criticism of the Church, it is evident from the themes that emerged at Ghent that several issues were central to the religious debates in the Low Countries at this time. One of the most frequently recurring themes, featured in almost all of the Ghent plays, reformatory and orthodox alike, is an explicit denial of the efficacy of good works and a denunciation of the ceremonialism of the Roman Church.83 Again, this critique was expressed in plays whose overall tone could be considered reformatory, as well as those which were clearly loyal to the Roman Church. The fact that the renunciation of the efficacy of good works

82 See above, Chapter Two. 83 De Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” 28.

260

was such a predominant theme in the plays suggests that the discussion of this issue had gained significant currency in the Low Countries by this time. In most of the plays, good works were not rejected out of hand, but were seen to receive worth only via the mediation of Christ.

Antwerp’s winning entry focused on the distinction between Law and Gospel, a highly Lutheran theme in these days of the blossoming Reformation. The main character,

Dying Man (Staervende mensche), discusses with Law (Wet) the fact that he has always attempted to do good works, and asks if this will secure his justification:

Dying Man: Haven’t I always done many good works So that I might stand righteous before God? Law: You must first examine What is here written: there is no one who is righteous Not even one . . . . The Law cannot save anyone, But each must, through my teachings, come to understand His own sin.84

After here explaining that good works are unable to bring salvation, the character

Proclaimer of the Word (Vercondigher des woordts) asserts that salvation comes only

through faith, as was the case with Abraham:

Dying Man: Must I earn [this salvation]? Proclaimer of the Word: You have not the power. Abraham believed God’s promises And it was accounted to him as wisdom, and he was not robbed

84 “Staervende Mensche: Hebbic niet ghedaen veil dueghdelicke waercken, Zo dat ic rechtvaerdigh ben? Wet: Wilt eerst maercken Op datter staet: daer en es niemant rechtvaerdigh. Ia niet eenen . . . . Swets waercken en connen niemant zaligh maken, Maer elc moet duer my tot kennesse gheraken Van zijn zondyghe waercken.” (A reference to Romans 3) Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 1: 281-82, lines 86-89, 130-32.

261

Of his justification . . . .85

Abraham is here upheld as one who “earned” his salvation not through any form

of human works, but by believing in the promises of God. This is a clear explication of

an often cited example in support of the belief that justification comes through faith

alone.

These themes are echoed in the play presented by the chamber of St. Anne, from

Edinghe. In their play, the protagonist, Man (Mensche)86 reflects on his own faith, listing

his good works in order to assure himself that the has secured salvation. At the beginning

of the play, he converses with a character named Human Ingenuity (Smenschen

Vernuftheyt), who affirms his belief that his works have earned him a place in heaven and

honor during his life on earth.

Man: I earn indulgence, I go on pilgrimage; I lend people gold, silver, without extortion; My name is written in the rolls of many brotherhoods. Human Ingenuity: For this reason are you elevated in this world; In houses, in the streets, all people honor you.87

85 “Staervende Mensche: Moet ict verdienen? Vercondigher des woordts: Ghy en zijt dies niet maghtigh. Abraham, die heift Gods beloften ghelooft, Dwelc hem es gherekent gheweist, en niet berooft, Tot rechtvaerdigheyt . . . .” (A reference to Romans 4:3.) Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 1: 287, lines 236-40. 86 Which, as in the German equivalent, “Mensch,” carries no gendered connotation. There is no notation in the extant text of the play to suggest whether this character was played by a man or a woman (meaning that the part was probably male), but the clear intention of the piece is that this main character represent the condition of all of humankind. 87 “Mensch: Ic verdien aflaet, ic ga pilgrymage; Ic leene tvolc gaut, zelver om goe gage; In veil broerschapen staet mynen naem gheschreven. Vernuftheyt: Daer om zydy van der waerelt verheven; In huzen, in straten, elc biedt u eere.” Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2: 576, lines 29-33.

262

In the midst of Man’s conversation with Human Ingenuity, however, Scripture

(Schriftuere) enters to point out to Man the mistake in his human reasoning. He explains

that Man is wrong in assuming that his human actions earn him salvation. What is more,

his works are a reflection only of his faith in himself, and such works constitute acts of

idolatry:

Scripture: These things that you say, Man, are not true; The reason why, I shall now lay out. Is it not the case that when you found yourself in desperate need, You placed all of your trust in creatures, In your own possessions, your self, or in images, Whereby you commit idolatry?88

Mensche, eventually convinced that his good works avail him nothing towards salvation, finally asks the character Evangelical Teacher (Evangelisch Leeraer) what defines true faith, if it is not the performance of good works. The answer comes back that all he needs is the Word of God and faith.

Man: Oh godly teacher, will you please instruct me, In what then consists a living faith? Evangelical Teacher: That is to leave all your works behind, Not to seek respect, but to cling alone To the compassion and grace of Christ.89

88 “Schriftuere: Dat ghy daer zegh, Mensche, es niet warachtigh; De reden waer om, zal ic u ontsueren. Hebdy noyt, als ghy waert in noodt onzaghtigh, Heel uwen troost ghestelt an creatueren, In u goet, u zelven oft in figueren, Waer by ghy afgoderye hebt bedreven?” Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2: 580, lines 127-32. 89 Mensche: O Goddelic Leeraer, wilt my voorts berechten, Wat dat dan een levende gheloove zy? Evangelisch Leeraer: Dat es al heel u waercken te gaen voor by, Gheen respect opslaende, alleen tanhanghen Dontfermertigheden en ghenaden Christi . . .” Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2: 590, lines 356-60.

263

It is not difficult to decipher reformatory themes in such a discussion, which are only

embellished by the remaining details of the conversation. Indeed, far from hiding this as

their point of departure, the character Man actually refers to the message of Scripture and

the Evangelical Teacher as a “new doctrine / Contrary to my own,”90 bolstering the notion that these are ideas based on the “new doctrines” of the Reformers.

These examples represent just a few of those presented at the Ghent festival that were clearly informed by Reformation thought, particularly that of Luther and Zwingli.

The plays from which they are taken are overwhelmingly anti-clerical and Christocentric in tone, suggesting that the Reformers’ works had at least caused these playwrights to question the existing structures of the Church, if not to go over to the side of the

Reformation entirely.

Some historians see the Ghent tournament as the high point of public resistance to

Charles’s regime, although this is possibly an overstatement, ascribing more conscious opposition to the rederijkers than was their original intent.91 The fact that the

competition took place just a few months before the political uprising against Charles’s government has driven some historians to suggest that the attacks on clerical authority evident in the plays could have been transferred by their audiences to their temporal overlords as well.92 Although their critique of the emperor is subtle, a couple of the plays

do appear to criticize his religious policies with regard to the prosecution of heresy. In

90 “. . . deis nieu doctryne, / Contrarye de myne, . . .” Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2: 588, lines 322-23. 91 For this view, see Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 33. 92 For this view, see Waite, Reformers on Stage, 158, who compares this event to the Reformation in Germany and the ensuing Peasants’ War. This connection, however, seems too tenuous to withstand rigorous examination, since those participating in the political revolt did not link the two events in any verifiable way.

264 the play performed by Meesene, the following conversation takes place between the characters Man (Mensch), Witness of the Spirit (Ghetughe des gheests), and Compassion

(Ontfermhertigheyt):

Man: How does one know if a person believes correctly? Witness of the Spirit: They believe correctly who are burned, drowned, buried, beheaded, Persecuted violently for the sake of their Christian faith. Compassion: All such people live in the spirit: They have conquered the flesh, it remains in submission.93

The play goes on to explain that these are not the only people who possess true faith, but there can be no doubt that the authors consider the “heretics” who are killed for their beliefs to be martyrs of the faith. It is, of course, possible that this passage refers to the orthodox martyr saints of the Catholic Church. Such an interpretation is not specified, however, and when heard or read in the context of the early sixteenth century, an audience could not avoid relating such a description to the victims of Charles’s anti- heresy placards, who suffered each of the executions here listed.94

Nor was the Meesene play the only one that alluded to the religious policies of the emperor. The presentation of the chamber from Cortrijk similarly attacked the anti- heresy edicts of Charles V. In 1538, ten people were executed as Anabaptists in Cortrijk,

93 “Mensch: Wie weet offer eene alzo ghelooft? Ghetughe des gheests: Die ghebrandt zijn, ghezackt, versmoort, onthooft, Om tgoddelic woordt vervolght met tempeeste. Ontfermhertigheyt: Alzulcke menschen leifden inden gheeste: Tvleesch es verwonnen, tblijft al subiect.” Erné and van Dis, De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 1: 138- 39, lines 364-369. Quoted in van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 57. 94 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 58. It is possible that the playwrights had the Anabaptists primarily in mind, as they were being executed in large numbers in the late 1530s, after the uprising in Münster. It is worthy of note that, despite this patent critique of Charles’s religious policies, the Meesene play cannot be considered overtly reformatory. In fact, it is one of the most orthodox plays in the collection. The text later goes on to condemn certain forms of heresy, forcing us to conclude that it was written not by a Reformation-minded author, but by a loyal Catholic, critical of what he saw as the abuses in the Church of his day. Ibid.

265

and the chamber’s refrain demonstrates apparent sympathy for these recent convicts, as

well as resentment towards Charles’s edicts, which sentenced them to death, demanding

of the persecutor that he “purify [his] hands from innocent blood.”95 Again, references

such as this need not signal overt criticism of Charles, yet seen in light of contemporary

events, it is impossible to exclude such an intention on the part of the playwright.

Given the foregoing, it is in no way surprising that the rederijker competition at

Ghent attracted the negative attention of the central authorities. Not only was Charles’s

religious program heavily criticized, but the anticlerical tone of all the plays, and the hints of Lutheranism in many of them caused great consternation in the royal palace. Shortly after the tournament, Charles issued a series of placards, banning the publication of the plays. In an unhappy sequence of events for the rederijkers, the uprising of Ghent followed closely behind the competition, suggesting to the central authorities a connection between these plays and open sedition.

VIII. THE FALLOUT FROM GHENT: LEGISLATION

Neither city nor state officials were oblivious to the fact that the work of the rederijkers had the potential to pose problems on several levels. Their access to a listening public, both educated and not, provided the rederijkers with opportunities to transmit all manner of information, and with the potential to incite emotional reactions, should they choose to do so. Already in 1528 the municipal authorities of Antwerp introduced an ordinance demanding that rederijkers receive specific permission from city

95 “Reynicht dijn handen van het onnoozel bloet,” van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 540-41. Quoted in Waite, Reformers on Stage, 156.

266 officials before performing their works in public.96 This placard was issued well before the Ghent competition and the Antwerp chambers fulfilled their duty and received permission before the contest. What is more, the emperor, in consultation with Mary of

Hungary, was approached and gave his permission for the tournament in Ghent to go ahead.97

The competition was a watershed event in the relationship between the rederijkers and the authorities in the Low Countries in part because of the political unrest that followed in its chronological wake. Charles returned to the Low Countries in 1539 and occupied himself with curbing the rebellion and then punishing those most directly involved. In August 1539, the burgomaster of Ghent was reprimanded in front of the inhabitants of the town and then beheaded.98 Thereafter, Charles passed a series of placards punishing the city and imposing hefty fines upon the burghers as a penalty for their sedition.99

The plays performed at Ghent were immensely popular. Within a year of the competition, the plays were published in Antwerp. The volume was apparently so

96 Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 39. 97 “. . . by advyse ende deliberatie van onse seer lieve ende beminde zustere de coninghinne douagiere van Hongrien.” Charles V, 12 June 1539. Quoted in van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 30. The letter of permission has been published by Philip Blommaert, Geschiedenis der Rhetorykkamer De Fonteine, Appendix 4 (Ghent: Gyselynck, 1847), 109-11. 98 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 31. 99 The Antwerpsch Chronykje reports Charles’s visit to Ghent in the following way: “. . . sittende om justitie te administreeren, ende te castyen van haer rebellicheden, want hy deder veel onthoofden, ende veel moesten gaen met den Strop om enhals, ende waren de principaelste van de Stadt; doen quamp Heer Ferdinandus, des Keysers broeder, te Gent, ende badt voor de orghers, anders soude mense al doot geslaghen hebben . . .” F. G. Ullens, Antwerpsch Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574, Pieter vander Eyk, ed. (Leiden: n.p., 1743), fol. 40. The author of Chronijk der Nederlanden lists the fines and punishments imposed by the emperor. See De Vos, ed., Chronijk der Nederlanden en bijzonder van Antwerpen, beginnende met den jare 1472, en eindigende met 1556 (Antwerpen: Egide van Diest, 1564), fols. 36-37.

267

popular that the printer of the third edition (published in Wezel in 1564) claimed that they

were so valuable he had no choice but to produce them.100 Although individual plays had

been published numerous times before, the Ghent plays were the first to be compiled and

published together. The collection was subsequently translated into German, Danish, and

Swedish, and was particularly well received by reformers in each of these countries.101

Realizing their potential to cause religious unrest, the chancellor of Brabant, Adolf vander Noot, wrote to Mary of Hungary, imploring her to forbid the publication of the plays on account of their “clearly evil and offensive doctrines and lies, all of which rest on a foundation of Lutheran heresy.”102 Mary and Charles V took vander Noot’s caution

seriously. At Charles’s behest, the theologians at Leuven declared the book of plays a

heretical work on 10 June 1540 (just one year after their initial performance). The

emperor promulgated an edict against the plays three months later, in which they were

specifically named, alongside other works banned for their heretical content.103 The

plays of Ghent continued to be printed in defiance of the new edict, three editions

appearing between 1540 and 1564, all of which were antedated to 1539 to conceal the

fact that they were produced in violation of the emperor’s orders.104 The volume

100 Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 198. 101 Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 25. 102 “. . . juyz plain de malvaises et abusives doctrines et séductions, de tout tendant à l’opinion lutheriaine.” Quoted in Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 198. 103 “. . . ende de spelen die cortelinge gespeelt zyn geweest in onse stadt van Ghendt by de neghentien cameren op ‘t refereyn, ‘t welck den menschen stervende de meesten troost is . . . .” Edict of 22 September 1540. Full text in J. Lameere and H. Simont, eds., Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922), 4: 224-29, here at 226. For comment, see Gary K. Waite, “Reformers on Stage: Rhetorician Drama and Reformation Propaganda in the Netherlands of Charles V, 1519-1556,” ARG, 83 (1992), 209-39, here at 220. 104 Waterschoot takes 1539 as the actual date of the production of one of the editions, while Decavele is convinced of its forged date. See Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 145, and Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 198.

268

continued to be named in lists of forbidden books in the ensuing years. In addition, it

appeared on indices of prohibited books outside the Low Countries, including the index

of Pope Paul IV (1559), the Spanish Inquisitor Fernando Valdes (1559), and the Index of

the (1564).105

As we shall see in the following chapter, such legislation did not succeed in

stemming the proliferation of heterodox rederijker literature entirely, and Charles

continued to battle this form of reformatory writing. In 1543, the rhetorician, Jan

Utenhove, produced a controversial play that was performed in Roborst.106 At the

instigation of Mary of Hungary, the attorney general examined this play and conducted

an investigation into those involved in its performance. Twenty-four people were

arrested in connection with this episode, two of whom were later executed.107 The realization that rederijkers were still active in producing religiously unorthodox pieces drove Mary and Charles to legal action once again. Following the investigation, they promulgated a new ordinance in December 1544, forbidding the printing or sale of books that could be considered contrary to the Catholic faith.108 This ordinance was further

strengthened two years later, in an edict more explicitly involving the work of the

rederijkers, proclaiming that “all books, refrains, ballads, songs, letters, almanacs, or any

105 For details of these prohibitions, see van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 31-32, who notes that the plays remained on these indices throughout the century, until the appearance of the lists composed by Sixtus V and Clemens VIII in 1590 and 1596 respectively. 106 The name and text of the play have been lost to us. For more details on this particular episode, see Decavele, “Jan Utenhove,” and below, Chapter Seven. 107 See Below, Chapter Seven. 108 18 December 1544. See overview provided in Liste Chronologique des Édits et Ordonnances des Pays- Bas: Règne de Charles-Quint (1506-1555) (Brussels: Gobbaerts, 1885), 281.

269 other pieces concerning the Holy Scripture, be they old or new,” had to receive approval from a censor before they could be published.109

Despite the extensive legal measures taken against the rederijkers by the Charles and his officials, the implementation of the laws once again fell to the local magistrates.

Partially because of their reluctance to impose the emperor’s legislation and partially because the rederijkers were resourceful in eluding apprehension, Charles’s edicts again were only partially effective.

IX. ENFORCEMENT AND EVASION

The legislation passed by Charles and Mary in the 1540s primarily affected two groups: rederijkers and the bookmen who printed their works. Although the lack of local enforcement was surely a factor in the limitations of these edicts, those who fell under suspicion of heresy themselves often worked consciously to evade apprehension.

There were several ways in which bookmen could avoid litigation. Often, they changed the title of the work being produced, so that it no longer mirrored exactly that

109 “. . . eenige boecken, refereinen, baladen, liedekens, epistelen, prognosticatien almanacken noch eenige andere zaken oudt ofte nyeuwe van der heyliger Schrifture oft eenige andere materie . . . .” Edict of 30 June 1546. Quoted in Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 43. This legislation was reaffirmed by Mary of Hungary in September 1550. Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 147. After the abdication and death of Charles V, his successor, Philip II intensified his father’s prosecution of the rederijkers. Aided by his own inquisitor, the Duke of Alva (who purportedly had a particular dislike of the Dutch vernacular and its expression by the rhetoricians), Philip issued an edict in 1560 banning all plays, songs, and performances involving religion in any way. In the same year, Philip forbade chambers of rhetoric in Antwerp and the city’s magistrates outlawed pap-gilden, over which they feared they had no control, given their unofficial status. In 1566, Alva dealt the final blow the rederijkers, issuing an outright ban on their activities in this year. For more information see van der Straelen, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Rederykkamers, 170; Waite, Reformers on Stage, 71; Van Dis, Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen, 6; and Guido Marnef, “Rederijkers en religieuze verniewing te Antwerpen in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw,” in Bart Ramakers ed., Conformisten en rebellen. Rederijkerscultuur in de Nederlanden (1400-1650) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003), 174-88.

270

which appeared on the index in which it was proscribed. Similarly, bookmen often

ascribed an earlier date of production to the publication so that they could argue that it

had been issued before the edict or index went into effect. This was the case with the

edition of the Ghent plays.110 Another popular method of evasion was to produce works

under the name of a different publishing house, one that functioned in a part of the

empire not subject to the edicts of Charles.111 Between 1520 and 1540, approximately 40

books were produced in the Low Countries using spurious addresses, often citing cities in

Germany, or the cities of Paris and Basel, as well as imaginary places, such as Utopia.112

Another stipulation of Charles’s edicts was that no book could be produced without the

name of an author listed on the title page. The fact that so many books were printed

anonymously despite the mandates of these placards merely emphasizes the limited

success of the emperor’s program.113 Although many bookmen eventually moved to

safer locales such as London (until the accession of Mary Tudor) and Emden, many

remained in the Low Countries and were able to practice their illicit trade undisturbed.

The small number who were actually tried and punished under the emperor’s later edicts

demonstrates yet further the impotence of these laws.

Charles’s edicts were likewise only partially successful in curtailing the

rhetoricians’ activity. There were no official rederijker competitions in the 1540s, the

Roborst performance mentioned above being unauthorized and rigorously prosecuted by

110 Van Nierop, “Censorship,” 33. 111 Van Nierop, “Censorship,” 32. 112 Maria E. Kronenberg, Verboden Boeken en Opstandige Drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Patria Vaderlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis in Monografieën 44 (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1948), 112-15. 113 Van Nierop, “Censorship,” 33.

271

Mary in 1544. In fact, sanctioned competition among the chambers was postponed all

through the 1540s and 50s and did not resume in earnest until the Antwerp tournament of

1561, which was closely controlled by the central authorities. Although this suggests that

the emperor’s program was somewhat successful, it seems that his legislation had little

effect on the local level. Despite the fact that inter-city competitions were postponed,

there is no indication that performances within the cities were curbed at all. The Antwerp city council continued to call upon the rederijkers to participate in civic festivities, even having them perform during Charles’s visit to the city in 1540 on his return from the

Ghent rebellion.114 From the period between the edicts of the 1540s and the end of his

reign (1555), 26 plays remain extant, surely a small sample of the total production.115 In

addition, there are reports of residents of various cities singing rederijker songs in the

streets through the remainder of Charles’s rule, suggesting that his attempt to quell the

influence of the rederijkers among the general populace failed.116

X. CONCLUSION

It is difficult to decipher the religious preferences of sixteenth-century

rhetoricians in the early period of the Reformation. Their works leave no doubt that they

were influenced to some degree by the ideas of the Reformers, yet some individual

114 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 60. This was unlikely to have been a conscious snub of the emperor since he had not yet issued his edicts against the rederijkers, but it demonstrates the city’s ongoing interest in the work of the chambers. 115 Waite, Reformers on Stage, 165. 116 In the following chapter, we shall consider the fate of two rederijkers tried in Antwerp in the wake of Charles’s 1540 edict. Rederijkers elsewhere were no better able to avoid investigation. Pieter Titelmans, the inquisitor appointed in the province of Flanders during this period, examined five rederijker works suspected of being heretical between 1545 and 1556, suggesting a continuing production of religiously questionable pieces in spite of Charles’s harsh legislative measures. See Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding, 43, and Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers,” 148.

272

rederijkers remained staunch defenders of the Catholic Church even as others went over

to the Reformation. Most, however, fell somewhere in the middle, criticizing the Church

and its doctrinal systems (a small number even criticizing the central authorities and their

religious policies), yet remaining its loyal subjects. This large, middle group defy

categorization as either entirely reformatory or wholly orthodox. For the most part, they

chose to express their zeal for reform from within the mother church, although the ideas

of the Reformation made them more critical of the weaknesses and abuses of the Roman

Church. As playwrights, they satirized their critical observations for a receptive, if not

rebellious popular audience.

The competition at Ghent was a turning point in the relationship between Charles

V and the rederijkers. This event awoke Charles to the dangerous potential of the

rhetoricians in their role as cultural mediators, trained in the chambers to communicate

their complex ideas in a clear, humorous, and compelling fashion. Prior to this they were

bearers of civic pride and promoters of municipal unity, encouraged in their work by city and state alike. Only after the events of 1539 did Charles and his regent realize the explosive potential of their heterodox religious commentary and actively seek to curtail their activities and their access to an eager public audience.

Charles responded by promulgating legislation specific to rederijker productions,

but he experienced mixed success in reining them in. While his 1529 edict had changed

the intellectual agenda of heresy prosecution, introducing the possibility of death penalties for purely intellectual crimes, it remained largely unenforced on the local level.

The edict of 22 September 1540 reaffirmed all that had been contained in the 1529

273 version, adding specific reference to the rederijker works performed at Ghent. Even with the escalation and increased specificity of his edicts, Charles still experienced difficulties in compelling the enforcement of his laws. Local councils continued to invite rederijker chambers to take part in civic rituals and rhetoricians continued to compose literature at an impressive pace. While this suggests some tension between the local government and

Charles’s central administration, the rederijkers themselves contributed to that tension by means of their own machinations and the collusion of their publishers. Using various forms of dissimulation, or hiding from the public in private performances, they managed to dodge the prosecutorial eye of Charles’s administrators and continue to produce and disseminate their literary wares, albeit to a more limited audience. As we shall see in the next chapter, when prosecutions did occur, it was often because Charles or Mary intervened personally in the proceedings.

274

CHAPTER SEVEN

REDERIJKERS AND RELIGIOUS REBELS: HERESY TRIALS IN ANTWERP, 1542-1547

I. INTRODUCTION: REDERIJKER PROSECUTIONS

Despite Charles’s attempts to curtail rederijker activity through the promulgation

of new legislation, there was no immediate escalation in the number of prosecutions

involving rhetoricians. However, two notable exceptions to this rule took place in

Antwerp in the mid-1540s. They are remarkable for several reasons. Both involve

rederijkers prosecuted for participating in the production of scandalous plays. Despite

the fact that their crimes were so similar, one was acquitted without penalty, the other

was executed by the sword. Their cases represent the first trials of rederijkers in the city,

even though Antwerp possessed three chambers, and despite the fact that the 1540 edict

had been in effect for five years already. The difference in the outcome of the two trials was attributable to the direct intervention of Charles and his officials in the central government.

The first trial involved Jacob van Middeldonck, who was initially arrested in the summer of 1542 for his participation in the composition and performance of a heterodox play entitled The Tree of Scripture (Den Boom der Schriftueren).1 Still a youth at the

time, Middeldonck was a member of the Antwerp porridge guild (pap-gild), the Damask

Flower (Damastbloem). Although the play had been banned in every city in which it had

been performed, Middeldonck and his cohorts chose to stage it in Antwerp in June 1542.

1 For a discussion of the play and the events that followed, see Floris Prims, “‘De Boom der Schriftuur’ te Antwerpen,” in Antwerpiensia 13 (1939), 84-91.

275

As factor of the group and alleged author of a new preface that had been appended to the

piece, Middeldonck was arrested immediately thereafter. The city fathers of Antwerp

oversaw this initial phase of the trial, during which the proceedings progressed relatively

slowly. Less than a month after Middeldonck’s arrest, the city found itself on the brink

of invasion by the forces of Martin van Rossem, and Middeldonck’s trial was dropped.2

It is probable that this would have been the end of the legal story of Jacob van

Middeldonck, had not external events intervened. In May 1545, two years after his first trial had been abandoned, the Antwerp officials arrested another rhetorician, raising once more the issue of rederijker heterodoxy and causing the city officials to recall

Middeldonck’s case. The rhetorician accused in this parallel trial was Peter

Schuddemate.

In January of 1545, the Antwerp authorities apprehended Schuddemate, whose trial would last more than two years.3 A schoolmaster originally from Audenarde, he was

an active member of the Olijftak chamber in Antwerp when he was charged in connection

with a play he had allegedly written, entitled The Babel of Vilvoorde (Den Babel van

Vilvoorde),4 as well as a ballad he had composed (another rhetorician piece) that was

abrasively critical of the Franciscans.5 As in the trial of Middeldonck, the Antwerp city

2 See AA, 7: 464-67. 3 For details of the trial see SAA Vierschaar, 145 (MF622430), and Floris Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 8 vols. (Brussels: Uitgeverij Kultuur en Beschaving, 1977-1985), 5: 86. 4 The text of the play is no longer extant. For details of his case, see AA, 8: 330-66 and Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 5: 85. 5 This according to Jacob van Wesembeke, a contemporary of Schuddemate and later pensionary of the Antwerp city council. See Jacob van Wesembeke, Beschryvinghe vanden Staet ende voortganck der Religie in Nederlant ende saeken daerover ontstaen van den Jare 1500 aff ende principalick onder de Regeringhe van Coninck Philips de tweede inde Jaren 1565 ende 1566 (1569; Middelburg: Adriaen vanden Vivere, 1616), 10. Other sources suggest that Schuddemate may also have been involved in a controversial translation of the Bible, but no such accusation appears in the trial documents. See Johan Decavele, “Jan

276

council heard evidence against Schuddemate, examined the works in question, and

interrogated him concerning his involvement. Unlike the case of his younger

contemporary, however, the central government took a keen interest in Schuddemate’s

trial, considerably lengthening the proceeding, and eliciting a much more severe verdict

than in Middeldonck’s case. Schuddemate was executed by the sword on 26 May 1547.

To understand how these two proceedings that appear so similar could yield such

different sentences, it is necessary to consider the extant literature produced by the two

men, and to place their trials in the context of other events in the city that may have

affected their outcomes.

II. THE FIRST TRIAL OF JACOB VAN MIDDELDONCK: JUNE 1542

The brief first phase of Middeldonck’s heresy trial ended without immediate

consequence for the adolescent. Factor of the Damastbloem, he was accused of writing an heretical prologue to the play, The Tree of Scripture, and taking part personally in its performance. Fortunately for Middeldonck, political events intervened, in the form of

Martin van Rossem’s invasion of the city in the same month as his trial. With their attention wholly focused on the threat of van Rossem, the city councilors of Antwerp released Middeldonck in exchange for a sum of bail.6

Utenhove en de opvoering van het zinnespel te Roborst in 1543,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 39-40 (1989-1990), 101-16, here at 113. 6 Z. E. H. Al. de Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” in Handelingen, Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 13 (1959), 23-59, here at 28. The invasion of Martin van Rossem came as a result of Charles V’s political entanglements with Willem, Duke of Cleves, to whom Charles of Egmond had given the territory of in 1538. In the early 1540s, Charles was at war with France, and the French king and Willem planned a simultaneous invasion of the Low Countries. Willem gave command of his armies to Martin van Rossem (also known as Martin

277

At the time the trial was adjourned, the judges in the case had requested, but not yet received, the text of the play for which Middeldonck stood accused. Although

Middeldonck’s prologue has since been lost, the play itself is extant.7 A brief consideration of this text will demonstrate that Middeldonck’s participation in the production represented an undeniable transgression of the 1540 edict and rendered

Middeldonck worthy of incarceration and trial.

de Zwarte), who had fought against the Hollanders as viceroy of Friesland in 1518. He had also taken a group of Antwerp merchants hostage in in 1511, demanding an enormous ransom for their release. His large army (approximately 16,000 strong) was famed for its brutality and disregard for the rules of war. So afraid were the city fathers of van Rossem’s impending invasion that they issued an ordinance in spring of 1542 stating that all foreigners, especially those from the territories of Cleves and Gelders, had to register at the city hall. Foreigners were subject to other restrictions and curfews during this period also. The city made additional preparations for the invasion, including organizing their burghers to man the city walls, and garnering help and support from nearby allies, such as the city of Breda. The extent of the city’s fear regarding van Rossem is evident not only from the enormity of its preparations, but also in terms of the punishments imposed upon those who were suspected of having worked covertly for the forces of van Rossem. One such offender, Reynier Hendericxz., originally of Gelders, was accused in Antwerp in 1549 of having spied for van Rossem’s army. Although Hendericxz. denied the charges and was eventually found not guilty, the city fathers still imposed an internal ban upon him, forcing him to remain within the city walls for a period of three years. Van Rossem entered the city on 24 July 1542. His war in Brabant continued, the cities of Leuven and ’s-Hertogenbosch suffering also, until the return of Charles V later in the year. He fought and defeated van Rossem, ending the affair (after securing Gelders and Zutphen) by signing the Peace of Gelders on 3 October 1543. For information on the invasion of van Rossem, see Frans H. Mertens and Karel L. Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen sedert de stichting der stad tot onze tyden, 8 vols. (1846; Antwerp: C. de Vries-Brouwers, 1975), 4: 58-61, and Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 78-82. For details of the case of Reynier Hendericxz., see SAA, Vierschaar 80, 16 March 1542 (unmarked folios) and SAA Privilegiekamer 271, fols. 62-66. 7 Two copies of the play remain, one of which has been edited and reproduced by Gilles D. J. Schotel, Den Boom der Schritueren van VI personagien, gespeelt tot Middelburch in Zeelant, den eersten Augusto in ‘t Jaer 1539 (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1870). All citations that follow will be taken from this edition, to which I have attributed line numbers, although none are noted in the printed text. See Nijhoff-Kronenberg, Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 5 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1940), 2: 167, # 2549.

278 a. The Tree of Scripture

The anonymous play was written and performed first in Middelburg in Zeeland, by the oldest chamber of rhetoric in that territory, the Flower of Jesse (Bloemeken Jesse).8

In July 1539, just one month after the Ghent competition, the city authorities banned the play.9 Still prior to the emperor’s 1540 edict, the city of Antwerp remained more

permissive than other Brabantine locations, and the authors of The Tree of Scripture

managed to publish the work there later in the same year.10 The publication of the play caused little stir in the community, for prosecutions did not begin until the Damastbloem chamber performed it with a new prologue and some emendations in the names of characters, in June 1542.11

In terms of the religious issues to which it refers, the play is strikingly similar to those performed at Ghent in 1539, although its critique is more forceful than its Ghent predecessors. It is not surprising that the religious criticisms contained in The Tree of

Scripture would mirror those of the Ghent competition, since the two performances occurred in such close chronological proximity and no doubt reflected the concerns of

8 M. J. Blok, “Den Boom der Schriftueren Ghespeelt tot Midelburch in Zeelant, den Eersten Augusto in tJaer 1539: Een Studie van de Theologische Elementen,” in A. Wiggers et al., eds., Rond de Kerk: Zeeland (Delft, Eburon, 1991), 94-105, here at 94. See also Bert Ranke, Rederijkers in de Branding: het Vlaamsche Rederijkerstoneel en de Opstand der XVIe eeuw (Antwerpen: N.V. de Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1941), 28. There has been some speculation that the play may have been written much earlier. J. J. Mak notes that the scriptural citations contained therein appear to be taken from the Liesvelt Bible of 1526 or the Vorsterman Bible of 1528, therefore suggesting a much earlier origin. See Blok, “Den Boom der Schriftueren,” 94, and Lode Roose, Anna Bijns: Een Rederijkster uit de Hervormingstijd, Bekroonde werken 93 (Gent: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, 1963), 26, referring to Jacobus J. Mak, Uyt Ionsten Versaemt (Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1957), 154-55. 9 Werner Waterschoot, “De rederijkerskamers en de doorbraak van de reformatie in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden,” in Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 45- 46 (1995-1996), 141-53, here at 146. 10 Prims suggests that it might have been published by Nicholas van Oldenborch. See idem, “’De Boom der Schriftuur,’” 84. 11 De Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” 28.

279

that period. The theological content of the play remains, like all rederijker productions, a

matter of debate among historians. Some argue that, despite the intensity of its

anticlericalism, the play forges something of a middle way, insisting that it contains no

direct condemnation of the Church itself.12 Most historians, however, concur that the

play must be considered largely reformatory.13

The Tree of Scripture takes as its starting point the inner conflict of the main

character, Everyone Individually (Elck Besonder),14 a , desperately trying to live as a

loyal follower of her savior. Christ, represented by the character Medicine of the Soul

(Medecyn der Sielen), reassures her, quoting Matthew 11, that all she need do is follow

him, for his yoke is easy and his burden light. Medicine of the Soul then leaves the

protagonist alone in a garden under the Tree of Scripture, telling her that so long as she

remains under its protective cover, she will fare well until his return. By the end of this

first scene, the characters in the play are clear, as is the implicit focus on a Christocentric

salvific formulation, reliant upon Scripture. Three dark characters then enter the play.

Their leader, named Human Learning (Menschelycke Leeringhe), is presented as the

Devil. His two helpers, Own Wisdom (Eyghen Wijsheyt) and Natural Desire

(Natuerlycke Begheerte), both of whom represent clerics, are portrayed as demons,

Human Learning’s fellow workers of evil. Their task is to lure Everyone Individually

12 Historians such as de Maeyer fall into this category. Van Mierlo believes, as he does with the Ghent plays, that Den Boom appears heretical only in retrospect. See de Maeyer, “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” 31. 13 Some have suggested that it contains Erasmian influences, although Enno van Gelder dismisses this contention, asserting that the author of the piece had little knowledge of Erasmus, but rather, reflects the teachings of Luther far more closely, particularly in the play’s discussion of the themes of grace and the clergy. Van Dis and Drewes agree with this assessment. For an overview of this discussion, see Blok, “Den Boom der Schriftueren,” 100. 14 The literal translation is “Every one particularly.” By choosing this name, the author of the play indicates that the character represents all of humankind, but also each person as an individual.

280

away from the Tree of Scripture and sway her from her devotion to Christ. Although

they are initially successful (Natural Desire informs the audience that it is an easy task to

lead a woman astray!),15 Everyone Individually’s salvation is recovered by Medicine of

the Soul, who returns with his helper Faith (Gheloove), and instructs Everyone

Individually to abandon the good works, human learning, idolatry, and other distractions

that her devilish companions have taught her. At the end of the play, Medicine of the

Soul appears hanging on the cross, reminding Everyone Individually that his death has

covered her sins.

As is apparent even from this brief overview, the play addresses many of the

topics common to the plays of Ghent. Three themes that emerge as the most important

are the criticism of the clergy, the inefficacy of good works, and the importance of

Scripture (particularly in its vernacular form). The Tree of Scripture goes further in its anticlerical critique than previous rederijker works, by actually portraying the clergy as devils. The author uses oblique demonic references to describe the leading evil character,

Human Learning, saying that he is the king of the world, and even the antichrist.16 At various points in the play, the “good” characters lament, and the “evil” characters celebrate the idolatry, simony, hypocrisy, foolish devotion, and misplaced reverence in the Church.17 At times, the anticlericalism takes a more pointed tone, as clerics are

specifically named as vassals of Human Learning, who has already been identified as the

antichrist:

15 “Een vrouwe te verleedene op dit termijn, / Dats voor mi eenen cleynen arbeyt.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 9: 169-70. 16 Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 22: 430 and 35: 736 respectively. Further examples of insinuations that Human Learning represents the devil can be found at lines 124, 385-88, and 413-22. 17 See especially, Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 25: 483-84, 28-29: 559-77 and 35: 736-65.

281

Natural Desire [to Human Learning]: Oh most terrible fear in all the world Those who doubt your power must die, Like weakness confronted by steel. Pope, Cardinals, Without a care, are no more than vassals Of your radiant power.18

Even Jesus himself, as Medicine of the Soul, is directly critical of the clergy.

Again he names popes, cardinals, and legates, asserting that there are “a few good ones, most bad.” He warns Everyone Individually to flee them and their hypocrisy.19 The same character also criticizes the “sophistic learning” of the clergy (later specified to consist of works by writers such as Aquinas, Aristotle, and Scotus),20 which he claims is used by these “false prophets” to lead his followers astray:

Medicine of the Soul: So practice the false prophets, because They lead my sheep in every direction, Through the sophistic logic that they use . . . . They think that by these means they exalt And praise me, but their celebrated actions, that they greatly prize, Actually work to my condemnation.21

18 “Natuurlycke Begeerte: O opperste vreese, in t swerelts palen, Die u macht wil doen dwalen, die moet falen, Als t’sochste voer stalen. Paus, Cardinalen, Met corter talen, ten zijn maer vassalen Uwer moghender stralen.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 8: 130-34. 19 Medecijn der Sielen: “Ist Prelaet, Potestaet, Legaet, Die sulcke daet defendeert, tis quaet, Ypocrytich raet, seer obstinaet, De sulcke afghaet, . . . so dat menich Prelaet, Oft Potestaet, Paus, Cardinael, Legaet alsac nasaet, Minst goet, meest quaet, so wie versmaet mijn woort en daet, U van sulcx ontslaet, t is ypocrytich raet . . . .” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 6: 84-87, 89- 92. 20 Namely, “Aristoteles, Ovidius . . . Virgilius, Plato en Thomas Daquino De Lyra, Scotum, Donatianum . . . .” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 9: 163-65. 21 “Medecyn der Sielen: So wijlen pleghen valsche propheeten, want Si verleyden mijn schapen aen elcken cant, Door t sophistich verstant dat si useren. . . . Hem dunct, dat si my daerin exalteren En glorieren, maer haer iubileren, dat si extimeren,

282

Such bold descriptions offer little camouflage behind which the author might hide.

Taken as a whole, his condemnation of the clergy extends beyond the abuses perpetrated

by individual clerics to a description of the office itself as corrupt and hypocritical, the

members of which ultimately hurt the cause Christ, all the while believing that they do

well.

The author of the play is no less critical of the notion of self-sufficient good

works. While in the company of the evil characters, Natural Desire and Own Wisdom,

Everyone Individually admires their attire and asks what such fine clothing is called.

Own Wisdom tells her that the clothes are called “Boasting of good works.”22 Later, when Medicine of the Soul and his helper, Faith, have rescued Everyone Individually from the evil characters, Everyone Individually asks what clothing she will need in order to return to the garden, and is told by Faith that such externalities are unimportant. Only faith is necessary. In a passage closely reminiscent of one presented by the Antwerp chamber in the Ghent competition,23 Faith responds:

What false clothing did Abraham wear? His salvation lay in his faith. But you have been purified in Christ’s blood, He is your savior. He has purchased your salvation. Put on then complete trust in him, [which is sufficient] and you will be ready To follow Christ.24

Doetse my condempneren.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 4-5: 41-44, 47-49. 22 “T beroemen van deuchdelike wercken.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 13: 259. 23 Quoted above, Chapter Six, p. 28. 24 “Gheloove: Wat geconterfeyte cleeren heeft Abraham gedreghen? Int geloove was hem zijn salicheyt ghelegen. Mer ghi sijt in Christus bloet suuer gedwegen, Hi is u versoeninge, hi heeft u salicheit vercregen. Trect volmaecht betrouwen aen, en sijt ghenegen, Christus bloote woorden te volgen naer.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 38: 804-09.

283

The playwright’s final blast against good works comes later in the same conversation.

Everyone Individually continues to insist that her good works earned her salvation. With

each assertion, Faith assures her at greater length that, on the contrary, only faith in God

is necessary. After continued protestations, Faith explains the futility of Everyone

Individually’s reliance on good works:

Can Moses’s law, given by the hand of the Lord Do anything more than reveal the knowledge of sin? I shall say it again, how could human law Provide salvation for anyone on earth? Were it not so, then [Christ’s] death would not benefit us at all.25

The author’s message is clear: there is no salvation to be found in human works, and those who possess true faith (Gheloove) know that it is so. Only those misguided by the

“false prophets” of the church would fail to recognize that salvation comes only through faith. How does a person then develop this faith? The play is explicit in its direction on this issue also. The title itself offers one answer. Moreover, Medicine of the Soul pointedly instructs Everyone Individually in the opening scene that to maintain her faith she must only follow the Word and the law, contained in the book of Scripture she was holding in her hand.26 A few lines later, Everyone Individually rejoices that Medicine of

the Soul has finally given her the Scripture in her own language so that she is no longer in

25 “Gheloove: Moyses wet, by tsheeren hant ontbonden, Heeft si meer connen maken dan kennisse der sonden? Hoe sal dan eens menschen regele, ic bens verhalich, Yemant ter weerelt mueghen maken salich? Anders en ware sijn dood ons niet profitelijck.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 39: 824-28. 26 “Om mijn woort tonthoudene, so sijt ghenegen / Siet daer mijn woort en wet al in u hant.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 4: 39-40.

284

danger of being lost.27 The implication is clear: as long as the Bible remained in Latin,

“false prophets” among the clergy could lead innocent believers astray. Only with the

translations of the Bible into vernacular languages are the laity now able to protect

themselves and ensure their salvation.

Although none of these themes are new to rederijker plays, they are here more

vigorously explicated than previously. If any doubt were left as to the religious

orientation of the playwright, it is dispelled in a passage late in the play, in which he

introduces the notion of the German Doctors (the Reformers) in a conversation with the

evil character, Human Learning. Human Learning asks Faith if she is one of the German

Doctors and, in an oblique reference to the religious policy of the emperor, says that he

would have had her killed or banished had this been the case: “Are you also one of the

German doctors / In my towers, whom I burn and kill / Or behead . . . .”28

The anticlerical tone of this play is so strong that it is overtly reformatory. It is difficult to paint its denunciation of the pope and cardinals as demons, as nothing more than an anticlerical device. According to the terms of Charles’s edict of 1540, this play undoubtedly fell into the category of intellectual heresy, now punishable by death. It openly discussed religious themes, an activity explicitly banned by the terms of the edict.

Although those who performed the play in its original version of 1539 might have argued

that they were not liable to be tried for heresy, such an position becomes decidedly more

difficult to maintain in the case of Jacob van Middeldonck three years later, after the

27 “En nu u woort in mijns moeders tale gesonden, / Omdat ic my ni en sou laten verleeden oft verwinnen.” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 7: 106-07. 28 “Sy dy oock een van die duytsche doctoren, / In mijnen thoren, doe ic branden en versmoren, / Oft onthalsen . . . .” Schotel, Den Boom der Schriftueren, 34: 706-09.

285

1540 edict had gone into effect. As an organizer and participant in this production, the authorities in Antwerp had no choice but to arrest him and try him for heresy.

III. THE SECOND TRIAL OF JACOB VAN MIDDELDONCK

On 2 May 1545, the Antwerp authorities recalled the case of Jacob van

Middeldonck and demanded to see the play of which he had spoken in his earlier testimony.29 Middeldonck gave the judges a copy of The Tree of Scripture on 26 June.

The judges also ordered him to write down his own version of events, which he did later in the same month. Witnesses were summoned to speak on Middeldonck’s behalf, and the case was postponed several times to provide the judges time to read the relevant documents. The trial lasted for almost one year, delayed sporadically by the sickness or absence of certain key members of the court. Finally, on 7 May 1546, the judges ruled.

Acquitted of the charge of heresy, Middeldonck was released without penalty, save payment of the court costs amassed during the trial.30

It is difficult to believe that Middeldonck could escape so easily, given the content of the play in relation to Charles’s placard of 1540. Having staged the play in summer of

1542, Middeldonck clearly violated imperial legislation. The records of the accusations leveled by the prosecution, and the rebuttal issued by Middeldonck’s lawyer cast some light on this outcome.

The prosecution based its case on the terms of the emperor’s edict. They alleged that Middeldonck, as head or factor of the Damastbloem porridge guild had produced this

29 For details of this phase of the trial, see AA, 8: 346-62. 30 For Middeldonck’s sentence, see AA, 8: 359-62.

286

play and performed in it, knowing that it had previously been condemned as heretical

after a performance in Middelburg. Moreover, Middeldonck had changed the names of

some of the characters to conceal the fact that it was the same piece, but there was no

doubt that the two were identical. The prosecution further charged Middeldonck with

writing or reading aloud a new prologue to the piece, which also “smacked of heresy.”31

After determining that the play was heretical and that Middeldonck had had a leading role in its production, the prosecutor declared that Middeldonck had transgressed the placards of the emperor and should be punished, “either with death by the sword, the scaffold, or by branding, banishment, confiscation of goods, or whatever other punishment, legislated by the edicts is determined to be fitting.”32

Once the play had been categorized as heretical, Middeldonck could no longer

base his defense on an appeal to the innocence of the text. Via his lawyer, he responded

to the charges first, admitting that he had been involved in the production of his play

(although he denied having held the position of factor of the pap-gild), but insisting that,

as a boy of only fifteen or sixteen at the time of the performance, he “did not understand

the Holy Scriptures, on account of his youth.”33 He conceded that he had read but not

written the prologue. He refuted the claim that it had come from his own hand, arguing

31 “. . . smakende heresie, contrarie onsen Heylighen kersten geloove ende inseten der Heyliger Roomscher Kercken.” AA, 8: 360. 32 “. . . metten zweerde, ter doot, met scavotteringhe, metten brande int aensichte, metten banne, verbeurte van zynen goeden oft met alsucken correctie als men, nae vuytwysen den voirs. placcaten, soude nae recht vinden behoorende . . . .” AA, 8: 360-61. 33 “. . . gemerct dat hy verweerdere alsdoen over de XV oft XVI jaren, ombegrepen, nyet oudt en was, soe dat hy hem der Heylighter Scriftueren nyet en verstonde, mids zynre jonckheyt.” AA, 8: 361. There was some precedent for leniency on the basis of age. For example, this was one grounds on which official pardons could be granted for crimes such as murder. See Hugo de Schepper, “Entre compromis et répression: inquisition et clémence aux Pays-Bas sous Charles Quint,” in Guy le Thiec and Alain Tallon, eds., Charles Quint face aux réformes: colloque international organisé par le Centre d’histoire des réformes et du protestantisme (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005), 159-77, here at 170.

287 that he had not understood a word of its content. Furthermore, Middeldonck maintained that the play was sold openly in Antwerp, suggesting, he argued, to him that it was not a prohibited text. He insisted on the strength of his orthodox Christian faith, maintaining that he obeyed all of the laws of the Church, attended confession and communion regularly, and was therefore beyond blame.

It remains a matter of conjecture whether Middeldonck’s defense contained any truth. Certainly he exaggerated his stature as a simple youth, uneducated in matters of

Scripture. Such a character would have been unlikely to join a pap-gild, generally the preserve of would-be intellectuals bent on honing their skills in rhetoric and persuasion.

What is clear is that, according to the 1540 edict, his involvement in the production of this play should have cost him his life. Instead, the court accepted his defense and ruled in his favor, despite the explicit provision of the edict under which he was charged.34

The most plausible explanation for the leniency of the Antwerp court was their continued reluctance to condemn citizens accused of heresy. There is no indication that the central government took any interest in the proceeding, thereby enabling the Antwerp court to rule generously, as was their wont. Unfortunately for Peter Schuddemate, changed circumstances dictated that they would be unable to exercise such judicial freedom in his trial.

34 Gary Waite erroneously asserts that Middeldonck was also ordered to undertake a pilgrimage to Russemadouwe. See Gary K. Waite, Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515-1556 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 71, note 109. He cites Génard, AA, 8: 360, but there is no such verdict to be found in these records. His error is apparently due to a misreading of a table, constructed by Génard, listing chronologically those accused of heresy in these years and the punishments they received. Nicolas Blanck, listed beneath Middeldonck in this table, was indeed sent on a pilgrimage to Russemadouwe. See AA, 14: 16.

288

IV. THE TRIAL OF PETER SCHUDDEMATE

Born in Audenarde in Flanders, Schuddemate worked as a teacher and was involved in two of the city’s rhetorician chambers, the Daisy (Kersouwieren) and Your

Peace (Pax Vobianen).35 In 1532 the Audenarde administrators charged him with heresy for his alleged involvement in what authorities considered a scandalous play. Details of the play and of the legal proceeding itself have been lost,36 but as a result of the trial, he left Audenarde and moved to Antwerp, where he registered with the guild of schoolmasters the following year.37 Schuddemate transferred his official citizenship to the city, becoming a burgher in October 1533.38 He also established close ties with the large community of rhetoricians in Antwerp, joining the city’s most prestigious chamber, the Violieren, while maintaining some involvement with the Olijftak chamber as well.39

The trial itself was long and protracted. Schuddemate was accused of writing several heretical works, including a play entitled The Babel of Vilvoorde (Den Babel van

Vilvoorden), as well as a scandalous ballad, neither of which are extant. In addition,

there was some suggestion that he had used heterodox refrains (possibly also self-

35 Johan Decavele, De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520-1565), Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 37 (Brussel: Paleis der Academië, 1975), 1: 206. 36 Decavele, De Dageraad, 1: 206 cites RAG, Varia D, 3028, fols. 150v-51 for the little archival information that remains concerning the case. 37 SAA, Gilden en Ambachten, A4528, fol. 24v. The records of the guild show that members met several times each year and absences were duly noted and punished. Schuddemate’s name never appears in this capacity, suggesting that he attended all required meetings and to that extent, was an active member of the guild. SAA, Gilden en Ambachten, A4528, fols. 24v-60. 38 Henry L. V. de Groote, “De Zestiende-Eeuwse Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” in Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis inzonderheid van het oud Hertogdom Brabant, 3rd edition, 50 (1967), 179-318, here at 302. 39 Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 85. He achieved sufficient renown in these capacities to be lauded by one chronicler as a “fray Rethoriseer.” See F. G. Ullens, Antwerpsch Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574...naar deszelfs aldaar ontdekte Handschrift, voor de eerstemaal in’t licht gebracht, Pieter vander Eyk, ed. (Leiden: n.p., 1743), 47.

289

composed) in his classroom.40 Schuddemate was somewhat reluctant to hand over

certain documents, which drew out the proceedings for several months. The court

demanded to see a copy of the play already in February 1545, but Schuddemate did not

produce the text until August of the following year. His two lawyers further prolonged

events, waiting for character references from Audenarde, which never materialized.41

The Antwerp authorities extended every courtesy to Schuddemate and his lawyers, acquiescing to all their requests and apparently working with them to slow down the pace of the trial.

For the Antwerp high court to function, at least nine city aldermen (scepenen) had to be present. When fewer than nine were in attendance, all the day’s cases were postponed. It therefore became common practice for the aldermen to feign illness and force a delay when they felt that a trial was becoming too impassioned, or when they wished to stall the prosecutor.42 The city council employed this ruse on five occasions

during the second trial of Jacob van Middeldonck. In Schuddemate’s case, they relied

upon it far more frequently, the aldermen finding themselves “sick” or otherwise

indisposed no less than twenty-four times.43 But despite its length and sluggish progress,

the trial ended very abruptly. The record breaks off and a verdict simply appears: the

40 Guido Marnef, “Rederijkers en religieuze verniewing te Antwerpen in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw,” in Bart Ramakers ed., Conformisten en rebellen. Rederijkerscultuur in de Nederlanden (1400- 1650) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003), 174-88. 41 For documentation of these requests, see AA, 8: 333-35. 42 Wim Meewis, De Vierschaar: De Criminele Rechtspraak in het Oude Antwerpen (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 1992), 84. 43 For records of Middeldonck’s trial in this regard, see AA, 8: 358-59. For Schuddemate, see AA, 8: 346- 47, 366-73.

290

court found Schuddemate guilty of a capital offense. The marginal remark, “Executio

Facta,” confirms that the death penalty was carried out.44

The court records themselves contain little evidence to explain the outcome of

Schuddemate’s trial. Although The Babel of Vilvoorde has not survived, it is hard to imagine that it was significantly more heretical than The Tree of Scripture, and yet the

Antwerp authorities managed to acquit Middeldonck. Why then was Schuddemate’s sentence so severe? A number of factors could have worked against him in the trial.

First, because he was significantly older than Middeldonck, he was unable to construct a defense based on youthful ignorance. Likewise, his prior conviction for a similar offense related to heresy during his time in Audenarde could very well have cast a shadow over the proceedings. It is notable, however, that this prior trial was nowhere mentioned in the

Antwerp court documents, suggesting that it did not play a significant role in the minds of the ruling magistrates. It is also possible that his position as a school teacher did not help his cause. Schuddemate had access to many of Antwerp’s young residents. He could

(and, it appears, did) use his position of authority to spread his heterodox message in the classroom. Even this fact, however, is unlikely to have been the reason that the court came down on him so harshly, for despite the fact that several of Charles’s anti-heresy edicts contained clauses relating to teachers, there was precedent in Antwerp for the city council to issue mild sentences. In 1535, two other Antwerp schoolteachers, Franchoyse de Penyn and his wife, were arrested on heresy charges. Heretical books had been found

44 Financial records of the execution are found in ARA, Rekenkamer, 19669, fol. 2v. This document contains a marginal comment that reads: “. . . affirmatie: Van Meester Peeter Schuddematte van Oudenaerden / die over midts zynder quader secten ende opinie opten / xxvien dach van mey xvc xlvij alhier tantwerpen / geexecuteert is geweest. Ende egeene goeden / achtergelaten en heeft daerom hier – Nyet.”

291 in their home, and they were known to have housed a convicted heretic, both crimes punishable by death. Their defense was merely that they were “good Christian people” and that, as teachers, they necessarily had many books in their house. After a short trial, the Penyn couple – who not only possessed heretical works, but apparently used them as teaching aids – went free.45

Another factor possibly militating against Schuddemate was the fact that he was not originally from the city of Antwerp and may have been seen as an outsider by the court, and judged prejudicially on that basis. This too, seems highly improbable. By the time of his incarceration, Schuddemate had lived in the city of Antwerp for almost twelve years. During that time, he had become a legal citizen and had moved three times, finally residing on the Kammerstraat, a highly regarded area of the city center.46 He was also accepted into the guild of schoolteachers, where he appears to have served loyally and without attracting negative attention. Many teachers relocated to Antwerp in the mid-

1530s, as the city experienced a surge in the number of school children that was unmatched by the number of educators available to work with them.47 His was thus a welcome and not unusual appearance in the city, and it seems doubtful that the city fathers would have viewed him with a greater degree of suspicion because of it. Finally,

45 28 August 1535. For details of the case, see AA, 7: 290-310. The couple was accused of having housed a heretic named Chartroys, who was arrested in Antwerp in January of the same year. 46 De Groote, “De Zestiende-Eeuwse Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” 302. His previous residences were on the Koepoort (until 1537) and the Begijnstraat (until 1542). An Kint produced an assessment of residential patterns in Antwerp, suggesting that residents chose their location based on occupation rather than place of origin. She further concludes that these central areas of the town housed Antwerp’s more affluent burghers, while those in need of poor relief tended to live outside the limits of the original city walls. See Kint, The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp (Diss., Columbia University, 1996), 111-46. 47 De Groote notes that, as the economic prosperity of the city increased during this period, so “. . . kwamen veel vreemde schoolmeesters hun beroep in Antwerpen uitoefenen.” De Groote, “De Zestiende-Eeuwse Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” 185.

292 in his twelve years in Antwerp, Schuddemate had managed to find a place for himself in both the Violieren and Olijftak chambers of rhetoric. As noted above, these were the two oldest and most prestigious chambers in the city, and membership in them was a privilege granted to only the most valued members of Antwerp’s literary community. That

Schuddemate found his way into both of these organizations suggests that, far from being viewed as an interloper, he was actually well-integrated into city life and well-esteemed by his peers in the town.

If none of these personal factors concerning Schuddemate led to the severity with which he was treated, why did the Antwerp city council sentence him so much more harshly than Middeldonck, for an apparently similar crime? Certain extant court documents suggest that the central authorities, under the leadership of Mary of Hungary, intervened in Schuddemate’s trial.

One clue is contained in the court’s decision to torture Schuddemate. According to the privileges of Antwerp, in order for a citizen to be tortured, he first had to undergo a process of “ontpoortering” or denaturalization, whereby his rights as a burgher were revoked.48 This was performed by the Antwerp Broad Council49 and in Schuddemate’s case, a somewhat exceptional document has survived. It is a letter, written by the Broad

Council, in response to the attorney general, who had made two requests: that

Schuddemate be ontpoortered to facilitate his torture, and that the remainder of the trial

48 Meewis, De Vierschaar, 79. 49 Composed of the burgomaster, aldermen, and representatives of the burghers and guilds of the city. Meewis, De Vierschaar, 79.

293

be transferred to him, the attorney general, to be concluded in the Court of Brabant.50 In

other words, the attorney general wanted the trial to be taken away from the local court

and removed to the court of the central administration.

Antwerp’s Broad Council was initially reluctant to denaturalize Schuddemate,

deliberating for six months before finally assenting to both of the attorney general’s

requests.51 In the letter of consent that was eventually sent to the attorney general, the

Broad Council outlined their concerns and placed several conditions upon their

agreement to revoke Schuddemate’s citizenship. Their concerns were three-fold, involving Schuddemate’s relationships with his students, their parents, and his fellow- rederijkers. First, the councilors feared that, since Schuddemate was a schoolteacher, he might falsely accuse some of his students of heresy while suffering the pains of torture.

They agreed to allow Schuddemate’s torture only on the condition that the central authorities disregard such accusations:

. . . we require that, should Master Peter make such accusations against his students or pupils, no one should harass the said students, nor should his comments lead to the indictment or denunciation of the same. Rather, any comments concerning these students should not be allowed to bring any prejudice against them.52

50 Floris Prims contends that the impetus to have the trial turned over the attorney general and the Council of Brabant came initially from Mary of Hungary, although the extant documentation is not explicit in this regard. See Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 85. 51 They feared that Schuddemate might make accusations against other burghers while under torture. Such fear was well-founded. Only three months earlier, Germain Bousseraille was accused of heresy and tortured during his trial. During the course of his suffering, Bousseraille spat out the names of numerous accomplices in Antwerp, most of whom were immediately arrested, tried, and executed. It is not surprising that the Antwerp magistracy would be loathe to allow Schuddemate to do the same. For more on the trial of Bousseraille and his Loyist accomplices, see below. 52 “. . . dat doer die accusatie vanden selven Meesteren Peteren alleene men den voirs. jonghers oft discipulen nyet en soude yet te laste leggen oft deselve inculperen oft diffameren, maer dat syne declaratie denselven jongers nyet en soude moeghen prejudiceren.” Comments of the Broad Council, 7 November 1545. Transcribed in AA, 8: 373-75, note 1, here at 373.

294

The council’s second fear involved accusations that could arise concerning the

parents of these same students. They explained that it was quite possible that

Schuddemate had given to his students materials that would be considered suspect by the

authorities. Were such materials to be found in the houses of these families, they

demanded that it not be held against the parents since they had not bought these items

themselves and quite possibly had no idea what was contained in them.53 Likewise, it

was possible that some parents had developed friendships with Schuddemate, in his

capacity as a teacher of their children. The council further insisted that such relationships

not be used as evidence against these burghers unless the attorney general was able to

find substantial independent evidence to corroborate his charges.54

The third fear of the Broad Council concerned Schuddemate’s involvement in the

city’s rederijker chambers. They explained to the attorney general that it was the nature

of rhetoricians to write songs, poetry, and plays, and to keep copies of their own creations

for possible use in future events. They therefore cautioned the central authorities that, should they find such writings in the home of Schuddemate, they must be attributed only to Schuddemate himself. Other members of the chambers should not come under

53 “Item want de jonghers die voer den voirs. Meesteren Peteren ter scholen gegaen ende leeren scriven habben, diverse materien gehadt hebben om nae te scriven, hen byden voirs. Meesteren Peteren voergegeven, dat de kinderen oick diverse cladden oft refereynen (dier aldaer bevonden moeghen geweest syn,) moeghen hebben onderlinghe vuyte gescreven ende by avonturen heuren ouders (ende anderen goeden borgheren thuys gedragen moegen hebben, die die souden moeghen hebben gelesen oft vanden welcken eenighe alnoch onder de kinderen inder goeder lieder huysen souden moegen berustende syn, sonder wete vanden goeden borgeren.” Ibid., 373-74. 54 “. . . sonder yerst volcomen informatie genomen ende bevonden soude wesen den rechte genoch synde de voirs. geaccuseerde te inculperene. . . .” Ibid., 374.

295

suspicion of heresy based on Schuddemate’s testimony, unless independent evidence

presented itself.55

Only when the central authorities assured the Broad Council that these demands

would be honored did the members of the council, on behalf of the citizenry of Antwerp,

agree to the denaturalization and subsequent torture of the defendant:

The Broad Council of this city (in the case of the ontpoortering of Master Peter) has received promises and assurance on the foregoing points and conditions. On the basis of this assurance the residents of the city have given their consent to this ontpoortering. Without such assurance, their consent is not given.56

Having thus received the necessary guarantees from the attorney general, the

Antwerp court carried out his first request. Schuddemate was duly ontpoortered and

tortured. However, the attorney general did not follow through on his second demand,

namely, that the case be transferred to Brussels. Schuddemate was executed not in

Brussels but in Antwerp, and the execution was paid for by the Antwerp court rather than

the central government.57

It seems, in fact, that a deal was struck between the two authorities. For some

reason, the administrators in Brussels took a keen interest in Schuddemate’s case. The

55 “. . . dat men oick om sulcke reereynen, spelen, battementen oft balladen nyemande diffimeren, inculperen oft laten beschamen en soude, al waert dat doer dbekennen oft verclaren desselfs Meesters Peters eenighe mochten bevonden worden, sonder anderssins yerst volcomen informatie daerop genomen te syne als voere . . . .” Ibid., 375. 56 “Ende want men den Breeden-Raide deser stadt (voer het ontporteren vanden voirs. Meesteren Peteren,) dese voirs. punten ende diergelycke heeft geloeft ende toegeseegt gehadt, op welck toeseggen de Leden vander stadt alleene hebben geconsenteert int ontporteren vanden voirs. Meesteren Peteren ende anders nyet.” Ibid., 375. 57 Floris Prims assumed that the execution took place in Brussels. He denied than any record of the event was contained in the documentation of the Antwerp court, and no one seems to have refuted this claim. However, a record of the payment does indeed appear in the account book of the Antwerp prosecutor, Willem vanden Werve. It seems that the confusion arose from a misfiling of vanden Werve’s documents, but I recently located the accounts in the Algemeen Rijksarchief in Brussels. The financial records of the execution can be found in ARA, Rekenkamer, 19669, fol. 2v.

296 attorney general made what was tantamount to a threat to the Antwerp court, by requesting that the case be transferred to him. He was warning the Antwerp court that if they were not willing to exercise the full extent of the law in this trial, he would do so himself. Although he did not follow through on this threat, his intervention was sufficient to achieve its goal. The reluctant Antwerp court did adhere to the letter of the edicts, which in Schuddemate’s case, legislated death.

The unusual circumstances of this concluding chapter in Schuddemate’s trial raise the questions: Why did the Attorney General choose to intervene in this particular instance? Did Middeldonck escape such close scrutiny only by chronological happenstance? Were there others who fell under the surveillance of the central administration at this same time? If so, why?

V. INTERVENTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The head prosecutor (schout) of the Antwerp high court at the time of

Middeldonck and Schuddemate’s trials was Willem vanden Werve. He held this position from 1531 to 1550, when Jan van Schoonhoven replaced him.58 During vanden Werve’s tenure, thirty people were executed for crimes of heresy. Half of them were Anabaptists, who were persecuted in relatively high numbers after the revolt of Münster in 1534. Of the remaining executions, only six were for book-related offenses. Three of these trials took place in the early 1530s and the remaining three in the 1540s (one of which was the execution of Schuddemate in 1547).

58 Paul Génard includes a list of all Antwerp city councilors for each year in his transcription of the high court documents of the city. For this period, see AA, 7 and 8.

297

The 1530s was a time of heightened vigilance with regard to crimes of heresy.

This resulted in part from the proliferation of Anabaptist thought, and was exacerbated

after the uprising of Münster in 1534. In the wake of this event, the Anabaptists were

viewed with suspicion by governing bodies throughout western Europe, on the local as

well as state level. This was no less the case in Antwerp, where fifteen Anabaptists were

executed between 1531 and 1540. This period also saw an intensification in heresy

prosecution because of the edict of October 1529, which extended the use of the death

penalty to include crimes involving books and thought.59 Between 1531 and 1536, seven

people were brought up on book-related heresy charges in the city of Antwerp. However,

despite the fact that some of their crimes appear to have blatantly contravened the edicts

of the emperor, two of them managed to escape entirely unharmed.60 The other two trials

involved Wouteren Verlinden, a bookseller, and Outgheert Janssens, a printer, and took

place in 1534 and 1536 respectively. The court found Verlinden in possession of

Lutheran books, a crime which carried the possibility of the death penalty after 1529. He

was, however, merely banned for an unspecified length of time.61 Janssens, who

ostensibly posed more of a problem to the city in his position as a publisher of books, was

released without penalty on 15 April 1536, receiving such gracious treatment, the court records declare, simply because his trial fell on Good Friday!62 The recipient of a series

59 See above, Chapters Two and Six. 60 Namely Franchoyse Penyn and his wife, whose case was discussed above. 61 AA, 7: 290. 62 “Obtinuit (mids den heyligen tydt ende den goeden dach van heden, wesende Goet Vridach) graciam suorum delictorum.” AA, 7: 392. Janssens’s name also appears in this list of printers contained in Anne Rouzet, Dictionnaire des Imprimeurs, Libraires et Éditeurs des Xve et XVIe Siècles dans les Limites Géographiques de la Belgique Actuelle, Collection du Centre National de L’Archéologie et de L’Histoire du Livre 3 (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1975), 104.

298 of equally beneficent sentences from the Antwerp city court was the publisher, Adriaen van Berghen. Knowing him to have produced scores of heterodox works in the 1520s and 1530s (without disguising his work by falsifying the data on his title pages), the

Antwerp city council incarcerated van Berghen at least five times between 1523 and

1536. Each time, despite weighty evidence against him, he was released with no more than minor punishments.63

As is apparent from the details of these cases, the magistracy of Antwerp, under the prosecutorial reign of vanden Werve, managed to mete out a series of patently liberal sentences to those accused of book crimes in the early 1530s. Two exceptions were the trials of Bernaert Hoze and Jan Verschueren, two artisans tried for possession of heretical books in 1533. Little evidence remains pertaining to these cases, but both men were sentenced, after short trials, to execution by the sword.64 It is difficult to reconcile the severity of their treatment to the leniency with which Verlinden, Janssens, van Berghen, and the Penyn couple were treated in the same period. On the basis of the little

63 With the exception of the 1536 trial at the end of which he was banned from the city and sent on a pilgrimage to Nicosia in Cyprus. For an account of Adriaen van Berghen’s life, see Rouzet, Dictionnaire des Imprimeurs, 12-13. Documentation of his Antwerp trials is transcribed in AA, 7: 125, 290-303, 323, 328, 345-46, 354, 363-67, 372-79. Following his banishment from Antwerp, van Berghen sought refuge in the northern territories, living in various cities, including Schoonhoven, Rotterdam, the Hague, and Delft. His press in Antwerp continued to operate, publishing more heterodox works, including a Dutch New Testament in 1541. Van Berghen eventually came under scrutiny for his illicit publishing activity after a stash of heretical books published by him were discovered in Delft. The local magistracy of the town issued an extremely light sentence, but hearing of their clemency, the Council of Holland (a judicial body equivalent to the Council of Brabant) took over the case, repealed the local court’s decision, and condemned him to death by decapitation on 2 October 1542. For information on van Berghen, see Henk F. K. van Nierop, “Censorship, Illicit Printing and the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to be Free. Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands, Britain and the Netherlands 9 (Zutphen: De Walburg Press, 1987), 29-44, here at 37-39, and Maria E. Kronenberg, Verboden Boeken en Opstandige Drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Patria Vaderlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis in Monografieën 44 (Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1948), 89-92. 64 See AA, 7: 188-89.

299

documentation that remains, we can only hypothesize that their lower social status was

detrimental to their cases.

Willem vanden Werve’s court did not try any other offenders for book-related

crimes until the case of Jacob Middeldonck in 1542. Between Middeldonck’s trial and

the last book crime, that of Schuddemate (ending in 1547), only one other person was

tried for book violations. He was Jacob van Liesvelt, a well-known and highly successful

publisher in Antwerp, whose trial took place concurrently with those of Middeldonck and

Schuddemate, and who, like Schuddemate, was finally executed in November 1545.

Liesvelt’s trial bears other similarities to that of Schuddemate, namely the apparent

intervention of the central authorities.

a. The Trial of Jacob van Liesvelt

Liesvelt, printer of many orthodox works (including the first edition of the

refrains of Anna Bijns),65 was a printer of some repute in Antwerp.66 In 1522 he published a Dutch translation of the . In the following year he printed a similar work on the Epistles. This was a period of burgeoning biblical publication in the years prior to Charles’s 1529 edict, and several Antwerp printers were occupied in similar ventures. Adriaen van Berghen, Jan van Ghelen, and Hans van Ruremunde all printed selections of biblical works at this time without interference from the authorities. In

1526, Liesvelt published the first complete Dutch Bible, followed in 1528 by Willem

65 Roose, Anna Bijns, 10, 14. 66 See his entry in Rouzet, Dictionnaire des Imprimeurs, 128-29.

300

Vorsterman’s folio edition, also produced in Antwerp.67 Liesvelt went on to produce new editions of his Bible in 1531 and 1542. It was this final version that led to his trial in

1545.

The court contended that this latest publication contained a marginal note that allegedly declared salvation to come through Christ alone. The court argued that Liesvelt was in violation of Charles V’s edict of 22 September 1540, which demanded execution for the publication of an unauthorized text.68 This was not Liesvelt’s first appearance before the Antwerp high court. In 1536, some of the books from his press were burned.

In the same year he was involved in the heresy case of a fellow bookman, Marc Martens, who was charged with printing a papal bull (In Coena Domini) without first receiving permission to do so. The two insisted that they had secured such permission and were eventually acquitted.69 Again in 1542 Liesvelt was questioned regarding an heretical

German book he had printed, but once more he was released without penalty.70 Despite his rather regular tussles with the law, his business does not appear to have suffered.

After the legal proceeding against him and Mertens, the two continued to work together

67 Lode Roose provides an overview of Bible publication in Antwerp in these years. In addition to these biblical works, the same Antwerp publishers were also involved in the printing of various books by Anna Bijns. See Roose, Anna Bijns, 14. 68 Wesembeke, Beschryvinghe, 10. Mertens and Torfs alleged that the charges also involved a woodcut in which the devil was depicted in the shape of a monk. See F. H. Mertens and K. L. Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen sedert de stichting der stad tot onze tyden, 8 vols. (1846; Antwerp: C. de Vries-Brouwers, 1975)4: 275. There is no suggestion of this in the court records, however, and recent scholarship has rejected it as a grounds for prosecution. See Paul Bergmans, “Liesvelt, Jacques van” in Biographie Nationale, L’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 12 (Brussels: Émile Bruylant, 1911-1913), 122-24. 69 Scholars long doubted that the letter of permission was real, but Auguste Vincent found it in the early 1900s. See Vincent, “L’Interrogatoire de Marc Martens et de Jacques van Liesvelt en 1526,” Revue des Bibliothèques et Archives de Belgique 7 (1909), 40-45. The title date of 1526 is an unfortunate misprint. The events described in the article actually took place in 1536. 70 For the trial records of these cases, see AA, 7: 464-66.

301

and were chosen to print the edicts of the emperor on several occasions, suggesting that

they were not regarded as covert heretics.71

At his 1545 trial, Liesvelt fared considerably worse. His is another case in which

insufficient documentation remains to decipher with certainty exactly what wrought this difference. As had been the case in 1542, Liesvelt was charged in accordance with the edict of 1540, for publishing a work without prior approval. In his defense, Liesvelt’s lawyer pointed out that he had published his books before the emperor had published his edict.72 This defense had succeeded previously in similar cases.73 As with Schuddemate,

the Antwerp court appeared willing to work with Liesvelt. He fell ill during his time in

prison, and the judges postponed his trial on this account, and because of the absence of

the burgomaster on several occasions. Nevertheless, shortly after his illness and just six

months after the beginning of the trial, a verdict was pronounced: the defendant was

found guilty and executed by the sword.74

As we have seen, it was rare for publishers to be condemned in Antwerp, a city

anxious to maintain its vast printing revenues. Liesvelt is, in fact, the only bookman to

have been executed during Willem vanden Werve’s tenure as prosecutor in the city.

Given that this is the case, that he and Schuddemate were executed within eighteen

months of each other, and that their trials overlapped by several months, it seems highly

probable that a similar fate befell the two men: namely, that the central government

71 Vincent, “L’Interrogatoire de Marc Martens et de Jacques van Liesvelt,” 44. 72 AA, 8: 347-53. 73 Including Liesvelt’s own trial in 1542, in which he argued that he German book he had published, entitled Troostinge der goddelijcker scryft was not new at all, but had first appeared long before the emperor’s edict. AA, 7: 465-66. 74 AA, 8: 353.

302

exerted pressure on the Antwerp authorities. In Liesvelt’s case, there is no extant

documentary trail, and this must remain an argument ex silentio. Bolstering the circumstantial evidence, though, is the fact that the Antwerp magistrate helped the

Liesvelt family to protect (or rather, hide) their assets after his death. To the prosecutor, vanden Werve, whose job it was to confiscate the goods of executed heretics, Liesvelt’s widow argued that her family was completely impoverished. As a result, not a penny was confiscated from the Liesvelt coffers.75 In other Antwerp records, however, we find

several property transactions executed by the Liesvelt family. Jacob sold a house in the

year of his trial, and his widow bought another shortly thereafter. Furthermore, their

“poverty-stricken” publishing business continued to thrive under his wife and one of their

sons, Jan, in the years following Jacob’s execution.76

All of this points to the possibility that the severe sentence in this case came not

as a result of the city council’s desire to impose the harshest possible penalty on Liesvelt,

but that pressure was brought to bear from outside. The confluence of events occurring

in Antwerp in the years and months directly surrounding the trials of Middeldonck,

Schuddemate, and Liesvelt further supports such a conclusion.

VI. PRECIPITATING EVENTS

Two events in particular appear to have been decisive in turning the attention of the central authorities toward the Antwerp court. The first was the rederijker gathering that took place in Roborst in 1543. Occurring after the Ghent tournament, when the

75 ARA, Rekenkamer, 19669, fol. 2. 76 See SAA, Privilegekamer, 3358, file 13.

303

emperor was ill-disposed toward the rederijkers and vigilant concerning the heterodox

nature of their writings, this competition raised anew his fears of heresy in the rhetorician

community. The second event was the trial in Antwerp of a large group of heretics,

known as Loyists, who were followers of Eligius Pruystinck (also known as Eloy de

Schaliedecker), a dualistic sectarian with a considerable following in the city. A group of

Loyists had been apprehended, tried, and punished in Antwerp in 1526. They reappeared

in 1545, directly in the midst of the trials of Middeldonck, Schuddemate, and Liesvelt. In

total, seven members of the group were executed, including the leader, who was burned

alive as a relapsed heretic. The Pruystinck affair shook the Antwerp community and

trained the eye of Charles’s officials in Brussels resolutely on the city.

a. The rederijker performance in Roborst, 1543

Despite the emperor’s edict of 1540, rederijkers in the Low Countries continued

to practice their art and it seems, on occasion, to perform heterodox works in violation of

imperial mandates. Such was the case with the Damastbloem group of which Jacob van

Middeldonck was a member and, one year later, another play in Roborst, Flanders. The

play, entitled The Evangelical Teacher (De Evangelische Leeraer), was the creation of

Gillis Joyeulx of Audenarde, with the help of Ghent’s Jan Utenhove.77 At the time of its

77 For the best commentary on Utenhove and the events at Roborst, see Decavele, “Jan Utenhove,” and Dirk Coigneau, “De Evangelische Leeraer: ‘een spel vul heresien’,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 39-40 (1989-90), 117-45. One edition of the play, printed in Emdem in 1580, suggests 1532 as the date when the play was written, and names the author as Jan Utenhove. Closer examination reveals, however, that Utenhove was probably no more than an editor or advisor to the main author, Joyeaulx. Coigneau has conducted an extensive investigation of the writing of the piece and compared it to the large body of work known to have emanated from the pen of Utenhove. He concludes that there are too many significant differences in style and word choice for Utenhove to be

304

performance, on 2 July 1543, those involved in the production of the piece would have

been familiar with the Ghent competition that occurred four years prior, and the legal

ramifications of this event.

The theological content of The Evangelical Teacher echoed that of several of the

Ghent plays. Like its Ghent counterparts, the play is highly anticlerical, the pope and

cardinals being named “false dragons” and “clerks of the devil.”78 In addition, the

Roman motifs of indulgences, images, and relics, among others, are castigated as human

entrapments. Good works are said to be denials of the work of Christ.79 Indeed, many of

the heterodox features of the Ghent plays are present in The Evangelical Teacher,

rendering it entirely reasonable that a year after its production, the central authorities,

under the command of Mary of Hungary, launched an investigation into the piece.80 The

Council of Flanders (the counterpart of the neighboring Council of Brabant) oversaw the inquest. The investigators uncovered a sizeable group of reformed thinkers, compiling lists of names and conducting arrests in the middle of the night. Their work culminated in the arrest of 24 people, although 35 others successfully fled to avoid apprehension.81 They were drawn almost entirely from Audenarde and the surrounding

area, signaling to the authorities that the new learning had stretched further than they had

previously thought.

considered the main author. In addition, Coigneau favors a later date of authorship, closer to the date of production, suggesting that 1532 on the Emden document may be a misprint for 1542. See Coigneau, “De Evangelische Leeraer,” 131. 78 Coigneau, “De Evangelische Leeraer,” 139. 79 Coigneau, “De Evangelische Leeraer,” 139, who also suggests that two of the characters in the play, Servant of God (Dienaer Gods) and The Evangelical Teacher (Evangelische Leeraer) are actually intertextually identified with Luther. Idem, 142. 80 Decavele, “Jan Utenhove,” 109. 81 Decavele, “Jan Utenhove,” 111-12.

305

From the outset of the investigation, the prosecutions in this case were overseen

by the central authority, under the direction of Mary of Hungary. The events in Roborst

alarmed the regent and her provincial council, confirming for them that they had not yet

succeeded in stamping out the new learning or its incorporation into rederijker works.

The penalties imposed on the unfortunate few who were apprehended by the Council of

Flanders were stringent. Two of the 24 arrestees were executed, nine received hefty

fines, and eighteen were banished from the territory.

In comparison to the competition in Ghent four years earlier, the prosecution at

Roborst is of little significance. Yet it bore directly on the events in the city of Antwerp

in the mid-1540s. The Roborst trial served to raise once more, in the minds of the central

administration, the enduring threat of heterodox rhetorician works, causing Mary of

Hungary to maintain a watchful eye on rederijker prosecutions. When Peter

Schuddemate (originally from Audenarde, where the Roborst play was written and whose citizens performed it) was arrested, his trial doubtless raised red flags for the regent.

Once she had edged her way into the legal proceedings against Schuddemate (via the attorney general), there was little the Antwerp city council could do to protect him.

b. Pruystinck and the Antwerp Loyists

Another event concurrent with the trials of Middeldonck, Schuddemate, and

Liesvelt, which bore directly on the course of their proceedings, was the trial of the followers of Eligius Pruystinck. A long-term resident of Antwerp, Pruystinck ran afoul of the emperor’s edicts in the city as early as 1526. At the time, he recanted his heresy,

306

performed public penance, and continued to live in Antwerp (gathering more followers

all the while), until his final arrest and eventual execution in October 1544, along with six

of his followers. The trial of this group, known as Loyists, sent shock waves through the

administrations, both local and imperial. Both sets of legislators were involved in the

trial, and there are indications that jurisdictional battles emerged during the course of the

proceeding. An examination of the activities of the Antwerp court in the trials of

Middeldonck, Schuddemate, and Liesvelt, demonstrates how chronologically intertwined

their trials were with the trials of the Loyists. This is particularly so in the case of

Schuddemate, who appeared in court on the same day as various members of the Loyist

sect throughout January and February 1545.82

Little is known concerning the biographical beginnings of Eligius Pruystinck.83

He first appears in the archival record in the early 1520s, as a member of a group of

heterodox suspects tried in the Antwerp courts. In March 1525, Martin Luther wrote an

open letter to the Christians of Antwerp, warning them about an unnamed, dangerous

heretic operating in their midst. He cautioned them generally concerning the false

prophets operating all over Christendom: “Up till now, the world has been full of

lifeless, unresting spirits, who portray themselves as souls of men. Now it has become

filled with lively, blustering spirits, who portray themselves as living angels.”84 One of

82 See chronology of Antwerp high court records, AA, 8: 330-37. 83 The best consideration of the Loyist movement remains Julius Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten of Antwerpsche Libertijnen (1525-1545): Eligius Pruystinck (Loy de Schaliedecker) en zijne Aanhangers (Ghent: J. Vuylsteke, 1891). Also useful, although less rigorous in its scholarship, is Georges Eekhoud, Les Libertins d’Anvers: Légende et Histoire des Loïstes (Brussels: La Renaissance du Livre, 1934). 84 “Bis her ist die welt vol leybloser pollter geyster gewesen, die sich fur der menschen seelen aus gaben. Itzt ist sie vol leybhafftiger rumpelgeyster worden, die sich alle fur lebendige engel ausgeben.” Ein brieff

307 these false angels, insisted Luther, had come to Antwerp, to prey on their souls. “. . .

Dear friends, one of these living, blustering spirits has appeared among you, seeking to bring you into error and lead you away from the truth into his darkness. So look out for him, and be warned.”85 Luther does not name this dangerous spirit, but lists the false doctrines, in order that the faithful of Antwerp might recognize and avoid him. There is little doubt, on the basis of Luther’s explanation, that the blustering spirit was

Pruystinck.86 Having outlined these heretical precepts, Luther again warned the

Christians of Antwerp to be on the lookout for them, and avoid them at all costs: “With regard to this, for God’s sake, be warned and make sure that you despise and shun those things that are strange innovations, unnecessary to the salvation of the soul.”87

Luther’s admonition attracted the attention of the central government, who conducted an investigation into this new sect. The Council of Brabant, aided by Nicholas

Coppin, Ruard Tapper, and Jan Macquet, among others, led the effort.88 There was some

confusion over the theological affiliation of the group, both among contemporary

D. martini Luther An die Christen zu Antorff, January 1525. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix III, 4-7, here at 5. 85 “. . . lieben freunde, ist auch unter euch komen, eyn leybhafftiger rumpel geyst, wilcher euch will yrre machen, und vom rechten verstand furen auff seyne dunckel, Da sehet euch fur und seyt gewarnet.” Ibid., 6. 86 His description of these doctrines includes the pantheistic belief that God in the form of the Holy Spirit, is each one of us; that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, our own wisdom and reason; that there is no hell, except for the flesh; and that the soul will live eternally. “Eyn artickel ist, das er hellt, Eyn iglich mensch hat den heyligen geyst. Der ander, Der heylige geyst ist nichts anders denn unser vernunfft und verstand. Der dritte, Eyn iglich mensch gleubt. Der vierde, Es ist keyne helle odder verdamnis, sondern alleyne das fleysch wird verdampt. Der funfft, Eyn igliche seele wird das ewige leben haben. Der sechste, Die natur leret, das ich meynem nehsten thun solle, was ich myr will gethan haben, Solches wöllen ist der glaube. Der siebend, Das gesetz wird nicht verbrochen mit böser lust, so lange ich nicht bewillige der lust. Der achte, Wer den heyligen geyst nicht hat, der hat auch keyne sunde, Denn er hat keyne vernunfft.” Ibid. 87 “Darumb seyt umb Gotts willen gewarnet, und sehet drauff, das yhr alles verachtet und faren lasset, was sich new und seltzam erhebt, und nicht not ist zur seelen seligkeyt zu wissen . . . .” Ibid. 88 These are the same group of inquisitors employed to investigate the Claes vander Elst circle in Brussels one year later. For details, see Ibid., xxxv, and above, Chapter Three.

308

chroniclers, as well as city and state officials. Some took them to be Anabaptists, some

followers of David Joris (who was in Antwerp shortly before the arrest of the group in

both 1526 and 1544). Others, including the jurists overseeing the case, categorized them as Lutherans, although their doctrinal beliefs exclude all three possibilities.

Their theology was laid out in the Summa Doctrinae, written not by Pruystinck himself (who claimed to be illiterate), but by his friend and follower Dominick van

Oucle.89 Their doctrines earned the adherents a variety of names in the sixteenth century,

including Libertines (an appellation they apply to themselves in the Summa), Sadducees,

and Free Spirits.90 Their theology consisted of an amalgamation of various heretical

beliefs. At its core was a form of dualism that declared all flesh to be sinful and damned,

while all souls are without sin and consequently saved (including even that of Lucifer),

positions that echo the warning of the Wittenberg Reformer. This central belief led to a

series of theologically-consequent convictions, including a disavowal of the resurrection

of the flesh, since flesh is sinful and therefore not saved. This in turn caused them to

deny the existence of a postmortem purgatory or hell, contending instead that hell

occurred on earth. Because of their belief in the condemnation of the flesh, they had no

89 Summa doctrinae quorundam hominum, qui nunc Antwerpiae et passim in aliquibus Brabantiae et Flandriae locis permulti reperiuntur, ac nunc Loistae ab auctore Eligio, homine illiterato et mechanico, nunc Libertini a carnis libertate, quam illorum doctrina permittere videtur, appellantur (n.d., n.p.) The text is appended by Frederichs, see De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix I, 1-3. Frederichs takes at face value the title claim that Eloy Pruystinck was an illiterate mechanic, a claim that he feels is supported by the fact that Pruystinck left no goods behind after his execution. Pruystinck, however, had an apparently quite extensive biblical knowledge, casting doubt on his status as illiterate. What is more, it is quite possible that his followers were able to conceal any wealth he might have possessed after his death, as happened in the case of Jacob van Liesvelt. 90 These are not the same Libertines that would emerge in the Dutch Republic of the seventeenth century, as the tolerant faction within a more militant Calvinist majority. For more on the seventeenth-century Libertines, see Benjamin J. Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht 1578-1620 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

309

need for a sacramental system, shunning all seven sacraments of the church, particularly

baptism (because the soul is necessarily saved and the flesh is without hope) and the

Eucharist (since the notion of producing flesh and blood to ingest would be absurd in

such a system). The Loyists, like the Cathar dualists before them, also shunned marriage.

Only two among their Antwerp number were married, both having contracted their

unions prior to their conversions to Loyism.91 Nor did they see the need for a priesthood, insisting instead that each person was his or her own priest. With this, they incorporated the pantheistic notion that all things are in God and God is all things.92

Despite the clearly heretical nature of their beliefs, at their first Antwerp trial in

1526, the nine or so people tried as heretics received relatively mild sentences, involving

public acts of penance and the burning of all forbidden books they possessed. No list has

survived indicating what these books might have been, and the court made no distinction

between them and other suspected “Lutherans” at this early stage in the Reformation.93

The relatively light sentences imposed upon the group are also not surprising in view of the fact that this trial took place three years prior to the promulgation of the 1529 edict, which was the first to introduce the possibility of more severe penalties, including death.

91 See AA, 8: 362, in which their widows are ordered to pay the debts of their executed spouses (Gabriel van Hove and Germain Bousseraille). 92 For a summary of their doctrine, see Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, xxvi-xxxii. 93 Neither the records of the Antwerp high court, the accounts of the margrave, the Council of Brabant, or various chronicle accounts provide the names of all those involved. Only the names of Pruystinck himself, Peeter Frimotit, and Peeteren the linguist are specified. See AA, 7: 160, and Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix IV-XI, 8-11.

310

Little is known of the activities of Pruystinck and his followers in the years after

this first trial, although it seems that the group continued to grow in strength and size.94

By the time of the second trial in 1544-1545, their numbers had increased significantly, as had the severity of Charles’s legislation against such sects. In June 1544, Juliaan Ketel was arrested for heresy in Deventer in the northern Low Countries. Under torture, Ketel confessed to being a follower of David Joris with whom, it appears, he had traveled to

Antwerp earlier in the same year. During the course of his confession, he named various individuals, with whom he had come into contact in Antwerp, including two of the

Pruystinck group:

Likewise, he said that in Antwerp he met a certain Frenchman named Christopher Herault, who was a jeweler . . . and another man who was a mechanic, whose name he does not remember. This man also came from Antwerp and belonged to the sect called the Sadducees, who do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, and he has a mighty following, including all of the most important factors within that city.95

Upon hearing this testimony, the magistrate of Deventer immediately sent a letter

to the magistrate of Antwerp, warning him of the association of heretics in his town.

Significant for the course of this trial and others, he sent another letter containing the

same information to Mary of Hungary. From this point forward, the entire investigation

94 Frederichs suggests that they attracted many of the wealthy merchants of the city. He also insists that this was a sect of the unlearned, despite the fact that many of those eventually prosecuted had skilled occupations, such as Peeteren the linguist, mentioned above. 95 “Item gesacht dat eenen binnen Antwerpen genoempt Christopher Herroultn, een Francoys ende juwelier . . . unde [sic] een wesende een leydedecker oder schaliedecker, die hy anders nyet noemen en kan, oick binnen Antwerpen sinnd vander secten Saduceorum, nyet gelovende inde verrysinge der dooden, hebbende grooten aenhanck, geloevende dat alle de principale factoren binnen Antwerpen daer mede aenhangen.” Confession of Juliaan Ketel, July 1544. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix XIX, 24. Despite the fact that there was clearly some association between the followers of Pruystinck and Joris (Ketel was introduced to both during his trip), the two groups were distinct in terms of belief. Although Joris also questioned the fleshly nature of Christ, he did not incorporate the Loyist denial of the resurrection of the flesh, here distinguished by Ketel as an attribute of the “Sadducee” (Loyist) group in his testimony.

311

into the Pruystinck circle in Antwerp would involve officials from the Council of

Brabant, acting under the orders of Mary of Hungary, thus bringing the central authorities

into the proceedings of the local magistracy.96 Because Pruystinck was initially named as an acquaintance of a known follower of David Joris, the regent feared a connection between this group and Joris’s Anabaptist circle. She therefore ordered the attorney general to take control of the trial, instructing him to punish offenders with severity, even sending him a copy of Joris’s Wonderboek to inform his investigation.97

Mary further demanded that the magistrate of Antwerp send Pruystinck to

Vilvoorde for interrogation by her attorney general, Pierre du Fief, which the magistrate

did on 14 September 1544. Upon his arrival in Vilvoorde, the magistrate informed du

Fief that four other suspects had been apprehended and incarcerated in the city. The

whole investigation then returned to Antwerp, where the four were subsequently

questioned.98 As a result of these interrogations, more accomplices were arrested,

including Germain Boussaraille who, while under torture, offered up the names of

numerous Loyists, all subsequently apprehended by the Antwerp magistracy.

In all, eleven suspects were arrested and tried in connection with the Pruystinck

affair.99 For the most part, their trials took place in the local, Antwerp high court, under

96 Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, xliv-xlv. 97 “. . . nous vous requerons, et de par l’Empereur, nostre seigneur et frere expressement ordonnons vous trouver incontinent devers desdicts dAnvers et recouvrer deulx ung double desdictes informations et confessions . . . .” Mary of Hungary to the attorney general, 16 July 1544. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix XXIV, 28. See also idem., xlvi. 98 Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, xlvii. 99 They were Eligius Pruystinck himself, Christoffel Herault (Jeweler), Jan Davion (merchant), Jan Dorhout (used clothing salesman), Dominick van Oucle (who committed suicide while in custody), Aerden Steenaerts, Germaine Bousseraille, Gabriel van Hove (fish merchant), Adriaan Stevens, and Cornelis vanden Bossche (printer or letter cutter), Hendrick Smits (who does not appear in the list of Frederichs). See Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, lviii-lix. Gabriel van Hove appears in the records of the Antwerp

312

the jurisdiction of the Antwerp city council. However, in three cases (those of

Pruystinck, Smits, and Steernaerts), the Council of Brabant requested that the cases be

transferred to their court. The Antwerp court complied. Little information remains

concerning these three trials, but on 18 October, the Council of Brabant sent Pruystinck

back to Antwerp, informing the magistrate that he had been judged a relapsed heretic, and

instructing the court to punish him accordingly.100 Mary wrote to the Antwerp

authorities, demanding that they burn him for his heresy.

We hereby send back to Antwerp Eloy Prustinck, who has been interrogated and found to be full of errors and heresies, as you will see in his confession. We therefore order you to proceed against him immediately, in accordance with the placards of his Imperial Majesty, our lord and brother. [Pruystinck] is to be punished as a relapsed heretic, burned by fire as an example to all others, in keeping with the with aforementioned ordinances, to which we insist that you rigorously adhere.101

Again, with little choice in the matter, the Antwerp magistrate obeyed, burning

Pruystinck alive as a relapsed heretic on 25 October 1544.

Meanwhile, the Antwerp court continued to try Pruystinck’s followers, Davion,

Bousseraille, van Hove, and Stevens. Their trials were frequently postponed due to

“illness” among the aldermen, and the defendants were provided with lawyers and copies

of the edicts that they had allegedly transgressed. Finally, on 22 December 1544, the

high court already in 1524, for his participation in a conventicle. At that time, he was released without penalty. See above, Chapter Two, p. 19, and AA, 7: 129-31. None of the other Pruystinck circle appear as members of the 1524 group. 100 Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, li. 101 “Wy senden wederom tot U Eloy Pruystinck inde stadt van Antwerpen aengetast ende naidere geinterrogeert vol erreuren ende ketterien, zoe u by zyn bekennen blycken sal, U ordinerende tegen den zelven achtervolgende den placcaten der Keiserlycke Majesteit onsen heeren ende broeders sommierlyck te procederen als relaps die mitten vieren tot exemple van eenen yegelyck behoirt geexecuteert te worden naeden voirseiden ordonnantie ende die wy willen strictelyck geachtervolght ende geobserveert wordden.” Mary of Hungary to the magistrate of Antwerp, 18 October 1544. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix XXXI, 34.

313

court sentenced the first of the four, Adriaan Stevens, to a fine of 1,000 gilders. Stevens

paid the fine and was released.102 The remaining three suspects wrote to Mary of

Hungary, requesting release. Their letter alerted her to the fact that the trials were

progressing slowly and that the Antwerp magistrate had begun to disregard her order to

prosecute this group with speed and severity. She therefore sent Jacob Boone, member of

the Council of Brabant, to Antwerp to oversee the remainder of the trial.103 Again, Mary

of Hungary took a keen interest in this trial, as she had in so many previously. She was

determined to force the Antwerp magistracy to uphold the terms of the emperor’s edicts,

as they evidently were unwilling to do so without her intervention.

The Antwerp city council did not receive Mary’s directives willingly. They had

no choice but to accept Boone, whom they allowed to observe the proceedings of the

trials. They would not, however, permit him to take any part in the deliberations with

regard to judgment and sentencing. Consequently, Boone complained to Mary, who

demanded that the Antwerp authorities include Boone in the court proceedings.

. . . you recently informed us that you are more than happy to have [Boone] present for the interrogations in this trial, but not for the deliberations which then take place among you, for the specific reasons you gave. We informed his Majesty of your complaint, and he was not pleased, and stated that it is his will that the aforementioned master Jacob Boone be present not just for the interrogations, but also for the

102 Jan Schot, (cloth merchant) stood bail for Stevens. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, liii, and AA, 8: 327. 103 “Waer omme wy onsen ieven ende getrouwen Raidt ordinaris in Brabant, meestr Jacop Boone, jegewoordige bringer, belast hebben by U te reysen ende breeder van U te vernemen in wat staete zyn de processen vanden voerscreven gevangen ende voerts jegewoordich te wesene ende met Ulieden te verstaene ter kennisse, instructie ende judicature van dien . . . .” Charles V to magistrate of Antwerp, 20 January 1545. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix XXXIV, 37-38, here at 37.

314

deliberations concerning aforesaid process, your former arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.104

Thus ended any clemency the Antwerp court had hoped to bestow upon their imprisoned

burghers. Adriaan Stevens was the only Loyist to be sentenced by the Antwerp court

without the interference of the central authorities. The remaining three convicts, Davion,

Bousseraille, and van Hove, all received their sentences under the supervision and with

the participation of Boone. All three were sentenced to death on 27 February 1545 and

beheaded the following day.105

This struggle between the Antwerp authorities and Mary of Hungary in the trial of the Antwerp Loyists took place, then, between December 1544 (when Stevens was sentenced to a fine) and February 1545 (when the remaining three Loyists were executed.) This was exactly the period in which the trial of Peter Schuddemate began.

He was arrested on 15 January 1545, just one month prior to the execution of Davion,

Bousseraille, and van Hove. Jacob van Liesvelt was arrested just two weeks after their deaths. The timing of these trials was crucial to their eventual outcomes. The discovery of the Pruystinck circle terrified the central authorities and, although for very different reasons, the magistracy of Antwerp. For her part, Mary feared the growth of this

104 “. . . U onlancx gescreven heeft, dat ghy hem ter antwoorde gegeven hebt wel te vreden te zyne dat hy jegenwoordich soude wesen ter instructie van de voerscrevene processen, maer nyet soe wanneer ghyluyden der op delibereren soudt om sekere redenen by Uluyden geallegeert, daer van wy zynder Majesteit geadverteert hebben, die des gheenssyns te vreden es soe zynder Majesteit wille ende mayninge es dat de voornoemde meester Jacob Boone jegenwoordich zy, zoe wel ter instructie al ter deliberatie van de voerscrevene processen, nyet jegenstaende uwe voerscrevene redenen ter contrarien.” Mary of Hungary to magistrate of Antwerp, 8 February 1545. Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, Appendix XXXV, 38. 105 The two remaining convicts (Cornelis vanden Bossche and Jan van Heer) fled the city before sentencing could be reached. See Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten, liii-liv, lix, and AA, 8: 334. It is possible that the Antwerp authorities imposed such a light sentence on Stevens because Pruystinck, during torture, had denied that he was a follower of his (although he acknowledged that he had heard him preach). Pruystinck claimed the same for the other detainees, but the central authorities appear to have been singularly unconvinced by his testimony. See AA, 8: 323.

315 pernicious sect and was determined to force the Antwerp authorities to deal with its members as strictly as possible. Her eyes, then, and those of her councilors were trained on the city of Antwerp at exactly the moment when Liesvelt, Schuddemate, and

Middeldonck were arrested. For their part, members of the Antwerp city council were entirely distressed by the events of the previous seven months. They had experienced an enormous trial in which the testimony of an initially small number of suspects had led to a broad investigation, culminating in seven sentences of death. It is therefore little wonder that they were reluctant to denaturalize Peter Schuddemate, a man well- connected in their community, who they feared would name many of his students and friends while under torture, leading to a similarly enormous proceeding. They did what they could to protect these three citizens, managing somehow to secure Middeldonck’s release. Yet, with the city at the center of imperial attention, they were unable to visit such benevolence on Liesvelt and Schuddemate.

VII. CONCLUSION

Charles and his regent responded to what they perceived to be the threat of the rederijker chambers after the Ghent tournament by promulgating a series of new edicts that were designed specifically to curtail the religious activities of rhetoricians in the territory. Their efforts met with limited success. After the shock of the 1539 competition, the imperial officials were more vigilant in their attempts to oversee rederijker activities, but their attentiveness was matched by the determination of individual chambers to continue their work undetected. The performance at Roborst in

316

1543 served only to heighten the central authority’s fear of the rederijkers. This

increased concern manifested itself, in the case of Antwerp, in the arrest of two

rhetoricians in the decade of the 1540s, Jacob van Middeldonck and Peter Schuddemate.

Middeldonck’s trial, begun initially before the Roborst event, ended without significant

penalty and serves to demonstrate that, had these men been apprehended before the eye

of the central administration was turned directly on the city, both might have escaped

unharmed. After 1543, however, when the problem of heterodox rederijker works had

been raised anew, Mary of Hungary and the central administration took far more interest in the trial of rhetoricians. Perhaps because of his age, the Antwerp council was able to acquit Middeldonck after a short trial, and release him. Schuddemate was not so fortunate.

His trial, like that of Jacob van Liesvelt, was doubtless greatly affected by the simultaneous proceeding of the Pruystinck Loyists. Because their theological beliefs were barely understood by the governing authorities, and because she considered them a direct threat to the orthodoxy of the city, Mary of Hungary showed no mercy to the

Loyists. On three separate occasions, she demanded that the Antwerp city council proceed against them without leniency. When they failed to heed her commands, she intervened personally in the proceedings. As is apparent from the light sentence imposed on Adriaan Stevens, the Antwerp judges were slow to impose harsh penalties on their own citizens. Whatever the reason for their tolerant approach, the city council chose to disregard the edicts of the emperor in imposing sentence on Stevens. They would probably have done the same to the remaining Loyists had the central authorities not

317

intervened. Yet intervene they did, forcing the hand of the Antwerp magistracy,

compelling them to inflict the letter of the law on the Loyist offenders which, in their

case, meant death.

Had the Pruystinck affair not emerged when it did, it is highly likely that both

Liesvelt and Schuddemate would have survived their trials and been released by the

Antwerp court (as Liesvelt had several times previously). The convergence of these

events, however, excluded this possibility entirely. It drew the attention of the central

authorities to the city, and their intervention secured death sentences in both cases. This incident represents the high point of tension between the local administrators of Antwerp and the central government of Charles V. As the events of these trials indicate, although the Antwerp court fought time and again to spurn the edicts of the emperor, they were engaged in a battle that they ultimately were unable to win.

318

CONCLUSION: POWER AND PUNISHMENT

Charles V’s tenure as ruler of the Low Countries, Spain, and the Holy Roman

Empire was fraught with difficulty on all fronts. In each territory he faced social and

religious upheaval, while striving simultaneously to restrain the expansionist forces of the

Ottoman Empire, as well as the persistent aggression of the King of France. In his

Netherlandish inheritance he sought to avoid further turmoil by promulgating a series of

laws designed to curb religious opposition and centralize his rule. Although the Low

Countries was one of the smaller territories over which Charles ruled, its inhabitants

presented a resolute front of determined opposition to his religious policies, forcing the

emperor to become increasingly involved in the religious affairs of the region as his reign

wore on.

The cases here recounted demonstrate the effects of Charles’s legislation on all of

those involved: the local authorities, the religious dissidents, and Charles and his

imperial court. Throughout the period of Charles’s reign, the municipal authorities of the

Low Countries displayed the most consistent behavior with regard to his religious

policies. Time and again they obstinately resisted the emperor’s anti-heresy laws,

refusing to enforce the terms of his edicts, and imposing minimal punishments on

violators whenever they were able. With the exception of Anabaptist cases, the

municipal rulers of Brabant formed an unyielding barrier of juridical opposition to their

emperor in all heresy trials.1

1 While it is possible that certain members of the local councils were themselves interested in the message of Protestantism, it seems that this was rare, since few of them went on to be prosecuted as Protestants in later years. This is true only for the earliest phase of the Reformation. In the post-1555 Low Countries,

319

The trials here considered reveal that three factors motivated their resistance.

Their first and most pressing concern was a desire to withstand the emperor’s centralizing tendencies. They viewed Charles as a ruler bent on bringing the previously autonomous provinces of the Low Countries under his firm control, in defiance of the local privileges secured by individual municipalities over the previous four centuries. Consequently, city officials saw all conflicts involving jurisdictional issues as integral parts of their larger goal of upholding their civic autonomy in defiance of Charles. The second factor motivating the city councils was financial, and was most apparent in the case of the

Portuguese New Christians. Among their most lucrative inhabitants, the magistracy of

Antwerp was eager to protect these, its merchant residents. Indeed, in all of their religious struggles with the emperor, the councilors were keenly aware of the negative effects of Charles’s repressive measures on the international and cosmopolitan residents of their town. Their attempts to protect their more heterodox inhabitants were part of an ongoing effort to maintain the financial welfare of the city. The case of the New

Christians illustrates the third cause of resistance on the part of the city rulers, which was one of theological conviction. The sincerity of such a motivation is difficult to judge. On only one occasion did the local authorities articulate their reluctance to impose the terms of the edicts on the basis of some form of theologically-motivated religious toleration.

The city council employed this argument in defense of the New Christians only after all

several members of local councils did become visible as convinced Protestants, for example, Jacob van Wesembeke, the Antwerp pensionary from 1556, who was tried for heresy in 1568. For information on him, see Robert van Roosbroeck, “Wesembeke (Wesenbeke), Jakob van (pseud. Hans Baert), stadspensionaris,” in Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, Koninklijke Academiën van België (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1972), 997-1003. In cities such as Amsterdam, local rulers were clearly involved in Protestant groups much earlier in the century. It is possible that this was the case in Brabant also, but that they chose not to reveal their religious preferences until later in the century, or in the Wonderyear of 1566.

320 other lines of argumentation (political and economic) had been exhausted. Nevertheless, in their letter to the Bishop of Arras, the Antwerp councilors exhibited a considered, theologically-based explication of a policy of religious toleration, the likes of which was unheard of previously. Historians usually attribute the earliest theories of toleration to the period of the Enlightenment, conceding occasionally that characters such as Erasmus and Castellio contributed to their eventual construction as proto-Enlightenment figures.

It is rare that examples of a theologically sophisticated doctrine of toleration are to be found so early in the Reformation period. Indeed, although theirs was never realized, the

Antwerp officials may have articulated the first such policy. Whether they were sincerely

convinced of their own arguments, or whether they used them only as a desperate tactic

in service of the larger cause of social and economic well-being remains an open

question, but one that does not diminish the significance of this new theological

formulation.

While the urban rulers were stalwart in their opposition to the emperor, the

actions of the remaining two actors in this study, the religious dissenters and Charles V

himself, were less uniform. Their behavior must be considered in two distinct phases.

The first phase embraces the early Reformation, extending from 1519, when Luther’s

first writings began to filter into the Low Countries, to the imperial edict of October

1529. The second period covers the remainder of Charles’s reign, from 1529 to 1555.

Part One of this study focused on the earlier period. Covering the first decade of the

Reformation in the Low Countries, this first period was characterized by a lack of

specificity, both with regard to the religious beliefs of the dissidents, as well as in the

321 legislation promulgated by the emperor in response. During this time, the prosecuting authorities (local and imperial) referred to all non-Anabaptist heresy suspects as

“Lutherans,” whether they followed the theology of Luther or not. Indeed, little was known of the theological vicissitudes of nascent Protestantism, either on the part of those judging heresy cases, or those who stood accused.2

For their part, early adherents of the Reformation in the Low Countries developed

a brotherhood of dissent, forming coventicles in which they encouraged each other,

discussing religious issues and instructing one another in the doctrines of the Reformers.

The case of the vander Elst group in Brussels exemplifies such an arrangement.

Members of the these clandestine circles often disagreed with one another regarding

individual religious doctrines, as the plurality of Reformation ideas found in the illicit

literature they lent to one another demonstrates. Such dissenting groups illustrate well the inchoate nature of the early Reformation movement in the Low Countries. These early dissidents were unified not by the theological content of their belief, but by their status as religious fugitives and dissidents. They maintained vast networks of dissent, stretching the length and breadth of the territory. In the vander Elst case, members of the group possessed contacts in Antwerp and Brussels, as well as Leiden and Amsterdam in the north. Their connections were solidified by professional and kinship ties that survived hardships including prosecution and geographic dispersal. What is more, these early reformatory groups exhibited little fear of the legal repercussions of their dissenting

2 This was the period preceding the confessional age, when what Brad Gregory has described as a “solidarity of international survival” served to unify otherwise disparate groups of religiously-disaffected burghers. Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe, Harvard Historical Studies 134 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 141.

322 behavior in this first decade of the Reformation. They did not hide their illicit activities, but gathered in large groups, visible on the streets of Brussels, and were apparently unafraid of the consequences of their illegal endeavors. This comparatively relaxed attitude would change later in the century, as Charles intensified his anti-heresy legislation, and such groups became liable to increasingly severe punishment.

The emperor’s behavior also underwent a change at the end of the 1520s. To this point, he had responded to the proliferation of Reformation thought in the Low Countries in a purely reactive manner. He issued his early edicts, promulgated between 1520 and

1529, to counter the ongoing developments of the Reformation. At first they concerned efforts to keep Luther’s works out of the territory. Once it became apparent that religious dissidents were meeting secretly in organized groups, Charles outlawed conventicles.

Charles’s early legislation was not explicit in assigning responsibility for the prosecution of heresy and was vague in the punishments it enjoined. As a result, jurisdictional confusion reigned as ecclesiastics, as well as municipal and imperial officials competed with each other for authority in heresy trials. As a consequence, local officials applied the emperor’s edicts inconsistently, steeling their will against Charles and creating a lenient atmosphere in which heresy flourished.

The situation changed significantly with the promulgation of the 1529 edict.

Written not by Charles, but by his aunt and regent, Margaret of Austria, this decree went further than any other in its specificity with regard to the trial and punishment of those charged with religious infractions. For the first time, the government systematized and extended the use of capital punishment to include those found guilty of crimes of belief

323 as well as action. Even the possession of illicit literature or the discussion of prohibited doctrines became punishable by death. In addition, this legislation clarified the duties of municipal officials in imposing its terms, allowing them little opportunity for clemency.

The edict was a turning point in Charles’s religious policy. Those that followed echoed its harsh terms. The edict of 1540 extended them to include the literature of the rederijkers, and those of the late 1540s visited more severe punishments on New

Christian apostates.

The period following the 1529 edict also signaled a fundamental shift in the emperor’s oversight of local officials. To this point, he and his regents had allowed the municipal authorities a relatively high degree of autonomy in trying religious crimes.

Because jurisdictional lines had not been firmly established, the central government

intervened only rarely in local heresy cases. After 1529, however, their involvement

increased significantly. In these last two decades of Charles’s rule, foreign

entanglements frequently took him away from the Low Countries, and heightened his

sensitivity to threats of religious heterodoxy. The reality of the Turkish threat was

brought home to the emperor by his defeat at the hands of his Ottoman enemy in 1541,

making him more aware than ever of the danger of a possible fifth-column of Judaizers,

fleeing to the Levant. Later in the same decade, the dualist Loists appeared in Antwerp.

Although their theological program was somewhat misunderstood by those in the

imperial administration, they were no less feared, and their presence encouraged a policy

of more frequent, direct intervention by Charles and his regent by the time of the trials of

Schuddemate and Liesvelt in the 1540s.

324

The policies of Charles had, therefore, different consequences in the short- and long-term. Initially, the emperor’s failure to impose his religious legislation benefited municipal rulers and religious renegades. During these early years, the defiance of the municipal officials succeeded in stifling Charles’s centralizing ambitions and upholding local autonomy. In turn, the early success of the city officials enabled heterodoxy to flourish in these urban centers, as illicit publishing blossomed and clandestine groups met largely unchecked by the local rulers. When prosecutions did occur, they generally resulted in only minor penalties, which failed to stem the rising tide of reformatory activity. This period of almost unimpeded expansion of the early Reformation was limited, however, to the decade of the 1520s. After Charles promulgated his 1529 edict, the prosecution of heresy in the region intensified significantly, as did the punishments visited upon convicts.

The long-term effects of Charles’s policies in the post-1529 period held only negative consequences for urban rulers and the dissidents whom they had previously protected. Over time, the intransigence of the cities forced the emperor and his regents to intervene more frequently in their affairs. As heretical activity increased and local councils failed to stem its tide, the central officials stepped in to enforce the terms of the law. Thus, the policy of resistance employed by the urban authorities was ultimately counter-productive. Although it succeeded for a while in restraining Charles’s centralizing tendencies, in the long term, it actually encouraged the interference of the central authorities and reinforced their control. Had the local authorities been more rigorous in implementing the emperor’s edicts early on, it is likely that they would have

325 attracted less attention from the central administration. When it came, this attention had the undesired effect of limiting the autonomy of local officials, and superseding their legal jurisdiction – the opposite outcome of that for which they had hoped.

The long-term consequences for the religious dissenters themselves were also largely negative. As Charles and his officials involved themselves more frequently in local heresy trials, they imposed more severe sentences and promulgated more stringent legislation. Although imperial efforts failed to extinguish reformatory fervor in its entirety, they did succeed in forcing religious dissidents underground, where they remained until the brief respite of the Wonderyear of 1566. In the longer term, the legislation promulgated by Charles in the latter years of his reign laid the foundation for the prosecution of heresy in the years to come. Ultimately, Charles’s edicts paved the way for his successor, Philip II to succeed where his father had failed: in the eradication of Protestantism, at least in the southern territory. Yet the infamous and stunningly successful religious policies of Philip consisted of little more than the systematic imposition of the anti-heresy edicts established half a century earlier, by Charles.

326

APPENDIX I CHRONOLOGY OF ANTI-HERESY LEGISLATION IN BRABANT

1519 30 August: Condemnation of Luther’s writings by the faculty of theology in Cologne

1520 15 June: Bull, Exurge Domine excommunicates Luther 28 September: Edict of Charles V demanding immediate surrender of Lutheran works.

1521 20 March: Edict of Charles V against Lutheran works. Penalties include confiscation of goods and other undefined punishments. 8 May: Charles V issues the Edict of Worms.

1522 23 April: Charles V institutes Frans vander Hulst as inquisitor-general for the Low Countries. 29 April: Edict of Charles V demanding that local officials cooperate with Frans vander Hulst.

1523 4 September: Edict of Margaret of Austria, limiting the powers of Frans vander Hulst.

1525 24 September: Edict of Charles V against heresy.

1526 17 July: Edict of Charles V against Lutherans. 31 March: Edict of Charles V authorizing New Christians to reside in the Low Countries.

1529 27 February: Edict of Charles V demanding adherence to edict of 31 March 1526 regarding the New Christians. 14 October: Edict of Charles V against the writings of Luther and other reformers. Introduces death penalty for punishment of intellectual crimes of heresy.

1531 7 October: Edict of Charles V against heresy.

1532 14 August: Edict of Charles V granting New Christians entry into the Low Countries.

327

1535 10 June: Edict stipulating death penalties for Anabaptists.

1536 14 February: Edict against the Anabaptists.

1537 27 February: Edict permissing New Christians of Portugal to reside in Antwerp.

1538 10 June: Edict against the Anabaptists.

1540 22 September: Edict against heresy. 16 December: Edict demanding that the local officials of Antwerp prosecute the secret Jews in their city.

1544 19 February: Edict proscribing all writings injurious to the Catholic Church. 25 June: Edict stipulating measures to be taken against New Christians of Portugal. 23 December: Edict of Charles V demanding republication twice per year of the edict of 22 September 1540.

1545 24 January: Edict concerning fugitives suspected of heresy.

1546 30 June: Anti-heresy edict pertaining to the printing of books and the organization of the schools.

1549 17 July: Edict demanding the expulsion of Portuguese New Christians from the Low Countries.

1550 29 April: “Bloody” Edict, against heresy. 30 May: Edict forbidding Portuguese New Christians to enter the Low Countries. 25 September: Revised form of 30 May edict (including the provision that foreign merchants need not produce certification of Catholic orthodoxy.)

APPENDIX II SERMON ATTENDEES, 1526

Name Spouse / Occupation Books Sermons Issues preached/additional information Age Family attended

Anna Jan Dons Thursday Preached: confession, bells. Henneken (son) Sunday (2) Initially invited by her son.

Bacx, Jan Gheertruyt Tapestry Sunday (2) Preached: confession, fast, Eucharist, Mass, seven- 52 weaver Monday (2) headed beast, whore of Babylon. Elizabeth Valentyn van Artist Thursday Orley Saturday Sunday (2) Berbele Willem de Friday Husband testified on her behalf. Clerck Sunday (2) Betteken de Anna van de Friday Preached: confession, Mass, Eucharist, purgatory Latersse Cammen Saturday Ate with vander Elst at Bernard van Orley’s house. 40 (sister) Sunday Questioned him about Mass and cloister. Ate eggs and meat during Lent (with J. Walschen and sons). Bossche, Magriete Tapestry Thursday Preached: confession, Mass, fast, Eucharist, bells. Peeter vanden Clinckers weaver Friday (2) 42 Saturday Sunday One more Brugge, Aerdt Servant of B. Thursday (2) Preached: holy oil vander van Orley Vander Elst spoke scornfully of the Church. 19 Buyellere, Jan Tapestry Saturday (2) Preached: bells. de weaver Sunday (3) Did not hear anything more because he is deaf. 40 Monday

Cammen, Anna Reynhout Salesman Thursday (2) Preached: fast. Willem vander Henrick Friday (2) 28 Steenaer Saturday (3) (brother-in-law) Sunday Monday (2) Monday lunch Total: 9 Catheryne Ardt Oukele Saturday 33 Sunday Monday Total: 4 Cleerckx, Willem de Thursday Does not remember, but considered content ungodly and Catheryne Kempeneer did not return. Clerck, Willem Berbele Tapestry Thursday Preached: confession, Mass, Eucharist, fast, clergy. de weaver Friday 31 Saturday Sunday Total: 7 Clinckers, Peter vanden Thursday Magriete Bossche Friday (2) 40 Saturday (2) Sunday One more Conincxloo, Jan Lysbeth Painter Thursday Preached: Eucharist. van Friday 38 Saturday Sunday Monday Total: 8 Costeyt, Margriete Tapestry Friday (2) Preached: clergy. Hendrick weaver Saturday 36 Sunday Total: 6

Dons, Jan & Anna Thursday Preached: Eucharist. Henneken (parents) Saturday (2) 25 Sunday Dons, Jan Anna Painter Sunday (2) Remembers no specifics, but did not consider the 70 sermons heterodox. Dons, Jan (Jr.) Jan & Anna Total: 4 (parents) Elizabeth Everaert van Sunday 33 Orley Monday Gheertruyt Jan Bacx Sunday (2) Remembers no specifics. Is a simple woman, did not 44 Monday (2) know she erred. Craves to be forgiven. Ghietels, Jan Tapestry Friday Preached: Mass, fast. 39 weaver Sunday (2) Joos Servant of Jan Ghietels Ghysel, Jans van Monday Taken there by Magriet Ghysels. Knew that vander Elst Lysbeth Lemucken had been expelled from his position in Antwerp. 48 Ghysels, Christiaen Monday Went because she heard that new teachings were being Magriete Vrancx preached. 50 Hinuweel, Johanna Mother possessed Thursday Preached: fast. Hendrick Walschen books of the Sunday Went because his mother told him to. Ate eggs during 16 (mother) prophets. (Friday) Lent. (Monday) Hinuweel, Henricus 8 sermons Jeronimus Hinuweel (son) Houwarts, Preached: fast, saints. Hendrick Denied having called Voes and Esschen martyrs. 27 Claims that he obeys laws of the church. Imbrechts, Giet Tapestry Sunday Preached: fast. 36 weaver Monday Tried to go to one more sermon, but arrived too late. Total: 3

Johanna Jan der Thursday Preached: fast. 19 Voghelare Friday At the time, she thought that there was nothing wrong Saturday with what vander Elst preached. Now she realizes that Sunday it was erroneous. Monday Total: 6 Josyne Willem Monday Preached: fast. 40 Leemans Kempeneer, Catheryne Tapestry Thursday (2) Does not remember content of sermons, but considered Willem de Cleerckx weaver them to be against the law of the Church. 36 Kinderen, Jan Marie van Lawyer in the Owned Librum Thursday (2) Preached: Eucharist (which he did not believe), bells. der Meereghem court of resolutionum Friday He attended the sermons because vander Elst preached 56 or 57 Cameryck ….de indulgs Saturday (3) well, but he knew that what he said was wrong. prior to the edict. Sunday (2) Gave German Monday New Testament to a nun. Was also accused of giving her the Lord’s Prayer of Luther, plus books on the Psalms, the Eucharist, and a canticle. Leemans, Josyne Tapestry Saturday Preached: fast. Willem weaver Sunday Went to the sermons with Willem vanden Bosch. 30-40 Monday Total: 4 Lemucken, Jan Lybeth Ghysel Tapestry Taken there by Magriet Ghysels. Knew that vander Elst van weaver had been expelled from his position in Antwerp. 67

Lysbeth Jan van Thursday 32 Conincxloo Saturday Sunday Margriete Peeter de Thursday Remembers nothing that was preached. Denied 47 Pannemaker Friday (2) knowing that it was wrong to attend or host sermons. Vander Elst Saturday (2) Ate eggs and meat during Lent without permission, (nephew) Sunday (3) because she was sick. Monday Margriete Hendrick Saturday 30 Costeyt Sunday (2) Monday Marie Hendrick Tsas Sunday She herself said that there is no hell or purgatory and 33 that people should neither fast nor hear mass. She ate eggs in Lent, but had permission. Mascane, Friday (2) Tried to attend one other, but arrived too late. Went to Johanna de hear vander Elst with Betteken de Latersse, because he (vettesanna) preached so well. 40 Mereghem, Jan der Lord’s Prayer of Thursday (2) Preached: Eucharist, Mass, confession, fast. Marie van Kinderen Luther, before Friday Lodged vander Elst twice. Knew that he had been 42 ban. Saturday (3) expelled from his position in Antwerp. But she Sunday (2) considers him to be in accord with the teachings of the Monday (2) Church. Mol, Philips de Painter Monday Met JvC and AvO on his way to church and they told 33 him to come hear CvdE. He had been at school with CvdE, so went once, but not again. Moyen, Tapestry Total: 7 Twice had conversations with vander Elst at the house Christiaen der weaver of Willem der Kempeneer Huwieel, Johanna Total: 8 Went to the sermons with his mother. Jeronimus Walschen Once ate eggs in Lent without permission. (mother)

Ophem, Jan van Tapestry Friday Did not consider anything vander Elst said to be against 28 weaver Saturday the teachings of the Church. Sunday Initially taken to the sermons by Hendrick Tsas. Orley, Elizabeth Painter. Thursday Everaerdt van Saturday 37 Sunday Monday Orley, Valentyn Berbele Lord’s Prayer of Thurs (2) Preached: Eucharist, fast, confession, bells. van Bernard van Luther Friday Did not consider vander Elst’s teachings erroneous, 61 Orley (son) (disguised), Der Saturday (3) except his assertions regarding the Eucharist. Summa der Sunday Claimed that he got his books in Antwerp. He sent Godliker Monday them to Claes Rombouts to sell, but Rombouts returned Scrifturen, and St. them to him. Peter were found in his house. Onkele, Ardt Catheryne Goldsmith Friday Preached: Relics van Saturday Considered all that vander Elst said to be in accord with 37 Sunday (3) the teachings of the Church. Monday (2) Pannemaker, Margriete Tapestry Thursday (2) Preached: Eucharist, confession, cloisters, bells. Peeter de Peeter de Jonge weaver in the Friday Was invited to sermons by messenger. 47 (son) court of Saturday Gave his wife eggs to eat during Lent. Margaret of Monday Austria Total: 7 Pannemaker, Margriete Saturday Peeter de Jonge (mother) Sunday 22 Peeter (father) Monday Royepoorte, Tapestry Sunday Remembers vander Elst calling the Church a whore. Did Joos de weaver Monday not understand the sermons. 30 Was taken there by Jan Ghieteels, not knowing where they were going.

Reynhout, Willem vander Thursday Had also heard vander Elst preach in Antwerp. Anna Cammen Friday (2) 26 Monday Rombouts, Glassmaker Books on the Total: 9 A separate law suit was enacted against him, during the Nicholas magic arts were course of which, six witnesses were heard. found in his home. Scariter, Jaspar Wife and two Painter daughters were also implicated. Screyberch, Jan Tapestry Thursday Preached: bells. 31 weaver Saturday Considered all that vander Elst preached to be in accord Sunday (2) with the Church, except his teaching on the bells. Segers, Agnes Bernardt van Thurs (3) Preached: Eucharist, Mass, fast, confession, cloister, 35 Orley Friday bells. Saturday (2) Easter (3) Sleehagen, Jan der Friday (2) Attended the sermons with her son, because she knew Marie vander Moyen (†) Saturday that he went “somewhere holy.” 63 Christiaen der Moyen (son) Soliet, Tapestry Admitted to Sunday (2) Jeronimus weaver possessing Lord’s 45 Prayer of Luther, but said that he burned it when it was banned.

Sternaer, Salesman Vander Elst gave Thursday Preached: Eucharist, clergy. Hubrecht him books, Friday (2) He heard vander Elst preach several times in Antwerp. [in Sinte Anna] including Der Saturday Vander Elst encouraged them to visit Thorn. 27 Summa der Sunday (2) His wife initially took him to the sermons. He Godliker Monday (2) suspected that their content was heterodox and Scrifturen. He confessed to a priest, who refused to absolve him. lent them to Betteken de Latersse. Then he burned them. Tsas, Hendrick Marie Tapestry Possessed a Thursday Preached: Eucharist, cloisters, bells, saints, purgatory. 33 weaver German New Once ate illicit foods during Lent, because of sickness. Testament Tseraerts, Jacob Painter Sunday Preached: bells, holy oil. 32 Jan Dons took him to the sermons. Voghelare, Jan Johanna Tapestry Total: 5 Preached: fast. die weaver Knew that vander Elst’s teaching on the fast was 29 erroneous, but considered his other teachings correct. Walsche, Jan de Butcher Walschen, Peters Admitted to Thursday Preached: Mass, whore of Babylon. Johanna Hinuweel (†) reading the Old Saturday (2) Did not consider anything vander Elst preached to be in [widow and New Friday (2) conflict with the teachings of the Church. She knew he Muelers] Testaments, Sunday had been expelled from his position in Antwerp, but did 41 Baruch, Ezechiel not know why. She brought her two sons to the Daniel, Isaiah, sermons. Ate eggs without permission for two years and Jeremiah. during Lent. Zomer, Tapestry Monday Attended the sermon with his wife. He was drunk and Christiaen de weaver did not know what was happening. Later wished he had 49 not gone.

APPENDIX III MIDDELBURG DEPOSITIONS, 1540-1541

NAME AGE 19/12/40 7/2/1941 16/3/41 ANTWERP OTHER DETAILS BELIEFS CONTACTS Alfonso, Martin 76 x x Jeronimo Gomes, Merchant. Fled expensive times. Heard food is Gabriel Gomes, (possessed cheaper here. Father was a New Christian. Katherina Gomes, 16ducats) He is also a New Christian. Mother was Jaspar Gomes, baptized at 50. He was baptized 40 years Emanuel Laurentio, ago because the king commanded it. Jehan Dias, Beatrix Circumcized. Believes in Jesus. Does not Gomes know where Jesus was born, nor who he was, nor how died. Knew nothing else. Knew no prayers. Is unlearned. Alvares, Katherina 45 x x Symon Mendis (son), (possessed 8 Parents were converts. She was baptized Emanuel Sories ducats) at 3 years old. Believes in Jesus and his (brother-in-law) mother Mary, but knew nothing else regarding her faith. Dalfueris, Fernando 20 x shoemaker parents are Christians, who were baptized young. He was baptized as a baby. Knows his credo and prayers only "nade letter" in Latin, which his mother taught him. Dayras, Fernando 30 x shoemaker Fled expensive times. Father and Mother were Christians. He is not circumcized. Believes what the Church says, but does not know what the Church is. Knows his credo and prayers in Latin, but does not understand them. De la Vaingua, Michael 21 x Garcia Martines Has business with Knew nothing of faith. Is uneducated. Has (shipmate) G. Martines been to confession and Eucharist. Knows prayers and credo 'nade lettere'. de Lyma, Jacomme 18 x Gonsalvo Alveres Merchant. He and his parents are Christians. Is not (father's servant), circumcized. Answered as good Christian Alvaro Bras, Thomas should. Fernandes (shipmate)

Dias, Gomar (wife of 30 x Fled expensive times and famine. Parents Fernando Dayras) were Christians. Was baptized but does not know when. Had her children baptized 8 days after birth. Believes in Mother of God (without knowing if male or female). Knew nothing of Jesus. Believes host contains the body of our lady. Dias, Violenta 35 x Widow, linen Fled expensive times. Parents were weaver. Christians. Her children were baptized 8 days after birth. Doesn't know if Jesus had a father. Believes in the virgin, but does not know her name. Does not know if God was born in heaven or earth. He died in heaven and is now there. Does not know how he died. Knows prayers and credo "nade lettere." Attends confession and Eucharist once per year. Fernandes, Agnes 15 x Baltazar Fernandis (fiance) Fernandes, Anna 21 x Anthoine Fernandis Selling Parents are New Christians, but good (husband), Diego merchandise for Christians. Baptized at 15 days old. Mendes, Augustin husband. Went first Believes in Jesus. Believes the Jews killed Henricus (lives in through England. him. Attends confession and Eucharist house of Mendes), (believes host contains body of Jesus Nonnio Henricus. Christ). Fernandes, Beatricx 7 x Fled expensive times. Father was baptized (daughter of V.Dias) during her lifetime, but her mother before she remembers. She was baptized at age 2. Knows her Pater Noster, Santa Regina, and credo in Portugal. Knew nothing else of faith. Fernandes, Fernando 19 x Baltazar Fernandis Parents and he are Christians. All were (brother of (sister's fiance) baptized at 8 days old. Not circumcized. Francisco/Agnes) Knew creed and answered some things correctly, some not.

Fernandes, Francisco 12 x Knew Pater Noster and credo in (brother of Portuguese "nade letter." Goes to Fernando/Agnes) confession and Eucharist. Believes God is really in the host. Fernandes, Gabriel x x (son of Pedro) Fernandes, Gaspar x (son of Pedro) Fernandes, Gaspar 15 x x Was baptized young. Not circumcized. (son of V.Dias) Fled expensive times. Knew nothing about faith. Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo "nade letter." Fernandes, Gracia 14 x x Gaspar Gomes, Woolweaver Fled expensive times. Parents are (daughter of Pedro) Kathrina (1/2 brother Christians. Father was baptized when she and sister) - added was born. Believes in God and his mother. them in her 2nd Knows nothing about them. Knows Pater deposition, after Noster, Ave Maria, and credo "nade letter" seeing deposition of in Portugal. Confession 2 years ago. her mother.) Fernandes, Leonora 60 x Spinner Fled expensive times. Mother was baptized (wife of M.Alfonso) at age 30. Doesn't know her father. She was baptized at age 15. Her daughter was baptized when 8 days old. Believes in Mary and Jesus, who is received by Holy Ghost. Does not know what the Holy Ghost is, but prays to it. Does not know that Jesus was crucified. Goes to confession 2 times per year and Eucharist once. Fernandes, Leonora 13 x x Fled expensive times. Was baptized when (daughter of V.Dias) first born. Knows Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo in Portuguese. Goes to confession once per year, Eucharist twice. Believes that Jesus is in the host. Does not know its effect.

Fernandes, Loys 80 x Jacome Fernandes Tortured. Had all of his children baptized at 8 days (son), Diego Executed. old, but does not know why, other than that Fernandes, Jaspar the king ordered it. Fled Castile 50 years Gomes (stepson), ago. Circumcized. His parents were Jews. Gabriel Gomes Left Portugal because the king published an (brother-in-law), edict saying that New Christians had to be Jereminus Gomes well-instructed in the faith. He kept the (brother-in-law), Jewish Sabbath and refused to eat pig Katherina Gomes flesh. Believes in our lady and Jesus, who (daughter), Emanuel is 2 persons - God and the son of the Laurenss (son-in- Virgin. Does not believe that the Jews law), Pedro Mendes killed the Lord. Knows nothing about the (son-in-law). . Believes the host is a "figure" of our lady and God. Knew his Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin, credo in Portuguese, but does not understand them. Refused to believe in the crucifixion. Left Portugal through fear of the Inquisition. Marcus Fernandes promised him money to keep him in Antwerp. Fernandes, Maior 9 x x Maria Fernandes (on Fled expensive times and had heard that (daughter of V.Dias) the ship) food here was cheaper. Her parents are both Christians. Does no know about her grandparents. Was baptized. Believes in Jesus and his mother. Knows her Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo in Portuguese. Has never confessed.

Fernandes, Marco 40 x x Emanuel Serano, Grocer. His parents were Jews. He is circumcized. Gabriel de Negro, He was baptized 35 years ago in Lisbon. Gonsilvo Fernandes Believes in God, who was never on earth. (nephew) God's father was Abraham. Jesus is a "malfacteur". Has no knowledge of the Trinity. Since his baptism, he keeps holy days, but also keeps the feasts of the Jews. Believes that Jesus is present in the host. Knows Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin. Knos no credo. Refused to admit that the Jews killed God. Fernandes, Maria (wife 40 x Jacome Fernandes Woolweaver Fled expensive times and famine. She was of Pedro) (son), Diego baptized as a baby. Her own children were Fernandes, Jaspar baptized at 8 days of age. Belives in the Gomes (son from her mother of God and Jesus. Does not know if previous marriage), he was born in heaven or earth. Believes Gabriel Gomes the Jews killed him. Knows her Pater (brother-in-law), Noster, Ave Maria, and credo in Portuguese Jereminus Gomes 'nade letter'. Attends confession once per (brother-in-law), year. Katherina Gomes (daughter), Emanuel Laurenss (son-in- law). Fernandes, Pedro 50 x Emanuel Laurentio Woolweaver. Fled expensive times. His parents were (son-in-law), Jews. He is circumcized. He was baptized Geronimo and Gabriel at 8 years old. Knew nothing of faith. Knew Gomes (brothers of his Pater Noster and credo incorrectly. wife's dead husband), Katherina and Jasper Gomes (wife's daughter and her husband). Fernandes, Sebastiaen x (son of V.Dias)

Fernandes, Speranca 8 x Fled expensive times. Was baptized at 2 (daughter of Pedro) years of age. Knew nothing of faith. Fernandes, Thomas 30 x Loys Fernandes (on Trades with them Parents are Christians. He was baptized at the ship), Emanuel all. Comes to 8 days. Answered as a Christian. Serano, Diego Antwerp once per Mendes, Fernando de year. Bares, Jan Carlo, Loys Peris, Alvero Bras, Gabriel de Negro, Baltazar Fernandes (Brother), Nicolais Fernandes, Jacome De Lyma (on the ship) Fernandis, Brancke 75 x Diego Fernandes, She was a Jew who was forced to convert (grandmother of Anna) Diego Mendis, Nonnio by King of Portugal. Her parents were not Henricus, Henricus Christians. Believes in Jesus and Mary, Nonnio, Gabriel de eternally a virgin. Answered as a Christian Negro, Emanuel ought. Believed host contains body of the Serano, Gabriel Vas, Lord, plus Peter, Paul, and Mary. Marguerita Dyas, George Loupes, Augustin Henricus, Christofel Fernandis. Fernandis, Gabriel x x Hector Lopis, Pedro (servant Anna F) Ribero, Henrico Rodrigas, Gabriel de Negro, Christofel Fernandis, Emanuel Serano, Anthoine de Loromgie (lives in house of D.Mendes)

Gonsales, Alvero 50 x Cloth shearer Did not know his parents. Is circumcized. Was baptized at age 30. Believes in Jesus, born of Mary, but does not know where he was born. Believes that God was crucified by the Jews but does not know why. Knows about the Trinity. Knows his Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo in Latin and Portuguese. Loupes, Isabella 17 x Gracia Fernandes (on Her parents and she are Christians. Knew (servant of G. the ship) nothing of faith. Knew neither Pater Noster, Fernandis) Ave Maria, or credo. Has been to confession but never to the Eucharist. Martines, Gracia 18 x M.Diego (husband), Her parents are Jews who fled Spain. She Gabriel de Negro. was baptized at 8 days. No knowledge of faith, but knew her Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin and Portuguese, and credo in Portuguese. Said no one ever taught her more. Believes the host contains the living God. Mendis, Helena (wife of 60+ x Pedro Mendes Her parents were Christians and died when Marco Fernandes) (nephew). she was young. She was baptized in infancy. She left Lisbon when she was 40 years old. Intends to live from begging in Antwerp. Believes Jesus is the son of Mary, and was born in Bethlehem (but doesn't know whether that is on heaven or earth). Knew nothing about the church or Christ's life. Did not know Pater Noster or credo. Attends Eucharist. Noegnis, Isabel (wife of 25 x Linnenweaver Fled expensive times. Knows her Pater Duarte Rodriges) Noster, Ave Maria, and credo 'nade letter'. Knew nothing more. Rodrieges, G[ar]cia 30 x Linnenweaver His parents were Christians. He is not circumcized. Answered as a Christian ought.

Rodrieges, Jacover 20 x Gracia Martines (on Linnenweaver+G47. His parents are Christians. He is not the ship) Conducts business circumcized. Knew nothing of faith. Knew with G. Martines. his Pater Noster in Latin, Credo in Portuguese. Attends confession and Eucharist once per year. Believes the Eucharist is a "rememberance" of God. Rodriges, Duarte 45 x Linnenweaver. Fled expensive times. Did not know his parents. Is circumcized. Does not know if he was baptized. Believes in his creed, but knows no more. Rodriges, Emanuel 17 x Weaver and carder. Fled expensive times. Is baptized, but does (son of Duarte) not know when. Not circumcized [was examined]. Knows nothing of faith. Knows his Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo 'nade letter.' Rodriges, Maior 13 x Weaver and spinner Fled expensive times. Her parents are (daughter of Duarte) Christians. She was baptized in infancy. Believes in God and his mother, but does not know their names. Knows that Jesus was crucified but does not know where. Has been twice to confession, never to the Eucharist. Says in Portugal, women do not work on Saturdays in celebration of Mary, but men rest on Sundays. Knew her Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo in Portuguese. Rodrigus, Fernando 42 x Andreas de Fretis, He is a New Christian and is circumcized. (grandfather of A. Daniel Alphonso, Was baptized at ago 40 by command of the Fernandes) Anthoine Fernandis, king. Had all his children baptized. Diego Mendes, Believes God is the father, son, and spirit. Augustin Henricus, Jesus lived as a man until he was 32 years Nonnio Henricus, old. Believes in the resurrection. Believes Henrico Nonnio, that the host contains the body of the Lord. Gabriel de Negro, Margareta Dyas, and his nephew.

Rubero, Alfonso 18 x Hector Lopis, Pedro merchant His parents are Christians. He was Ribero. baptized at 8 days old. Is not circumcized. Knew nothing of faith except his credo 'nade letter.' Zont, Francisco (brother 15 x M. Diego (brother) His parents are Christians. He was of G. Martines) baptized at 8 days old. His brother has letters of orthodoxy from the King of Portugal. He knew nothing of faith except his Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and credo in Latin and Portuguese. Has been to confession but not to the Eucharist.

345

APPENDIX IV ANTWERP CONTACTS, 1540

Alphonso, Daniel Alveres, Gonsalvo Bras, Alvaro Carlo, Jan de Bares, Fernando de Fretis, Andreas de Loromgie, Anthoine de Lyma, Jacome de Negro, Gabriel Dias, Jehan (husband of Beatrix Gomes) Dyas, Marguerita Fernandes, Baltazar Fernandes, Diego Fernandes, Gonsilvo Fernandes, Jacome Fernandes, Katherina Fernandes, Loys Fernandes, Nicolais Fernandis, Anthoine Fernandis, Baltazar Fernandis, Christofel Gaspar, Gaspar Gomes, Beatrix (wife of J. Dias) Gomes, Gabriel Gomes, Jaspar Gomes, Jeronimo Gomes, Katherina Henricus, Augustin Henricus, Nonnio Laurentio, Emanuel Lopes, Hector Loupes, George Mendes, Diego Mendes, Pedro Mendis, Symon Nonnio, Henricus Peris, Loys Ribero, Pedro Rodrigas, Henrico Serano, Emanuel Sories, Emanuel Vas, Gabriel

346

APPENDIX V ANSWERS AT GHENT TO THE QUESTION: “What is the dying man’s greatest consolation?”

PRIZE WINNERS: #1: Antwerp: The resurrection of the flesh. (De verryzenes des vleeschs) #2: Wijnoxberghe: Belief that Christ and his Spirit have been given to you. (Ghetrauwen dat u Christus en zynen gheest ghegheven es) #3: Thielt: Belief that Christ provides all things. (Ghetrauwen dat met Christo alle dyngh ghegheven es) #4: Loo: Jesus Christ as our advocate and satisfaction to God the Father. (Jesus Christus advocaet en vuldoend voor Godt den vader) #5: Brussels: The promise of God. (De Beloftenesse Godts) #6: Cortijcke: God’s compassion and the submission of the flesh to the spirit (Godts ontfermhertigheyt, int onderdanigh maken des vleeschs onder den gheest)

OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Audenarde: The witness of the spirit that we are children of God. (De ghetugenesse des gheests dat wy kinderen Godts zijn) Axcele: A conscience that is at peace. (Een goe wel gheruste conscyencye) Bruges: Trust in Christ alone, through the Word. (Ghetrauwen duer twoordt, op Christum alleene) Caprijcke: The compassion of God as our hope. (De ontfermhertigheyt godts midts hope) Deijnze: Hope in Scripture. (Hope duer Schriftuere) Edijnghe: The resurrection of Christ. (De verryzenesse Christi) Leffinghe: Hope in the grace of Christ. (Hope der ghenaden Christi) Meenene: The assurance of the Spirit, that we have peace with God. (De roerynghe sgheests, betughende den pays met Godt) Meesene: Trust in the compassion of God, when we have remorse for our sins. (Tghetrauwen op dontfermhertigheyt Godts, met berau van zonden) Nieukercke: The proof of the death and resurrection of Christ. (In Christo Jesu sterven en verryzen, dit ghelooven duer sgheests bewyzen) Nieuport: Hope in Christ alone. (Christus moet alleen des menschen troost zijn) Thienen: The compassion of the Lord. (De ontfermhertigheyt des heeren) Ypres: The Living Word of God. (Tlevende woordt Godts)

347

APPENDIX VI EDICTS CONCERNING NEW CHRISTIANS

Letters of the emperor, prescribing obedience to the edict of 31 March, 15261, which authorizes the New Christians of Portugal to travel temporarily to the Low Countries Brussels, 27 February, 1529

Charles, etc. To the first Lieutenant or sergeant of weapons, greetings. We have recently received a plea from the New Christians of the Portuguese nation, in which they explain that, in the year 1526, they obtained from us permission to come into these lands of ours, to visit, pass through, and to sell their goods, conduct their commerce, and buy necessary items. And they claim that they were also given permission to remain in our lands for a period of thirty days. Likewise, to travel , freely and unobstructed from our lands to Germany, or elsewhere as they saw fit. And all of this was allowed, they claim, provided that they not pursue any activity against our holy faith, or against us, our friends, our lands or subjects. And if they wanted to remain longer than thirty days in these our lands, the same was allowed if permission was obtained anew from us. Thus was their request granted by us in an open letter containing our seal, on the last day of March in the aforementioned year, 1526. It now happens that these same supplicants would like to exercise the rights accorded to them in the aforementioned letter. Thus, they recently came to our lands to conduct their business, thinking (as they had been told by one of their friends), that if they entered these our lands, then one of our officials would arrest them and take them into custody, our former letter of permission notwithstanding. They feared that the provisions of this letter would not be accorded to them. And because of this fear, they dare not come into our lands, in case we failed to prevent this situation. They therefore beg us quite desperately for help. So it is that, having considered this matter, we request and demand (and seal it with this letter) that if you shall read this our letter of permission and consent as described above, with regard to the request of the aforementioned supplicants, and in accordance with our decree (for risk of great pain to us) all our judges, justices, and officials shall know that they must allow these supplicants to peacefully enjoy and use our aforementioned letter of permission with regard to all of its contents. Furthermore, our officials are to avoid making any arrests of these same supplicants or of their goods, or businesses. And if any should be so arrested, they shall immediately be released, without cost or shame and they (and all of their number) must be treated reasonably and fairly. And if there is opposition, refusal, or if they flee, summon the opponent, refuser, or fleer to come and appear before the judges and justices (under whose jurisdiction the arrest occurred) on a particular day, in order that he might lay out and explain the reasons for his opposition, refusal, or fleeing. He is to answer, and the procedure is to occur in accordance with the proper law. And the date set is to be noted by the aforementioned

1 This ordinance is no longer extant.

348 judges and justices. And we command those same judges to exercise speedy and expeditious justice on those parties involved. This is as we desire, notwithstanding any letters received to the contrary. Given in our city of Brussels, the 27th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1529. (underneath is written): By the emperor in his court (and signed): Verderue

Act of the Queen, Mary, by which she charges Guillaume De Lare to stop the New Christians coming secretly from Portugal to the city of Antwerp, with the intention of traveling to Salonika and elsewhere in the Ottoman territories, to abjure their Catholic religion. Brussels, 18 July, 15382

It has come to the attention of the dowager Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, etc., regent and governess for the emperor of his Low Countries, that in recent times, many New Christians have secretly left the Kingdom of Portugal and have come into the city of Antwerp with the intention of evading the authorities. From there, they go to reside in Salonika and other places which lie under the obedience of the Turks, where they live as Jews, apostasizing the holy Catholic faith, breaking the safe conduct which they claim to have obtained from her Majesty. For this reason, the said regent, her Majesty, wanting to avoid this situation, and following the advice and considerations of the president of the Council of State, the Treasurer General and the commissioners of the financial realm of her Majesty, has directed and ordered (and does direct and order) Guillame De Lare, factor3 of this group to transport and hold in all the necessary places, to arrest, seize, and apprehend all of the aforementioned New Christians, or to find the appropriate rulers of the city of Antwerp, who are subject to her aforementioned Majesty and who fall within her jurisdiction. Guillame De Lare is to proclaim this edict of her Majesty the regent. And the order to apprehend and hold these people is mandated by this royal woman, her Majesty, to all the officials, judges, burgomasters, lawyers, and subjects of all the cities and places under her rule. And in order that Guillame De Lare do and obey this, we bestow on him all the necessary favor, aid, and assistance, and will do so as necessary in the future. In order that he be able to carry out the contents of this edict and all that pertains to it, the Queen has bestowed (and does now bestow) on Guillame De Lare complete authority, for as long as he holds his position. And with regard to the journeys and travels he shall make in order to carry out this duty, he shall have for each day he is occupied with these tasks,

2 J. Lameere and H. Simont, Recueil Des Ordonnances Des Pays-Bas. Deuxième Série. 1506-1700, 6 vols. (Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1910), 5: 77. 3 Each trading nation in the city of Antwerp had a factor (facteur), whose job it was to represent and protect their interests in the town. In addition to other duties, he acted as their representative in any business between them and the crown.

349 thirty sols, (each worth two Flanders groot), for every day. And these monies are to be paid from the confiscations of the New Christians when they come, and not otherwise, which shall be given to him by the after the summons and payment, as he deems appropriate. Given in her Majesty’s Chamber of Finance in Brussels, the 18th day of July, in the year 1538.

Ordinance of the emperor, ordering the Sheriff and Margrave of Antwerp to denounce the Jews and those living according to the rites of the Israelite religion Valenciennes, 16 December, 15404

By the emperor

Our sheriff of Antwerp and margrave of the lands of Reyn, greetings. It has come to our attention that, within our aforementioned city of Antwerp, in recent years various people have come, claiming to be New Christians. There they live under the privileges granted by us, but nevertheless, are not in fact Christians, but Jews or Marranos, who live, in the secrecy of their homes, according to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews. Reliable information has come to us in this regard. These people want to enjoy the privileges accorded by us (which were given only to true Christians), in direct opposition to our intention and purpose in providing these privileges and to the great scandal of our holy Christian faith and to the disadvantage of the well-being of the community. So it is that we, seeking to prevent this situation, and because we want good Christians to enjoy our aforementioned privilege, and the Jews and pretend or fake Christians be punished, we command and order you, via this edict, that you immediately and without delay do publish and proclaim everywhere within your jurisdiction, in all the places where such proclamation customarily takes place, the fact that we stridently order all those who know of any who are living as Jews, or who perform their ceremonies or who observe the Sabbath of the Jews, to denounce and turn in to you or to the burgomaster of Antwerp, as quickly as possible, these people, on pain of being considered an accomplice and receiver of the Jews, and of being treated and punished as such as an example to others. And in order to uphold the directives of our decree, you are to proceed against the ungodly to the execution of these punishments without delay or exception. This we order, etc. Given in Valenciennes, the 16th December, 1540.

4 Lameere and Simont, Recueil Des Ordonnances Des Pays-Bas, 5: 269.

350

Edict of the emperor, refusing the New Christians of Portugal the right to stop and conduct business in his lands. Brussels, 25 June, 1544

By the emperor.

Our margrave and sheriff of Antwerp, or his viceroy, greetings. It has come to our attention that, with the last army and flotilla recently arrived in these our Netherlands from the Kingdom of Portugal, are come many persons, men, women, and children, their families and households. In particular they are come to our aforementioned city of Antwerp. These people are fugitives from the aforementioned Kingdom of Portugal on account of the fact that, although they give the outward appearance of being Christians, nevertheless in truth they are Jews, apostates from our holy Christian faith. And some of them have explained that from here they leave, with the intention (we have heard often enough) of traveling out of our aforementioned lands to Germany and Italy, and as far as Salonika, and to other lands ruled by the Turks (enemies of our holy Christian faith). And when they reach these lands, they live there as Jews and make use of the goods they have gathered while they lived in Christendom... So it is that we order and command you (via this edict) that you should declare and publish everywhere within your jurisdiction that we stridently order that all burghers, salesmen, citizens and residents of our aforementioned city of Antwerp (including foreigners and all our subjects, whatever their status, quality, or condition, and without exception) who have any knowledge of the people and goods of the aforementioned New Christians who came with the last flotilla from Portugal, that within three days following the publication of this edict, they must denounce and turn in the names of the same New Christians, as well as their goods, wares, or businesses, so that these same goods, wares, and businesses might be registered and noted by you. And all of this is on pain that those who shall hide these New Christians shall lose their lives, and those who would hide or conceal their goods shall lose double the value of those goods and in addition, shall be judicially corrected. And we forbid those who have possession of those same goods to allow them out of their sight, unless they have our consent, or that of our beloved sister, the dowager Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, etc., regent and governess of these our lands, on pain of punishment. Furthermore, we expressly prohibit and forbid that any shippers, wagoneers, post-carriers, hirelings, or messengers (as well as any others who carry post or rent horses) shall provide any of these New Christians with wagons, ships, horses, or shall arrange for them to obtain such, on pain of loss of life and goods. In order to uphold the directives of our decree, and all that pertains to it, you are to proceed against the ungodly to the execution of these punishments without grace, favors, or preferment. And we give you complete power, authority, and specifically order it by means of this edict. Furthermore, we summon and order all our judges, justices, officials, and subjects who shall be involved in this matter, to do what is written above, with earnest understanding and obedience. For this pleases us.

351

Given in our city of Brussels, under our counter-seal, printed here on this placard, the 25th day of June, in the year 1544. (underneath is written): By the emperor in his court (and signed): Verreycken (and this letter was sealed with the counter-seal in the form of a placard, which his Majesty used in Brabant.)

Placard, revoking the privileges of the New Christians of Portugal, and ordering their expulsion from the Low Countries, under pain of death and confiscation of goods. Gent, 17 July, 15495

By the emperor

Our faithful and esteemed president and members of our court in Flanders, warm greetings. It has come to our attention that in the past few years, various people, claiming to be New Christians and presuming to conduct trade and other business, traveled from the Kingdom of Portugal and elsewhere, indeed, they travel daily, and came (and still come in increasing numbers) into our lands. From the inquisition and research of the King of Portugal, we have learned of their apostasy and lives. They secretly observe Jewish ceremonies, not having any Christian faith, but merely giving the appearance of Christianity by outward performance thereof. And because they fear the reprisals of the King of Portugal against them because of their misdeeds, they have come here to our lands. Here they live under the protection of the privilege which we previously granted to the sincere New Christians, assuming them to be genuine. But in actual fact they are, for the most part, Jews and Marranos. And others of them have, over time, fallen back into their Judaism, observing and celebrating the Sabbath and other Jewish ceremonies in their houses and apartments. And this they do so secretively that it is impossible to prove and verify, no matter the enormity of the suspicion or indications one might have. Moreover, otherwise they live as Christians, doing the work and possessing all the outward signs of Christian men. But we have found by experience that many of them, who we took to be good Christians, after having lived for a long time in our lands, and having collected there much gold, silver, and other belongings, take these same belongings and leave our lands, traveling to Salonika and elsewhere outside of Christendom, where they live openly as Jews. And they make their way through our aforementioned lands, and freely or covertly take their aforementioned belongings out of Christendom. All of this they do to the great scandal of our holy Christian faith, and to the great disadvantage of the communal well-being of our Kingdoms, lands, and subjects, and therefore, all of Christendom.

5 Lameere and Simont, Recueil Des Ordonnances Des Pays-Bas, 5: 556-57.

352

So it is that we, desiring to prevent this situation and to maintain order in future years, have righteously and reasonably considered this matter, and by our rightful knowledge, authority, and complete power, have recalled and abolished (and do recall and abolish by this edict and for all future times) the privilege previously granted to the New Christians, saying that they may come and reside in our aforementioned lands. And we have forbidden and prohibited (and do forbid and prohibit by this edict) all New Christians, at this time and in the future, to come and operate or have associations in these our same lands, or to pass through there, on pain of confiscation of life and goods. We expressly order and command all New Christians who have come into our lands within the last six years to avoid the inquisition of Portugal, that they must, within one month of the publication of this edict, leave our lands, with their wives and children and their goods. And after the aforementioned six months have passed, we forbid all New Christians who have fled Portugal to come into our lands or pass through them, on pain of being punished in life and goods. And in order that no one can claim to be ignorant of the foregoing, we desire and order you that you, immediately and without delay, publish and proclaim everywhere in the lands of Flanders, this our recall, edict, and ordinance, in all the places where such proclamation customarily takes place. Proceed against the trespassers and disobedient by execution of the aforementioned punishments, without grace, favor, or exception. In order to carry out this edict and all that pertains to it, we give you complete power, authority, and specifically order it by means of this edict. We summon and order you to do what is written above, with earnest understanding and obedience. For this pleases us. Given in our city of Gent, under our counter-seal, printed here on this placard, the 27th day in July, in the year 1549. (underneath is written): By the emperor in his court. (and signed): Verreyken.

353

REFERENCES

1. UNPUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES

a. Stadsarchief, Antwerp

Privilegekamer: 93, 271, 1561, 3358.

Vierschaar: 80, 145 (MF622430), 176, 314, 316.

Gilden en Ambachten: 4528.

Gebodboeck: vols. A and B.

b. Stadsbibliotheek, Antwerp

HS11285: Chronijk der Nederlanden en bijzonder van Antwerpen, beginnende met den jare 1472, en eindigende met 1556, edited by de Vos. Antwerpen: Egide van Diest, 1564.

HS2541C

K7605: F.G. Ullens, Antwerpsch Chronykje, in het welk zeer veele en elders te vergeefsch gezogte geschiedenissen, sedert den jare 1500 tot het haar 1574...naar deszelfs aldaar ontdekte Handschrift, voor de eerstemaal in’t licht gebracht, edited by Pieter vander Eyk. Leiden, n.p., 1743.

c. Algemeen Rijksarchief, Brussels

Papieren van Staat en Audiëntie: 1177/2, 1177/6, 1417/15, 1504.

Letteren en Missieven: 1645/1, 1652/3, 1668.

Rekenkamer: 19669.

d. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague

Knuttel 22b: Luther, Martin. Eyn brieff an die Christen ym Niderland, 1523.

Knuttel 99: Newe zeytung ausz Dem Niderland, 1546.

Knuttel 99a: Von der Unchristlichen tyrannischen Inquisition den Glauben belangend Geschrieben aus Niderland. Wittenberg, 1546.

354

2. PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES

Enzinas, Francisco de. Bericht over de Toestand in de Nederlanden en de Godsdienst bij de Spanjaarden, Ton Osinga and Chris Heesakkers, trans., Amsterdamse Historische Reeks 28. Hilversum: Verloren, 2002.

Fredericq, Paul. Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis Haereticae Pravitatis Neerlandicae, Hoogeschool van Gent: Werken van den practischen leergang van vaderlandsche geschiedenis 9, 5 vols. Ghent: J. Vuylsteke, 1889-1906.

Gansfort, Johannes Wessel. Opera: Facsimile of the Edition Groningen 1614. Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1966.

Génard, Paul. Antwerpsch Archievenblad, 30 vols. Antwerp: Gui. Van Merlen, 1864- 1893.

Laurent, Charles; Lameere, J.; and Simont, H. eds. Recueil des Ordonnances des Pays- Bas. Deuxième Série, 1506-1700, 6 vols. Brussels: J. Goemaere, 1898-1922.

D. Luthers Werke; kritische Gesamtausgabe, 15 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883- 1911.

Miller, Edward W., and Hardenberg, Albert, eds. Wessel Gansfort: Life and Writings, 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917.

Wesembeke, Jacob van. Beschryvinghe vanden Staet ende voortganck der Religie in Nederlant ende saeken daerover ontstaen van den Jare 1500 aff ende principalick onder de Regeringhe van Coninck Philips de tweede inde Jaren 1565 ende 1566. 1569; Middelburgh: Adraen vanden Vivere, 1616.

3. SECONDARY LITERATURE

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 56 vols. 1890; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1967-70.

Liste Chronologique des Édits et Ordonnances des Pays-Bas: Règne de Charles-Quint (1506-1555). Brussels: Gobbaerts, 1885.

Aercke, Kristiaan P. G. “Germanic Saphho: Anna Bijns,” in Women Writers of the Renaissance and Reformation, edited by Katharina M. Wilson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987.

355

Andriessen, Jos. “Het Geestelijke en Godsdienstige Klimaat,” in Antwerpen in de XVIde Eeuw, edited by Walter Couvreur, Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis, 203-32. Antwerp: Mercurius, 1975.

Arnade, Peter. Realms of Ritual: Burgundian Ceremony and Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Augustijn, Cornelis. “Die Ketzerverfolgungen in den Niederlanden von 1520 bis 1545,” in Ketzerverfolgung im 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhundert, edited by Silvana Seidel Menchi, Wolfenbütteler Forshungen 51, 49-64. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992.

Beemon, F. Edward. “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition and the Preconditions for the Dutch Revolt,” ARG 85 (1994): 246-64.

Beets, N. “Een godsdienstige allegorie door Barent van Orley,” Oud-Holland 49 (1932): 129-37.

______. “Een godsdienstige allegorie in Houtsnede,” Oud-Holland 49 (1932): 182-90.

Bergmans, Paul. “Liesvelt, Jacques van” in Biographie Nationale, L’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 12, 122-24. Brussels: Émile Bruylant, 1911-1913.

Birnbaum, Marianna D. The Long Journey of Gracia Mendes. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2003.

Blockmans, Wim and Prevenier, Walter. The Promised Lands: The Low Countries Under Burgundian Rule, 1369-1530, Elizabeth Fackelman, trans., The Middle Ages Series, edited by Edward Peters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Blok, M. J. “Den Boom der Schriftueren Ghespeelt tot Midelburch in Zeelant, den Eersten Augusto in tJaer 1539: Een Studie van de Theologische Elementen,” in Rond de Kerk: Zeeland, edited by A. Wiggers et al., 94-105. Delft, Eburon, 1991.

Blok, P. J., et al. Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, 10 vols. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1870-1944.

Blommaert, Philip. Geschiedenis der Rhetorykkamer De Fonteine. Ghent: Gyselynck, 1847.

Bogaers, A., and Helten, W. L. van, eds. Refreinen van Anna Bijns. Rotterdam: J. H. Dunk, 1875.

356

Braekman, E. M. Le protestantisme à Bruxelles: des origines a la mort de Léopold I. Brussels: Bibliotheque Royale Albert I, 1980.

Brauene, Anne-Laure van. “Brotherhood and Sisterhood in the Chambers of Rhetoric in the Southern Low Countries,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36 (2005): 11-36.

Brandt, J. Nederlandse Bijbels en Hun Uitgevers 1477-1952. Amsterdam: Proost en Brandt, n.d.

Coigneau, Dirk. “Rederijkersliteratuur,” in Historische Letterkunde, edited by Marijke Spies, 35-57. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1984.

______. “De Evangelische Leeraer: ‘een spel vul heresien’,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 39-40 (1989-90): 117-45.

Decavele, Johan. De Dageraad van de Reformatie in Vlaanderen, 1520-1565, Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, 2 vols. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975.

______. “De Opkomst van het Protestantisme te Brussel,” in Noordgouw, Cultureel tijdschrift van de Provincie Antwerpen 19-20 (1979-83): 25-44.

______. “Jan Utenhove en de opvoering van het zinnespel te Roborst in 1543,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 39-40 (1989-1990): 101-16.

______. “Vroege Reformatorische Bedrijvigheid in de Grote Nederlandse Steden: Claes van der Elst te Brussel, Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Leiden (1524- 1528),” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 70 (1990): 13-29.

Decavele, Johan, ed. Keizer tussen stropdragers. Karel V, 1500-1558. Louvain: Davidsfonds, 1990.

Dis, Leendert Meeuwis van. Reformatorische Rederijkersspelen uit de Eerste Helft van de Zestiende Eeuw. Haarlem: Vijlbrief, 1937.

Drewes, J. B. “Het Interpreteren van godsdienstige spelen van zinne,” in Jaarboek Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent 29 (1978-79): 5-124.

Duke, Alastair. “The Face of Popular Religious Dissent in the Low Countries, 1520- 1530” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 26 (1975): 41-67.

357

______. “Salvation by Coercion: the Controversy surrounding the ‘Inquisition’ in the Low Countries on the Eve of the Revolt,” in Reformation Principle and Practice. Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, edited by P. N. Brooks, 149-50. London: Scholar Press, 1980.

______. “Building Heaven in Hell’s Despite: The Early History of the Reformation in the Towns of the Low Countries,” in Church and State Since the Reformation: Papers Delivered to the Seventh Anglo-Dutch Historical Conference, edited by Idem and Charles A. Tamse, Britain and the Netherlands 7, 45-75. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981.

______. “A Legend in the Making: News of the ‘Spanish Inquisition’ in the Low Countries in German Evangelical Pamphlets, 1546-1550,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 77 (1997): 125-44.

Duverger, Jozef. “Lutherse predicatie te Brussel en het proces tegen een aantal kunstenaars (april-juni 1527), Wetenschappelijke tijdingen 36 (1977): 221-28.

Eekhoud, Georges. Les Libertins d’Anvers: Légende et Histoire des Loïstes. Brussels: La Renaissance du Livre, 1934.

Ehrstine, Glenn. Theater, Culture, and Community in Reformation Bern, 1523-1555, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 85. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Engen, John H. van. Devotio Moderna: Basic Writings, The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1988.

Erné, Benjamin H., and Dis, Leendert M. van. De Gentse Spelen van 1539, 2 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982.

Frederichs, Julius. De Secte der Loïsten of Antwerpsche Libertijnen (1525-1545): Eligius Pruystinck (Loy de Schaliedecker) en zijne Aanhangers. Ghent: J. Vuylsteke, 1891.

Ginsburger, Ernest. “Marie de Hongrie, Charles-Quint, les veuves Mendès, et les néo- Chrétiens,” Revue des études juives 89 (1930): 179-92.

Goosens, Aline. Les Inquisitions Modernes dans les Pays-Bas Meridionaux, 1520-1633, edited by Hervé Hasquin, Spiritualités et Pensées Libres, 2 vols. Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1997-1998.

358

Goris, Jan A. Étude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales à Anvers de 1488 à 1567. Contribution a l'histoire des débuts du capitalisme moderne. 1925; New York: Burt Franklin, 1971.

Graizbord, David L. Souls in Dispute. Converso Identities in Iberia and the Jewish Diaspora, 1580-1700. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Gregory, Brad S. Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe, Harvard Historical Studies 134. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Greyerz, Kaspar von. “Portuguese conversos on the Upper Rhine and the converso community of sixteenth-century Europe,” Social History 14:1 (1989): 59-82.

Groote, Henry L. V. de. “De Zestiende-Eeuwse Antwerpse Schoolmeesters,” in Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis in zonderheid van het oud Hertogdom Brabant, 50, 3rd edition, (1967): 179-318.

Haeghen, Ferdinand van der, and Lenger, Marie-Thérèse. Bibliotheca Belgica. Bibliographie générale des Pays-Bas V. 1964; Brussels: Cultur et Civilisation, 1979.

Haliczer, Stephen, ed. and trans. Inquisition and Society in Early Modern Europe. London: Croom Helm, 1987.

Halkin, Léon-E. La Réforme en Bégique sous Charles-Quint. Brussels: La Renaissance du Livre, 1957.

Halkin, Léon-E. and Verheyden, A. L. E. De hervorming in het zuiden: staat en kerk tegenover de ketters. Utrecht: W. de Haan, 1952.

Hamilton, Bernard. The Medieval Inquisition. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1981.

Henningsen, Gustav, Tedeschi, John, and Amiel, Charles, eds. The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe: Studies on Sources and Methods. Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986.

Herculano, Alexandre. History of the Origin and Establishment of the Inquisition in Portugal. Translated by John C. Branner. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1926.

Hoop Scheffer, Jacob G. de. Geschiedenis der Kerkhervorming in Nederland van haar ontstaan tot 1531. Amsterdam: G. L. Funke, 1873.

359

Hüsken, Wilhelmus N. M. “Cornelis Everaert en de Troon van Salomon,” Ons geestelijk erf 65 (1991): 144-64.

Ijsewijn, Jozef. “The Coming of Humanism to the Low Countries” in Itinerarium Italicum: the Profile of the Italian Renaissance in the Mirror of its European Transformations, edited by H. A. Oberman, T. A. Brady, Jr., and P. O. Kristeller, 193-302. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Israel, Jonathan I. Diasporas within a Diaspora: Jews, Crypto-Jews and the World Maritime Empires (1540-1740). Edited by David S. Katz, Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 30. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

______. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806. Edited by R. J. W. Evans, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Jacquot, Jean ed. Fêtes de la Renaissance, Fêtes et Ceremonies au Temps de Charles Quint. Vol.2. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1960.

Jordan, Wilbur K. The Development of Religious Toleration in England from the Beginning of the English Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.

Kalkoff, Paul. Die Anfänge der Gegenreformation in den Niederlanden, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 79. Halle: Verlag May Niemeyer, 1903.

Kamen, Henry A. F. L’Eveil de la tolerance. Paris: Hachette, 1967.

______. The Spanish Inquisition: an Historical Revision. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997.

Kaplan, Benjamin J. Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht 1578-1620. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Karant-Nunn, Susan C. Reformation of Ritual: An interpretation of early modern Germany. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Keersmaekers, August A. “De rederijkerskamers te Antwerpen: kenttekeningen in verband met ontstaan, samenstelling en ondergang,” Varia Historica Brabantica 6-7 (1978): 173-86.

Kernodle, George R. From Art to Theater: Form and Convention in the Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.

360

Kint, An M. The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1996.

Kittelson, James M. “Martin Bucer and the Sacramentarian Controversy: The Origins of His Policy of Concord,” ARG 64 (1973): 166-83.

Kronenberg, Maria E. Verboden Boeken en Opstandige Drukkers in de Hervormingstijd, Patria Vaderlandse Cultuurgeschiedenis in Monografieën 44. Amsterdam: P. N. van Kampen & Zoon, 1948.

Laar, L. J. A. van de. “De Katholieke Restauratie te ’s-Hertogenbosch ca. 1525-1625,” in Zesde colloquium ‘De Brabantse stad,’ 171-234. Antwerp: Provinciebestuur, 1983).

Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd ed. 1977; Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Landwehr, John. Splendid Ceremonies. State Entries and Royal Funerals in the Low Countries, 1515-1791. A Bibliography. Leiden: B. de Graaf, 1971.

Lea, Henry Charles. History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 3 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922.

Lecler, Joseph. Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme. 1955; Paris: A. Michel, 1994.

Lindberg, Carter. “Sacraments,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans Hillerbrand. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Lopes, Joaquim Mauricio. Les Portugais à Anvers au XVIieme siécle. Antwerp: J. E. Buschmann, 1895.

MacAloon, John, ed. Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1984.

Maeyer, Z. E. H. Al. de. “Van ketterse en andere schandaleuse spelen,” in Handelingen, Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 13 (1959): 23-59.

Mak, Jacobus J. Uyt Ionsten Versaemt. Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1957.

361

Marnef, Guido. Antwerp in the Age of Reformation: Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550-1577. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

______. “Rederijkers en religieuze verniewing te Antwerpen in de tweede helft van de zestiende eeuw,” in Conformisten en rebellen. Rederijkerscultuur in de Nederlanden (1400-1650), edited by Bart Ramakers, 174-88. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003.

Meadow, Mark. “Ritual and Civic Identity in Phillip II’s 1549 Antwerp Blijde Incompst,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 49 (1998): 37-67.

Meewis, Wim. De Vierschaar: De Criminele Rechtspraak in het Oude Antwerpen. Kapellen: Pelckmans, 1992.

Mertens, Frans H., and Torfs, Karel L. Geschiedenis van Antwerpen sedert de stichting der stad tot onze tyden, 8 vols. 1846; Antwerp: C. de Vries-Brouwers, 1975.

Mentzer, Raymond A. Jr. Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc, 1500-1560. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1984.

Monter, William. Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Moore, R. I. The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 950-1250. 1987; Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

Moreau, Gérard. Histoire du Protestantisme à Tournai jusqu’à la veille de la Révolution des Pays-Bas. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1962.

Muller, J. W. Cornelis Everaert’s spelen als spiegel van de maatschappelijke toestanden zijns tijds, Verslagen en Mededelingen der Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie. Ghent: A. Siffer, 1907.

Muller, J. W. and Sharpé, Lodewijk, eds. Spelen van Cornelis Everaert. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1920.

Nahon, Gérard. “Les marranes espagnols et portugais et les communautés juives issues du marranisme dans l’historiographie récente (1960-1975),” Revue des études juives 136 (1977): 297-367.

Netanyahu, Benzion. The Marranos of Spain from the Late XIVth to the Early XVIth Century. 1966; London: Cornell University Press, 1999.

362

______. The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. New York: New York Review Books, 2001.

Nierop, Henk F. K. van. “Censorship, Illicit Printing and the Revolt of the Netherlands,” in Too Mighty to be Free. Censorship and the Press in Britain and the Netherlands, edited by Alastair C. Duke and Charles A. Tamse, Britain and the Netherlands 9, 29-44. Zutphen: De Walburg Press, 1987.

Nieuwenhuizen, Jos van den. “De parochiale organisatie van Antwerpen tijdens de Middeleeuwen,” in Pascua Medievalia. Studies voor Prof. Dr. J. M. de Smet, edited by R. Lievens, et al., 15-27. Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven, 1983.

Nijhoff, Wouter, and Kronenberg, Maria E., eds. Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 3 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923.

Oberman, Heiko A. “Gansfort, Reuchlin and the ‘Obscure Men’: First Fissures in the Foundations of Faith,” in Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert: Festschrift für Erich Meuthen, 2 vols. Vol. 2, 717-35. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994.

______. “Wessel Gansfort: Magister Contradictionis,” in Wessel Gansfort and Northern Humanism, edited by Akkerman, et al., 97-121. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993.

Ozment, Stephen. The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.

Paulo, M. Amilear. “Les Marranes Espagnols et Portugais et les Communautés Juives Issues du Marranisme dans l’Historiographie Récente (1960-1975),” Revue des Études juives 136 (1977): 297-367.

Paviot, Jacques. “The Portuguese in Bruges,” in International Trade in the Low Countries (14th-16th Centuries): Merchants, Organization, Infrastructure, edited by Bruno Blondé, Peter Stabel, and Anke Greve, Studies in Urban Social, Economic, and Political History of the Medieval and Early Modern Low Countries, 55-74. Leuven: Garant, 2000.

Perry, Mary Elizabeth and Cruz, Anne J. Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Peters, Edward. Inquisition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

363

Pinchart, Alexandre. “Annotations,” in Les Anciens Peintres Flamands, Leur Vie et Leurs Oeuvres, edited by J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle, Complément du Tome II, 286-88. Brussels: F. Heussner, 1865.

Pirenne, Henri. Histoire de Belgique. 1908; Brussels: H. Lamertin, 1973.

Pleij, Herman, ed. ‘T is al vrouwenwerk. Refreinen van Anna Bijns. Amsterdam: Querido, 1987.

Pohl, Hans. Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen (1567-1648): Zur Geschichte einer Minderheit, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beihefte 63. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1977.

Prims, Floris. “‘De Boom der Schriftuur’ te Antwerpen,” Antwerpiensia 13 (1939): 84- 91.

______. Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, 8 vols. Brussels: Uitgeverij Kultuur en Beschaving, 1977-1985.

Pullan, Brian. Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice: The Social Institutions of a Catholic State to 1620. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Puts, Freddy. “Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse rederijkserskamer De Goudbloem,” Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent, 23-24 (1973-1974): 5-34.

Rahlenbeek, Charles. “Les Juifs à Anvers,” in Revue de Belgique 8 (1871): 137-46.

Ramakers, Bart. Spelen en figuren: Toneelkunst en processiecultuur in Oudenaarde tussen Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijd. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996.

Ranke, Bert. Rederijkers in de Branding: het Vlaamsche Rederijkerstoneel en de Opstand der XVIe eeuw. Antwerpen: N. V. de Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1941.

Révah, Israel S. “Pour l’histoire des marranes à Anvers: recensements de la ‘Nation Portugaise’ de 1571 à 1666,” Revue des études juives 122 (1963): 123-47.

Rhijn, Maarten van. De invloed van Wessel Gansfort. The Hague: n.p., 1927.

Rivkin, Ellis. “How Jewish were the New Christians?” in Hispania Judaica. Studies on the History, Language, and Literature of the Jews in the Hispanic World 1, edited by J. M. Sola-Solé, S. G. Armistead, and J. H. Silverman, 103-15. Barcelona: Puvill-Editor, n.d.

364

Rombouts, Philippe F., and Lerius, Théodore F. X. Van. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpesche Sint Lucasgilde. Antwerp: J. E. Buschmann, 1872.

Roosbroeck, Robert van. “Een nieuw dokument over de beginperiode van het Lutheranisme te Antwerpen,” De Gulden Passer 5 (1927): 267-84.

Roose, Lode. Anna Bijns: Een Rederijkster uit de Hervormingstijd, Bekroonde werken 93. Ghent: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, 1963.

Roth, Cecil. Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948.

Rouzet, Anne. Dictionnaire des Imprimeurs, Libraires et Éditeurs des Xve et XVIe Siècles dans les Limites Géographiques de la Belgique Actuelle, Collection du Centre National de L’Archéologie et de L’Histoire du Livre 3. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1975.

Rummel, Erika. “Voices of Reform from Hus to Erasmus,” in Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, edited by Thomas A. Brady, et al., 2 vols. Vol. 2, 61-92. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Salomon, Herman P. Portrait of a New Christian: Fernão Álvares Melo (1569-1632), Fontes Documentais Portugesas 18. Paris: Centro Cultural Português, 1982.

Schepper, Hugo de. “Entre compromis et répression: inquisition et clémence aux Pays- Bas sous Charles Quint,” in Charles Quint face aux réformes: colloque international organisé par le Centre d’histoire des réformes et du protestantisme, edited by Guy le Thiec and Alain Tallon, 159-77. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005.

Schotel, Gilles D. J. Den Boom der Schriftueren van VI personagien, gespeelt tot Middelburch in Zeelant, den eersten Augusto in ‘t Jaer 1539. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1870.

Shmuelevitz, Aryeh. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal, and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984.

Snellaert, F. A. Verhandeling over de Nederlandsche Dichtkunst in Belgie, sedert hare eerste opkomst tot aen de dood van Albert en Isabella. Brussels: M. Hayez, 1838.

365

Soly, Hugo. “De dominantie van het handelskapitalisme: stad en platteland,” in Geschiedenis van Vlaanderen van oorsprong tot heden, edited by Els Witte. Brussels: Historische Getuigen, 1983.

______. “Plechtige Intochten in de Steden van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden Tijdens de Overgang van Middeleeuwen naar Niewe Tijd: Communicatie, Propaganda, Spektakel,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 97:3 (1984): 341-361.

Spruyt, Bart J. “Wessel Gansfort and Cornelis Hoen’s Epistola Christiana: ‘The Ring as a Pledge of My Love,’” in Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) and Northern Humanism, edited by Fokke Akkerman, et al., 122-41. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993.

Steppe, Jan-Karel. “‘De overgang van het mensdom van het oude verbond naar het nieuwe.’ Een Brussels wandtapijt uit de 16e eeuw ontstaan onder invloed van de Lutherse ikonografie en prentkunst.” De Gulden Passer 53 (1975): 326-59.

Straelen, Jan B. van der. Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Rederykkamers. Antwerp: J.-E. Buschmann, 1863.

Tedeschi, John. The Prosecution of Heresy. Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 78. New York: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1991.

Tentler, Thomas N. Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.

Thomas, Werner. “De mythe van de Spaanse inquisitie in de Nederlanden van de zestiende eeuw,” Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 105 (1990): 325-53.

Tracy, James D. “Heresy Law and Centralization under Mary of Hungary: Conflict between the Council of Holland and the Central Government over the Enforcement of Charles V’s Placards,” ARG 73 (1982): 284-307.

______. Holland Under Habsburg Rule, 1506-1566: The Formation of a Body Politic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Trapman, Johannes. De Summa der Godliker Scrifturen (1523). Ph.D. Diss., Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1978.

Ullman, Carl. Reformers Before the Reformation. Translated by R. Menzies, 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1855.

366

Uytven, Raymond van. “Invloeden van het sociale en professionele milieu op de godsdienstkeuze: Leuven en Edingen,” Bronnen voor de religieuze geschiedenis van België, Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijden, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 47, 259-79. Louvain: Bureaux de la R. H. E. Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1968.

Uytven, Raymond van, et al., eds. De Gewestelijke en Lokale Overheidsinstellingen in Brabant en Mechelen tot 1795, Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchief in de Provinciën, Studia 82, volume 2. Brussels: Algemeen Rijksarchief, 2000.

Verheyden, A. L. E. Le Martyrologe Courtraisien et Le Martyrologe Bruxellois. Vilvorde: R. Allecourt, 1950.

______. Le martyrologe Protestant des Pays-Bas du Sud au XVIme siècle. Brussels: Éditions de la Librairie des éclaireurs unionistes, 1960.

______. De Hervorming in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in de XVIe eeuw. Brussels: Synode van de Protestantse Kerken, 1949.

______. Le Conseil des troubles; liste des condamnés (1567-1573). Brussels: Palais des académies, 1961.

Vincent, Auguste. “L’Interrogatoire de Marc Martens et de Jacques van Liesvelt en 1526,” Revue des Bibliothèques et Archives de Belgique 7 (1909): 40-45.

Visser, Casper C. G. Luther’s Geschriften in de Nederlanden tot 1546. Assen: van Gorcum & co., 1969.

Waite, Gary K. “Popular Drama and Radical Religion: The Chambers of Rhetoric and Anabaptism in the Netherlands,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, 65 (1991): 227- 55.

______. “Reformers on Stage: Rhetorician Drama and Reformation Propaganda in the Netherlands of Charles V, 1519-1556,” ARG, 83 (1992): 209- 39.

______. Reformers on Stage: Popular Drama and Religious Propaganda in the Low Countries of Charles V, 1515-1556. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Waterschoot, Werner. “De rederijkerskamers en de doorbraak van de reformatie in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden,” in Jaarboek der Koninklijke Soevereine Hoofdkamer van Retorica ‘De Fonteine’ te Gent, 45-46 (1995-1996): 141-53.

367

Wee, Herman van der. The Growth of the Antwerp Market and the European Economy (fourteenth-sixteenth centuries), 3 vols. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1963.

Willems, J. F. “Cornelis Everaert: Tooneeldichter van Bruges,” Belgisch Museum 6 (1842): 41-66.

Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition. Edited by Charles G. Nauert, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 15. 1962; Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992.

Woltjer, Juliaan J. Friesland in Hervormingstijd. Leiden: University Press, 1962.

______. “Dutch Privileges, Real and Imaginary,” in Britain and the Netherlands: Some Political Mythologies: Papers Delivered to the Fifth Anglo- Dutch Historical Conference 5, edited by J. S. Bromley and E. H. Kossmann, 19- 35. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.

Zemon-Davis, Natalie. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.