The Dutch Language in Britain (1550–1702) Brill’S Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture

Home , Anthonie Heinsius, Bernard de Gomme, Dutch letter, George Gilpin, Gerbrand Bredero, Theodore Beza

The Dutch Language in Britain (1550–1702) Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture

Series Editors

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) R.M.W. Dixon (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) N.J. Enfield (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen)

VOLUME 10

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc The Dutch Language in Britain (1550–1702)

A Social History of the Use of Dutch in Early Modern Britain

Christopher Joby

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Stadholder William ii and Mary Henrietta Stuart by Anthony van Dijk. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Joby, Christopher. The Dutch language in Britain (1550–1702) : a social history of the use of Dutch in early modern Britain / by Christopher Joby. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-90-04-28518-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — isbn 978-90-04-28521-7 (e-book) 1. Dutch language— Social aspects—Great Britain. 2. Multilingualism—Great Britain—History. 3. Dutch language—History— 16th century. 4. Dutch language—History—17th century. 5. Dutch language—History—18th century. 6. Great Britain—History—1485– i. Title. PF74.75.J63 2015 439.31’0941—dc23 2014043020

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1879-5412 isbn 978-90-04-28518-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28521-7 (e-book)

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. To Marijke van der Wal and Ton Harmsen Two Constant Sources of Help, Advice and Inspiration

⸪

Contents

Acknowledgements xi Abbreviations xiii List of Illustrations xiv

Prologue 1

1 Dutch in Early Modern England: An Introduction 13 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Terminology 14 1.3 Sources 16 1.4 The People Who Knew Dutch in Early Modern England 21 1.4.1 Dutch Communities in England 21 1.4.2 Temporary Dutch Visitors to England 45 1.4.3 English People Who Knew Dutch 53 1.5 Conclusion 55

2 Dutch in the Church 56 2.1 Introduction 56 2.2 Dutch Church Congregations in Early Modern England: A Chronology 57 2.2.1 The Sixteenth Century 58 2.2.2 The Seventeenth Century 72 2.2.3 Other Religious Communities 83 2.3 Written Dutch in the Church Domain 86 2.3.1 Correspondence 86 2.3.2 Meeting Minutes 95 2.3.3 Church Registers 98 2.3.4 Simeon Ruytinck’s Treatise on an Agape Meal 102 2.3.5 Memorials and Inscriptions 103 2.3.6 Books Printed in Dutch 107 2.3.7 Concluding Remarks on Written Dutch in the Church Domain 118 2.4 Spoken Dutch in the Church Domain: A Chronology 119 2.4.1 The Sixteenth Century 119 2.4.2 The Seventeenth Century 123 2.4.3 The Eighteenth Century 129 2.5 Conclusion 130 viii contents

3 Work and the Government of the Dutch Communities 132 3.1 Introduction 132 3.2 The Use of Dutch in the Work Domain 132 3.2.1 Textiles 133 3.2.2 Printing 140 3.2.3 Drainage and Engineering 144 3.2.4 Fishermen and other Sailors 148 3.2.5 Merchants 151 3.2.6 Other Working Environments 157 3.2.7 Dutch Loanwords in English in the Work Domain 160 3.3 The Government of the Dutch Communities 161 3.3.1 The politicke mannen in Norwich 162 3.3.2 The politicke mannen in other Dutch Communities 169 3.4 Conclusion 171

4 Learning and the Home 172 4.1 Introduction 172 4.2 The Domain of Learning 173 4.2.1 The Education of the Children in Dutch Communities in England 173 4.2.2 Further Education 184 4.2.3 Cornelis Drebbel: A Case Apart 191 4.2.4 The Royal Society 192 4.2.5 Materials for Learning Dutch 194 4.2.6 Dutch Books in Private and Public Collections 197 4.2.7 Concluding Remarks on Learning 200 4.3 The Domestic Domain 201 4.3.1 Personal Letters 201 4.3.2 Wills 221 4.3.3 Household Inventories 225 4.3.4 Other Evidence of Written Dutch in the Domestic Domain 225 4.3.5 Concluding Remarks on Written Dutch in the Domestic Domain 227 4.3.6 Spoken Dutch in the Domestic Domain 227 4.4 Dutch Words in English Dialects 232 4.5 Conclusion 233

5 The Court, Diplomacy and the Military 234 5.1 Introduction 234 5.2 The Diplomatic Domain 235 contents ix

5.2.1 The Written Use of Dutch in the Diplomatic Domain 236 5.2.2 The Spoken Use of Dutch in the Diplomatic Domain 251 5.2.3 English Diplomats Who Knew Dutch 251 5.3 Dutch at Court 254 5.3.1 Elizabeth I 255 5.3.2 James I 256 5.3.3 Charles I 257 5.3.4 Charles II 259 5.3.5 The Commonwealth 260 5.3.6 William III 261 5.4 The Military Domain 271 5.5 Dutch in the Navy 276 5.6 Conclusion 280

6 Dutch Literature 282 6.1 Introduction 282 6.2 Dutch Verse in Early Modern England 283 6.2.1 The Refereyn 283 6.2.2 Dutch Sonnets in Sixteenth-Century England 285 6.2.3 Jacobus Colius 289 6.2.4 Jan Cruso 292 6.2.5 Jan Proost 295 6.2.6 Constantijn Huygens 296 6.2.7 Abraham Booth 307 6.2.8 Franciscus Junius 309 6.2.9 Jan Six van Chandelier 309 6.2.10 Johannes Vollenhove 310 6.2.11 John Lagniel: Author of Two Dutch Songs 312 6.2.12 English Poets Writing Dutch 312 6.2.13 Concluding Remarks 314 6.3 Dutch in Plays 315 6.3.1 Thomas Dekker 316 6.4 Dutch in Works of Prose 322 6.4.1 Johannes Radermacher’s Grammar 323 6.4.2 The Prose of Emanuel van Meteren, Simeon Ruytinck and Jacobus Colius 325 6.4.3 Travelogues and Journals 327 6.4.4 The Prose of Lucas d’Heere 336 6.4.5 Dutch Learners and Dictionaries 337 6.5 Translations Into and Out of Dutch 337 6.6 Conclusion 342 x contents

7 Dutch in Scotland and Wales 344 7.1 Introduction 344 7.2 The Dutch in Early Modern Scotland 345 7.2.1 The Western Isles 345 7.2.2 The Shetland and Orkney Islands 346 7.2.3 The Scottish Mainland 350 7.3 Scots in the Low Countries 354 7.4 The Use of Dutch in Scotland 356 7.4.1 The Commercial Domain 356 7.4.2 The Domestic Domain 361 7.4.3 The Church Domain 364 7.4.4 The Military Domain 367 7.4.5 Other Domains 370 7.4.6 Concluding Remarks on the Use of Dutch in Scotland 374 7.5 The Influence of Dutch on Contact Dialects in Scotland 375 7.6 Wales 376 7.6.1 Flemish in Pembrokeshire 376 7.6.2 Dutch Visitors to Wales 378 7.7 Conclusion 379

Epilogue 381 The Knowledge and Use of Dutch in Early Modern Britain 381 Histories of the Dutch Language and Histories of Language in Britain 383 Future Research Opportunities 385 Concluding Remarks 386

Appendices Appendix 1 A Selection of Dutch Poetry Written in Early Modern England 391 Appendix 2 Membership Lists of the London Dutch Church Transcribed by R.E.G. and E.F. Kirk 411

Bibliography 413 Index 441 Acknowledgements

Two people to whom I am particularly indebted in writing this book are Professor Marijke van der Wal and Dr. Ton Harmsen. Marijke is Professor of Dutch at Leiden University. She has helped me in various ways during my career as a neerlandicus, in particular with my translations of some of Constantijn Huygens’ poetry published in 2008 and more recently by inviting me to give a paper at a Taal & Tongval colloquium in Ghent in December 2012. That paper forms the basis of the present book (Joby 2013e). Ton Harmsen has recently retired as a lecturer in Dutch literature at Leiden. He has helped me to translate two works by Vondel into English and as I have written this book, he has always been willing to offer help and advice on Dutch passages discussed in the book. For these reasons I dedicate this book to both Marijke and Ton. Another person to whom I am deeply indebted is Dr. Alastair Duke, formerly a Reader in History at Southampton University. Alastair was kind enough to read an earlier version of this book and offered me much valuable advice and encouragement. Dr. Karel Bostoen has been another constant source of advice and support in the writing of this book. Karel’s work on Johannes Radermacher’s 1568 Dutch grammar has been a particular inspiration to me as I have sought to argue for the importance of London in the history of early modern Dutch language and literature. A third person to mention in this regard is Professor Peter Trudgill. Peter’s work on sociolinguistics, in particular in relation to Norfolk, from where we both hail, has been an invaluable source and he has always been on hand to provide me with help and advice. Other scholars have either helped me in writing this book, or given me the necessary encouragement to pursue my research interest in the Dutch language in early modern Britain. They are, in no particular order: Dr. Ad Leerintveld, Curator of Modern Manuscripts at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague; Dr. John Alban, former Norfolk County Archivist; Dr. Ulrich Tiedau, Senior lecturer at ucl; Jill Kraye, Emeritus Professor of the University of London and Honorary Fellow of the Warburg Institute; and my colleagues in the Department of Dutch at Hankuk. I would also like to thank staff at the British Library, notably Marja Kingma, the National Library of Scotland, the uea Library, Ghent University Library, Leeds University Library, Leiden University Library, Norwich City Library, Norfolk Record Office, London Metropolitan Archives, Austin Friars, the National Archive of Scotland, and staff at the numerous other archives I have visited and corresponded with to unearth source material for this book. To help defray the costs of visiting these libraries and archives and carrying out xii acknowledgements other field work I am grateful for the financial support of De Stichting voor de Geschiedenis van de Taalwetenschap and the alcs. Finally, I would like to thank my family: my parents, Richard and Christine, who took me on regular holidays to the Low Countries in my youth, which allowed me to develop an interest in their culture and history, and gave me the opportunity to learn and speak Dutch; and my sister, Lyn, who assisted me in a number of ways as I wrote this book.

Dr. Christopher Joby Abbreviations bl British Library bwn Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden dnb Dictionary of National Biography eca Edinburgh City Archives edd English Dialect Dictionary (ed. J. Wright 1900–05) eebo Early English Books Online ero Essex Record Office H 87 Hessels, J.H. (ed.). (1887–97). Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae archivum, 4 vols. Cambridge: Dutch Reformed Church knaw Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen LH 82 Huygens, Lodewijck (1982). The English Journal, 1651–1652, trans. and ed. by A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer. Leiden: Brill. lma London Metropolitan Archives lnd Late New Dutch nas National Archive of Scotland nnwb Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek nro Norfolk Record Office N.S. New Style odnb Oxford Dictionary of National Biography oed Oxford English Dictionary O.S. Old Style pro Public Record Office (The National Archives), Kew. stc Short Title Catalogue stcn Short Title Catalogue, Netherlands voc Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (Dutch East India Company) wnt Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal List of Illustrations

1 A map indicating where Stranger communities were established in England. Source: Hugh Dunthorne, Britain and the Dutch Revolt, 1560–1700 (2013). Cambridge University Press 22 2 Letters patent of Elizabeth I, 8 June 1570, granting leave to 30 Dutch and their families to settle in Great Yarmouth, the total number not to exceed 300. English (nro, col 6/2) 33 3 The Dutch Cottage at Canvey. Author’s own collection 38 4 The Dutch church at Austin Friars, London. Author’s own collection 59 5 Letter from Rachel Jansdochter to the consistory of the London Dutch church. lma clc/180/MS07428/001. London Metropolitan Archives, City of London (by courtesy of the Dutch Church in London) 92 6 Baptismal records from Austin Friars in 1564 in Latin and Dutch. lma clc/180/MS07380. London Metropolitan Archives, City of London (by courtesy of the Dutch Church in London) 100 7 The memorial to Johannes Elison. Blackfriars’ Hall, The Halls Norwich, Norwich City Council. Author’s own collection 105 8 The titlepage of Johannes Utenhove’s De Catechismus oft Kinder leere diemen te Londen in de Duydtssche Ghemeynte was ghebruyckende. Courtesy of the Dutch Church in London. Author’s own collection 109 9 The titlepage of Marten Micron’s Christelicke Ordinancien. Courtesy of the Dutch Church in London. Author’s own collection 113 10 The titlepage of the 1582 Book of Orders Concerning Wool and Bayes. nro ncr 17d 135 11 A letter written by Nicholas Corsellis to Christian Kluxen of Cologne on 30 June 1665, ero D/du 457/7, fol. 16r. Reproduced by courtesy of the Essex Record Office 153 12 The silver drinking cup made for Willem Courten to celebrate his escape from prison in 1568. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 159 13 The building forming the architectural core of Norwich School in the early modern period, now the School’s chapel. Author’s own collection 181 14 A statue of Sir Thomas Browne in the Haymarket, Norwich. Author’s own collection 199 list of illustrations xv

15 The probate inventory of Elisabeth van de Sande. nro dn/inv 26/176B 226 16 Portrait of Michiel Adriaensz. De Ruyter. Ferdinand Bol 1667. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 246 17 Willem iii, Prince of Orange, King of England and Stadtholder, Godfried Schalcken, c. 1692. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 263 18 Etching of the Siege of Limerick 1690, Adriaen Schoonbeek 1691. Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam 274 19 The final manuscript page of ’Tcostelijck Mall. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek kw, ka xla, 1622, fol. 8r 301 20 An indenture made between Alexander Hunter and Flemish textile workers. eca, 209, no. 7558. Courtesy of Edinburgh City Archives 357

Prologue

Introduction

Recently, historians of the early modern period have written extensively about the movements of people who spoke Dutch from the Low Countries to Britain. However, linguists have not so far examined the interesting topic of the use of the Dutch language in early modern Britain (cf. Burke 2005: 29). It is the aim of this book to address this situation by providing for the first time an account of the knowledge and use of Dutch in Britain from the middle of the sixteenth century to the start of the eighteenth century. Consideration will be given to the use, both spoken and written, of the language in a range of social domains.1 These include the church, the work domain, learning, the home, and the royal court. To adapt slightly the American linguist, Joshua Fishman’s well-known formula, this book describes who spoke or wrote Dutch to whom, when, about what and with what intention in early modern Britain.2 Although they do not frame the book, we shall consider questions often discussed in social histories of language such as how the use of Dutch was shaped by language policy in Britain; the factors influencing language shift and what, if any, language planning can be discerned amongst those who used Dutch.3 By focussing on the use of Dutch in a range of social domains, emphasis will necessarily be placed on matters external to the language, i.e., on how language relates to the context in which it is embedded, rather than on internal matters, such as grammar and syntax (cf. Burke 2005: 7). Nevertheless, I shall not stick rigidly to this distinction, but instead comment on notable internal features of the use of Dutch in Britain. My ability to do this is to a large degree determined by the available material. We have many letters written in Dutch, and so forms of address will be given particular consideration (see section 4.3.1). Some of these letters contain dialectal features, notably those associated with Flemish dialects, and so attention will be paid to these where they occur (see sections 2.3.1.1 and 4.3.1). In relation to social domains reference is sometimes made to ‘speech communities’ (Burke 2004: 5). This is a useful term in that it allows us to identify

1 Romaine defines a domain as ‘an abstraction, which refers to a sphere of activity representing a combination of specific times, settings, and role relationships’ (Romaine 2000: 44). 2 Fishman’s original formula is ‘who speaks what language to whom and when’. Quoted in Burke (2005: 6). 3 For the phrase ‘social history of language’, see, for example, Burke (2004: 3).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_002 2 Prologue and analyse a particular group whose members communicate in a common language. However, it is also problematic for it suggests that the language they use is homogeneous and that the edges of these communities can be clearly defined. Furthermore, it can lead us to place the emphasis for the study of language on the users, the members of these communities, rather than the language itself. In other words, once we have defined these communities we may cease to look at what happens to the language elsewhere, outside these communities. This is an important point in relation to the present study and I return to it below. As well as providing an account of who spoke or wrote Dutch in which social domains, I devote a chapter to the Dutch literature produced in early modern England. This subject has previously received more attention than the corresponding history of the language, although perhaps less than the work of Dutch and Flemish artists in England at this time. Of note in this regard are Leonard Forster’s account of Dutch Renaissance poetry written in England, ‘Janus Gruter’s English Years’ (Forster 1967) and J.A. van Dorsten’s similarly rich account of the Dutch contribution to Elizabethan literature and art (Van Dorsten 1973). In the rest of this prologue I want to consider three themes. First, the start and end dates for this book and the reasons for them; secondly, the heterogeneity of the Dutch used in early modern Britain; and thirdly the geographical boundaries, which, along with the start and end dates, provide the framework for this book. A summary of each chapter will then be given before some concluding remarks.

The Start and End Dates

Both the start date, 1550, and the end date, 1702, owe their significance to historical events rather than shifts in the nature of the Dutch language. Yet together they frame a period during which Dutch acquired a particular significance in Britain. In 1550 a Dutch church was established at Austin Friars in London, in which, needless to say, services were conducted in Dutch. Prior to this there had been people whose mother tongue was Dutch in London and elsewhere in England, but 1550 marked a decisive turning point in the use of Dutch. In the following three years liturgical, confessional and catechismal documents were written in Dutch by the leaders at Austin Friars to confirm and support the use of the language in the church. Several of these were the first such documents to be written in Dutch, although it should be said that anti-heresy leg- islation made it extremely difficult to print Reformed confessional texts in the Prologue 3

Low Countries. They can be seen as a serious attempt at language planning, in order to establish the language as a defining marker of the congregation in London. The church at Austin Friars was of course in the Reformed tradition. Documents such as those mentioned above had previously been written in Latin, but with the emphasis in the Reformation on the vernacular and the requirement for the laity to understand and actively participate in the liturgy, they now needed to be produced in Dutch. That is not to say that Latin was excluded from the church domain; for some time it continued to play an important role at Austin Friars and in other early Dutch churches in England, although it was now the Neo-Latin of the Renaissance humanists which pre- vailed rather than the medieval Latin of the Vulgate. The languages with which Dutch competed in various domains is a theme we shall return to throughout this book and I come back to it at the end of this chapter. Although, as I have just noted, 1550 has been chosen for historical reasons, it was an interesting time in the development of the Dutch language. It was only two years prior to this, in 1548, that the Habsburg Netherlands were united politically for the first time in the Burgundian Circle (Willemyns 2013: 78). A sense of unity amongst those who spoke various dialects of Neder-duytsch (‘Low German’) had not yet developed in any meaningful way. Indeed, we can perhaps talk more usefully of a spectrum of ‘Dutches’ rather than one homog- enous language, Dutch, to describe the various dialects spoken across the Dutch-speaking Low Countries Provinces. The heterogeneity of the object of our study is a theme that will be developed throughout this book, and is discussed in more detail in the next section of this prologue. Despite this diversity, however, at about this time the first moves were being made towards a standardization of the language.4 On the Continent, in 1541 Jan Gymnich of Antwerp was one of the first people, if not the first, to advocate the use of Dutch in as many domains as possible, challenging the dominance of Latin and French in public life in the Low Countries. In 1551 Joos Lambrecht, a printer from Ghent, published his Naembouck, which Roland Willemyns aptly describes as ‘one of the very first corpus planning instruments [in the Dutch language]’ (Willemyns 2013, 80–1).5 This was a lexicon, as the title tells us, ‘of all . . . pure Flemish words’

4 Roland Willemyns (2013: 87) talks about the lack of an explicit standard or norm in sixteenth- century Dutch and the language was still considered to be in flux at the beginning of seventeenth century (p. 92). 5 Dibbets (2003: 129) gives a date of 1546 for Lambrecht’s Naembouck. 4 Prologue

(van allen . . . ongheschuumde vlaemsche woorden).6 The fact that Lambrecht refers to ‘Flemish’ words should not surprise us, but again points to the fact that the notion of a unified Dutch language had yet to emerge. Reference to ‘pure’ or ongheschuumde (lit. lacking scum or froth) words is an example of a more general trend associated with the rise of the vernacular in early modern Europe; a move towards purifying languages, in this case ridding the language of French and Latin ‘impurities’ (cf. Burke 2004: 141–59). Jan van der Werve’s Het Tresoor der Duytscher Talen (‘The Treasure of the Dutch language’), first published in Antwerp in 1553, again rails against the invasion of Dutch by Romance languages and is a clarion call to rid the language of such impurities.7 As we shall see though, not all Dutch authors heeded this call and words from French in particular continued to be used by some of them during the period under investigation. In 1556 Jan Utenhove published a translation of the New Testament in Emden. A striking feature of Utenhove’s work is that it uses the language not only of Dutch dialects, but also of dialects from further afield in the Germanic language area. It can be seen as part of a more general attempt to create ‘some kind of general (koine) Dutch’, a trend that culminated in the publication of the States Bible (Statenbijbel) in 1637, which was a major milestone in the development of standard Dutch (Willemyns 2013: 82). Utenhove had been a church elder in London from 1550 to 1553 before the leaders and many members of the London Dutch Reformed congregation were forced into exile by the Marian persecutions. There is some debate amongst scholars as to whether Utenhove’s ‘Germanized’ version of the New Testament was inspired by the significant number of speakers of Low German dialects in London, or by those in Emden, where he lived and worked in exile.8 This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6.3). The fact that these works could be printed and thus easily disseminated helped both to make texts in Dutch available to more people and to encourage

6 The full title: Van allen natuerlicken ende ongheschuumde vlaemsche woorden / ghestelt in ordene by a b c / ende twalsch daer by ghevought / tot voorderinghe van der jongheyt in beyde de talen: van nieuws verbétert ende van veel Vlaemsche woorden grooteliken ghemeerdert. 7 Jan van der Werve, Het Tresoor der Duytscher talen: Een seer profijtelyck boeck voor alle de ghene: die de Latijnsche sprake ende meer andere niet en connen ende bysondere die het Recht hanteeren . . . Jan (Hans) de Laet, 1553. 8 In December 1548 Bernard Ochino wrote from London to Wolfgang Musculus in Berne that ‘there are in London more than 5,000 Germans’ (Beeman 1933–37: 264; Robinson 1846: 336). However, precisely what is meant by ‘Germans’ in this context is notoriously difficult to deter- mine, as Germans, Dutch and even Scandinavians were often identified by this umbrella term (cf. Burke 2004: 161). Prologue 5 moves towards a standard language. The first Dutch psalter comprising settings specifically composed for use in church, again compiled by Utenhove, was printed by Steven Mierdman in London in 1551 (Joby 2014a: 6). John Day would later publish works in Dutch in London, and the Brabant refugee, Anthonie de Solempne, would do the same in Norwich between 1568 and 1570. To the names of Mierdman, Day and De Solempne, we can add that of Henry Bynneman, who published Jan van der Noot’s Het Bosken (‘The Grove’) in 1570– 1571 (Waterschoot 1992: 28–44). The most influential Dutch grammar produced in the sixteenth century was the Twe-Spraack vande Nederduitsche Letterkunst (‘Conversation about Dutch Grammar’) written by Hendrick Spiegel and published in 1584 by the Amsterdam Rhetoricians’ Chamber (rederijkerskamer), De Eglantier. However, this was not the first Dutch grammar to be written. Thanks to the painstaking work of Karel Bostoen (Bostoen 1985), it is now generally accepted that this accolade goes to a 1568 unpublished manuscript written not in the Low Countries, but in London by the mercator sapiens, Johannes Radermacher. The fact that Radermacher’s grammar was unpublished obviously meant that it did not have the influence of Spiegel’s Twe-Spraack.9 We should also admit that it is clearly unfinished, much of it consisting of an introductory argument as to why such a grammar was necessary. One reason Radermacher puts forward in his introduction is that Dutch is not so poor or ‘unfruitful’ (onvruchtbar) that it cannot express what can be expressed in Latin or Greek, two languages that had already been grammaticized. Here, we find the topos of pride in the vernacular. Writers across Europe were defending and promoting their own vernaculars during this period and it is interesting that Radermacher’s defence of Dutch predates that of Simon Stevin on the Continent in his Uytspraeck vande Weerdicheyt der Duytsche Tael (‘Declaration of the Worthiness of the Dutch Language’) by some eighteen years (Burke 2004: 65). Does this suggest that members of the Dutch community in London were taking pride in their vernacular somewhat earlier than those with Dutch as their mother tongue in the Low Countries? Radermacher was one of a number of Dutch-speaking intellectuals in London at this time. I wonder if it is not too fanciful to suggest that he was discussing the ideas described in his grammar with other London Dutch intellectuals such as Emanuel van Meteren, who wrote early Dutch sonnets and a history of the Dutch Revolt in London. We discuss Radermacher’s grammar in more detail in Chapter 6 (section 6.4.1). The nominal end date for this study, 1702, is again chosen for historical rather than linguistic reasons. In that year, the Anglo-Dutch King William iii

9 For more on Spiegel’s Twe-Spraack, see Dibbets (2003: 1–24). 6 Prologue died. Courtiers who used Dutch returned to the Netherlands, but the language still continued to be written and spoken in Britain. After 1702 Dutch congregations met in Canvey Island, Colchester, Norwich, Sandwich and London. The Dutch Chapel Royal, established when William became King, continued to record baptisms and marriages in Dutch. The persistence of the language in the church domain reflects the close link between language and religion that is often discussed by linguists.10 Despite the persistence of Dutch in the church domain, after 1702 there was no new impulse to promote the Dutch language in Britain driven by events such as the arrival of the Duke of Alba in the Low Countries in 1567, which drove thousands of Protestants to flee to England, or the accession of William iii to the English throne, bringing with him Dutch- speaking courtiers and minor officials.

The Heterogeneity of Dutch in Early Modern Britain

Returning to the theme of heterogeneity, between these two dates, 1550 and 1702, there was a wide range of ‘Dutches’ in use in Britain. Most of those who went to London and other cities in southeast England in the middle of the sixteenth century came from the Southern Netherlands and so the dialects of Flanders and Brabant dominated. Indeed, we often find features of these dialects in correspondence from this period. At the same time the Dutch of Utenhove’s New Testament attempted to broaden the language to include words from elsewhere in the Germanic language area. But whereas ministers of the Dutch churches in the sixteenth century often came from the Southern Netherlands, in the seventeenth century they came from the Northern Netherlands, reflecting the ‘victory’ of Protestantism in the North, as the South fell back into the hands of Catholic Spain. The written Dutch of William iii contained many verbs ending -eren, derived from French verbs, and other French loan words, some of which could be described as Gallicisms. This may reflect the fact that French had been the de facto first language at the Dutch court for many years and indeed William seemed equally at home in French as he did in Dutch. In the church domain we could find different ‘Dutches’: the ‘archaic, highly- formal language’ used by preachers rubbing shoulders with the less refined

10 See, for example, also Fishman (1997: 331). Fishman’s main concern is a three-way link between language, religion and ethnicity (for the link between the last two see also Mews 1987). Further investigation may reveal whether or to what extent ethnicity played a role in the Dutch churches in early modern Britain. Prologue 7

Dutch in which church members exchanged words before, after or even during services (Willemyns 2013: 204). Here, we could talk in terms of ‘societal multilingualism’, whereby the formal language acts as an ‘archilect’, or more precisely in this context, a ‘hierolect’, fulfilling ‘high’ functions such as preaching, whilst the language of everyday speech fulfils ‘low’ functions, such as greetings between members of the congregation outside the liturgy.11 To the ‘Dutches’ already mentioned we can add the Dutch of non-native speakers such as seamen who picked up some of the language working on Dutch ships or John Merrick, an English negotiator at peace talks between Russia and Sweden, who wrote in Dutch from London in 1618 (see section 5.2.1). In this regard, one sometimes senses that for those whose mother tongue is Dutch, the Dutch of non-native speakers is not ‘real’ Dutch.12 This is of course nonsense and in some sense mirrors one feature that can be discerned in the histories of the Dutch language; a tendency to make a close association between the Dutch people and the Dutch language. Perhaps we should not blame those who make this association, for it is one that goes back at least as far as Johannes Radermacher, mentioned above.13 He made the connection between natie (‘nation/people’) and language in his 1568 grammar, and it is clear that language was a determinative marker of the Dutch and other Stranger communities in early modern London; in other words they were ‘communities of language’. Radermacher passed comment on how the French, Italian and Spanish pronounced certain Dutch phonemes. If, as this suggests, members of those Stranger communities in London spoke Dutch, although it may have sounded unusual to the native ear, it would still have been Dutch. In short, we must recognize the heterogeneity of forms of the language that fall under the umbrella term ‘Dutch’. In passing, it is also worth asking whether this desire to use language as a sign of belonging to the Dutch community may mean that the language was used by those of higher social status in this community as well as artisans and manual labourers. If so, this would contrast with the situation in the United Provinces, where French was often used as a sign of class and education by the upper classes (cf. Burke 2004: 108).

11 I use the term ‘societal multilingualism’ rather than the related term, ‘diglossia’, as the latter is a somewhat contentious term. For a good introduction to ‘diglossia’ see Romaine (2000: 48–9). See also section 2.3.2. 12 In a similar vein, Roland Willemyns (a Belgian) notes that Hollanders tend to speak in denigrating terms of varieties of Dutch other than their own (Willemyns 2013: 205). 13 Peter Burke (2004: 160–72) provides many examples of the historically close relationship between language and nation. 8 Prologue

Sometimes we find mixing of Dutch with other languages. Early records from the Dutch church in London are written in a mixture of Dutch and Latin, as are baptismal records from the Dutch church in Norwich. Dialogue in the plays of the London playwright, Thomas Dekker, sometimes mixes Dutch and English. Such code switching again tests the boundaries of what is and is not Dutch and is a further example of where we must sometimes transgress our self-imposed limits.

Geographical Boundaries

Another boundary that defines this book is a geographical one: it considers the use of Dutch on the island of Great Britain. However, as with the other boundaries already discussed, languages do not always observe geographical ones. Nevertheless, I have chosen to impose this geographical boundary as the present book acts as something of a corrective; addressing the fact that the use of Dutch in early modern Britain has largely been overlooked by those who write the history of the language, in the hope that in future they will take it into account. It is not clear why they have done this, for as will become evident the language was used extensively in Britain at this time. One possible reason, which I have already touched on, is that histories of the Dutch language closely follow the history of the Dutch (and Flemish) people. Roland Willemyns perhaps gives the game away in his history of the language (2013), when he devotes a chapter to Colonial Dutch.14 The close relationship between language and Empire has previously been noted; the Roman Empire and Latin, the Spanish Empire and Castilian to name but two such pairings (Burke 2004: 20). It may be this close relationship that leads those who write histories of Dutch to focus on its use in the Dutch language area of the Low Countries and the colonies and former colonies of the Dutch Empire. The fact that Britain was of course never a part of the Dutch Empire, is, it seems to me, one reason why the use of the Dutch language in that country has tended to be overlooked. I wonder if the notion of community might have played a role here. In effect, histories of the Dutch language have focussed on the use of the language by the Dutch people, or ‘community’ and some of those they colonized, who in some sense were incorporated into this community, rather than following the language wherever it went. In this regard it may be so that social histories of Dutch in other parts of Europe, such as the Baltic, where its use is attested in several coastal

14 See my review of this book in Dutch Crossing 37(2) 2013, pp. 191–2. Prologue 9 cities, or Seville, where there was a Flemish merchant community, are waiting to be told.15 I return to this subject in the epilogue. So, we have started to define our terms and acknowledge the ‘fuzziness’ of some of the boundaries imposed on this book. With these various qualifica- tions in mind, let us in the rest of this prologue consider the contents of each chapter.

Chapter Summaries

Chapter 1: ‘Dutch in Early Modern England: An Introduction’. We begin this chapter with a discussion of important terminology and of the sources available for this study. Details will then be given of those who knew Dutch in early modern England. They can be divided into three groups: those with Dutch as their mother tongue who settled in Dutch communities in a number of towns and cities in England; others with Dutch as their mother tongue who visited England for a limited period of time; and English people who learnt the language for a variety of reasons. Chapter 2: ‘Dutch in the Church’. Here, I begin by providing a chronology of the establishment of Dutch churches in England. Some eighteen of these churches were established in England during the period under review, although their size and longevity varied considerably. I shall then provide evidence for the written and spoken use of Dutch in this domain. One of the richest sources for studying the written use of the language is a collection of several thousand church letters published by J.H. Hessels towards the end of the nineteenth century. Other documents written in Dutch in the church domain include records of baptisms, marriages, deaths and church membership. Furthermore, books were published in Dutch including psalters and a catechism for children. There is also a good deal of metalinguistic comment which provides evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in the church domain. Attention will also be paid to the challenges that Dutch faced. Some of these were from other languages, primarily English, Latin and French. Measures

15 In his extensive, albeit now somewhat dated, survey of the spread of the Dutch language in the seventeenth century, J.W. Muller (1921) makes very little reference to England. He does though pay attention to the use of the language in cities on the European mainland, such as Danzig (Gdansk) (pp. 256–7). This could provide the basis for a study of Dutch in continental Europe outside the Dutch language area. Another country where the use of Dutch has received insufficient attention from linguists is Japan. The present author is currently researching this subject. 10 Prologue introduced by Archbishop Laud in the 1630s were designed to weaken the Dutch and other Stranger churches, and they also suffered a loss of membership as a result of the Test Act of 1673, which discriminated against those outside the Church of England. Despite these challenges, Dutch continued to be used in the church domain in England into the eighteenth century and beyond. Chapter 3: ‘Work and the Government of the Dutch Communities’. Two domains closely associated with that of the church were those of work and the government of the Dutch communities. Books of orders for textile workers; letters from bay hall governors and commercial correspondence from Dutch merchants in London are just some of the sources that provide evidence for the use of Dutch in the work domain. Each year civic leaders referred to as politicke mannen were elected to keep order in the Dutch communities, resolve civil disputes, and negotiate with the local civil authorities. Records of their activities and letters provide evidence for the use of Dutch in the government and administration of Dutch communities in England. Chapter 4: ‘Learning and the Home’. Within the term ‘learning’ I include not only formal education, but also the acquisition and discussion of knowledge outside educational establishments. Consideration is given to how Dutch was used in schools established by Dutch communities; by those who attended university; and at the Royal Society, one of whose members, Robert Hooke, learnt Dutch in order to read scientific works and correspondence written in the language. I also discuss the remarkable Dutch inventor, Cornelis Drebbel, who worked at the English court in the first half of the seventeenth century. Evidence for the use of Dutch in the home comes primarily in the form of personal letters. One particularly useful source in this regard is a collection of private letters sent to Ieper in West Flanders in the late 1560s, many from friends and relatives who had recently arrived in Norwich. Such personal letters (ego documents) not only provide evidence of the written use of Dutch in the home, but also point to the spoken use of the language, and indeed give us a glimpse of the type of Dutch spoken in this domain. Wills and inventories provide further evidence of the use of Dutch in the domestic domain. Chapter 5: ‘The Court, Diplomacy and the Military’. It may seem self-evident that Dutch diplomats in England would write in Dutch. However, we should remember that much diplomatic correspondence in Europe was written in Latin, and increasingly over the period in question in French (Burke 2004: 46). As well as Dutch diplomats such as Noël de Caron and Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, we also find the occasional Englishman working in the diplomatic domain who used Dutch. Amongst these was George Gilpin (1514–1602), Prologue 11 who figured prominently in the negotiations between England and the United Provinces during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Dutch was also used at court. Clearly, this was most extensively the case during the reign of William iii, although he often used French, as, for example, in the correspondence with his favourite, Hans Willem Bentinck (Constantijn Huygens jr. 1876; Japikse 1927–37: I). Many other Dutchmen and Flemings served at the courts of other late Tudor and Stuart monarchs and in some cases we have evidence for their use of Dutch in this domain. Finally, consideration will be given to the use of Dutch by soldiers and seamen. Chapter 6: ‘Dutch Literature’. Poetry and prose were written in Dutch in early modern England. Often they were written by Dutchmen visiting England for a limited period such as verse composed by the statesman Constantijn Huygens on diplomatic visits to the country. Dutch poetry was also written by members of Dutch communities in England such as Jacobus Colius (London), Jan Cruso (Norwich) and Jan Proost (Colchester). A range of prose works was written in early modern England. These include a history of the Dutch Revolt by Emanuel van Meteren; the first Dutch grammar, mentioned above, by Johannes Radermacher; and travelogues by Dutchmen visiting England. Although I have found no Dutch play written in England during this period, several plays contain dialogue with Dutch words, most notably those of Thomas Dekker, mentioned above, who, though an Englishman, may well have been of Dutch descent. Chapter 7: ‘Dutch in Scotland and Wales’. In Chapters 1 to 6 the focus is on the knowledge and use of Dutch in England. In Chapter 7 our attention turns to the other two countries on the island of Great Britain: Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, there is evidence for only one Dutch community in the early modern period: in the capital, Edinburgh. Yet many Dutch people visited Scotland including herring fishers, skilled craftsmen, soldiers and seamen. Some Scottish people could speak Dutch, most notably inhabitants of the Shetlands, who learnt the language to trade with the herring fishers. The main focus of the discussion on the use of Dutch in Wales will be the descendants of the Flemish community that had lived in Pembroke since the twelfth century. Beyond this, there was the occasional Dutch visitor to Wales, such as Lodewijck Huygens, who visited the principality in 1652 in the company of another Dutchman and a servant. However, evidence for the use of Dutch in Wales is very limited and somewhat circumstantial. Epilogue: Here I draw together the various strands from the preceding chapters in order to consider how successful we have been in answering the modified version of Fishman’s question referred to above: who spoke or wrote 12 Prologue which varieties of Dutch to whom, when, about what and with what intention in early modern Britain? Secondly, I shall return to a theme discussed in this prologue, namely what this study tells us about the writing of the history of the Dutch language in particular. I shall also consider ask why it is that this episode has received similarly little attention in histories of the languages of Britain. Finally, I suggest a number of future research opportunities for which the present book offers a good basis. These include the study of the internal features of the Dutch language in Britain, and a more detailed study of Dutch literature in early modern Britain.

Concluding Remarks

Throughout this book consideration will be given to the competition that Dutch faced from other languages in the domains under investigation, and also, where the evidence exists, to how varieties of Dutch competed with one another. We have already seen that in the church domain, Dutch faced early competition from Latin, reflecting a broader trend of competition between Latin and vernacular languages in early modern Europe. Dutch also faced competition from other vernacular languages: from French, notably in situations where the leaders of the Dutch churches worked with their counterparts in the French or Walloon churches in England; from English, a knowledge of which, over time, church members inevitably acquired; and to a small extent in London from Italian. Evidence for the competition that Dutch faced from these languages in other domains will be adduced where appropriate. Finally, it is my hope that this book will prompt those who in future write general histories of Dutch to remember how extensively Dutch was used in early modern Britain. In time we might also see Dutch words and phrases written in Britain incorporated in modern reference works such as the most comprehensive dictionary of the Dutch language, the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (wnt). Such a step really would signal an acknowledgement that the history of the language is much broader than the one that has hitherto been told. CHAPTER 1 Dutch in Early Modern England: An Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In the prologue I sketched out some themes that provide the framework for this book. One of these is the distinction between the knowledge and the use of Dutch. In this chapter detailed consideration will be given to the question of who knew Dutch in early modern England. In the subsequent chapters a comprehensive analysis will be provided of the social domains in which those who knew Dutch used the language. We can divide those who knew the language into three groups. First, we have those who settled in England and their descendants, who formed separate Dutch (Nederduytsche) or Flemish communities in some twenty towns and cities in England. During the early years of these communities in particular Dutch was the mother tongue of their members. They typically established separate churches where they could practise their Reformed faith; they often married others from within own their community or other Dutch communities; worked apart from local English workers, often restricted to working in certain trades; and had their own elders and deacons and in some cases also politicke mannen. Collectively, these leaders were responsible for keeping order within the communities, looking after the poor and orphans and dealing with the local authorities on behalf of the communities. Secondly, there were many Dutch people who visited England on a temporary basis. Fishermen, seafarers, and merchants from the Low Countries frequently sailed into various ports on the East and South coast of England during this period. To these we can add Dutch people who went to England on diplomatic missions such as the poet and statesman, Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687), and his son, Lodewijck. Their correspondence was typically in Dutch, although they also used other languages in their diplomatic activity. A third group of people who knew Dutch were Englishmen and women who learnt the language for various reasons. This group includes English merchants who learnt Dutch in order to trade with the Low Countries; English men and women married to Dutch spouses, who had sometimes lived on the Continent for a while; and individuals such as the scientist Robert Hooke, who learnt the language in order to be able to read texts concerning scientific developments written in Dutch.

Some individuals do not easily fit into just one group. A prime example of this is King William iii. He was born in The Hague to a Dutch father and an English mother, Mary Henrietta Stuart, the eldest daughter of King Charles I. William visited England in 1670–1671 and again in 1677 to marry Mary Stuart, before leading the invasion of 1688 which resulted in the Glorious Revolution. During his reign, from 1689–1702, he spent much time outside Britain defending the interests of the United Provinces of which he remained the stadholder. As well as Dutch he also spoke French and English. Special consideration will be given to the extent and manner of his use of Dutch in Britain. However, before providing a more detailed account of who belonged to each of these three groups, we need to discuss two other matters that will help to complete the framework for this book. The first of these is terminology and the second is the range of sources that will be used in this study. Let us now consider each of these in turn.

1.2 Terminology

In the prologue I discussed the use of the term ‘Dutch’ to describe the object of this study, even suggesting that the term ‘Dutches’ might provide us with a more accurate picture of the heterogeneity of the varieties of the language under discussion. Here, we need to say a little more about this. In the early modern period there were a number of Germanic dialects spoken in an area stretching, roughly, from Arras (Atrecht) to Groningen and beyond. In the Southern Netherlands dialects such as Vlaams (Flemish) and Brabants (Brabantic) can be identified, whilst northern dialects included Hollands and Zeeuws (Zeelandic). These dialects can be further divided. For example, reference is made to West-Vlaams as a sub-dialect, or variety, of Flemish; to Antwerps as a sub-dialect of Brabants, and to Haags Delflands and Zaans as sub-dialects of Hollands (Willemyns 2013: 87; Joby 2014f). Whilst some commentators used the general term Nederduytsch, lit. ‘Low German’, to describe these dialects and sub-dialects, others simply used the shortened form, Duytsch (Johannes Radermacher refers to onse Duitsche tale (‘our Dutch language’) in his 1568 grammar mentioned in the prologue (Bostoen 1985: 42)).1 We also need to account for the varieties of Dutch outlined in the prologue such as the language of Jan Utenhove’s New Testament, heavily inflected with Germanisms such as aver (‘but’), and the language of King William iii, which

1 He contrasts this with the language of the Hoochduitschen, i.e., (High) German (Bostoen 1985: 43). Dutch in Early Modern England 15 was replete with loanwords and modified loanwords from French, in particular verbs ending in -eren (e.g., pardonneren from the French pardonner). In his recent account of the history of the Dutch language Roland Willemyns introduces a discussion on the language in the early modern period with the term ‘Early New Dutch’ and then abbreviates this to ‘Dutch’ (Willemyns 2013: 78–109). In secondary Dutch literature we find a term equivalent to that used by Willemyns: Vroegnieuwnederlands (lit. ‘Early New Dutch’), although once introduced it is typically shortened to Nederlands (e.g., Van Leuvensteijn et al. 1997: 227). Yet, Nederlands or ‘Dutch’, whilst succinct, is a term that is not without its problems. First, it is slightly anachronistic, for it only really gained currency in the nineteenth century. Secondly, it conceals the ‘Early New’ dimension, although context tells us that this is the type of Dutch under discussion. Thirdly, it hides the fact that many of those who used the language came from the Southern Netherlands, a problem created by the association of the term ‘Dutch’ with the Northern Netherlands in late modern English. Fourthly, related to the previous point, it does not do justice to the diversity of forms under consideration in this book. Peter Burke addresses this concern by suggesting that we should talk of ‘Dutches’ rather than of one ‘Dutch’ (Burke 2005: 5).2 It might be going too far to talk of an ‘imagined notion of homogene- ity’, but such an idea is not without foundation (cf. Burke 2004: 166). Despite all of these concerns, for the sake of simplicity and ease of reading, I shall use the term ‘Dutch’, whilst encouraging the reader to bear them in mind. We face a similar problem of terminology, when discussing the people in early modern England whose mother tongue was Dutch and the communities that they formed. Many of these, particularly those who left the Low Countries in the middle of the sixteenth century, came from the southern provinces of Flanders and Brabant. Sometimes the communities they formed were called Flemish or Vlaams (spelt in a number of ways), whilst at other times they were called Dutch or (Neder)duytsch. In accounts of these communities written in English they are often referred to as ‘Dutch communities’ (e.g., Grell 1996). I shall adopt this practice whilst acknowledging that this term is not ideal. Where it is necessary to state that a person or people came from the southern Netherlands, this will be made clear. However, as with the language, we should remember that the term ‘Dutch’ derives from Nederduytsch, which covers people from both the northern and southern Netherlands, who spoke varieties of Dutch.

2 See also Willemyns (2013: 4–6) for the origins of the word ‘Dutch’, and a similar argument on the problems involved in trying to find an appropriate name for this language. 16 CHAPTER 1

A brief word is also in order here about terminology used in contemporary sources. In relation to language, it is very occasionally difficult to establish whether writers are referring to (High) German or Dutch. Although authors typically distinguish between these linguistic varieties with terms such as Hooghduytsch (‘High German’) and Nederduytsch (‘ (Low) Dutch’), sometimes they simply speak of Duytsch. An early modern linguist, Abraham Mylius (1563–1637), clearly saw a distinction between these two forms, but did not necessarily consider it that important (Metcalf 1953). Where possible ambi- guity in the sources exists, this will be made clear. Similarly when reference is made to the people who spoke these varieties of language, writers do not always distinguish between those from the Low Countries and others who spoke Germanic dialects. Again for some this distinction did not seem important. The playwright Thomas Dekker (c. 1572–1632) has a character named Hans (not Jan) from Augsburg in Bavaria speaking a mixture of English and Dutch, not High German, in his play ‘Northward Ho!’ (1607). The situation is made worse in regard to people in that some authors used a catch-all term. In 1548 Bernard Ochino stated that there were more than 5,000 Germans (Germani) in London at the time (Robinson 1846: 336). It is likely that most if not all of these ‘Germans’ spoke varieties of High German and Dutch (Nederduytsch), although Scandinavians may well be included in this number.3 A century earlier those ‘Germans’ who voted at the Council of Constance (1414 and 1418) included Slavs as well as Scandinavians (Burke 2004: 161).

1.3 Sources

In comparison to the number of sources available for the study of the Dutch language in the Low Countries during the same period, those available for this study are quite limited in number. They are, no doubt, at least in part, examples of what William Labov described as ‘fragments . . . that . . . are the result of

3 In 1605 there was a dispute between the French and Dutch Stranger churches in London about the foundation charter. This established an ecclesia Germanorum, which, the French argued, meant ‘High Germans’, not the Dutch. The Dutch replied: Te willen seggen, dat bij het woord Germanis souden verstaen worden de Hoogduytsche ende niet eygentlijck de Neerlanders, sulcx is tot nu toe ongehoort gheweest, want het woord Germani, ghemeyn zijnde, begrijpt zo wel de nederduytsche, als die van de hooghe sprake (‘To want to say that with the word Germani should be understood the High Germans and not in fact the Netherlanders; such a thing has never been heard before, for the word Germani, being a common word, includes both Low German (i.e., Dutch) as well as those who speak the high language (i.e., German)’) (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 203). Dutch in Early Modern England 17 historical accidents beyond the control of the investigator’ (Labov 1982: 20). This may be another reason, to add to those discussed in the prologue, for the lack of a previous study on this subject. Nevertheless there are sufficient sources to make such a study worthwhile. The most extensive source is a collection of several thousand letters currently preserved in the London Metropolitan Archives (lma), which were published by J.H. Hessels towards the end of the nineteenth century (Hessels 1887–97 (henceforth H 87)).4 Although the early letters in this collection were typically written in Latin, most of them were written in Dutch by leaders of one Dutch church in England to their counterparts in another Dutch church in England. Some of these will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Some of the letters in this collection concern the work domain, whilst others have to do with the government of the Dutch communities by politicke mannen. They are discussed in Chapter 3. Several of these letters were written by private individuals to church leaders and might be clas- sified as what Dutch scholars call ‘ego documents’. In some sense these belong to the domestic sphere (discussed in Chapter 4), although they also have something to do with the church domain, and so transgress the domain boundaries that we have set ourselves. Another collection of letters written by private individuals consists of 61 letters, the vast majority of which were addressed to people in Ieper in the late 1560s. Most of these letters were written in England, including 32 sent by recent immigrants to Norwich. In the middle of the nineteenth century parts of these letters were published by Hendrick Janssen (Janssen 1857). Unfortunately the originals were destroyed in the First World War. As they are ‘ego documents’, these letters offer us a rare insight into the Dutch language spoken in England at this time and also, given the background of some of their authors, allow us to begin constructing a ‘language history from below’ of the use of Dutch in England, to use the phrase coined by Stephan Elspaß (e.g., Elspaß 2007; cf. Nobels 2013: 9–14). To these we can add more formal letters such as those written in Dutch by King William iii to Raadpensionaris, Anthonie Heinsius (Van der Heim 1867–80: passim; Van ’t Hoff 1950: 45–8); by diplomats such as Jacob Hop (Japikse 1927–37);5 and by commercial correspondents, such as Nicholas Corsellis, a Dutch merchant living and working in London in the mid-1660s. The lma and other archives in England contain other documents written in Dutch which are useful sources for this study. These include church

4 The manuscripts are preserved in bound volumes at the London Metropolitan Archives (henceforth lma): clc/180/MS07428. 5 See Japikse vol. 1, which includes a number of letters written at Westminster by Hop to Anthonie Heinsius. 18 CHAPTER 1 documents such as minutes of meetings; records of baptisms, marriages and deaths of members; membership lists; and attestations, which confirmed the identity of those who had worshipped at another church. We also find regulations governing the activities of Dutch immigrant workers, such as a Book of Orders Concerning Wool and Bayes for weavers in Norwich dated 1582;6 records of the activities of the politicke mannen, such as those written in Norwich;7 household inventories and wills. Books were written in Dutch, too. These include books for use in church such as a psalter and a catechism for children; a book attacking Roman Catholic traditions and practices; and a number of collections of verse. Though some of these were printed in England, others came from presses on the Continent. Here again the question of boundaries emerges. To confuse matters further, the imprint addresses of some books from the early part of our period are clearly invented to circumvent censorship in England and the Low Countries. In other cases it is not always clear where a book was written, and indeed some may have been written both in England and the Low Countries, and so caution will need to be exercised when making claims about whether certain books were written and published in England. A case in point is the vast history of the Dutch people, Commentarien ofte Memorien van-den Nederlandtschen Staet, Handel, Oorloghen (‘Commentaries or Records of the Netherlandish State, Trade, Wars’), compiled by the mercator sapiens, Emanuel van Meteren (d. 1612), and published in 1608.8 The place of publication of an early edition is given as Schotland buyten Danswyck (lit. ‘Scotland outside Danzig’), which is clearly concocted. It may be that the book was in fact published either in London, where Van Meteren lived from 1583 until his death in 1612, and where in all likelihood he wrote most if not all of the book, or a town in the Low Countries, such as Amsterdam.9

6 Norfolk Record Office (nro), document ncr 17d. 7 See, for example, nro mc 189/1. 8 Despite the fact that the date 1608 is mentioned in the publishing details (see the following note), there is disagreement over precisely when Van Meteren’s Commentarien was first published. The Nederlandse Centrale Catalogus gives this date, and the place of publication as London and Amsterdam. However, these details are by no means beyond dispute. I thank Karel Bostoen for providing these details. 9 E. van Meteren, Commentarien ofte memorien van-den Nederlandtschen staet, handel, oorloghen ende gheschiedenissen van onsen tyden, etc. mede vervattende eenige haerder ghebueren handelinghen, beschreven door Emanuel van Meteren; ende by hem voor de tweede ende leste reyse over-sien, verbetert ende vermeerdert; oock soo verre ghebrocht totten af-standt van wapenen ende vrede, in’t jaer 1608. Dutch in Early Modern England 19

Journals kept by Dutchmen who visited England are less problematic in this regard. Not only do they provide further evidence of the written use of Dutch, but also often tell us something about the spoken use of Dutch (Frank-van Westrienen 1983; Lindeman et al. 1994). Lodewijck Huygens kept a detailed account of his stay in London as a member of a diplomatic mission in 1651–1652, and later his brother, Constantijn jr., would keep an extensive diary in Dutch during his time as secretary to King William iii. Abraham Booth of Utrecht, the secretary to a Dutch East India Company delegation to London in around 1630; the church minister, Joannes Vollenhove; and the artist, Willem Schellinks, are three other Dutchmen whose journals are useful sources for this study. Some may wonder, though, why such journals are included in this book. In response, I would repeat that the book is more about the use of the language rather than those who used it; in this regard, these journals provide interesting examples of language usage. Furthermore, it is by no means self-evident that Dutch people would write their journals in Dutch. Part of Lodewijck Huygens’ journal in England is written in French; and his father, Constantijn, kept a journal in French on a diplomatic visit to Venice in 1620. Cornelis Booth, Abraham’s elder brother, wrote a journal in Latin during his visit to London in 1635–1636. Another history written in Dutch in England was one concerning the Dutch people in Britain, in particular in London, commenced by Simeon Ruytinck (d. 1621), a minister of the Dutch church in London, and continued after his death by two of his successors, Cesare Calandrini and Aemilius van Culemborg (Ruytinck et al. 1873). A number of poets wrote Dutch sonnets in London, including Emanuel van Meteren, mentioned above. To his name we can add those of Jan van der Noot ( fl. 1539–1595), who also published two of his collections of poetry in London, Marnix van St.-Aldegonde (1540–1598), and Joris Hoefnagel (1542–1601), the uncle of Constantijn Huygens. Outside London, the minister of the Dutch church in Colchester, Jan Proost (1572–1668), wrote sonnets as well as other poems, whilst Jan Cruso of Norwich (1592–fl. 1655) composed and published 221 Dutch epigrams; and an extensive poem inspired by Psalm 8, and an elegy to the minister of the Dutch Church in Norwich, Johannes Elison, both in Dutch alexandrines. Although no play written entirely in Dutch in early modern England has come to light, a good number of plays from this period include Dutch words and phrases and indeed entire speeches. J.H. Huizinga provides a detailed account of the use of Dutch in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama in his essay ‘Engelschen en Nederlanders in Shakespeare’s tijd’ (Huizinga 1948–53). Finally, material artefacts testify to the currency of Dutch in England at this time: these include inscriptions on tombstones and memorials. The memorial 20 CHAPTER 1 plaque in Blackfriars’ Hall, Norwich, to Johannes Elison, just mentioned, is one such example. The plaque includes two Dutch poems, a quatrain and an eight-line verse, both in alexandrines. Epitaphs on gravestones were written in Dutch, although very few survive. In London in 1568 Willem Courten commissioned a large silver drinking-cup with a Dutch inscription. This is now preserved at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (Grell 1996: 9; 13). Sometimes we have to rely on contemporary reports for such sources. For example, we know that the windows in the London Dutch church contained inscriptions written in Dutch because one of the members, Cornelius Duyts, wrote to the consistory on 25 April 1644 asking whether the inscriptions were idolatrous, which he clearly felt they were (H 87: iii, ii, 1928). Given the fortuitous nature of the evidence that survives, it should not surprise us that there are gaps in the sources. In this male-dominated world, we have predictably little evidence for the use of Dutch by women in early modern England. We do, though, have several letters written by women and a number of other documents which shed a little light on their use of the language. Most of the extant letters were written by well-educated (male) members of the upper echelons of society. The letters addressed to relatives and friends in Ieper in the late 1560s are an exception to this and offer us an insight to the language of other members of Dutch communities in England. Nevertheless, those who wrote these letters must have had a certain level of education, and there will have been less well educated individuals whose use of the language is hidden from us permanently. Although we do have plenty of evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in early modern England, our knowledge of this is by no means complete. In contact situations such as those between Dutch and English in the period under discussion pidgins often emerge as speakers try to deal with the fact that they do not know each other’s tongue. We have no evidence for this in the case of Dutch in early modern England, although it is possible that the playwright, Thomas Dekker, presents a pidgin used by workers such as cobblers and sailors in some of his London plays (see section 6.3.1). A final point here is that we find almost no comment on the relative status of the different varieties of Dutch in these sources. We may contrast this with the situation in the Northern Netherlands in the early years of the seventeenth century. Plays such as Gerbrand Bredero’s Spaanschen Brabander (1617), and to a lesser extent Warenar (1617) by P.C. Hooft and Samuel Coster, both written and performed in Amsterdam, make fun of the Brabant dialect spoken by the many immigrants from the South who moved to Amsterdam to escape from the Spanish persecution there. We find no such derision of particular dialects in British Dutch sources. What we do find, though, in English sources is the Dutch in Early Modern England 21 occasional mocking of the Dutch language in general, but that is a different matter. So, although no doubt many useful sources have been lost to us, a sufficient number remain, which provide evidence of both the written and spoken use of Dutch in early modern Britain.

1.4 The People Who Knew Dutch in Early Modern England

We now consider in turn the three groups of people who knew Dutch in early modern Britain; members of the Dutch communities in England; temporary visitors from the Low Countries; and English people who learnt the language for a variety of reasons.

1.4.1 Dutch Communities in England Let us begin with members of the Dutch communities in English towns (fig. 1). Although it is clearly necessary to distinguish between Dutch church congregations and the broader Dutch communities, much of the data and source material that we have concerning these communities relates to the church congregations and will be adduced as appropriate. Although the members of these communities knew Dutch, the extent to which they used the language will have varied considerably. They may have used Dutch in certain domains, notably the church, but also other languages, in particular English and to a lesser extent French and Latin in this and other domains. Questions of language use are considered in detail in subsequent chapters. Let us now consider who belonged to each of these Dutch communities and evidence for their knowledge of Dutch.

1.4.1.1 London There had been trading links between London and the Low Countries since the Middle Ages. By the first half of the sixteenth century there was a well-established Dutch community in London, which included merchants and labourers (Pettegree 1986: 9–22). In 1547 Edward vi became King of England, with the Duke of Somerset as Lord Protector. Their policies were increasingly tolerant towards Protestantism, and this together with reverses on the Continent, such as the defeat that Emperor Charles V inflicted on the League of Protestant Princes at Mühlberg in April 1547, encouraged Dutch and other Protestants to settle in England (Pettegree 1986: 23–4). By 1549 there was already clearly a community of Dutch speakers meeting to worship informally on a regular basis in London, but it was not until the summer of 1550 that the Dutch community 22 CHAPTER 1 A map indicating where Stranger communities were established in England established were communities Stranger where A map indicating (2013). Cambridge University Press 1560–1700 and the Dutch Revolt, Hugh Dunthorne, Britain Source: figure 1 Dutch in Early Modern England 23 in the city received a charter and was provided with an officially-sanctioned place to meet and worship at Austin Friars in London (cf. Pettegree 1986: 9; 24–25).10 Shortly after this the leaders of the church began to produce confessional, liturgical and catechismal documents in the vernacular, some of which were the first such documents to be produced in Dutch (Joby 2014a). These are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Although the Dutch Protestant community in London suffered a serious setback during the short reign of the Catholic Queen Mary (1553–1558), their church provided a model for the establishment of Dutch and Flemish communities in other towns and cities in south-east England in the second half of the sixteenth century (Pettegree 1986: 25, esp. n. 9). Their numbers were swelled by the economic and religious troubles in the Low Countries in the 1560s and 1570s, notably the oppressive regime of the Duke of Alba, which followed the Iconoclastic Fury of 1566. Many of those who went to England remained there, whilst others returned to the Continent, often going to the Northern Netherlands, where, after the start of the Dutch Revolt, they could freely practise their Calvinist faith. A return of aliens or Strangers living in the City of London was compiled at Easter 1567. This showed that of the 2730 Strangers living there at the time, 2030 were Dutch (Kirk 1900: xii).11 There were also over 800 Dutch living in parishes outside the City such as Mile End and St. Martin in the Fields.12 These figures would have been far higher, but for the plague in 1563 when many Strangers in London died because of overcrowding in their houses (Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 8). Although the church at Austin Friars in some sense acted as a focus for the Dutch community, by no means all of the Dutch in London were members of the Dutch church. In 1568 there were over 1900 members of the Dutch congregation at Austin Friars (Pettegree 1986: 77). Other members of the Dutch community in London told the assessors of the Alien Returns that they either attended the local parish church or even belonged to no church at all (Duke 2014; Spicer 2012). There were also Dutch Anabaptists in London at this time.

10 In fact in 1550 the Dutch and French formed a single Stranger community in London, and it was to this community that the charter securing the freedom to worship was given, and to which the use of buildings on the site of a former monastery at Austin Friars was granted. Although this community was treated as one until 1559, the Dutch congregation met separately from its French counterpart from the outset. 11 The Haynes State Papers from the same year, 1567, give a figure of 2993 ‘Duche’ in the City of London (Kirk 1900: 382). 12 The Haynes State Papers give a figure of 845 ‘Duche’ for these parishes on 15 December 1567 (Kirk 1900: 383). Lindeboom (1950: 33) estimates that in 1567 there were almost 3000 members of the Dutch community in London. 24 CHAPTER 1

A return of Strangers taken in May 1571 indicates that 3160 Dutch were living in the City of London (Kirk 1900: xv, 479). By the end of the sixteenth century it is reckoned that there were some 7000 ‘aliens’ (i.e., persons not born in England) in London, of whom about half were Dutch. Most of the others were Walloon or French (Scouloudi 1985: 73–85).13 At the start of the seventeenth century the London Dutch community suffered heavy losses from the plague of 1603. Simeon Ruytinck, mentioned above, wrote that 370 Dutch households were affected by the plague and that about 670 people from the Dutch community died (Grell 1996: 205). The plague was the subject of one of the most significant pieces of Dutch poetry written in England, Den Staet van London in hare groote Peste (‘The State of London during her great Plague’). This poem, consisting of 900 lines of alternating masculine and feminine rhyming alexandrines, was written by Jacobus Colius in 1604–1605 and was first published in Middelburg in 1606. Ruytinck and Colius were just two of the well-educated members of the London Dutch community. For as well as counting many artisans and their families amongst its ranks, the community also included intellectuals who made a significant contribution to the cultural history of the Dutch people and language. Reference has already been made to Johannes Radermacher (1538–1617), who wrote the first grammar in the Dutch language; Emanuel van Meteren, who wrote poetry as well as prose; and Joris Hoefnagel. The London Strangers did not, though, always demonstrate complete allegiance to the community of their mother tongue. Both Radermacher and Van Meteren were members for a while of the Italian congregation in London. This may have been for commercial reasons, as it would have helped them to meet Italian merchants, or because they found the discipline of the Dutch church too strict. Other well-educated members of the London Dutch community were Lucas d’Heere (1534–1584), who wrote a guide to the British Isles, Corte Beschryvinghe van England, Scotland, ende Irland (‘Short Description of England, Scotland and Ireland’) and a history, Corte beschryvinghe van d’Enghelandsche gheschiedenissen vergadert uut de beste Chronijcschrijvers (‘Short description of English history, collected from the best Chroniclers’) in Dutch (see section 6.4.4); and the poet and artist, Cornelis Ketel (1548–1616).14

13 About half of the aliens who were members of foreign church communities in London in 1593 were members of the Dutch church. So I estimate that about half of all aliens were Dutch, although I have to admit that this figure is somewhat speculative (Scouloudi 1985: 75). 14 In Temple Newsam near Leeds, there is a Portrait of a Man (no. 167, code 22.64/48) by Cornelis Ketel. It has the following Dutch in the top right hand corner of the painting: Dutch in Early Modern England 25

A Dutch community existed in London throughout the early modern period, although its numbers inevitably dwindled in the first half of the seventeenth century as some of the descendants of those who arrived in the sixteenth century gradually integrated into the local population, and others moved on to the United Provinces. English diarists such as Robert Hooke provide useful anecdotal evidence for the presence of Dutch people in London in the second half of the seventeenth century. In his diary for the period 1672–1680 he mentions the artist, Abraham Hondius, on several occasions and ‘a strange Dutchman’, and people whose names at least suggest a Dutch heritage, including a Mr. van Aerst, Mr. van de Put and Mr. van Milden. Other entries state ‘Dutch here. They hindred company’ and ‘with Mr. Fitch to Dutch house in Green Street’ (Hooke 1968: passim). In 1672 Hooke began to learn Dutch and his engagement with the language is considered in detail in Chapter 4. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the number of Dutch in London increased with the arrival of the Dutch king, William iii. A Dutch Chapel Royal was established in 1689 in The Queen’s Chapel at St. James’ Palace, London (Baldwin 1990: 403). It is reckoned that the congregation had some 1000 members who were mainly low-ranking officials at William’s court (Wright 2007: 627). Some of the Dutch who arrived in England in William’s wake were skilled artisans and labourers, who established themselves in Middlesex as well as in areas of central London such as Soho. There were, unfortunately, periodic xenophobic uprisings against the new arrivals (Onnekink 2007: 131). At the start of the eighteenth century the London Dutch community was replenished by a new generation of Dutch bankers. Another group of people from the Low Countries who settled in London were Sephardic Jews. The Great Synagogue in Amsterdam has been described as the mother congregation of Bevis Marks, the oldest synagogue in Britain, which opened in London in 1701 (Wilson 1946: 18; 25).15

1.4.1.2 Surrey Although it is now part of Greater London, the village of Mortlake in Surrey was at this time some distance from the city. In 1619 the Royal Tapestry Works were established at Mortlake and it initially employed about 50 Flemish and Brabant weavers (Hefford 2002: 49). A Dutch church was established in Mortlake for these weavers and their families in about 1621. This continued to

spiegelt u vry // De wyl ghy leeft (‘Let me be an example to you, whilst you live’). Further research may tell us whether or not Ketel painted this portrait in England. 15 See also http://www.bevismarks.org.uk. Accessed 7 April 2014. 26 CHAPTER 1 function until 1664. One concrete reminder of the Dutch presence in Mortlake is a memorial stone marking the site of ‘the Lower Dutch House, part of the Mortlake Tapestry Works’. This can be found opposite the church of St. Mary the Virgin in Mortlake.16

1.4.1.3 Kent Three Dutch communities were established in Kent in the early modern period; in Sandwich, Maidstone and Dover. This is to be expected given that Kent is the closest English county to continental Europe. Let us consider each of these communities in turn. There were already some Dutch in Sandwich before 1561, but it was in this year, when the Dutch community in the town sought and received official rec- ognition, that their numbers began to increase. There are reports of some two hundred houses in the town being allocated to the Dutch (Backhouse 1995: 17). In the next few years their number increased rapidly, in particular after 1567, when the Duke of Alba arrived in the Low Countries. By 1574 it is estimated that there were some 2400 Dutch living in Sandwich, predominantly from the Westkwartier region of Flanders. Given that the local English population numbered some 1600, this meant that the Dutch represented about 60% of the total population of about 4000 in Sandwich at this time (Backhouse 1995: 27–8). As we shall see, given their numbers, some of the Dutch were encouraged to move on from Sandwich to other towns in England, where Stranger communities had been established, such as Norwich and Colchester. Although the size of the Dutch community in Sandwich gradually dwindled during the seventeenth century there were still 500 members of the Dutch church in the town in 1635 (H 87: iii, ii, 1690), and this continued to meet into the eighteenth century. One notable member of the Dutch community in Sandwich was the theologian, Wilhelmus Baudartius (1565–1640), who spent much of his youth in the town. He would later play an important role in the translation of the States Bible. We return to Baudartius in Chapter 4. Two toponyms that owe something to the Dutch presence in Sandwich are the Delf, the name of the stream, which runs under the town (lnd: delf = ‘ditch’), and ‘poulders’, the name given to fields outside the town. In 1567 the town of Maidstone petitioned the Crown to allow sixty Stranger families to be able to make a variety of clothes, as well as paving tiles, pots and

16 A photograph of the stone can be viewed at: http://notesfromcamelidcountry.net/ 2014/01/17/wife-swapping-and-summoning-angels-the-supernatural-john-dee/. Accessed 7 April 2014. See also Hefford (2002: 54). Dutch in Early Modern England 27 other wares.17 In 1576 the number of male Strangers, primarily if not exclusively Dutch, reached 200. There may have been a further influx of refugees from the Low Countries during the 1580s, but by 1622 the Dutch community in Maidstone numbered only just over twenty, a majority of whom were born in England.18 In common with other Dutch and alien churches in England, in the 1630s the church at Maidstone came under attack from Archbishop Laud, who feared that they were harbouring Puritans. The extent to which Laud’s actions permanently damaged the foreign churches is a matter of dispute. The Dutch church in Maidstone continued to meet until at least 1655, although clearly the congregation was small. Other factors such as migration to London and marriage to local people contributed to the demise of the Dutch community in Maidstone (Clark and Murfin 1995: 43–4). In 1571, due to the anxiety about the size of the influx and the fears about the presence of Anabaptists and political extremists, a closer watch was kept on the Stranger communities in Eastern England. Consequently, a census was taken in Dover and it revealed that there were 64 men, 67 women and 137 children, who were described as ‘Flemings of the Lawe Contrye of Flanders dwell- inge here in Dover’ (Overend 1888–9: 111; State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth I). This reflects a more general trend amongst the early settlers in the Dutch communities in England; that many of them came from the Southern Netherlands and therefore spoke southern varieties of Dutch, notably Vlaams and Brabants. When these ‘Flemings of the Lawe Contrye of Flanders’ arrived in Dover is unclear and there had obviously been long established links between the port and Flanders due to their geographical proximity, but events such as the fall of Calais in 1558 may have led to Dutch people crossing the English Channel (Overend 1888–9: 92; 159–62). Furthermore, some of the privateers (known as the watergeuzen) who raided the continent and whose attack on Den Briel was an important landmark in the Dutch Revolt had a base close to Dover (Overend 1888–9: 98–9; Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 413). There is evidence for a Dutch church in Dover from at least 1573 until 1586 (H 87: iii, i, 221; 850). It seems that there were still Dutch living in Dover in

17 The term ‘family’ was sometimes understood as a working unit and might therefore include servants and apprentices. The maximum number of members permitted in each family (or household) did, though, vary. In the case of Great Yarmouth, up to ten persons were allowed (Burn 1846: 216), whilst for Southampton the maximum number was twelve (Spicer 1997: 32). I do not have details of the maximum number permitted in Stranger families in Maidstone. 18 Although it is not explicitly stated, this figure from Clark and Murfin (1995: 44) probably refers to heads of households. 28 CHAPTER 1

1597 for on 5 September that year the leaders of the Dutch church at Sandwich wrote to London to say that some of those remaining in Dover had been stricken by the plague, but it, i.e., the church at Sandwich, had not been able to help because of its own financial difficulties (H 87: iii, i, 1008). Dutchmen were involved in the development of Dover Harbour in the 1580s. One Dutchman to mention in this regard is the engineer, Humphrey Bradley, who was born in Bergen-op-Zoom. He also lived in London and was involved in early projects to drain the Fens (Harris 1961: 25). Evidence of Bradley’s use of Dutch in England is discussed in Chapter 4. There continued to be a Dutch or Flemish presence in Dover into the seventeenth century. In 1622 a Flemish ship, having plundered a Scottish ship, put into Dover harbour. It was detained there as a pirate ship, and a Fleming living in Dover, Mr. Huguessen, acted as an interpreter in negotiations with the local authorities (Overend 1888–9: 144). Huguessen was one of a few Dutch and Flemish listed in the 1622 Return of Strangers (Overend 1888–9: 165). Thereafter their number clearly grew for on 17 September 1638 Nicholaes Poelenburg wrote a letter in Latin to Caspar van Nieren in Sandwich, in which he stated that there were more than a hundred Dutchmen residing in Dover with their wives and children, a number that was increasing every day (centum et plures Belgae (quorum numerus quotidie augetur) Doroborniae cum uxoribus et liberis) (H 87: iii, ii, 1775). Poelenburg was seeking to re-establish a Reformed Dutch church in Dover, but it was not only Dutch Protestants who lived in the town. On February 16 1636, a list of Strangers living in Dover was drawn up, in which the religion of the person named was indicated. Of the 56 people listed, probably heads of household, 10 were identified as Protestants, but 46 (82%) were ‘Papists’. Many of those listed as Papists had Dutch names such as Van Eele and Rapaert (Overend 1888–9: 169–71). This may suggest that Poelenburg was overstating his case, but we cannot be certain of this. Finally, there was a large Walloon community in Canterbury. Although there was no separate Dutch community, some of those Strangers living in the city were Dutch. In her history of the Walloon community in Canterbury, Beate Magen gives details of marriages between aliens from the registers for 1590 to 1644. 565 of these aliens came from Flanders. Whilst some came from French- speaking towns such as Armentières, a few came from towns which were predominantly Dutch-speaking, such as Ieper. Eighteen of these aliens came from the Northern provinces of Holland and Zeeland. Magen does not provide the names of these aliens and it is of course possible that the people behind these figures had originally come from France or other French-speaking territories (Magen 1973: 43–5). Elsewhere, though, we do find individuals with Dutch names in Canterbury, and the occasional example of the Dutch language in Dutch in Early Modern England 29 the city. For example, the doctor Israel van der Slaert, described as a medecyn tot Cantelberg (‘doctor in Canterbury’), received a letter written in Dutch dated 7 May 1632 from Caspar van Nieren at Sandwich. He was responding to a request from Van der Slaert by sending him some roots, which were doubtless required for medicinal purposes (H 87: iii, ii, 1562).19 In 1670 the Minister of the Walloon church in Canterbury was a certain Arnoldus Buschirij, who was born in Holland (H 87: iii, ii, 2572). He was probably bilingual if not multilingual. Other Dutch names do appear in the records such as Pierre van Acker and Alard van der Woode (Magen 1973: 85, 231). This, though, tells us nothing about their knowledge of the Dutch language. Finally, in 1575 a civic compact between the Strangers and the local authorities in Canterbury was, somewhat surprisingly, written in Dutch. This is discussed in Chapter 3.

1.4.1.4 Norfolk and Suffolk In common with a number of the towns and cities discussed in this chapter, Norwich’s links with the Low Countries go back to the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth century, Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward iii, sent for John Kempe, an expert weaver in Flanders. He came and dwelt in Norwich for a time before moving to Westmoreland (Hillen 1978: ii, 726). In the fifteenth century John Asger, a merchant of Brugge, gifted land for the founding of a begijnhof, one of three in the city.20 During the late 1540s Flemish weavers settled in Norwich (Wilson 2004: 221).21 Towards the end of 1565 Queen Elizabeth issued letters patent, which allowed the Norwich city authorities formally to invite 30 named incomers, 24 ‘Dutche Masters’ and up to ten members of their households along with six Walloon Masters and their households to settle in Norwich. This can be seen as the start of the officially sanctioned settlement of Strangers from the Low Countries into the city.22 They formed separate Dutch and Walloon communities, which persisted in the city throughout the early modern period. The first arrivals came principally from Sandwich and before that Flanders (Moens 1887–8: 4).

19 The evidence is slightly contradictory, although it seems that Van der Slaert lived in Ashford, some ten or twelve miles from Canterbury, but was a doctor in Canterbury. See also H 87: iii, ii, 1576. 20 For further details of links between the Low Countries and Norwich, and the rest of Norfolk in the Middle Ages, see Alban (2014: 103–8). See also Rawcliffe and Wilson (2004). 21 Moens (1887–8: 17) notes that in 1535, a Stranger, Nicholas Isborn, was admitted to be a freeman of Norwich, to practise as a goldsmith, although he does not give details of which language(s) Isborn used. 22 nro ncr Case 17d. 30 CHAPTER 1

The number of Strangers in Norwich grew quickly. A return of Strangers made by the Bishop of Norwich in 1568 showed that there were already 1132 members of the Dutch church in the city (Moens 1887–8: 207–16). Most of these Strangers came from Flanders, although some came from Brabant and Zeeland. A very small number came from the province of Holland, and one of the first ministers of the church, Isbrandus Balkius, was one of only two household heads from Friesland (Frisia). There were also a few hundred immigrants in the Dutch community in Norwich who were not at that point members of the church, although most of these attended services (Rye 1887: 189; 216–19).23 In 1569 the Mayor and Aldermen of Norwich wrote to the Privy Council informing it that there were 2866 Strangers in the city. Given that in 1568 the membership of the Dutch church was three times greater than that of the Walloon or French church, we can tentatively conclude that by 1569 there were at least 2000 members of the Dutch community in Norwich. A return of 1582 indicates that there were 4679 Strangers in Norwich, a number that would have been far higher but for the plague of 1578–1579 when it was reckoned that 2482 Strangers perished in part because of the cramped conditions in which many of them lived (Moens 1887–8: 44–5; Pound 2004: 44). At this time the Strangers represented about one in three of the population of Norwich (Hunt Yungblut 1996: 30).24 The greatest geographical concentration of the Strangers was in the wards of Middle and West Wymer in the central area of the city (Morgan 2003: 58). If we apply the same ratio as that used for 1569 we can conclude that there were some 3500 Dutch in the city in the early 1580s. After this time the numbers in the Dutch community in Norwich gradually began to decline. Some returned to the Low Countries, above all to the Northern Netherlands, where they could practise their Calvinist faith. Some weavers departed for Edinburgh, where there was a need for the manufacture of products from Scottish wool (see section 7.4.1.1). There were no new large- scale waves of immigration into Norwich; others passed away or followed the general pattern of assimilation into the local population. A return of Strangers in Norwich made in 1622 lists some 291 Strangers split roughly equally between those ‘Borne of Parents Strangers’ and those ‘Borne Beyond the Seas’ (Moens 1887–8: 189–93). This total includes Walloons, but as it excludes wives and

23 There is a discrepancy in the figure for those who were not church members at this point. The total given in the 1568 return is 339, but if one adds up the members of the individual households, the figure is about 250. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that some entries are illegible. 24 It is possible that for a few years prior to the plague in 1578–1579 the number of Strangers in Norwich reached some 7000 constituting about 43% of the city’s population. Dutch in Early Modern England 31 children it is difficult to extrapolate accurately from this figure how many members of the Dutch community there were in Norwich at this time, although their number may have been between one or two thousand. Whatever the true figure, it would clearly have been smaller than it had been towards the end of the sixteenth century. A list drawn up in 1635 states that the number of members of the Dutch church in Norwich was 363 (H 87: iii, ii, 1690).25 Another list drawn up in 1677 lists more than 170 members. This church community continued to meet throughout the early modern period and indeed into the twentieth century, although with decreasing frequency and numbers. Peter Trudgill, whose study of the Norfolk dialect has led him to conclude that the presence of the Dutch and Walloon Strangers in Norwich is likely to have led to the emergence of a third-person singular zero in the dialect (‘he go’, rather than ‘he goes’), states ‘Norwich was a trilingual city for perhaps as much as two hundred years’.26 Although this is right in the sense that three languages were spoken in Norwich for this period of time, by the second half of the seventeenth century, the size of the Dutch community in the city had decreased significantly, and perhaps more importantly, the range of domains in which Dutch was used, was less than it had been in the second half of the sixteenth century.27 A distinctive toponymic feature of Norwich is that a number of open areas are called ‘Plains’. These include Bank Plain; St. Andrew’s Plain, the area outside the Church of the Blackfriars, where the Dutch congregation used to meet; and, more recently, Millenium Plain, outside the Millenium Library, named to commemorate the millennial celebrations in 2000. It has been suggested that this usage owes something to the presence of the Dutch in the city in the early modern period, as the Dutch for such places is plein. In 1570 Queen Elizabeth granted a licence allowing ‘thirty persons [from Holland, Zealand, and other parts of the Low Countries] with their servants and families (ten persons to each family) to inhabit [Great Yarmouth] and carry on their trade of fishing’ (Burn 1846: 216; fig. 2).28 A return of aliens living in the town in 1571 tells us that there were one hundred and four families

25 Another list from this time, to which Hessels also makes reference, gives the figure as 393. 26 Quoted in Burke (2004: 112–3). See also Joby (2014b) and Trudgill (2013). The present author challenges Trudgill’s theory in Joby (2014e). 27 Latin was still spoken on official occasions, taught at Norwich Grammar School, used extensively in legal and ecclesiatical documents, and read by educated citizens of Norwich. However, in relation to everyday conversation it is reasonable to describe Norwich as trilingual. 28 nro col 6/2. 32 CHAPTER 1 from the Low Countries, some of whom had been living in the town prior to 1570. Whereas most of the immigrants in Norwich had come from the Southern Netherlands, most of these families came from the Northern provinces of Zeeland and Holland (“Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 291–6).29 Indeed 63 families came from Zeeland, leading Rooze-Stouthamer (1996: 439) to talk of a ‘Zeelandic colony’ in the town. Burn writes that the number of aliens in the town increased so quickly and to such an extent that in 1574 the town authorities issued orders including one which stipulated that the number of Dutch in the town should not increase beyond its present levels (Burn 1846: 216–17). In common with other English towns, the number of Dutch in Yarmouth gradually dwindled during the seventeenth century. A document from the Yarmouth Dutch church from before 1633 lists 50 members (H 87: iii, ii, 2914). Ole Peter Grell reckons that the congregations of Norwich and Yarmouth never exceeded more than half the towns’ Dutch or Anglo-Dutch inhabitants. However, he does this on the basis that the situation in these towns was similar to that of London (Grell 1996: 54). This is a bold assumption and perhaps overlooks the looser relationship between the Dutch congregation and community in London than that which existed in smaller towns such as Yarmouth. Nevertheless, we can only speculate on the size of the community in the town and if we add children, and possibly other household members such as servants and apprentices, to the number, then we are perhaps talking of several hundred members of the Dutch community in Yarmouth in the first half of the seventeenth century. Evidence for the Dutch presence in the town can be found in the cemetery of the Anglican church, St. Nicholas. Amongst the more piquant entries in records of the cemetery are ‘John Tills A Dutchman dead drunk,’ and ‘a Flemish man that died in the street’. The Dutch church in Yarmouth continued to meet until the 1680s. As I discuss in more detail below, Dutch fishermen, particularly those associated with the herring fleet, visited Yarmouth for many years during the seventeenth century. Finally, like Norwich, Yarmouth has a number of open areas called ‘Plains’, viz. Brewery Plain, Church Plain, Hall Plain, Priory Plain, Theatre Plain, and White Horse Plain. Whether these gained their names as a result of the Dutch presence in the town, or perhaps as a result of Yarmouth following the example of the larger city, Norwich, is a question, which as yet remains unanswered.

29 Source document: Public Record Office, Kew (pro), State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth I (sp 12), Vol. 78. In the calendar of the State Papers Domestic the census is recorded as begin carried out on 12 May 1571. Dutch in Early Modern England 33

figure 2 Letters patent of Elizabeth I, 8 June 1570, granting leave to 30 Dutch and their families to settle in Great Yarmouth, the total number not to exceed 300. English (nro col 6/2)

Another Norfolk town, to which Dutch people migrated, was King’s Lynn. The Lord Mayor, Thomas Bonneel, was originally from Ieper and promoted the establishment of a colony in Lynn (Van Schelven 1908: 202). Queen Elizabeth allowed up to 300 families (usque ad 300 familias) to settle in the town (Rye 1887: 228). In his history of the Dutch in England, Simeon Ruytinck wrote that some of those who left Sandwich settled in Lynn (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 43). In the return of 1568 we learn that 176 Strangers from the Low Countries had settled in Lynn by this time, one hundred and eleven of whom were under the age of sixteen. By 1571 this number had risen to about 220 Dutch men, women and children occupying 44 households (Rye 1877: 196–8).30 In Norwich the vast majority of the Dutch Strangers came from Flanders and Brabant. In Lynn,

30 The reason I say ‘about’ is that Rye gives the number of men as ‘lxvij’ i.e., 67, but the number of women children and servants as clvix, which seems strange, as the ‘v’ does not tend 34 CHAPTER 1 however, whilst many of the Strangers also came from towns such as Eeklo, Ieper and Ghent in Flanders, others came from Delft, Haarlem and Leiden in Holland. They are listed as having a range of occupations, though many of them worked in the textile industry (Rye 1887: 228–35). They were typically involved in weaving ‘Mockados’ (Moens 1887–8: 36). In his comprehensive history of King’s Lynn, Hillen notes that in the 1560s ‘many Walloon and Dutch artisans, particularly weavers, found their way to Lynn, and ere long the people of Norwich evinced a feeling of jealous annoyance’ and they acted to deal with this competition (Hillen 1978: ii, 734). A Dutch church was established in King’s Lynn. In the return of 1568 Gerardus Gallicanus is listed as its minister (Rye 1887: 228). Thetford in south-west Norfolk was another town, which experienced an influx of Dutch Strangers in the second half of the sixteenth century. The town had a long history in the wool trade and the new arrivals were mainly weavers. That the Strangers in Thetford could establish a church, which was active from as early as 1572, and the community had politicke mannen (H 87: iii, i, 573), suggests that in the early years of its existence at least it was quite sizeable. However, the tax returns of 1586 point to a much smaller community. They list only ten alien households with a total payment of 5s. 8d.31 There is no evidence for the church surviving after 1587 (H 87: iii, i, 867). In the middle of the seventeenth century some of the Dutch who helped to drain the Fens in West Norfolk probably established settlements in the area. It is likely that the village of Nordelph in the Fens is one such place.32 There are also reports of individuals from the Low Countries living in other parts of Norfolk. For example, in the Stiffkey papers of Nathaniel Bacon, a ‘duchman’ John Rogers is recorded in Little Walsingham in north-west Norfolk in 1603 (Morgan 2010: 35). However, such cases are isolated and do not point to the establishment of communities in the relevant towns and villages. In Suffolk there is a record of only one Dutch community; in the county town of Ipswich. In common with other towns already discussed people from

to precede the ‘x’ in Roman numerals. If this is what he intended, it is 166, which gives a total of 233. 31 The final entry is slightly unclear so there may have been nine or ten alien households in Thetford in the 1586 return. Crosby (1986: 59) has nine. See Poll tax on Aliens 1586: nro T/C 1/11, p. 267. 32 According to the oed the term ‘delph’/‘delf’ was already in use in Old English. However, it is likely to have gained renewed impetus with the arrival of the Dutch in the Fens, as delf means ‘ditch’ in Dutch (cf. the Delf at Sandwich mentioned above). The name Nordelph is suggestive of ‘Northern Ditch’. Dutch in Early Modern England 35 the Low Countries had been present in the town since the Middle Ages. In 1568 and 1576 two censuses were carried out of aliens in Ipswich. The first lists 31 alien families, whilst the second lists 39 families. Some names have been Anglicized, so it is difficult to establish with certainty how many of these could be described as Dutch (Redstone 1919–24: 200–1). However, a Dutch church community was active in the town between at least 1571 and 1588. In 1640 there was a report of resident Dutchmen in Ipswich arming themselves in the period leading up to the English Civil War. Whether we could talk in terms of a local Dutch militia would require further investigation (Grell 1996: 64).

1.4.1.5 Essex In sixteenth-century Essex two Dutch communities were established. One of these was in Colchester, whilst the other, a short-lived off-shoot of the Colchester community, was formed in Halstead, twelve miles to the west of it. In the seventeenth century a Dutch community was established in the south of the county on Canvey Island, where land had been reclaimed by the Zeelander, Cornelis Vermuyden (1595–1677). Let us consider each of these communities in turn. Flemish weavers had moved to Colchester during the fourteenth century, encouraged by King Edward iii to work in the expanding cloth trade (Bird 1985: 6). In the middle of the sixteenth century there was a slump in demand for traditional heavy English cloth. At the same time thousands of skilled weavers moved to England from the Low Countries as a result of the economic and religious difficulties there. In 1551 there were sixteen to eighteen aliens in Colchester, with Dutch and Flemish names such as Wynkyn Grenerice and Marten Vanbole (Moens 1905: 110). In 1562 Jacobus Bucerus wrote from Sandwich to Petrus Delenus in London expressing concern about the Dutch refugees in Colchester, although no details are given regarding their number (H 87: ii, 208). During the 1560s there was an initial influx of workers along with their families from the Low Countries into Colchester, often via Sandwich.33 Many of those who went to Colchester were weavers who were particularly adept at producing the lighter ‘new draperies’ such as bays and says. They and fellow Dutch immigrants who went to other towns in England made a significant contribution to the economic recovery of these towns (Roker 1966: 15; Goose 1982).

33 An eighteenth-century account of the history of Colchester states that Flemish and Dutch Bay and Say weavers began to arrive in 1571. However, a letter from town bailiffs to the Privy Council and the Council’s response to this letter indicate that there were already Flemish and Dutch settlers in the town before 1570 (Morant 1970: 50; 72). 36 CHAPTER 1

By 1571 there were reckoned to be 185 resident Strangers in the town of whom 177 were classed as Dutch.34 Of these the majority came from Flanders. On 24 March of that year the Strangers were granted a formal licence by the Privy Council, which gave them official permission to settle (Moens 1905: 95–101). Local records list 534 Strangers in the town on 26 April 1573, the vast majority of these being Dutch or Flemish. They are described as having ‘fled owt of the countrye of flaunders for their conscience sake’.35 By 1586 the number of Dutch was 1293 (Goose 1982: 263; Moens 1905: iii; viii).36 This large influx of immigrants was not without its problems. For example, in 1580 English townspeople petitioned Queen Elizabeth complaining about the number of aliens arriving in Colchester (Roker 1966: 17). In 1612 King James I re-affirmed the privileges of the Dutch bay makers, which included controlling the Dutch Bay Hall, to which all ‘new draperies’ were taken for inspection and sealing before being sold. In 1616 the number of the Dutch in Colchester born abroad was 248 and the number of their children and servants born in England was 1028, making a total of 1276, a number that had risen to 1301 by 1622 (Moens 1905: xii; xvii).37 This equated to about one- seventh of the town’s total population. In 1660, on the restitution of the monarchy, an Act of Parliament was passed which regulated bay making in Colchester. One section of the Act refers to the ‘Dutch Bay-Hall in Colchester and the Dutch people there living’ (An Act 1660: 4). In 1678 the Master of the Rolls sent a letter to the Mayor of Colchester, in which he refers to the Dutch as a separate community (Moens 1905: 146–7). Indeed, the Dutch community at Colchester maintained its identity and special privileges until 1728 (Wilson 1946: 14). In that year the Dutch bay governors dissolved their corporation, and the Dutch church closed its doors at about the same time. However, bay making did continue in Colchester into the nineteenth century. The use of Dutch by two members of the Colchester community is discussed later in this book; the minister of the Dutch church in Colchester in the first half of the seventeenth century, Jan Proost, wrote Dutch

34 There were four French Strangers in Colchester at this time. Unlike in other towns such as Norwich and London, French Strangers did not make up a significant number of the Strangers in Colchester. Nevertheless, in the 1573 return, the following entry is found ‘. . . of all the said personnes with their wives and children belonginge to the French church, xliij (43)’ (cf. Moens 1905: iii; 105). See also section 2.2.1.3. 35 The Entry Book for Colchester. Essex Record Office (ero) D/B 5 R7 fols. 296v.–299r. Transcribed in Moens (1905: 102–5). 36 Goose (1982: 263) gives a figure of 1297 for 1586. 37 Goose (1982: 263) gives a figure of 1535 for 1622. Dutch in Early Modern England 37 sonnets (see section 6.2.5); and the Dutch grammarian, Petrus Leupenius, was born in Colchester (see section 4.3.6.2). Some 12 miles to the west of Colchester lies the town of Halstead. In 1576 Dutch Strangers living and working in Colchester petitioned the Privy Council to be allowed to move to Halstead in order ‘to use their trade of making of baies’. This request was granted and in the autumn of that year 30 households made the journey westwards in order to set up home there and ‘make baies, mockadoes and such like without molestation or disturbance and to seal their own cloth’. A Dutch church was established in the town which was active from 1576 until at least 1588. In the Court Rolls of the Manor of Abells in Halstead beginning 7 January, 19 Elizabeth I (1577), 28 heads of households ‘commonly called in English Dutchmen’ were recorded as having failed to appear at the court leet (a court of record for small offences) and so were held to be in default.38 Given these figures, and given that elsewhere there were reckoned to be upto ten members in the average household, we can surmise that there were possibly more than 200 members of the Dutch community in Halstead.39 The Dutch weavers had their own governors and officers and a bay hall of their own. The fact that the Dutch could seal their own cloth and sell it for a higher price than the cloth with the local Halstead seals caused bad blood between the indigenous and immigrant communities. An attempt was made to force the Dutch to use both seals on their cloth, but they resisted. In 1588 the local Halstead weavers began forging the Dutch seals and this signalled the beginning of the end for the Dutch weavers in the town. The following year they packed their bags and returned to Colchester. It was Halstead itself, though, that would suffer as the local cloth proved no match for cloths produced by Dutch and Flemish weavers elsewhere (Hills 1939). A number of attempts were made to bring the weavers back to Halstead and even to replace them with members of the London Dutch church, but to no avail.40 Canvey Island is a small peninsula joined by a causeway to the south coast of Essex, close to the town of Basildon. In the early 1620s, after heavy floods had affected the area, landowners led by Sir Henry Appleton invited Joos

38 The list of Dutchmen was compiled on Monday, 10 April, 23 Elizabeth I, i.e., 1581. The court roll of the Manor of Abells, Halstead is part of the collection of the Vaizey family of Halstead and North Essex in the Essex Record Office: ero D/dvz 6. T/P 121/1 is a transcription of this accompanied by explanatory notes. 39 See note 17 above. 40 In March 1590 the Privy Council wrote to the Dutch church in London proposing that this church should send some of its members to Halstead to replace those who had departed for Colchester. However, their request went unheeded (H 87: iii, i, 1180). 38 CHAPTER 1

figure 3 The Dutch Cottage at Canvey Author’s own collection

Croppenburgh, a member of the London Dutch community, to help them reclaim lost land. Croppenburgh engaged a relative, Cornelis Vermuyden, to drain the land, which he did using a company of workmen from the Low Countries (Wilson 1968: 84). However, there is evidence of a Dutch presence Dutch in Early Modern England 39 on Canvey before 1620. In 1618 an octagonal Dutch cottage was built on Canvey (Whittaker 1980: 21; fig. 3).41 Furthermore, there are stories of Flemish refugees, who, having fled the repression of the Duke of Alba, settled on Canvey in the second half of the sixteenth century (Hallman 2006: 11). Firm evidence for this is lacking, but the same cannot be said of Flemish and Dutch settlement in the early 1620s. Vermuyden undertook to drain (inpolderen) 3600 acres on Canvey in return for one third of the land, or Third Acre Land. Some of those who settled on this Third Acre Land were Zeelanders. They and others from the Low Countries were often given their plots as part-payment for work on the ‘official’ walls built at this time (Whittaker 1980: 23). In 1631 a Dutch church was established on Canvey and this continued to hold services until 1704/5. Before moving to Canvey Island Vermuyden and his cohort of Dutch workers had previously worked on embanking land at Dagenham in south-west Essex. The size of this cohort is impossible to establish. Some of those who worked with Vermuyden stayed in Dagenham forming a Dutch colony there, although no details have come to light of the size or duration of this colony.

1.4.1.6 Cambridgeshire In the seventeenth century two French communities were established in Cambridgeshire, at Thorney and Whittelsey. This was a result of the drainage work carried out in the area by Cornelis Vermuyden. Some sources refer to the presence of Dutch people amongst these communities, although firm evidence for this is scarce and only anecdotal. After the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris in 1572 many French Protestants had fled to the United Provinces. It was from these people of French origin that many of the drainage workers came who implemented Vermuyden’s plans in Hatfield Chase in Yorkshire, discussed in more detail below. Unfortunately there was much local opposition to them and, on the invitation of the fourth Earl of Bedford, some of them moved south to assist in the draining of the Fens, settling in Thorney, about five miles to the east of Peterborough (McNeile 1948: 174–5). One source states that an agreement was signed in the 1630s between the Earl and the Bishop of Ely, Matthew Wren, that permitted the old ruins of the Abbey, which had suffered in the Reformation, to be repaired for the use of ‘the French and Dutch planters’ (The Abbey Church 2005: 9). Local documents record that in 1640 Wren granted

41 This is now the Dutch Cottage Museum (fig. 3). 40 CHAPTER 1 a licence to a Frenchman, Stephan de Cursol, to preach in French or Latin.42 A register of baptisms for the church was kept from 1654 to 1727 (Peet 1903).43 All the entries are in French, although there are some Flemish names such as Vandebeck. Wentworth-Day (1954: 64) writes,

It is interesting to note that many of the present inhabitants of Thorney descend from the original Dutch, and Walloon- or French-speaking Hollanders from Picardy and Northern Flanders, who came over with the original drainers.

He does, though, provide no evidence to support his reference to the Dutch. A French church was also established at Whittlesey, near Thorney and Peterborough, in the middle of the seventeenth century (H 87: iii, ii, 2211; Bevis 1983: 8). However, the surviving records make no mention of the presence of Dutch or Flemish at Whittlesey.44 Dutch drainage workers settled in the villages of Fen Stanton and Fen Drayton in Cambridgeshire. In Fen Drayton, in the south of the county, there is a house where Cornelis Vermuyden himself is reputed to have lived. Over the door is his motto, Niet Zonder Arbyt (‘Nothing Without Work’) (Wilson 1946: 17). This has been adopted as the motto of South Cambridgeshire District Council.45

42 Cambridgeshire Archives, kp155/1/1. 43 Cambridgeshire Archives, P155/01/01. Henry Peet, who transcribed the Thorney baptismal records, sees matters slightly differently. He writes that there were riots in the Isle of Axholme in about 1650 and this led some Strangers to leave this area and move to the fens and marshes of the Bedford Level. According to him, the French church first began to assemble in Thorney two years later in 1652 (Peet 1903: xii). The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. Possibly Peet did not have access to documents referring to the licence granted to de Cursol, or it may be that de Cursol did not exercise this licence. See also Fletcher (2010) on the Strangers at Thorney. 44 One commentator writes that the town of March was settled by a colony of Dutch ‘about the time of the Revolution’. He does not state which revolution, though it may well be the Glorious Revolution of 1688. He goes onto say rather unkindly that this ‘accounted for the squat shape, flat nose, round unmeaning face which prevails amongst the inhabitants’ (Wentworth-Day 1954: 110). I have found no evidence for such a colony in the Cambridgeshire archives. 45 The motto has also found its way onto a stained glass window in Ely Cathedral. This is a result of the fact that it was adopted by the Dutch section of the raf in wwii. Dutch in Early Modern England 41

1.4.1.7 Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire On the border of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire is the town of Stamford. The major landowner in the area was William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. On 22 June 1567 there was a

petition of certain foreign artists in various branches of weaving to Cecill, that he would permit them to settle at Stamford . . . and to occupy his house and 200 or 300 acres of ground there.46

Cecil gave a house to these Strangers ‘of the Doche nacon’ to live in and invited ten households to live there, although the Strangers asked for permission to settle twenty households (Rogers 1965: 65). The scheme clearly made some headway for in March 1572 Isbrandus Balkius, who had been a minister of the Dutch church in Norwich, and Caspar Vosbergius wrote to Cecil from London in Latin in their own name and that of other Strangers, indicating their intention to settle at Stamford and establish their trades there (Strype 1711: iii, 208–9). By the end of 1572 several Stranger families of Protestant exiles had settled in Stamford in order to work on the new draperies in the town. What happened thereafter is difficult to establish with certainty. The only evidence that we have is anecdotal and refers to Walloon rather than Dutch Strangers.47 In the case of Boston, in south-east Lincolnshire, we know of a licence to retain 40 households of Dutchmen within the borough in 1573.48 As with cases mentioned above if we use the figure of about ten members in a household, including servants and apprentices as well as the parents and children, then there may have been as many as 400 Dutch inhabitants in Boston.49 After draining Canvey Island in Essex, Cornelis Vermuyden moved north to the borders of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in order to drain the area around Hatfield Chase. This work was carried out between 1626 and 1629 (Summers

46 State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth I (sp 12), Vol. 43, 22 June 1567. 47 Strype notes that a Stranger congregation and working community ‘continued a great while in Stamford’. However, he refers to this as a Walloon community (Strype 1821: ii, 148–50). Another reference to Walloons comes in 1662, when we are told that Thomas Thoketu, a Walloon gentleman, residing in the parish of St. Martin, left in his will all his ‘French and foreign books’ to the Walloon church in Norwich (Gaches: 286). This of course raises the question of how many of the Strangers in Stamford were in fact ‘of the Doche nacon’. We shall have more to say on Stamford in the next chapter. I am grateful to Professor Alan Rogers and his colleagues and to staff at Stamford Library and Lincoln Central Library for information on the Strangers in Stamford. 48 Lincolnshire Archives, bb/1/B/1, p. 50. 49 See note 17 above. 42 CHAPTER 1

1976: 62). Vermuyden was assisted in this by French and Dutch workers. A Dutch community began to settle in Sandtoft, a village in North Lincolnshire, in 1629. It is reckoned that more than 200 Dutch families settled there. By 1638 there was a brick church in the village. However, there was much local opposition to the Dutch, in particular from those who resented the loss of their traditional way of life resulting from the destruction of the marshland, and the commoners rioted in 1642 destroying 32 houses. Sandtoft was totally destroyed in 1651, when the Levellers demolished 82 houses and a mill in ten days. Clearly, though, this was not the end for the Dutch community at Sandtoft, for the Dutch congregation continued to meet until the mid-1680s (Neave 1988: 26; Smiles 1889: 113). Vermuyden and his workers were also active in the area of Yorkshire abut- ting North Lincolnshire. The work on Hatfield Chase was only partially successful. The straightening of the River Don and outlet into the Aire caused flooding in several villages (Wilson 1968: 80). As a result of a lawsuit in 1633 Vermuyden had to dig the New Cut, which provided a direct route from the Don to the River Ouse at Goole in the East Riding of Yorkshire. This later became known as the Dutch River. The workers were drawn from the Dutch colonies at Dagenham and Canvey Island and French people whose families had moved to the United Provinces after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572, mentioned above (Wilson 1941: 88, 1968: 85; McNeile 1948: 174–5; Neave 1988: 25).

1.4.1.8 Other Areas in England Where the Dutch Settled So far we have considered the settlement of Dutch immigrants in areas of Eastern England from Kent up to Yorkshire. Many of the settlements discussed were in ports on the east coast of England, including cities on navigable rivers such as Colchester, Maidstone and Norwich, within relatively easy reach of the Low Countries. However, Dutch immigrants also settled in a number of other towns in other parts of England. In the West Midlands a small Dutch community of weavers was established in Coventry in the 1570s. A Dutch church was also active in the town for several years (H 87: iii, i, 205; 366; Van Schelven 1908: 204–5). Twenty miles to the south of Coventry lies the village of Barcheston. From about 1570 to sometime after 1684 there was a tapestry factory in the village, which employed a group of Flemish silk weavers (Turner 2002). Samuel Smiles records that Flemings established themselves in the Lancashire towns of Manchester, Bolton, and the West Yorkshire town of Halifax, where they made ‘coatings’ or ‘cottons’ which were imitations of woollen goods using cot- ton wool. There is also an indication that Flemings had much to do with the fulling-mill in Manchester, as its ordinary name was the ‘walken-milne’, walken Dutch in Early Modern England 43 being the Dutch word for fulling (Smiles 1889: 109–10).50 Unfortunately in each case Smiles provides no evidence to support these assertions and I have yet to come across corroborating archive material. Southampton and Plymouth are two ports on the south coast of England where there is some evidence for Dutch settlement. A letter dated 8 April 1575 from Southampton in Latin in the Hessels collection begins (H 87: iii, i, 301):

nos Ministrj et Seniores Ecclesiae Hamptonae constitutae ex Belgio et Francia profugis ob confessionem purioris doctrinae . . .

We, the ministers and elders of the church of Southampton, constituted by those who fled Belgium and France on account of professing a purer doctrine . . .

Hessels refers to this as the ‘Dutch-French Church, Southampton’. It does seem that there were some Dutch in the congregation at Southampton, certainly in the early days of the Stranger church there, although over time the congregation and thus most probably the broader Stranger community in Southampton became French or Walloon (cf. Peters 1985: 98).51 In 1574 the Sherriff of Devon, Peter Edgcumb, wrote to the elders of the three foreign churches (Dutch, French and Italian) in London informing them that he had furnished a house for the reception of 100 people from their communities until they could build their own places to live ‘standinge uppon the Ryver of Plymouthes haven, not farre from Stonehowse’ (H 87: iii, i, 267–8). At this time Stonehouse was about one mile from Plymouth. In 1631 a Dutchman living in Plymouth, Jaen Heindrickxsn Schaets, wrote a letter in Dutch to the London Dutch church (H 87: iii, ii, 1520). He refers to de Duitchen . . . de hijr wonnachtich sijn (‘the Dutch who live here’), which

50 Smiles also writes that at Kendal in north-west England Flemish immigrants made cloth caps and woollen stockings; and that Flemish workers in iron and steel settled in Sheffield under the protection of the Earl of Shrewsbury, although as in the other cases mentioned above he provides no evidence to support these assertions (Smiles 1889: 109–12). Smiles also writes ‘a settlement of Flemish woollen-weavers took place at Glastonbury as early as 1549 through the influence of the Duke of Somerset’ (Smiles 1889: 109, n. 2). H.L. Turner, writing in 2002, also makes reference to Somerset’s project, but notes that it failed, although it may have influenced later projects such as that of William Cecil to bring Flemish weavers to Stamford (Turner 2002). We do know, however, that there was a short-lived French Walloon church at Glastonbury (Cowell 1928). 51 See also Spicer (1997). 44 CHAPTER 1 suggests that there was something of a Dutch community in Plymouth. He also observed that there were more than 50 to 60 Dutch ships (50 a 60 seijl- len schepen van Duitchen, ja merder als dat) in Plymouth harbour at any one time and that on Sundays there were many Dutch sailors wandering around the town ‘like sheep without a shepherd’ (hijr gaen dwallen des sonne daeges bij der straeten gelick schaepen sonder haerder) as there was no Dutch church and the English churches were full with their doors closed. He therefore proposed the establishment of a Dutch church in Plymouth. The London church replied to Schaets that he should bring the matter before the local magistrate and provide him with a calculation of the anticipated costs (H 87: iii, ii, 1524). Unfortunately there is no record of whether Schaets took the matter further and if he did whether he was successful. Smiles records that Flemish exiles introduced the manufacture of bone-lace into Devonshire, settling in towns such as Honiton and Colyton, but again provides no further details to support this assertion (Smiles 1889: 110). Mention should also be made of Rye in East Sussex. A French Stranger community was established in this town, drawn largely from refugees from Rouen and Dieppe. However, there is evidence for the presence of Dutch and Flemings. Bouwen Maartensz. from Vlissingen in Zeeland settled in the town with his family after fleeing there via France, having been banished in 1568 from his home town (Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 534). In a minute of the proceedings of the Privy Council from 1570, there is reference to a ‘Flemish vessel’ arriving at Rye and a marginal note to the minute refers to ‘Flemish fugitives’.52 In a list of ‘Foreign Names in the Parish Register of Rye’ more than twenty aliens whose burials are recorded in the Register are described as ‘a Hollander’, ‘a Flemynge’ or ‘a Dutchman’. We need to be careful, though, with the latter term as one person is described as ‘Symon, a Dutchman, of Hamburgh’. He could have been German, or a Dutchman who had lived in Hamburg (Hardy 1887: 583–7). There were Dutch in Rye in the seventeenth century, although they will have been few in number. On May 3 1622, a Return of Strangers in Rye, made by the Mayor and Jurats to the Privy Council, refers to ‘the French and Dutch now residing with us’. Only one person, though, is explicitly described as a Dutchman or Fleming; John Steye, a hat trimmer, who had left Ieper at the age of two and spent his youth in Sandwich. He was by now a denizen (Hardy 1887: 577). Before concluding this section, a word is in order about Scotland and Wales. Settlement patterns in these two countries were very different from those in England. In Scotland the only Dutch settlement of any size and duration

52 These details are recorded in the Miscellanea of the ‘Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London’, 5 (1894–6), pp. 201–2. Dutch in Early Modern England 45 was in Edinburgh (Campbell 1996: 92–3). In Wales there had been a Flemish community in Pembroke since at least the twelfth century, which may have been able to trace its origins back to the Flemish mercenaries, who fought for William the Conqueror in 1066 (Toorians 2000: 184). There are reports of this community still flourishing in the middle of the sixteenth century, but, unlike England, Wales experienced no new influx of immigrants from the Low Countries at this time, and there are no subsequent reports of a separate Flemish community in Pembroke (De Heere 1937: 48; Stoyle 2005: 13). For these reasons Scotland and Wales are treated separately in Chapter 7. So, returning to England, we have seen that people whose mother tongue was Dutch settled in many towns in the early modern period. Although some of the communities they established were short-lived, several others such as those in London, Colchester, Norwich and Sandwich persisted for over 150 years. Whilst Dutch was the mother tongue of the immigrants, over time English increasingly competed with and eventually replaced Dutch as the first language of some of their descendants.53 Some communities, such as those established by drainage workers in the seventeenth century, saw Dutch and French living side by side. Furthermore, some individuals may have been bilingual. This will have affected the extent to which Dutch was used in these communities. Many of those who settled in England in the second half of the sixteenth century came from the Southern Netherlands and so southern varieties of Dutch will have predominated in the communities they established. In some communities, though, such as that of Great Yarmouth, Northern Netherlanders were in the majority.54

1.4.2 Temporary Dutch Visitors to England Let us now consider the second group of those who knew Dutch in early modern England: temporary visitors to the country. Whilst some individuals clearly belonged to the first group and others clearly belonged to this second group, for others the distinction is less clear, although they are relatively small in number. What is particularly striking is the range of activities undertaken by those who visited England on a temporary basis throughout the early modern

53 In this regard, the case of Yarmouth is instructive. By 1669 members of the Dutch church were greeting their new minister in English (see section 2.4.2). 54 According to Lien Luu (2005: 100–1) the majority of aliens from the Low Countries in London before about 1560 came from the Northern Netherlands. Between 1435 and 1467 34% of the aliens in the Patent Rolls came from Holland, 25% from Brabant; 9% from Zeeland; 8% from Gelders and only 6% from Flanders. Many of these Northerners were fleeing the civil wars in Holland. 46 CHAPTER 1 period. They included fishermen; traders and merchants; intellectuals; artists, craftsmen and architects; diplomats; and soldiers and sailors. Each of these will now be considered in turn.

1.4.2.1 Fishermen During the annual herring catch some 600 Dutch herringbusses worked their way down the east coast of Britain from the Shetland Islands in June to the Thames estuary in the early autumn. Some commentators estimate that over 30,000 Dutchmen took part in the catch each year. The boats would call in at ports along the coast to land their catch or to mend their boats or nets. Great Yarmouth regularly received Dutch fishermen into its port. Indeed in 1647 the leaders of the Dutch church in the town did not attend the colloquy of Dutch churches in England because (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 346):

Aldaer gedurende den harinkvank een groote menichte is van Nederlandsche visschers en coopvaerders.

During the herring catch there is a great number of Dutch fishermen and merchantmen.

Many of the Dutch fishermen who came to Yarmouth spoke little or no English. In a letter written in 1654 to the London Dutch church the Yarmouth consistory complained that there were between 50 and 60 Dutch fishermen in the town who could not hear the Word of God because the church at this time did not have a preacher (H 87: iii, ii, 2243). In another Norfolk port, King’s Lynn, boats arrived from many ports in the United Provinces including Dordrecht, Enkhuizen, Middelburg, Rotterdam, Veere and Vlissingen (Metters 2009: 36–9). As well as listing boats sailing between Lynn and the Low Countries, the King’s Lynn Port Books refer to boats sailing between Wells and Burnham, both on the North Norfolk coast, and Veere in Zeeland in the early seventeenth century (Metters 2009: 38). Other records detail commercial activity between the Norfolk ports of Hunstanton, Blakeney and Cley and ports in the Low Countries (Smit 1942–50: passim). Ports other than these may well also have received Dutch sailors and in some coastal locations Dutch smugglers no doubt came ashore, although for obvious reasons records of their presence are scarce (Jarvis 1987).

1.4.2.2 Traders and Merchants Since the Middle Ages there had also been plenty of trade between Colchester and the Low Countries involving merchants from both sides of the North Sea Dutch in Early Modern England 47

(Smit 1942–50: ii, i).55 In the 1590s Colchester traded heavily with Middelburg in Zeeland, but by 1634 its overseas trade, in which Dutch Strangers in the town had a significant involvement, was focussed on Veere and Rotterdam, and this remained the case well into the eighteenth century (Cooper 1994: 85–6).56 A Dutch merchant who visited Colchester was Jan Six van Chandelier (1620– 1697). He was also a poet. In 1655 Six van Chandelier spent time in Colchester, possibly landing there on his way to London and Northamptonshire. He wrote a 38-line poem entitled Oesters te Kolchester (‘Oysters at Colchester’), which, as the title suggests, recalls a meal consisting of one of Colchester’s most famous products, oysters (see section 6.2.9 and Appendix 1). In Kent, Dutch trading ships often landed at ports such as Gravesend, Faversham, Reculver, and Dover.57 Dutch ships also landed at Sandwich. In 1573 28 of these were held at Sandwich for about 7 months on the orders of the English Admiralty (Smit 1942: ii, i, 1143). Finally, we have already seen that there was an attempt in 1631 to establish a Dutch church in Plymouth in Devon to serve the large number of Dutch sailors who called in at the port on their way to Africa and other parts of the world.

1.4.2.3 Scholars and Students There was a certain amount of traffic between the Low Countries and England involving scholars and students. A Flemish intellectual, who resided in England for a period in the second half of the sixteenth century, was Johannes van den Driesche (Drusius) (1550–1616). Having spent time in Cambridge, in 1572 he became Professor of Oriental languages at Oxford. After the Pacification of Ghent in 1576 he returned to the Low Countries where he was appointed Professor of Oriental languages at the new university in Leiden. In the seventeenth century the great scholar, Franciscus Junius (the Younger) (1591–1677), spent many years in England working for Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. He wrote letters in Dutch to family members during his time in England, but typically wrote in Latin to members of his intellectual circle (Van Romburgh 2004). Whilst in England he also wrote a treatise on art in Latin, for which he

55 See, for example, two entries in Smit’s edition concerning legal disputes involving Michiel Heinricsz. from Zierikzee and Gerardus Nicolas from Delft in the first half of the sixteenth century: pp. 227–28 and 349–50. 56 Cooper writes that ‘Camphere’ was one of the ports with which Colchester traded. He identifies this as either ‘Quimper’ in France or Kampen. I wonder if this is in fact Veere in Zeeland, which is often referred to as Campheir in British sources. 57 Kent History and Library Centre holds a letter dated 10 December 1563 complaining of the treatment by the town of Faversham of the master of a Flemish ship (Fa/CPw9). 48 CHAPTER 1 produced his own translation into Dutch. We return to Junius’ use of Dutch in Chapters 4 and 6. Another Dutch scholar, Junius’ brother-in-law, Gerard Vossius, was appointed as a canon at Canterbury Cathedral in 1629 (Wilson 1968: 153; see section 2.2.3). One Dutch student who studied at both Oxford and Cambridge during the early 1580s was Franciscus Gomarus. He would later become involved in important theological disputes in the United Provinces.

1.4.2.4 Artists, Craftsmen and Architects Dutch artists and craftsmen are two further groups well-represented in early modern England. Artists from the Low Countries were much in demand in England in the early modern period. During the reign of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) 73 artists and artisans left Antwerp alone for London (Martens and Peeters 2003: 34). Perhaps the most famous artists from the Low Countries to ply their trade in England were Sir Peter Paul Rubens and Sir Anthony van Dyck, both of whom worked for the court of Charles I. In Chapter 4 I discuss a letter written in Dutch by Van Dyck in England. Other artists from the Low Countries who worked at court were the Brugge-born artist, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (1561/2–1636); Daniel Mytens the Elder (c. 1590–1647), born in Delft; and Sir Peter Lely (1618–1680).58 Lely was a pupil of Pieter de Grebber of Haarlem. He went to England in 1641 with Prince William (later the stadholder William ii), on the occasion of his marriage to Charles I’s daughter, Mary Henrietta Stuart (Wilson 1968: 130). He managed to have a successful career in England during both the Commonwealth and the Restoration. Lely and Willem van de Velde the Younger, another Dutch artist who established himself in England along with his father,59 were commissioned to paint a portrait of Cornelis Tromp during his visit to England in 1675, when he was created an English baronet by Charles ii. Lely and Van de Velde painted another portrait of Tromp later that year. Did these three Dutchmen speak Dutch to each other as the commission was carried out? We do not know, but it is one of many instances in which Dutchmen were together in early modern England. Lely also worked in England on collaborations with other artists from the Low Countries: for example, Jan Baptist Jaspers from Antwerp; Willem Wissing, who trained in

58 Abraham van Blyenberch (1575/6–1624) was a Flemish painter who worked in London from c. 1617–1622. He painted the portraits of a number of the members of James I’s court. His most famous portrait is that of Ben Jonson, which now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London. 59 They were commissioned to work for the Court by the Charter of Charles ii in 1675. Dutch in Early Modern England 49

The Hague; and Jeremias van der Eijde from The Hague (Curd 2010: 100–125).60 Further details of artists from the Low Countries working at the English court are given in Chapter 5. Away from the court, a Dutch artist who visited England in the second half of seventeenth century was Willem Schellinks of Amsterdam. He toured England in the early 1660s, keeping a detailed journal of his travels in Dutch, noting in particular his encounters with other Dutch people or those of Dutch and Flemish heritage. Extracts from his diary are provided in Chapter 6. There are many other artists from the Low Countries who worked in England during this period, but a detailed discussion of them would take us away from our central theme.61 Some of these artists were clearly in England on a temporary basis to carry out specific commissions, whilst others stayed in the country on a more permanent basis. Here, of course we come back to the theme of boundaries discussed in the prologue and are forced to acknowledge that such boundaries are mutable and must on occasion be transgressed. In the sixteenth century a number of engravers from the Netherlands went to work in England. These included Thomas Geminus and Jodocus Hondius, the famous map engraver, both from Flanders (Davies 1964: 17). A Dutch engraver who spent time working in England was Abraham Blooteling (1634-after 1698). He worked in England between 1673–1678 and during this time produced a line engraving of Cornelis Tromp in 1676 after one of the portraits of him made by Peter Lely, discussed above. Blooteling’s engraving included an inscription in Dutch listing Tromp’s various titles (Curd 2010):

60 For other Netherlandish artists who worked with Lely in England, see Curd (2010: 123, n. 42). 61 Other artists who came to England from the Low Countries were Hans Eworth (Ewoutsz) of Antwerp, Jan van der Vaart, Pieter Borselaer, father and son, Jan and Robert Griffier, Paul van Somer, Gerard Soest, Abraham van Diepenbeke and Cornelis van Poelenburgh (Davies 1964: 16; Hoftijzer 1988: 115–40; 130–31; Wilson 1946: 15 and 1968: 129). To these names we can add those of other Dutch artists working in London in the seventeenth century: Leonard Knyff from Haarlem, Jan Siberechts from Antwerp, who painted a view of Belsize in Middlesex in 1696, which now hangs in the Tate Britain, George Geldorp, Balthazar Gerbier, Abraham Hondius, Hendrick Danckerts, who made a drawing of Badminton House in 1699 (now in the British Museum collection), Johann Kerseboom, who painted a portrait of Robert Boyle, and the Fleming, Jacob Huysmans, who painted members of Charles ii’s court. Edwaert Colyer was a Leiden painter, who lived in London for a time, and we see English newspapers in his still life paintings (Wilson 1968: 144–5). By contrast the artist Cornelius Jonson was born in London to Dutch immigrant parents and later emigrated to Middelburg during the Civil War. 50 CHAPTER 1

D’Ed. H. CORNELIS TROMP Ridder Baronnet Lt.Admirael Van Hollandt en West-vrieslandt Dom Heer tot Uytrecht Admirael Generael en Secrete Raedt Van Sijn Conincklijcke Maijesteijt Van Deenemarcke.62

The Noble Lord, CORNELIS TROMP, Knight Baronet, Lt. Admiral of Holland and West-Frisia, Lord of Utrecht, Admiral General and Private Counsel of His Royal Majesty of Denmark.

Other Dutch engravers who worked in London at this time, and who in some sense formed a network with Blooteling, were Abraham de Blois, Nicholas Visscher, Jan van Somer and Gerard Valck. Often these engravers would base their images on works by Lely, such as Valck’s engraving of Nell Gwyn from c. 1673 (Curd 2010: 127–61). Skilled craftsmen, too, came to England from the United Provinces to undertake work on the numerous town and country houses being built and renovated during this period. The furnishing of Ham House near Richmond by anonymous Dutch craftsmen during the reign of Charles ii is a good example of this (Hoftijzer 1988: 130–1). Sculptors from the Netherlands who worked in England included Gerard Janson (Geraert Janssen) who executed the portrait bust of Shakespeare at Stratford in 1616 (we also should not forget that it was an engraver of Flemish descent, Martin Droeshout, who made the engraving of Shakespeare, which was used for the First Folio edition of his plays in 1623). Grinling Gibbons, who worked on the interior woodwork of St. Paul’s as well as a number of Wren’s City Churches, was born in Rotterdam of English parents (Wilson 1946: 15). Again, Gibbons is someone who does not fit neatly into one of our three categories. Dutch architects who contributed to the design of celebrated buildings in England were Caspar Vosbergius, who worked for Lord Cecil at Burghley House, and who was mentioned above in relation to Stamford; Henry de Pas, who designed Thomas Gresham’s Exchange in London; and Bernard Jansen, who was largely responsible for Audley End (Colvin 1978: 455).63 Another Dutchman, Samuel Fortrey, a writer on economic affairs, bought Kew Palace from another Dutchman in 1630 and promptly knocked it down and rebuilt the present house (Wilson 1968: 139; 142).

62 http://www.grosvenorprints.com/catalogs/Catalogue%20Part%202.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2014. 63 The assistant to Sir Christopher Wren at Hampton Court, William Talman, was of Dutch descent. He went on to design Chatsworth and Dyrham Park. Dutch in Early Modern England 51

Gardens in England were often decorated with statues and small figures made by the Dutchman, Jan van Nost, who owned a lead yard in Piccadilly (Wilson 1968: 146).64 At Lambeth in 1671 the Dutchman Jan van Hamme obtained a patent, ‘for the art of makeinge tiles and porcelane and other earth- enwares after the way practised after Holland’. In 1567 two Flemings, Anthony Been and John Care, set up premises for making window-glass in London and the manufacture was continued by two other Flemings, Brut and Appell (Smiles 1889: 111). Theodore Haveus, originally from Cleves, arrived in England from Delft. He appears in the records of King’s Lynn as an elder of the Dutch church and a merchant. He also designed an elaborate sundial for Caius Court at Gonville & Caius in Cambridge (Rye 1877: 197; 1887: 229; Forster 1967: 10–11). But it was not only in London and south-east England that Dutch craftsmen were active. To give but one example here, towards the end of the seventeenth century members of the Elers family from Amsterdam, who made ceramics, established themselves near Burslem in Staffordshire, which was the oldest of the pottery towns (Hoftijzer 1988: 133; Wilson 1946: 15–16).65

1.4.2.5 Diplomats, Soldiers and Seamen Moving away from the arts, three further groups of Dutchmen who went to Britain on a temporary basis were diplomats, soldiers and naval seamen. Let us consider each of these in turn. Diplomats such as Jacob Hop, mentioned above, and Johan Meerman, who visited London to seek peace between the United Provinces and England in the 1670s, wrote many letters in Dutch from London (Fruin and Japikse 1913: 261 ff.). The Dutch sent many diplomatic missions to England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Amongst the Dutch diplomats who visited England towards the end of the sixteenth century in order to build relationships between the fellow Protestant countries were Johann van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619) and Noël de Caron (c. 1550–1624). In the seventeenth century there were further diplomatic missions. One member of several of these missions was Constantijn Huygens. He visited England on seven occasions between 1618 and 1671 (Joby 2013a). He wrote letters in Dutch and composed Dutch verse. In fact he wrote over 7% of his vast output of Dutch verse in England. This included two of his important early Dutch poems, ’Tcostelijck Mall (‘Costly Folly’) and De Uytlandighe Herder (‘The Shepherd in Exile’), both dated 1622 (Huygens 2001: ii, 299–385; 401–29). Huygens dedicated the former poem to one of his mentors, the poet and politician,

64 Van Nost’s work could be seen in Wrest Park, Bedfordshire and Melbourne, Derbyshire. 65 The Elers family was originally from Germany. 52 CHAPTER 1

Jacob Cats (1577–1660). Later, in 1651–1652, Cats would lead another diplomatic mission from the United Provinces to England. In his entourage was one of Huygens’ sons, Lodewijck. He kept a detailed journal in French and Dutch of the diplomatic visit and of his own travels around Southern England and Wales. He sometimes mentions other Dutch people that he met in England, providing us with further useful insights into the knowledge of Dutch in England at this time. In 1670–1671 Huygens sr. visited England for a final time on a mission with William, Prince of Orange, who would become King of England at the end of the following decade. During this visit he wrote numerous short poems in Dutch. In 1674 the Third Anglo-Dutch War was concluded with the Treaty of Westminster. A diplomatic mission was subsequently sent to London accompanied by a preacher, Johannes Vollenhove (1631–1708), who was also a well- respected poet. He kept a journal of his visit in Dutch and composed a number of epistolary poems in Dutch during his time in England. Dutch soldiers went to England in the early modern period. When William invaded England in 1688 he was accompanied by the Dutch Blue Guard (Blauwe Garde). They remained in the country until William’s death in 1702. Furthermore, Dutch and Flemish soldiers fought on both sides during the English Civil War (Stoyle 2005). King William himself represents something of a special case in this book. He was born in The Hague to a Dutch father, the stadholder William ii, and an English mother, Mary Henrietta Stuart, daughter of Charles I. In some sense he was a permanent resident of England, but given that he spent much of his reign outside the country, he could also be seen as a temporary visitor. To date little work has been done on the languages William used in England and so special attention will be paid to this subject in Chapter 5. Above, mention was made of Dutch privateers who had a base at Dover. Commonly known as the ‘sea beggars’, they were in the vanguard of the Dutch Revolt and set sail for the Low Countries not only from Dover, but also from other ports on the Southern and Eastern coast of England. As privateers some of them used to sell their prizes on the Isle of Wight.66 Queen Elizabeth allowed them to use English ports until 1572 when Spanish objections forced her to stop them doing so (Knight 1964: 7). In the seventeenth century sailors in the Dutch navy fought a number of battles off the coast of Britain during the three Anglo-Dutch wars. Sometimes they went onto dry land. For example, there are reports of some 8000 Dutch soldiers landing at Queenborough near Chatham during the

66 I thank Alastair Duke for this information. Dutch in Early Modern England 53

Second Anglo-Dutch war. In Dover in May 1652 the English Captain William Brandley examined four Dutch Captains and Lieutenants of ships taken in an engagement with a fleet under the command of Admiral Maarten Harpertsz. Tromp (Gardiner 1899: 209–16). This became known as the Battle of Dover and was the opening battle in the First Anglo-Dutch war. On 3 October 1652 (N.S.), in the heat of this war, M.P. Groenvelt wrote a letter in Dutch to the minister of the London Dutch church, Cesare Calandrini. Groenvelt was a Dutch Lutenant and he was writing to Calandrini after having been released from prison in Hull to apologize for any inconvenience earlier communications might have caused. He signed the letter M.P. Groenvelt, Lutenant in der name van all onse maets (‘M.P. Groenvelt, Lieutenant in the name of all our seamen’) (H 87: iii, ii, 2214). A letter from Yarmouth dated 19 August 1652 reports that a Zeelander had come to the town for the exchange of men. A Dutch vessel had been taken as prize and thirty of its sailors were now being held prisoner in Yarmouth (Gardiner 1899: 413–5). During the same war, in 1653, five hundred Dutch sailors captured in an engagement off Portland Bill were put to work on helping to drain the Fens. This included the cutting of the New Bedford River at Earith in Cambridgeshire, and excavation work at Denver in Norfolk under the leadership of Cornelis Vermuyden (Bevis 2003: 3–4; 6–7; 34–5).

1.4.2.6 Concluding Remarks So, those who visited England from the Low Countries at this time were active in a range of social domains. In a manner similar to that which we saw with the first group, in the second half of the sixteenth century, these temporary visitors typically came from the Southern Netherlands. However, during the seventeenth century, they largely came from the Northern Netherlands. We shall consider the use of Dutch by some of these visitors in subsequent chapters. As for the others, sometimes evidence is lacking. One such case is that of Dutch prisoners-of-war who helped excavate the New Bedford River. Although there is no record of their language use, it is highly unlikely that they spoke (and swore) in any language other than Dutch as they cut into the enemy’s soil.

1.4.3 English People Who Knew Dutch The third and final group of people who knew Dutch in early modern England consisted of English people who learnt the language for any one of a number of reasons. Some English people married members of the local Dutch community. John Gunnell of Yarmouth is a case in point. He married a Dutch woman, who was a member of the congregation in Yarmouth, and wrote a number of letters in 54 CHAPTER 1

Dutch in order to try and gain membership of the same congregation (e.g., H 87: iii, ii, 1513). Merchants such as Sir John Elwill from Devon and John Wallis of King’s Lynn both claimed to speak Dutch, the latter in a court case in 1610, no doubt in order to help them trade with Dutch speakers from the Low Countries (Wilson 1946: 17; Metters 2009: 39). Richard Dafforne was born in England towards the end of the sixteenth century. In 1620 he was working as a schoolmaster in Amsterdam, where he married a Dutch schoolmistress, Vroutie Jacob. In 1627 he published a Dutch grammar, Grammatica ofte Leez-Leerlings-Steunsel (‘Grammar or Aid for those Learning to Read’), in Amsterdam. He moved to London in 1630 where he taught Dutch to the children of members of the Dutch Church and also published a popular book on accounting, ‘The Merchants Mirrour’ (Grell 1996: 150–3). Robert Ashley (1565–1641), who trained as a lawyer but then became a writer and translator, acquired a knowledge of Dutch, as well as French, Spanish and Italian whilst at the Inner Temple, so as to be able to engage, he said, with those who lived in neighbouring countries (Lambley 1920: 209). Several English playwrights of the period include Dutch words and phrases in their plays. The most notable of these is Thomas Dekker. He may well have been of Dutch or Flemish descent, but was born in London and has always been considered an English playwright. The use of Dutch by Dekker and other playwrights in early modern English theatre is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. English sailors who had worked on Dutch ships picked up a smattering of the language. One skipper recalled in 1659 that he had learnt it whilst working for the Dutch in the East Indies. I discuss his case and that of other sailors in Chapter 5. The scientific activity in the United Provinces in the early modern period prompted Robert Hooke to begin learning Dutch in December 1672 (Hooke 1968; Hoftijzer 1988: 134). Amongst the Dutch books he acquired were Witzen’s Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier on ship building and one he described in his diary as ‘Stevins mechanicks, Dutch’, which was probably Simon Stevin’s De Beghinselen der Weeghconst, often translated as ‘The Principles of Statics’, first published in 1586. Dutch was not on the English school or university curriculum at this time. For English people who wanted to learn the language, a number of books were available such as Marten le Mayre’s ‘The Dutch School-Master’, published in 1606 in London and clearly aimed at English merchants and traders, and the anonymous ‘The Dutch-Tutor’, published in London in 1659. Others, such as Dutch in Early Modern England 55

Englishmen apprenticed to the Dutch, no doubt picked up some of the language in the course of working alongside their Dutch colleagues.

1.5 Conclusion

So, we have seen that those who knew Dutch in early modern England can be divided into three principal groups. First, there are those for whom Dutch was their mother tongue who belonged to communities in a number of towns and cities in early modern England. A second group consists of those whose mother tongue was Dutch who visited England on a temporary basis for various reasons. A third, much smaller group consists of those English people who learnt Dutch for reasons as varied as having a Dutch spouse or wanting to keep abreast of scientific developments in the United Provinces. Of course, some individuals, it could be argued, belong to more than one of these groups, a prime example being King William iii. There are also individuals who used Dutch in England who fit into none of these categories. One example is the Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, who visited England at William’s invitation in 1698 (see section 5.3.6). However, such cases are relatively few. The distribution of those in the first two groups shows that Dutch was primarily an urban language in early modern England. It was also a language that was principally used in port towns and cities, the most notable of these being London, Colchester (on the navigable River Colne), Maidstone (on the River Medway), Norwich (on the River Wensum), Sandwich and Yarmouth. This allowed for frequent comings and goings between the Dutch communities in England and the Low Countries, which helped these communities to retain contact with the principal fountainhead of their language. In subsequent chapters, we consider the social domains in which those who knew Dutch in early modern England wrote and spoke the language. In the next chapter we examine the evidence for the use of Dutch in the church domain. CHAPTER 2 Dutch in the Church

2.1 Introduction

The greatest accumulation of evidence for the use of Dutch in early modern Britain comes from the records of the Dutch churches. The first Dutch church in England was established in London in 1550. During the next one hundred and fifty years or so some eighteen Dutch church congregations met in towns and cities in England. Several of these congregations, notably those in London, Sandwich, Norwich and Colchester, met for most of this period and continued to meet into the eighteenth century. Others, such as those established in Coventry and King’s Lynn, were short-lived and had relatively few members.1 In this chapter we begin by considering where Dutch church congregations were established in early modern England, details of their membership and when they were active. In Chapter 1 details were provided of the numbers in the Dutch communities in England. Not all of the members of these communities were church members, although as the churches increasingly dealt with lay matters during the second half of the sixteenth century, membership increased. It is reckoned that membership grew from about 50% in the 1560s to around 80% by the beginning of the seventeenth century (Grell 1996: 5).2 A number of those who attended the churches were passanten, passing through to other towns in England, returning to the Low Countries shortly after their arrival, or simply preferring a looser relationship with the local Dutch church.3 In addition, from early on in their history, it is likely that English Puritans attended Dutch churches in England and for this reason in 1573 the Privy Council warned the Dutch church in London not to accept any English dissenters in their congregation (Grell 1996: 55).4

1 It may also be the case that the Dutch met to worship in other towns in England such as Boston in Lincolnshire, but we have no evidence for this. 2 Grell does seem to contradict himself to a certain extent, when he notes subsequently that the congregations of Norwich, Colchester and Yarmouth never included more than half the towns’ Dutch or Anglo-Dutch inhabitants (Grell 1996: 54). 3 Within the church context, passant can specifically mean someone to whom the church gave money if they were in need, or it can simply be a visitor, who was not a permanent member of the church. 4 For the participation of the English in the life of the Stranger churches, see Collinson (1983).

Having considered who attended the Dutch churches we then look in turn at evidence for the writing and speaking of Dutch in the church domain. Here, the letters published by J.H. Hessels at the end of the nineteenth century are an important source (H 87). Many of these letters were written by well-educated church leaders. They are often written in a formal style. However, particularly in the early letters written in the second half of the sixteenth century, we find many dialectal forms which often tell us something about the origins of their authors. The collection also contains personal letters addressed to church leaders, written in a less formal style. Dutch faced competition in the church domain from other languages. Latin played an important role in the early days of the Dutch churches in England. We find letters written in Latin and instances of code switching between Dutch and Latin in the minutes of meetings held at Austin Friars in London, and in other church records. The minutes of meetings between leaders of the Dutch and French or Walloon churches in England were initially kept in French and then in English. Over time, although Dutch continued to be used by the church leaders, English became the first language of members of the congregations. We begin, though, by considering where and when these churches were established and details of their membership.

2.2 Dutch Church Congregations in Early Modern England: A Chronology

table 1 Dutch church communities in England from 1550 onwards

London (Austin Friars) (1550–present) King’s Lynn ( fl. 1568–1571) Canvey Island (1631–c. 1704) London (Anglican liturgy) ( fl. 1665–1668) Colchester (1562/3–1728) Maidstone (c.1567–after 1655) Coventry ( fl. 1570–1573) Mortlake ( fl. 1621–1664) Dover (c. 1570–after 1589) Norwich (1565–1919) Dutch Chapel Royal (1689 onwards) Sandtoft ( fl. 1641–1685) Great Yarmouth (c. 1570–after 1680) Sandwich (1561–after 1706) Halstead (c. 1576–c. 1589) Stamford ( fl. 1572) Ipswich ( fl. 1571–1588) Thetford ( fl. 1572–1587) 58 CHAPTER 2

2.2.1 The Sixteenth Century In the sixteenth century, Dutch churches were established in thirteen towns and cities in England. Whilst some continued to flourish into the seventeenth century and beyond, half a dozen or so closed their doors before the end of the sixteenth century.

2.2.1.1 London As a result of the favourable policies towards Protestants introduced by King Edward vi (1547–1553), and the religious turmoil on the Continent, many Dutch people sought refuge in London in the late 1540s. By 1548, and most likely before this time, there were religious assemblies of Dutch and other Strangers in London, though no official churches.5 By the end of that year they began embarking on the formal organization of this worshipping community. As noted in the previous chapter it is not always easy to separate speakers of varieties of Dutch from those of varieties of German. However, a request to Reformers on the continent for a minister who spoke ‘the language of Brabant’ indicates that there was a Dutch worshipping community in London at this time, which numbered some six to eight hundred. By 1549 Dutch exiles in London were meeting on a regular basis to worship. There was resistance from leading figures in the Church of England to the establishment of separate churches for the Strangers. However, for a number of reasons, including the petition of the Strangers’ leaders, such as Johannes à Lasco (Jan Łaski in Polish), and that of John Calvin himself, and fears about the spread of heresy amongst the Stranger communities, in the summer of 1550 King Edward gave permission for the establishment of a Stranger church in London on the site of the old Augustinian Friary, Austin Friars (cf. Pettegree 1986: 9; 24–5; fig. 4). A Lasco was appointed as the superintendent of the church; the first ministers were Marten Micron and Wouter Delenus; and one of the elders was Johannes Utenhove (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 17; Lindeboom 1950: 14–15). On 13 October 1550 Micron wrote to Heinrich Bullinger, ‘I began to preach on 21st September, and the Dutch congregation is now so numerous that the place will not hold them’ (Beeman 1933–37: 269; Robinson 1847: 570–3). Micron was writing in Latin and used the term Ecclesia Germanica to refer to the church in which he preached.

5 In December 1548 Bernard Ochino wrote that there were more than 5000 Germans (Germani) in London (Beeman 1933–37: 264; Robinson 1846: 336). We are not told how many of these came from the Low Countries. I should note here that I have not been able to trace Ochino’s original letter but rely on a quotation from it in a letter dated 12 March 1549 from Wolfgang Musculus in Berne to Heinrich Bullinger. This is held in the Zurich Staatsarchiv and has the signature StAZH E ii 360, fols. 109–112. An English translation of this letter is produced by Robinson (1846: 336–7). Dutch In The Church 59

figure 4 The Dutch church at Austin Friars, London Author’s own collection

Some commentators translate this as ‘German’. However, it is clear from early church documents that Dutch, not (High) German, was the principal language of the church. Some of these documents are discussed in the next section. In 1553 the church register listed 489 members, although it is unlikely that this was kept up to date and some put the figure at nearer 1000. In that year the Protestant King, Edward vi, died and he was succeeded by his half-sister, the Catholic Queen Mary. One commentator suggests that as many as 175 members of the Dutch church in London left England at this time and a good number finally reached the port of Emden in East Frisia. Amongst them were Micron, à Lasco and Utenhove (Micron 1956: 3). After Mary’s death in 1558 and the accession of her half-sister, Elizabeth, the Dutch church in London was re-founded in 1559. Amongst the new leaders of the church were Adriaen van Haemstede (1559–1560), Pieter Delenus (1559–1563) (the son of Wouter), Nicolaus Carinaeus (1562–1563) and Gotfried van Wingen (Wingius) (1563–1590). The membership of the church soon began to increase. By the end of 1561 there were some 769 members (Backhouse 1981a: 75 n. 2).6 By 1568 the church

6 By contrast, the State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth i (sp 12) (Vol. 17, No. 33) for 22 June 1561 list ‘almost 230’ ( fere 230) members (Kirk 1900: 273–8). 60 CHAPTER 2 membership had swelled to 1910, a consequence of the arrival of the Duke of Alba in the Low Countries (Pettegree 1986: 77 n. 3). Although most of the members of the church were people who had come from the Low Countries or their progeny, there were a few English people, who were either members or who simply attended services. As noted above, in 1573 the Privy Council warned the Dutch church in London that it should not welcome English dissenters (Grell 1996: 55). In response the Dutch church in London wrote (in Latin) to the Privy Council that only four of the members of the church were English (neque ultra quatuor Anglos in Ecclesia nostra habemus): one is described as being linguae nostrae peritus (‘skilled in our language’), and two of the others had previously been in exile (H 87: ii, 482). One might reasonably ask whether these two individuals and any dissenters, about whom the Privy Council was concerned, had picked up at least a passive knowledge of Dutch in order to listen to the sermons given in the church. One Englishman who clearly had acquired at least a passive knowledge of the language was the Alderman and later Lord Mayor, Sir Thomas Middleton, who had lived in Antwerp for a few years. Middleton, a prominent Puritan, became a member of the church at Austin Friars in 1582 (Grell 1996: 76). By 1581 there were a little fewer than 1400 members of the Dutch church in London.7 A significant reason for the decrease between 1568 and 1581 was the Pacification of Ghent in 1576, after which many Protestants returned to the Low Countries. In 1593 a figure of 1376 members was recorded (Scouloudi 1985: 75).8 We pick up the story of the London Dutch church in the seventeenth century below. In the early years of Elizabeth’s reign Dutch churches were established elsewhere in south-east England. In Kent in the 1560s churches were established in the port of Sandwich and in Maidstone, on the River Medway, with the help of the London Dutch church, and in about 1570 a church was established in the port of Dover. In East Anglia, four churches were established in Norfolk, one in Suffolk and two in Essex.

7 A certificate of Strangers for the City of London for 1581 gives the number of members of the Dutch church as 938. Furthermore, a certificate of Strangers for those dwelling in the precincts ‘abowt London’ lists another 426 members of the Dutch church, giving a total of some 1364 members of the Dutch church at this time (Kirk 1902: 217–8). 8 The numbers were clearly subject to frequent fluctuation and probably prone to a certain amount of inaccuracy. In the State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth i (sp 12) (Vol. 82, p. 118) a census on 10 November 1571 gives the number of members of the Dutch church in London as 1284 (M1CCiiijxxiiij) (Kirk 1902: 139). By way of comparison, the French church in London had 1450 members at this time. Dutch In The Church 61

2.2.1.2 Kent In May 1561 the Dutch community in Sandwich submitted a request to establish a church in the town. This was granted to them two months later. The Dutch church in London provided the first 25 households to become members of the church at Sandwich (Grell 1996: 123). On 1 October 1561, shortly after his arrival in Sandwich, Jacob de Buyzere (Bucerus) wrote a letter to Petrus Delenus in London. This makes clear that a consistory had already been established for the church in Sandwich (H 87: ii, 175). In common with many of the letters written from one Dutch church to another in England before 1570, Bucerus’ letter was written in Latin. He had previously been an Augustinian monk in Ieper and so his facility with Latin should not surprise us. By 1563 the number of members of the Dutch church in Sandwich had reached at least 285, a majority of whom had come from the southern part of the Westkwartier in Flanders. By 1573 this figure was almost 500 (Backhouse 1981: 34–6). However, given that by 1574 the Dutch community as a whole numbered over 2000, it may well be that the number of members given was lower than the actual number attending the church (Backhouse: 1995: 27–8). Sandwich remained one of the strongest Dutch church communities in England and this continued to meet into the eighteenth century. Dutch Strangers had begun to arrive in Maidstone in Kent in 1567. A congregation was established with the help of Austin Friars in London, and it was granted use of the old chapel of St. Faith’s (Grell 1996: 123; Morant 1951: 212).9 The number of Dutch Strangers in the town was never very large, with a figure of 200 male Strangers being recorded in 1576 (Clark and Murfin 1995: 43). It is reasonable to assume that most of these attended the church along with their families. By 1624 the church at Maidstone was facing financial ruin (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 287). Despite this and despite the attacks on it by Archbishop Laud, discussed in more detail below, it continued to meet until some time after 1655.10 In about 1570 a Dutch church was established in the port town of Dover. On 27 March 1570 Pieter de Springhere wrote from Dover to the consistory of London Dutch church (H 87: iii, i, 103–4). He refers to himself as ‘your brother’ (uwen broudere), although the letter is written in a private capacity, rather than in an official church capacity. On 6 August 1570 the leaders of the Dutch church

9 St. Faith’s Church now stands on this site, near Maidstone East railway station. 10 In 1634 Archbishop Laud’s vicar-general, Sir Nathaniel Brent, visited Maidstone, and ordered the Dutch Church to use the Anglican liturgy and its members to attend the local parish church. Clark and Murfin (1995: 64) are wrong to say that the church closed soon after Laud’s attack on it in the 1630s. 62 CHAPTER 2 at Sandwich, fifteen or so miles along the coast from Dover, wrote a letter to various Dutch exile churches in Germany. The manner in which they signed it (H 87: iii, i, 105–6):

Wt naeme der ghemeente te Zandwiche. Hiertoe bewillicht oock de ghemeente onlancx versamelt te Doveren.

In the name of the congregation at Sandwich. Also with the consent of the congregation, which gathered recently at Dover. tells us that the Dutch church at Dover had recently begun to meet. In the 1571 census in Dover, amongst the Flemings was listed a minister, Gilles Hoevenagel. He wrote the first letter we have from the Dutch congregation at Dover dated 12 May 1573 (H 87: iii, i, 221). He wrote it in Dutch and signed it Uwe vrienden, broeders ende mededienaers, de dienaren ende ouderlynghen der Nederlantscher Kercke binnen Dover (‘Your friends, brothers and fellow servants, the ministers and elders of the Dutch Church at Dover’). One commentator suggests that Hoevenagel was also in charge of a French-speaking congregation in Dover at this time (Overend 1888–9: 111). The Dutch church in Dover was never very large and led a precarious existence.11 Nevertheless, it continued to meet in the town. In a letter dated 24 April 1584 to the colloquy of the Dutch churches in London, an elder of the church, Charles Braems, writes that the Dover community consisted primarily of passing fugitives from the towns of Flanders, which had recently been captured by the Spanish (meest al luyden die ghevlucht sijn alhier voor een tyt van de inghenomen steden van Vlaenderen). He goes on to say that these fugitives who were passing through spoke no English (De[] aerme[] passanten . . . die by ons woonen ende gheen Inghels en connen), and so in order to preach the Word of God to them, he argued, it was necessary to have a Dutch church in Dover (H 87: iii, i, 753).

11 In a letter dated 16 February 1575 the minister Pieter Cauwera wrote to the Dutch church in Sandwich: maer dewijle wij alhier maer een weinich volcx en zijn (‘but as we are but a small number of people here’) (H 87: iii, i, 318). In a letter dated 8 March 1575 to the Dutch community in Sandwich Cauwera writes that his church may not be able to send representatives to the forthcoming colloquy because they had received letters saying they should not stay in Dover: brieven ghecomen zijn als dat wij alhier niet zullen moghen blyven wonende (H 87: iii, i, 290). The reason for this is not stated, but it may be that the English authorities did not want a Stranger community to develop in a port of such strategic importance as Dover. Dutch In The Church 63

The last letter we have from the community is dated 6 March 1587. From this it is clear that they are having trouble paying the minister. The point is reiterated that the church in Dover is required to offer the chance to worship to (Dutch-speaking) passanten and poor people (schamel volck) arriving daily (H 87: iii, i, 851). Although we have no further documents from the church in Dover, in a letter dated 5 September 1597 from the Sandwich consistory to the leaders of the London Dutch church, there is reference to some members of the ‘Church of Christ’ still remaining in Dover (sommigher Lidtmaten der Kercken Christi noch overghebleven tot Doevers) (H 87: iii, i, 1008). This suggests that a worshipping community continued to meet on an informal basis in Dover, which probably retained a close relationship with the nearby and much larger community at Sandwich. The community met in a building on the Market Place in Dover called the Flemish Church. This was pulled down in about 1617 (Statham 1899: 110). Some twenty years later, in 1638, Nicholaes Poelenburg wrote from Dover to Caspar van Nieren, the minister of the Dutch church in Sandwich, stating that there was no Dutch Reformed church in Dover for over a hundred Dutchmen resident there with their wives and children, and furthermore that such a church was necessary as the Dutch in the town did not understand English (Anglicae linguae ignari). Poelenburg had also petitioned Archbishop Laud for permission to establish a church in Dover (H 87: iii, ii, 1773, 1775). There is no further information about whether Poelenburg was successful in establishing this church, although Laud’s antipathy towards Stranger churches would probably have counted against it.

2.2.1.3 Essex The dating of the founding of the Dutch church in Colchester is problematic. Several pieces of evidence point to a date in the early 1560s, whilst other evidence points to the early 1570s. According to local records, permission was sought for the establishment of a Dutch church in Colchester towards the end of 1562. A further request was made in 1563, which suggests that the first attempt was not successful.12 I have not been able to establish whether this second attempt was any more successful. In Chapter 1 I noted that the minister

12 In a Colchester Liber Ordinacionum (ero, D/B 5 R5, fol. 94v.) there is an order to treat with the Queen’s Council over receiving the Dutch and the establishment of their church in the town dated 24 November 1562. Cooper (1994) also gives the date 1562. However, the records of the Town Council of 1563 state ‘it was resolved . . . to take order with the Privy Council for the takinge in of the numbre of Duch men banished for Goddes worde. And to establishinge of their Churche in this town’ (Blaxill 1948: 26). 64 CHAPTER 2 of the Dutch church at Sandwich, Jacobus Bucerus, wrote a letter in 1562 expressing concern about the Dutch refugees in Colchester, although he does not make reference to a church there (H 87: ii, 208).13 The fact that by 1571 there were 177 Dutch Strangers in Colchester would, given what was happening in other towns in England, suggest that some sort of worshipping community had evolved by that time. However, the first letter we have from the Dutch church in Colchester is dated 12 May 1572, although of course other letters, which have not survived, may have been written, and indeed this letter is a reply to an earlier one from the London Dutch church that we do not have (H 87: ii, 405). In the early days of the Stranger community in Colchester, some of the members of the Dutch church wanted to join a nascent Walloon church. However, this did not function for long and they subsequently wanted to rejoin the Dutch church (H 87: iii, i, 693; see section 1.4.1.5). Membership numbers for the Dutch church in Colchester are difficult to come by, for lists of members no longer survive. In the letter written in 1572 just mentioned there is reference to onze zeer aerme cleen hoopkin (‘our very poor, small little flock’), although no figure is put on this (H 87: ii, 405). In towns outside London, there was quite a close relationship between the Dutch church and the Dutch community in general. In Colchester, church ministers helped members with their wills, and elders fulfilled other functions such being as Governors of the Bay Hall and politicke mannen. In 1586 the Dutch community in Colchester as a whole numbered 1293. If we assume that the majority of these attended church, then the Dutch congregation in Colchester would have numbered about 1000, of whom about a half would have been children, in the last decades of the sixteenth and first decades of the seventeenth centuries (Moens 1905: viii). A Dutch church was established in Halstead in Essex shortly after the arrival of the 30 families from Colchester in 1576. The first minister of the church was Adriaen Sebastianse (H 87: iii, i, 494). Several other ministers followed,14 and

13 Moens states that the first pastor of the Dutch church in Colchester was Jan Migrode, who went to England from Veere in Zeeland as a refugee after abandoning the Catholic Church, and took up his position in 1563 (Moens 1905: 89). Rooze-Stouthamer (1996: 532) tells us that Migrode, born in Aalst, was a Calvinist preacher from 1566 onwards, making it unlikely that he was in Colchester serving a Reformed congregation there in 1563. Roker (1966: 20–1), on the other hand, merely mentions that Migrode was listed amongst the Strangers in the town in 1571. To add to the confusion there was also a Jacob Migrode, who was an advocate with the Raad van Vlaanderen, and who played a leading part amongst the Calvinists in Ghent in 1566 (Decavele 1975: I, 105). 14 Sebastianse’s name occurs in the records until 1580 (H 87: iii, i, 567). In 1585 the death was reported of the minister, Joos Verhouve (H 87: iii, i, 794). He was replaced by a minister from the Dutch church in London, Jan Soillot (Moens 1905: v). However, Soillot left in the Dutch In The Church 65 by 1588 Jan de Roode, who had formerly been an elder at the Dutch church in Norwich, and subsequently a minister at the Dutch church at Thetford, had been installed as minister of the Dutch church in Halstead. Several months after his arrival in Halstead, on 19 March 1588, de Roode wrote an extremely long letter to the ministers and elders of the London Dutch church, in which he described the problems between the Dutch and English communities and made it clear that the Dutch community might have to leave Halstead and return to Colchester (H 87: iii, i, 867). De Roode wrote to the London church again on 5 June 1588 (H 87: iii, i, 876) and shortly after this the members of the Dutch community in Halstead packed their bags and left for Colchester. It remained small and poorly financed throughout its short life (seer cleene [] ende meestdeel al aerme ende schaemele lieden) (H 87: iii, i, 900).

2.2.1.4 Norfolk and Suffolk W.J.C. Moens suggests that a church had already been put aside for Strangers in Norwich during the reign of Edward vi (1547–1553). This may well be so, although he provides no evidence for this (Moens 1887–8: 21). A contemporary reference indicates that the first service for the Dutch Strangers was held in the Church of the Blackfriars on Christmas Eve 1565, only a month after Queen Elizabeth had issued letters patent allowing for the settlement of Dutch and Walloon Masters (Moens 1887–8: 23; Palmer 1874: 218).15 The first minister was Hendrick van Schoonberg, though little is known about him. In 1567, with the membership quickly increasing in number, several ministers were appointed; Pieter Hasaert (1567–?) and Anthonius Algoet (1567–1571) from Bailleul (Belle) in Flanders, the second of whom had previously preached at Langemark and Menin, both in West Flanders; Carolus Ryckwaert, from Nieuwkerke in West Flanders, close to Bailleul; and Isbrandus Balkius (1567–1571), a native of Frisia (Friesland), who had previously been a minister at Emden and Norden in East Frisia (Moens 1887–8: 315). In the return of Strangers made at the request of the Bishop of Norwich in 1568, 1132 members of the Dutch church were listed. Most of these had moved to England in 1567 and all of them without exception had arrived in the country since 1560 (Moens 1887–8: 207–16). The Dutch worshipping community at Great Yarmouth was established in around 1570 (H 87: iii, ii, 2508).16 The first letter we have was written in Dutch on

same year and took up a position at the Dutch church in Maidstone, leaving the church at Halstead without a minister for a period of time. 15 This date is given on the page for Slachtmaent (November) in the Calendier Historiael printed by Anthonie de Solempne in Norwich in 1570 (see section 3.2.2.2). 16 See also nro col 6/2. 66 CHAPTER 2

10 April 1572, and was signed in the name of the consistory by Gelein Janszoon dHoorne, a preacher in exile from Vlissingen and Middelburg in Zeeland (H 87: iii, i, 163; Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 440, 495).17 In the letter dHoorne thanked God for the beginning of the Dutch revolt and predicted that it would lead to the break-up of the Dutch worshipping community in Yarmouth. Despite this, it would in fact continue to exist, although often somewhat precariously, for some one hundred years.18 Initially the Dutch had a chapel for their use, which had originally been the mansion of a bailiff, Thomas de Drayton (Burn 1846: 217). Later they used part of the Town House built in 1600 at the north- west corner of Row 106 east of the South Quay in Yarmouth, which became known as the Dutch Chapel (Tooke 2007: 45; Nall 1866: 44). As noted in the previous chapter a return of aliens living in Yarmouth in 1571 tells us there were more than 70 families from the Low Countries, mainly from the Northern provinces of Zeeland and Holland. If I am right that in towns such as Yarmouth, the majority of the members of the Stranger community were also members of the congregation, then, initially, there would have been several hundred members of the Dutch church in the town. A Dutch worshipping community was active in Thetford from at least 1572 until 1587 (Janssen 1857b; H 87: iii, i, 867). The size of the community was never large, although it was, with some difficulty, able to pay for a minister, firstly Carolus Ryckwaert, previously a minister of the Dutch church in Norwich, and subsequently Jan de Roode, who had formerly been an elder at the church in Norwich, and who moved on to become the minister of the Dutch church in Halstead, when the church at Thetford ceased to function.19 In 1578 the

17 Gelein Janszoon dHoorne (‘Gelian Janson’) is listed as having lived in Yarmouth for 3 years prior to the return of aliens in Yarmouth made in 1571. This may suggest that there was a worshipping community in Yarmouth prior to the ‘official’ establishment of the Dutch community in the town in 1570 (see section 1.4.1.4) (“Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 293). 18 Grell et al. (1991: 105–6) give the date of 1680. This is supported by the fact that the last letter from Yarmouth in Hessels’ collection is dated 8 November 1680 (H 87: iii, ii, 2632). A letter dated 3 August 1684 (N.S.) from Middelburg does make reference to the church at Yarmouth, but it does not explicitly state that the church was still active at this point (H 87: iii, ii, 2657). No-one represented the church at the colloquy in 1684, although the minister Henricus Cocq attended the colloquy in May 1680 (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 376; H 87: iii, ii, 2627). 19 Maintaining discipline at the church in Thetford and other Dutch churches in England was clearly no easy matter. In 1583 a member of the Thetford church committed adultery. Another member was accused of writing (H 87: iii, i, 699): een onnut schaldelick liedeken [] ende in diversche huyzen hemelic te legghen ende in ander ghemeenten ghezoonden ende Dutch In The Church 67

Thetford town corporation agreed ‘with the assent of the cheife ducheman that they shall have the Guyldhall for to use as theyre Churche, until they shall have a more convenient place for them appoynted’ (Crosby 1986: 60).20 In passing I should note that Thetford is sometimes spelt ‘Hetfort’ in contemporary Dutch documents. This may owe something to the lack of the phoneme /θ/ in Dutch (Janssen 1857b: 331; Goossens 1974: 28; Booij 1995: 7). A Dutch worshipping community was active in the port of King’s Lynn in 1568. The return for this year made in Latin, which is our principal source of information about this church (referred to as the ecclesia Belgica), is split into four sections. The first of these gives details of the leaders of the church. It records Gerardus Gallicanus from Utrecht as the minister. This is probably the same Gerardus who was recorded as being an apostate monk from Middelburg, had preached outside Utrecht and been minister for the Lord of Brederode near Vianen (De Jong 1957). The Lynn return also lists six elders and six deacons, one of whom, Theodore Haveus, we met in the last chapter (section 1.4.2.4). All thirteen men had come to England in the previous year, 1567. The next section lists members of the church. There were 33 heads of households, who, with dependants, numbered 86 in total. They had all come to England in 1567, too. The third group in the return consists of those Strangers who were not yet members of the church, but who were being catechized. Twelve of these are listed together with their dependants, most of them also having arrived in 1567.21 The final group consists of those who could not, in the view of the church, become members. Five of these are listed. The total of these groups is 176 including dependants (Rye 1887: 228–35). Some of the members of the Dutch church in Lynn came from towns in the province of Holland including Delft, Dordrecht, Haarlem, Leiden and The Hague. Others came from towns in Brabant such as Antwerp and Breda, and towns in Flanders such as Aalst, Eeklo, Ieper and Ghent. This provided a fairly

onder veele verbreet tot Noordwichs (‘a useless scandalous little song [about the adulterer] and placing it secretly in various houses and sending it to other communities, distributing it amongst many people in Norwich’). It is likely that this was a refereyn, an older form of Dutch verse popular with the Rhetoricians’ chambers in the sixteenth century, of which we have several examples written in England. These are discussed in Chapter 6, as are the newer, Renaissance forms of verse such as the sonnet, which gradually replaced them (Forster 1967: 35). 20 Quoted from the Thetford Corporation Assembly Books: nro T/C 1/1, 27 December 1578. See also Leigh Hunt (1870: 286). 21 Two had arrived in 1568, including one, Hendricus Allardi, who had come from The Hague (ex oppido quod vocatur De Haghe in Hollandia). 68 CHAPTER 2 even mix of people from the Northern and Southern Netherlands, which was quite unusual amongst the Stranger communities. The State Papers Domestic Elizabeth i include details of the Strangers living in Lynn in May 1571.22 They list ‘Dutchmen’ who were not yet denizens. These include ‘Gerardus Martinson’ who is described as a ‘Preacher’. The Papers also indicate that he had been living in England for four years. Although the Christian name is the same, this is most unlikely to have been the preacher referred to as Gerardus Gallicanus, listed in 1568 (Rye 1877: 195–98).23 However, the fact that there was still a Dutch preacher in Lynn in 1571 tells us that the Dutch church was still most probably functioning at this time. But, we do not know how long the Dutch church at Lynn continued to function after 1571. In a letter written by the Dutch church at Sandwich in April 1576, reference is made to the church at Lynn, but this does not of itself indicate whether the church was still active at this time (H 87: iii, i, 366–7; Van Schelven 1908: 204–5). There may be one final reference to the church at Lynn, although it is somewhat ambiguous. In a letter written by Karel van Stavele from Ipswich to the consistory of the London Dutch church dated 21 July 1588 (H 87: iii, i, 877) we read so hebbe ick scryven onfaen van sommeghe broederen van Leye, i.e., he had received a letter from ‘some brothers’ in Leye. It is tempting to think that Leye, also written by Van Stavele as Leyen, refers to Leiden. However, the context suggests that the place is more likely to be in England and probably refers to Lynn. Van Stavele notes that he was asked to write to the church at Leye. He did so, but received no reply, from which we may assume that the church there had ceased to function at some point around or before 1588. A small Dutch worshipping community was established in Ipswich, the county town of Suffolk, in around 1570.24 The first minister of the Dutch church was Michiel Panneel (Ephippius), born to an eminent Flemish family. He wrote

22 Rye (1877: 195–8) includes references to both 1571 and 1572 in his short account of this census. However, the calendar of the State Papers Domestic indicates that a census of the Strangers in Lynn was taken on 20 May 1571. 23 Gallicanus wrote a letter from Delft, where he was minister for a year, on 19 September 1572 (H 87: iii, i, 176). 24 Vincent Redstone (1919–24: 185–6) suggests that the number of aliens on the subsidy rolls for 1568 was sufficient for a church to be formed in Ipswich, although he does not explicitly state that a church was active in this year. There is no mention of the church in local records, so we are forced to rely on Dutch records such as the letters referred to above. There are, though, prior to this records of Dutch people in the town marrying other Dutch in the town’s parish churches, such as John Johnson marrying Elizabeth Peterson in St. Nicholas’ Church in 1569 (Redstone 1919–24: 185) This is probably the same ‘John Johnston’ whom Redstone (p. 186) describes as a ‘stapler and Fleming’. Dutch In The Church 69 several letters in Dutch to the consistory of the London Dutch church. In one of these letters, dated 21 September 1571, he writes that the community there only consisted of 10 to 12 households (oock bestaet alleenlick in 10 ofte 12 huijs- ghesinnen) (H 87: ii, 388). In another letter, dated 14 May 1572, Panneel refers to a number of people from the Low Countries with Dutch names who had lived in England, possibly in Ipswich itself, for many years (H 87: ii, 408).25 The church at Ipswich was most probably still active in July 1588, when Karel van Stavele wrote the letter from there mentioned above in relation to King’s Lynn (H 87: iii, i, 877).

2.2.1.5 Lincolnshire and the Midlands It seems that there was a Stranger church at Stamford, although whether this congregation included any Dutch speakers is difficult to establish. In Chapter 1 we learnt that Lord Cecil gave a house to these Strangers ‘of the Doche nacon’ to live in and invited ten households to live there (Rogers 1965: 65). Furthermore, in 1572 Isbrandus Balkius, a Frisian who had previously been a minister at the Dutch church in Norwich, along with Caspar Vosbergius, petitioned Lord Burghley (in Latin) for a church to worship in (Strype 1711: 367, Appendix 113–4; cf. Moens 1887–8: 32; 315).26 Beyond this the sources are either silent on the question of language or they point to a Walloon congregation.27 Balkius

25 These included Jooris Mellyngh, who had lived there for about fifty years (die hier ontrent vyftich ofte meer iaren ghewoont heift). John Burwarde bequeathed 5l. (pounds) in his will, dated 12 July 1572, to the poor of the Dutch church in Ipswich, as well as to those of the Dutch church in Norwich (Redstone 1919–24: 185). 26 In the petition to Burghley, written in Latin from London on 17 March 1572, and ‘Certaine Articles’, relating to the establishment of a Stranger community and church at Stamford reproduced by Strype in an appendix, there is no mention of language (Strype 1711: Appx. 113–4). The second article runs: That itt maye please lykewyse her Majestie to graunte the Estraungers at Stanford, aforesaide, a Churche, wheyrein they maye openlie have God’s Holye Word preached and taughte, together with the Exercyse of the Reformed Religion: Even as the same is graunted to other Congregations of Straungers within this her Highnes Reaulme. We do not know for certain, though, whether the congregation was granted the use of a church in Stamford. A local secondary source suggests that the congregation used one of the disused churches in Stamford, ‘probably St. Leonard’s’ (Gaches 1897: 284). However, no primary source is provided to confirm this assertion. 27 Strype records that a Stranger congregation and working community, which he describes as Walloon, continued for ‘a great while in Stamford’. A slight amount of weight is added to this by a report that in 1662 a Walloon in the town left his French books to the Walloon church in Norwich. Strype writes that the last minister of the Stranger congregation was ‘known to many now alive’, ‘now’ being 1711 (Strype 1821: ii, 148–50). If this is so, then it 70 CHAPTER 2 himself was in Sandwich by 1573, so if there was a Dutch worshipping community in Stamford at all it was most probably very short-lived (H 87: iii, i, 207).28 A Dutch church existed for several years in Coventry in the West Midlands. The first recorded mention of the church comes in an attestation of Jacobus de Koninck (Regius) dated 24 September 1570. It was written at the London Dutch church and refers to (Hessels 1892: 1):29

de Broeders tot Koventri die hem tot den dienste des woordes versocht en beroepen hebben.

the Brethren at Coventry, who have asked for and called him as a minister of the word.

We have one letter from Coventry written by Regius on 4 March 1573 (H 87: iii, i, 205). From the letter it seems that Regius is on the verge of leaving Coventry to return to London, where he was subsequently a minister in the Dutch church at Austin Friars. How much longer the Dutch church in Coventry continued to function is unclear. In the letter written by the Dutch church at Sandwich in April 1576 referred to above in relation to King’s Lynn, mention is also made of the church at Coventry, although this in itself is not evidence that the church was still active at this time (H 87: iii, i, 366; Van Schelven 1908: 204–5).

2.2.1.6 The Dutch and Other Reformed Church Congregations in England Apart from the Dutch churches mentioned so far, people with a knowledge of Dutch were members of other Stranger congregations in England. In the second half of the sixteenth century, a number of Dutch speakers, such as Emanuel van Meteren and Johannes Radermacher, belonged for a time to the Italian congregation in London. We have already learnt that Radermacher produced the first Dutch grammar in 1568, and one of his sources may well have been an earlier grammar produced by the minister of the Italian church in London, Michelangelo Florio, from which we can deduce that he could

suggests that the congregation may have met for as much as 100 years, although it does seem that this was primarily, if not exclusively, Walloon. 28 Balkius may well have spoken French, even though, as noted above, he had previously preached at the Dutch church in Norwich (Gaches (1897: 284) is wrong to state that Balkius had been minister at the Walloon church in Norwich). Of course it is possible that there was preaching in French and Dutch in Stamford, but this is speculation (Rogers (1965: 65) refers to a ‘German church’, which is incorrect). 29 lma clc/180/MS07386/001. Dutch In The Church 71 at least read Italian (Bostoen 2001). Most of the names on the one surviving membership list of the Italian congregation in sixteenth-century London are in fact, like those of Van Meteren and Radermacher, not Italian. This raises questions about the extent to which its members, including these two men, did in fact use the Italian language (Pettegree 1986: 8; Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 26–30; 207–9).30 Little work has been done on the Italian congregation in London, and this offers an opportunity for further research. There were people who knew Dutch, and others who may have known the language, in Walloon congregations in England. In a consistory record of the Walloon church at Canterbury dated 1578, it was noted that a few members of the Walloon community understood Dutch (Cross 1898: 29–30). The records of the church are in French, but the names and provenance of some of the members at least suggest that they might have known Dutch. For example, a marriage entry for 10 August 1606 runs (Hovenden 1898: 461):

Balthasar Verhulst, vefu, natif de Anvers, et Elizabeth Destailleux, fille de feu Joos, natifve de Norwich.

Balthasar Verhulst, widower, native of Antwerp, and Elizabeth Destailleux, daughter of the late Joos, native of Norwich.

Dutch (Flemish) elements are the names Verhulst and Joos, and Antwerp, although this city was quite multilingual in the early modern period, as Lodovico Guicciardini had famously observed. The name Van Acker appears in several entries for deaths in 1582 and there are nearly 200 entries for names beginning with ‘Van’ in the index of the registers of the Walloon church at Canterbury (Hovenden 1898: 561; 867–8). Of course, this does not prove that members of the church knew Dutch, let alone that they used it, but it is certainly suggestive of the former, and we should also not exclude the possibility of bilingualism. There was a Walloon church in Southampton. On 11 January 1586 Sara van Sandvoort was baptized there, with her parents both recorded as being from Antwerp. Given this and the name, the parents may have known Dutch, but the record is in French and as noted above, Antwerp was a very multilingual city at this time. Matieu Fase from Bailleul (Belle) in Flanders, who married

30 Anne Overell (2008: 180) calculates that of the 160 or so members of the Italian church in 1568, only about forty were ‘real’ Italians, whilst most of the others were Dutch. She asserts they most of these had been expelled from the Dutch church because of their support for a revolt against Habsburg rule. Later, the Dutch church would support revolt. 72 CHAPTER 2 in the Walloon church in Southampton on 25 May 1572, and Jorincque van Musenol, who came from Ghent, and who married on 22 June 1572, may also have known Dutch, though again no further details concerning language are given (Godfray 1890: 39; 84). Finally, one leading Stranger in Southampton who did know Dutch was Adrian Saravia, who was born in Artois in about 1530. He was a minister in Antwerp for a time before removing to England where, in the 1570s, he was headmaster of the grammar school in Southampton. Andrew Spicer comments that it must be the case that Saravia was involved in some way in the Walloon church at Southampton (Spicer 1997: 116–8). In a letter dated 29 July 1577 from the consistory of the Dutch church in London to the consistory of the church at Walcheren, it was stated that Saravia’s Dutch was a little rusty but that he hoped he would master it again within a few months (H 87 ii: 596). Later he returned to the Low Countries, where he was appointed Professor of Divinity at Leiden in 1582 (H 87: ii, 591).

2.2.2 The Seventeenth Century By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the provenance of the members of the Dutch churches was changing. Now about forty per cent of the members of the London Dutch church were born in England (Grell 1996: 35).31 This shift presented a fundamental challenge to the nature of the church, as it had been founded as an institution based wholly on the Dutch language. Later, in the 1630s, the church would seek to engage a schoolmaster who could teach the Dutch language to the younger generation (Grell 1996: 74–5). We do not know for certain, but he may have been teaching some children Dutch as a second language, as well as helping others to develop their mother tongue. At the colloquy of the Dutch churches in England in 1644, the leaders of the church at Norwich asked whether English people could be members of the Dutch churches, and whether those of Dutch and English parentage could be members. The answer was given that each case would be considered on its merits. At the colloquy held in 1646, the question was asked as to whether those coming to a Dutch church with an attestation from an English church would be admitted as members, without having to make a public confession of faith. It was agreed that they could be accepted on a case-by-case basis after a thorough examination (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 343). Both responses reflect a more general desire on the part of the Dutch churches to restrict access to

31 Grell also states that the number of members of the London Dutch church declined from about 1800 in the early 1590s to less than 1600 around the year 1620. The former figure differs significantly from the figure of 1376 members for 1593 provided by Scouloudi quoted above (Scouloudi 1985: 75). Dutch In The Church 73 membership for those of English or part-English heritage (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 324–5). The leaders of the Dutch churches faced a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand they clearly needed new members as their numbers were decreasing, but on the other hand if they admitted English and those of mixed parentage this might lead to a dilution of the use of Dutch, which was such a fundamental part of the churches’ identity.32 In early 1635 a list was drawn up of the membership of the foreign churches in England. It was endorsed Nahmen der ledematen van de vrembdelingen onder diversche Kercken sor- tirende (H 87: iii, i, 2347). It gave the number of members of the Dutch church in London as 840; in Colchester as 700; Norwich as 363;33 in Maidstone as 50; in Sandwich as 500 and in Yarmouth as 28, giving a total of just under 2500 (the list does not include churches established in the seventeenth century such as those at Canvey Island and Mortlake; see below). This was slightly less than the total number of members of four Walloon churches at this time; at London, Canterbury, Norwich and a small congregation at Southampton (H 87: iii, ii, 1690).34 Some of the Dutch churches were suffering financially. Several reports from the colloquies of the Dutch churches in England, such as those of 1612 and 1655, make it clear that the church in Yarmouth was in financially dire straits, and required support from outside to keep it running.35 One of the arguments made for seeking financial support for the church in Yarmouth was that it provided valuable spiritual support for the many Dutch seamen, who visited the town (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 367–70).36 In 1669 the church at Great Yarmouth had 36 members, although 100–200 passanten came to the town during the herring season (H 87: iii, ii, 2433). Most of the members of these churches were descendants of the original immigrants in the middle of the sixteenth century. We also find the occasional English person attending the church services. One such person was John Gunnell, an Englishman who lived in Great Yarmouth. He had married a Dutch woman who was a member of the Yarmouth Dutch church community. In 1631 Gunnell wrote a letter in Dutch to

32 There may also have been fears about the dilution of ethnicity and church doctrine and discipline. 33 Another list from this time gives the figure for Norwich as 393. 34 Grell (1996: 66) gives a membership figure of 28 householders for Yarmouth in 1605. I think this is a mistake and should be 1635. A document from 1637 gives the number for Colchester as ‘about 600 Communicants’ (H 87: iii, ii, 1747). 35 At the colloquy held in London in 1612, it was reported that the church in Yarmouth was unable to raise enough money to pay a preacher (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 182). 36 See also H 87: iii, ii, 2428. This letter (written by the Dutch church at Sandwich) is dated 12 September 1659 and indicates that Dutch fishermen had just arrived in Yarmouth. 74 CHAPTER 2 the colloquy of the Dutch churches in England asking for their assistance as he tried to become a member of the Dutch church in Yarmouth (H 87: iii, ii, 1513). We do not know if he succeeded in becoming a member, but he was admitted to the Lord’s Supper on a couple of occasions as a passant. A membership list for the London Dutch church drawn up, according to Hessels, ‘circa 1639–1641’ makes fascinating reading (H 87: iii, ii, 2918). It contains a dozen or so names that are clearly English. Amongst the more eye- catching of these is ‘My Lady Killegrew tot Witehall’ (‘at Whitehall’). Mary Killigrew was a close friend of Constantijn Huygens (Joby 2014f: 109). Another aristocrat listed is ‘My Lady Herbert tot Westmunster’. Does the presence of these aristocrats on the list suggest that they had at least a passive knowledge of Dutch? A couple of other names in the list demand our attention. One is ‘Mr. Willem Lely’. He is described as a painter (schilder). Is this in fact Peter Lely, who arrived in London in 1641? We also find the name of the drainage engineer, Sir Cornelis Vermuyden, on the list. Another Englishman who attended the services at the Dutch church in London was Sydenham Poyntz. He had been in the Imperial Army during the Thirty Years War. After spending time in Brazil with Count Johan Maurits’ expeditionary force he returned to England in the mid-1640s and he and his wife, Elizabeth Baijart, joined the Dutch church in London. In Brazil, they had been members of the Dutch Reformed church in Paraíba (Frederikstad) (Grell 1996: 134; H 87: iii, ii, 2044). During the seventeenth century new Dutch church communities were established in England; in Mortlake, Canvey Island and Sandtoft, and two new communities emerged in London. These are now considered in turn.

2.2.2.1 Mortlake In 1619 the Royal Tapestry Works at Mortlake was established on the South bank of the Thames in Surrey. This initially employed some 50 Flemish and Brabant weavers. By 1621 there was a sufficiently large number of these ‘makers of Tapistries’ for them to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to authorize the establishment of a worshipping community in Mortlake. They were granted this right and instructed to meet (H 87: iii, i, 1296):

Either in the Parish Church of Mortlack if it may be done conveniently, or in the howse of Sir Frauncis Crane knight or in any other convenient place there.

Although Austin Friars could be reached fairly easily by horse, it was considered sufficiently distant from Mortlake for the weaving community there to need its Dutch In The Church 75 own church. Austin Friars did though in some sense act as a mother church for the Dutch church at Mortlake. Figures for the early membership of the community at Mortlake are difficult to come by, but we do know that between 1622 and 1638 more than 90 children were baptized there (Hefford 2002: 49–50). The working community suffered greatly during the English Civil War as it relied heavily on its income from supplying tapestries to the royal palaces (Grell 1996: 124). The church continued to function during the Commonwealth but probably survived no more than four years after the Restoration. A list produced in 1663 indicates that the church had some 40 members at this time (H 87: iii, ii, 2499). The final letter we have from the church is dated 17 February 1664 (H 87: iii, ii, 2502). It is one of a number of letters exchanged with the Dutch church at Austin Friars concerning the proponent, or trainee minister, at Mortlake, Peter Tessemaker. An earlier letter from Austin Friars, dated 31 January 1664, stated that it had been reported that Tessemaker was preaching in English and that the consistory at Austin Friars expressly forbade this (H 87: iii, ii, 2501):37

Hebbende verstaen dat V.L. daer int Engels predikt inde Duitsche kerke, onsen E. kerkenraet heeft my belast u dat absolut te verbieden.

Having understood that you are preaching there in English in the Dutch church, our noble church council has ordered me to forbid you absolutely from doing that.

In response, the consistory of the church at Mortlake wrote on 17 February (H 87: iii, ii, 2502):

hy [heeft] 2 ryesen int Engels gepredickt, doch ons hebben gehouden int Neerlants int lesen ende singen van Psalmen. Doch soo haest wy verston- den dat het mochte strecken tot naerdeel van previligie heeft het selve opge- schorst ende niet meer int Engels gepredickt.

he preached twice in English, but we read and sang Psalms in Dutch. But as soon as we heard that (these proceedings) might prejudice our privileges, he suspended them and no longer preached in English.

37 Presumably the ban on preaching in English was also to deter English dissidents coming to church; a violation would therefore jeopardise the privilege. 76 CHAPTER 2

The combination of a sermon in English and reading and singing the Psalms in Dutch provides an interesting example of code switching within a service. Although the letter states that Tessemaker stopped preaching in English, the fact that he did so may have contributed to the demise of the Dutch church at Mortlake shortly afterwards, although their case was also probably not helped by allegations that Tessemaker had been critical of King Charles. Members would thenceforth need to go to Austin Friars to worship in a Dutch congregation.

2.2.2.2 Canvey Island At the colloquy of the Dutch churches held in London in 1627 the London merchant, Pieter du Reys, petitioned the meeting to seek the necessary permission from the English authorities to establish a Dutch church on Canvey Island (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 298). A petition was subsequently sent to the Bishop of London to ask for this permission. It stated that it was supported by ‘200 and above’ who had ‘been employed in the manureing, tilling and husbanding of the ground in the sayd Island’ (H 87: iii, ii, 1354; Hallman 2006: 11). A Dutch church was finally established on Canvey in 1631 with the deeds of the church stating that services must be conducted in Dutch.38 The church led a somewhat troubled existence and tensions between the Dutch congregation and local English people came to a head in an episode in 1655, discussed below. However, the Dutch church community continued to meet until the early years of the eighteenth century.

2.2.2.3 The Border of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire Let us return now to Cornelis Vermuyden, mentioned above. In Chapter 1 the work carried out by drainage workers under Vermuyden’s leadership in the late 1620s was discussed. It seems that these were both Dutch and Walloon drainage workers and that they formed worshipping communities, which met in a number of places along the border of Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. In the grant of Charles I to Vermuyden in 1626 permission was given to build one or more chapels within the area of land granted, and provision was made for one or more ministers to ‘read and celebrate divine and sacramental

38 Grell (1996: 69 n. 3) is wrong to say the Dutch church at Canvey Island was established in 1627, as is clear from the above. Furthermore, I disagree with his inclusion of it in a list of ‘often short-lived and insignificant communities’, as it lasted for over 70 years (Grell 1996: 142 n. 12). Dutch In The Church 77 things . . . either in the English or Dutch language’ (Tomlinson 1985: 250–1).39 On 13 September 1637 members of the Dutch congregation at Hatfield Chase wrote to the consistory of the Dutch church in London saying that along with a Walloon community in Hatfield Chase, they had been promised a minister by those in charge of the drainage schemes, but were still without one, and indeed without a church building in which to worship (H 87: iii, ii, 1760). The aliens in the area had been meeting for worship in a hall at Crowtrees between Thorne in Yorkshire and Sandtoft in North Lincolnshire. However, in 1639, they built a chapel and a number of houses at Sandtoft. They then appointed a minister, who was funded in part by the participants in the drainage scheme such as Sir Philibert Vernatti and Luke and Matthew Valkenburg (Tomlinson 1985: 232–3). According to a local account ‘the service was read alternately in the French and Dutch languages’ (The History and Antiquities of Thorne 1829: 143). Indeed a letter dated 26 October 1642 from the church at Sandtoft points to the presence of both French and Dutch (Flemish) in the congregation (H 87: iii, ii, 1899):

la congregation de ceste Eglise est composee de Francois et Flamans ou le service se faict a la mode Engloize.

the congregation of this Church is composed of French and Flemish and the service is conducted in the English manner.

Reference to ‘the English manner’ (la mode Engloize) suggests that they were using the Anglican liturgy, probably in translation. This may be one reason why the church did not send delegates to the colloquies of the Dutch churches in England. In the same letter, addressed to the consistories of the French and Dutch churches in London, the authors write that they are looking for a pastor who can preach in both French and Dutch:

nous vous prions d’avoir egart a cest povre petite Eglise en nous assistant a trouver un autre Pasteur pour les deux langues François et Flamens s’il est possible.

we ask you to have regard for this poor little Church by helping us to find another Pastor for the two languages, French and Dutch, if possible.

39 See also Wentworth-Day (1954: 54). Here, Samuel Smiles is quoted saying that the power was granted to Vermuyden ‘to erect one or more chapels wherein the Dutch and Flemish settlers might worship in their own language’. 78 CHAPTER 2

The evidence that we have seems to point towards French having a certain priority in this context. We are told that there were ‘about two hundred families of French and Walloon protestants connected with this establishment’ (The History and Antiquities of Thorne 1829: 143). Wentworth-Day (1954: 64) writes that Peter Brontemps was the first French pastor at Sandtoft, having been brought over from France in 1634, and that in 1643 John d’Espaigne was the minister of the French church at Sandtoft. The register of the chapel of Sandtoft was kept from 1641 onwards in French. There are Dutch names in the register, such as Vanhouq, a number of Tyssens and Isaac Vanplue, but that cannot be taken as evidence for the knowledge or use of Dutch in the church domain at Sandtoft.40 Some of the few letters that survive are written in French. They are typically addressed to the coetus of the Dutch and French churches in London (H 87: iii, ii, 2142). One letter written from the Dutch church in London to the alien community in Sandtoft is written in French (H 87: iii, ii, 2490). This may simply be a function of the language knowledge of the addressees or a result of the fact that the people in the community at Sandtoft whose mother tongue was French outnumbered those whose mother tongue was Dutch. Alternatively, it may reflect a general trend in Stranger communities where French and Dutch existed side-by-side that French had a certain priority over Dutch, possibly because it was considered to have a higher social status. In the nomenclature of sociolinguistics, this would mean that French was an ‘H’ language and Dutch an ‘L’ language. Nevertheless, we do also have letters in Dutch. The one mentioned above from 1637 was written in Dutch and signed by Jooris de Raet, Philippe Lhermitte, Jacop Blyck, Jaeques de Witt In de dyecaege (the area of dykes) van Hertfielteers (a corruption of Hatfield Chase). A letter dated 29 December 1669 was written in Dutch by the consistory of the Dutch community in Sandtoft to the consistory of the Dutch church in Sandwich (H 87: iii, ii, 2562). We learn from the letter that the Dutch community had been without a minister for a while. It now had Dom. Jacobus de la Porte, who had formerly been a French proponent in the Province and City of Utrecht, and was writing to Sandwich to seek approbation for this appointment. Approbation was indeed forthcoming from Sandwich and London. De la Porte’s previous experience suggests he would have been able to preach to both language communities in Sandtoft. The latest evidence for the Stranger church at Sandtoft is a baptismal record from 1685 (Tomlinson 1882: 310).41

40 See also Tomlinson (1985: 234). 41 If the Sandtoft registers still exist, their whereabouts are not known. The 1685 baptismal record and other records from the registers, to which Tomlinson refers, are in French. Dutch In The Church 79

Before moving on I should also say that there is evidence that there was an alien worshipping community at Thorne, which lies about 10 miles from Sandtoft over the county border in Yorkshire. We have three letters from Thorne. The last of these, dated 4 April 1656, is of particular interest. It was addressed to the coetus of the French and Dutch churches in London and was written in French, as was usual when there were both Dutch and French addressees (H 87: iii, ii, 2336). The letter is signed:

Vostre tres chere amis et serviteurs deu dicage de Tourn par moy Jean Tissen, et au nom de tous Freres Flammens . . .

Your very dear friends and servants from the dike area of Thorne by me, Jean Tissen, and in the name of all the Flemish Brothers . . .

Reference to the ‘Flemish brothers’ suggests that although this letter was written in French, some members of the congregation at Thorne may at least have known Dutch.42 This notion is given weight when we discover that given the geographical proximity between Thorne and Sandtoft ‘Jean Tissen’ is likely to have been the same person as ‘Johan Tissen’, one of the signatories to a letter written in Dutch from Sandtoft in 1669 (H 87: iii, ii, 3730). If so, we are left to ask precisely what the relationship was between the congregations at Thorne and Sandtoft. Was the former a daughter church of the latter for drainage workers and their descendants who worked to the north of Hatfield Chase? Whatever the answer to that question, the evidence adduced indicates that within the alien worshipping communities on the Lincolnshire-Yorkshire border there was a knowledge of Dutch and also French/Dutch bilingualism.

42 Hessels muddies the waters slightly by referring to ‘Thorney’ in his introduction to this letter. This is the village in Cambridgeshire that had a French congregation, discussed below. Reference to ‘Tourn’ in the letter itself, another reference to York and the circumstances of Tissen discussed above make it most likely that the letter was written in Thorne in Yorkshire, and not Thorney in Cambridgeshire. We see something similar in a letter dated 20 December 1655 (H 87: iii, ii, 2321). This letter begins De Torn (‘from Thorne’) although Hessels refers to ‘Thorney’ in his introduction. Tissen is one of the signatories, a fact which may confirm that it was written in Thorne and not Thorney. In the letter we read: Ils nous disent quiles veullent garder monsieur qaruwel du quelle nous put point servire en la lange Flammende (‘they tell us that they want to keep Mr. Qaruwel who could not serve us (i.e., the church at Thorne) in the Flemish language’). Unfortunately, there is insufficient context to be able to establish the precise significance of this reference to the ‘Flemish language’, but it may provide further evidence of the use of Dutch/Flemish at Thorne. 80 CHAPTER 2

2.2.2.4 New Dutch Congregations in London A few years after the Restoration a Dutch church that used the Anglican liturgy was founded in London. This met at Derby House from 1665 and was led by the minister, Nicholas van Renselaer. In 1668 Van Renselaer was leading a community at Westminster and it is likely that this was the same body of worshippers that had met at Derby House (Wright 2007: 627; 637 n. 6). On the accession of King William iii in 1689 a Dutch Chapel Royal was established at the Queen’s Chapel in St. James’ Palace, London (Baldwin 1990: 403). Catherine Wright notes that in the 1690s the chapel had a community of some 1000 members ‘probably composed largely of minor Household officials’ (Wright 2007: 627). The Dutch Chapel Royal continued to function until 1839, so well past the end of the period under review (Rimbault 1872: 230).43 For our purposes perhaps the most valuable document from the Dutch Chapel Royal is a register of baptisms and marriages for 1689–1740.44 The records are almost exclusively in Dutch. The document consists of over 100 pages arranged in alphabetical order by first name. Each page is divided into Gedoopte Kinderen and Getrouwde Persoonen (‘Baptized Children and Married Persons’). A typical entry for the former is:

Gerardus. Vader: Justinus Kuiper. Moeder Katharina . . . gedoopt 25 januar 1695.

Gerardus. Father: Justinus Kuiper. Mother Katharina . . . baptized 25 January 1695.

An example of the latter is:

Robert Kotgen, en Katrina de Moucheron getr[ouwd] . . . 22 Sept. 95 wonen in Westm. in the Pallace Yard.

43 The Cheque Books of the Chapels Royal provide a limited amount of information about the Dutch Chapel Royal, although most of this falls outside the period we are investigating. According to one entry on 1 January 1720 the Revd. John Henry Winckelhausen succeeded Revd. Sebastian Vander Eycken as Reader of the Dutch Chapel. Another entry states that Winckelhausen died the following year and Vander Eycken resumed his duties as ‘Reader of the said Dutch Chappell at St. James’ (Ashbee and Harley 2000: 52–3; Rimbault 1872: 29–30). Although the name Winckelhausen seems German, Vander Eycken is a Dutch name. Another Cheque Book entry dated 18 November 1721 lists Mr. John Peter Nucella as Preaching Minister and Mr. Sebastian Vendereyhen as Preaching Minister and Reader. The latter must be the same person as as Vander Eycken (Ashbee and Harley 2000: 197). 44 pro rg 4/4574. The catalogue indicates that the record also includes entries for deaths. Dutch In The Church 81

Robert Kotgen and Katrina de Moucheron married . . . 22 Sept[ember] [16]95 live in Westm[inster] in the Palace Yard.

The address of the married couple suggests that they were working at the court of William iii. Only a small number of the Dutch who came to England as a consequence of William’s accession joined the pre-existing Dutch churches. Amongst these were the banking brothers, Gerard and Joshua Neck, who both joined the Dutch church at Austin Friars in London in the early eighteenth century (Grell 1996: 122).

2.2.2.5 Cambridgeshire Finally, a Walloon Church was established at Thorney in Cambridgeshire. This may have had Dutch members, for one commentator notes that Thorney Abbey was repaired for the use of ‘the French and Dutch planters’ (McNeile 1948: 174–5). Another circumstantial piece of evidence comes in a letter dated 26 October 1642 written in French from the foreign community at Sandtoft to the French and Dutch communities in London. This notes that (H 87: iii, ii, 1899):

environ quatre ou cincq milles de Peterburch il i a unne autre Eglize qui lisent la liturgie Engloize, et est composee la ditte Eglise de Francois et Flamans.

about four or five miles from Peterborough (in Cambridgeshire) there is another Church where they read the English liturgy, and the said Church is composed of French and Flemings.

The minister of this church is named as Estienne de Cursoil. This is the Frenchman listed in local documents as Stephan de Cursol, who was granted a licence to preach in French and Latin in 1640 (see section 1.4.1.6). There is no record of him preaching in Dutch, so one wonders if the Flemings had to choose between French and Latin. A register of baptisms in the community at Thorney was kept in French from 1654 to 1727 (Peet 1903). As noted in Chapter 1, the register contains some Dutch names, although this provides no firm basis for asserting that Dutch was used in the church domain in Thorney.

2.2.2.6 External Threats to the Dutch Churches As we have already observed, during the course of the seventeenth century, the number of members of those Dutch churches which had been established in the second half of the sixteenth century gradually declined. They faced a number of external threats. One of these was from Archbishop Laud in the 1630s. 82 CHAPTER 2

His actions against the Stranger churches are discussed in more detail below (see section 2.4.2). After the Restoration, the Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662 and provision was made in it and a clause inserted in favour of the Dutch (and French) Protestant churches in England. However the congregations did not feel that this made them sufficiently secure against the penalties to which dissenters from the Church of England were liable. A case was drawn up and presented to Parliament to allow these churches to continue to hold services in Dutch and French (Moens 1887–8: 108). The Test Act of 1673 which gave preferment to members of the Church of England in public offices was another external challenge to the Stranger churches. Some of their congregations left to become members of their local parish churches, others went to the United Provinces and other Strangers moved to Ireland where there was a demand for weavers as a result of the establishment of the linen industry there. The Dutch church at Maidstone closed its doors sometime after 1655 and the one at Yarmouth sometime in the early 1680s. Membership numbers at Austin Friars declined. From a number of less than 1600 in 1620, membership had reduced to about 1000 by the 1680s and 1690s (Wright 2007: 627).45 The loss of members to the Anglican Church and emigration was not matched by new recruits. In the 1670s and 1680s the number of attestations in the Austin Friars records numbered about 37 each year. By 1710–1720, this was down to half a dozen. The number of baptisms dropped from 42 in 1680 to one in 1766 (Statt 1995: 29; Hessels 1892: 72–176).

2.2.2.7 Dutch Churches Still Active at the End of the Seventeenth Century By the end of the seventeenth century as well as the church at Austin Friars and the Dutch Chapel Royal, the churches at Canvey Island, Colchester, Norwich and Sandwich were still functioning. The Dutch church at Canvey Island continued to meet until about 1704/5, when the last minister was Aemilius van Culemborg, who had previously been a minister at Austin Friars (Whittaker 1980: 26). The Dutch church at Sandwich continued until sometime after 1706. The Dutch Bay Hall in Colchester closed in 1728 and it is likely that the Dutch church closed shortly after this. There is an entry in Dutch in the baptismal records for 22 December 1728 but no subsequent record of the church.46

45 Grell states that the membership of Austin Friars was less than a thousand in the second half of the seventeenth century (Grell 1996: 122). In 1683 a contemporary source estimated the membership at around 500 (Vollenhove 2001: 75). 46 lma clc/197/MS07384. Dutch In The Church 83

By 1696 the church at Norwich had fallen on hard times and could not pay the preacher, Petrus des Reaux, the usual salary (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 383). This may explain why Des Reaux preached both to the Dutch and the Walloon churches in Norwich from about this time onwards. The fact that he was able to do so tells us that he was a bilingual (Moens 1887–8: 316). Despite its financial difficulties, the Dutch congregation in Norwich did continue to meet until 1919, although by this time services were only held annually (Woods 1981: 75).47 It continued to keep records of membership, baptisms, marriages and deaths in Dutch into the twentienth century. Examples of these are provided below (section 2.3.3). The Dutch church at Austin Friars continues to meet until this day, more than 460 years after it was founded, although the original building was heavily bombed in wwii. So, to sum up so far, we have seen that there were some eighteen Dutch churches in England in the early modern period. Whilst some were short-lived and had a small membership, such as those at Ipswich and Thetford, others such as those at London, Colchester, Sandwich and Norwich had significant numbers of members and functioned from the middle of the sixteenth century into the eighteenth century. We have already seen examples of the use of Dutch in these churches and further examples are provided in the next two sections. However, before we consider these, brief mention should be made of other people in religious communities in early modern England, who knew Dutch but did not belong to the Dutch churches discussed above.48

2.2.3 Other Religious Communities Amongst the other Christian denominations, some of whose members knew Dutch, were the Anabaptists and Quakers. Moving beyond Christianity, there were also Dutch Sephardic Jews in London in the second half of the seventeenth century. Let us consider each of these in turn. In the mid-1570s the government decided to take action against 27 Dutch Anabaptists arrested in Whitechapel. The consistory of the Dutch church in London assisted the authorities with their interrogation of the men. Reports vary as to how many of these Anabaptists spoke English. One commentator states that none of them knew English (Grell 1989: 14), whilst a letter written

47 Woods notes that this tradition was revived in 1974, with the service being conducted by a minister from the Dutch church in London. He does not state which language this was conducted in, though it may well have been Dutch, rather than English. 48 One source mentions that Robert Brown, the founder of the Brownists, or Independents, preached in the Dutch church in Norwich in 1581 (Blyth 1842: 220). 84 CHAPTER 2 on 19 July 1581 by Gotfried Wingius on behalf of the London Dutch church indicates that a few of them did know the language (H 87: ii, 700):

dewijle, so ick meyne, hörer geene Latijn, ende de meeste part geen Engelsch verstunden.

whilst, I think, none of them understood Latin, and most of them did not understand English.

Wingius’ Dutch contains a number of interesting dialectal features, which are discussed in more detail below (section 2.3.1.1). In 1589 there were said to be several Anabaptist congregations in London, though these may have included German as well as Dutch speakers (Davies 1964: 10). Another sect that had Dutch adherents living in England was the Familists. Their leader in England was Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft who resided at Colchester and Southwark in the second half of the sixteenth century (Davies 1964: 11). In 1663 the Dutch Quaker, Judith Zins-Penninck, visited England to preach at Quaker meetings, doing so in Dutch. At Kingston, she had an interpreter, William Caton, but in London the interpreter was not so competent and she therefore addressed a meeting there in Dutch. Nevertheless, the audience was said to be moved and edified by the power of her speech (Osselton 1973: 12). Caton translated a ten-page letter written by Zins-Penninck in Colchester ‘to be sent among the chosen Generation in England, but especially in Essex, London and about Kingstone’. He published it in London in 1663 with the title ‘Some worthy proverbs left behind, by Judith Zins-Penninck, to be read in the congregation of the Saints’ (Tangye 1905: 100). In the following year Zins-Penninck addressed a letter in Dutch to a fellow Quaker in England, Steven Crisp. Crisp gives his name to an important series of letters (the Crisp Collection) addressed to him and the Quakers in Colchester written between 1657–1691, now preserved in the Essex Record Office archive. Some of the letters are written in Dutch. Many of these are from Amsterdam, but we also find a letter written from London in 1663 in Dutch.49 This was written by Steven Crisp himself, who seems to have been English, and was probably addressed to a Quaker in Amsterdam. In the letters written by the leaders of the Dutch Reformed churches in England, we find formal salutations such as Eerweirdeghe broeders (‘Reverend brothers’) and Lieve broederen dienaeren ende ouderlinghen der Ghemeente Christi (‘Dear brothers, servants and elders of the congregation of Christ’). By contrast, Crisp begins his letter simply with

49 ero T/A 424/6/4, no. 39. Dutch In The Church 85 the word Vrinden (‘Friends’). It is also worth noting that Crisp uses the form of address ghij and the related plural form, ghijlieden.50 Although we do find these forms of address in the Dutch church letters edited by Hessels, it is more usual to find Ulieden and related variants, or, later on, ue and similar forms. One possible explanation for this difference is that ghij tended to be used by people from the lower classes who were typically less well educated than those who used other forms of address such as UE (Nobels 2013: 93). Further investigation might reveal whether Quaker letters in Dutch use ghij more generally. The Dutch church in Colchester lost members to the Quakers in the late 1650s, which may help to explain Steven Crisp’s knowledge of Dutch and also suggests that other members of the Quaker community in Colchester knew the language (Grell 1996: 127).51 Similarly, in the 1640s, the London Dutch church lost members to the Baptist and Puritan churches (Grell 1996: 92–3). Throughout the period under discussion there was a steady trickle of members of the Dutch communities in England to the local parish churches. Some moved to these churches after marrying local English people; others left the Dutch communities to avoid paying the poor levy; whilst laws such as the Test Act prompted others to make this move. One Dutchman who had an official position within the Anglican Church was the scholar, Gerardus Vossius, who was sympathetic to Arminianism. In 1629 with the help of Archbishop Laud, he became a canon at Canterbury Cathedral (Wilson 1968: 153). He remained in England until 1631. Other men of Dutch descent who became Anglican clergy- men were Aquila Cruso and Edwardus Meetkercke. Finally, if we broaden the notion of ‘church domain’ to include other religions, we should briefly mention the Jewish community in London. In 1656, during the Commonwealth, Jews were allowed to settle in England for the first time since King Edward I expelled them in 1290. In 1656/7 a house in Creechurch Lane in the City of London was leased and converted into a synagogue.52 Most, if not all, of the first Jews to arrive in London were Dutch Sephardic Jews from Amsterdam. However, reflecting the fact that these Jews

50 Throughout this book, this pronoun is spelt in a number of ways, in part determined by the texts under discussion. Other frequent spellings are gij and ghy, along with plural forms such as gijlieden and ghylieden. 51 See also Moens (1905: 74–5), where extracts from Quaker registers for marriages, births and burials in Colchester in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are reproduced. Dutch names or Anglicized Dutch names such as Vandewall, Dehorne and Toyspill/ Tayspill occur frequently in these registers. 52 One of the first attempts to establish a synagogue was led by the Amsterdam Rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel, of whom Rembrandt made an etching. As the congregation grew a new synagogue became necessary. The Jewish community built itself a copy of the 86 CHAPTER 2 could trace their roots back to the Jewish communities in Spain and Portugal, it was Spanish and Portuguese (with, of course, Hebrew) that would be the principal languages for worship in this community (Barnett et al. 1991: 15).53 One can imagine that at least some words of Dutch were exchanged between the Jewish members of the community, but I have not found any evidence for this. There are seven epitaphs either partly or entirely in Dutch in the Burial Register (1733–1918) of the Novo Cemetery of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation in London. However, these date from the nineteenth century (Rodrigues-Pereira et al. 1997: xxvii; xxix). We also find names that are appear to be Dutch, such as Van Kleef, but references to that name are from the nineteenth century (Rodrigues-Pereira et al. 1997: 150). This completes our survey of the Dutch Reformed churches and other religious communities in England whose members had or may have had a knowledge of Dutch. Let us now consider in turn evidence for the written and spoken use of Dutch in worshipping communities.

2.3 Written Dutch in the Church Domain

A range of documents including letters, registers, inscriptions and printed books provide evidence of the written use of Dutch in the church domain. The most extensive evidence is to be found in the collection of several thousand letters and other church documents preserved in the London Metropolitan Archives (lma) and published by J.H. Hessels towards the end of the nineteenth century (H 87).

2.3.1 Correspondence In his recent discussion of the Dutch used in Dutch churches in North America, Roland Willemyns writes (Willemyns 2013: 204):

the Nederduits of the Nederduits Reformed Church, an archaic, highly- formal language, was used in the churches and taught in the Dutch

Amsterdam synagogue at Bevis Marks, which opened its doors in September 1701 (Wilson 1946: 18). 53 We find an example of the use of Spanish in a painting of the tablets of the law by Aaron de Chavez (1674), which hung above the ark in this synagogue. Under each command- ment written in Hebrew, there was a Spanish translation, e.g., No Mates, No Forniques (‘Do not kill, do not fornicate’) etc. (Barnett and Levy 1970: 2–8). Dutch In The Church 87

schools, since all the preachers . . . came from the Netherlands or had received their training there.

Something similar can be said of the Dutch used in the letters written by the church leaders in England. The form of Dutch used in the Dutch church letters owes something to chancery Dutch. This reflects a wider trend whereby the language of the chancery served as a model for several European languages. Chancery English, French and German also acted as models for the writing of private individuals in these languages (Burke 2004: 99). But despite the formal nature of the letters in the Hessels collection, many of them, particularly those written in the second half of the sixteenth century contain dialectal forms, which is perhaps to be expected at a time when the notion of a standard language was only gradually beginning to emerge. This is illustrated by the one letter we have from Coventry, written by Jacobus Regius on 4 March 1573, which includes dialectal features found in varieties of Flemish (Regius was born in Kortrijk (nnwb iv: 1130)). The weak position of the initial ‘h’ in Flemish is well attested. This led to it being added where it performed no function (hypercorrection (prothesis)) and removed where one would expect to find it (procope) (Willemyns 2003: 86; 2013: 73).54 In Regius’ letter we find hende instead of e(i)nde (‘end’) found elsewhere. Other dialectal features of Flemish in the letter are the usage of e for i elsewhere, e.g., es (v. Dutch is); and a differentiation between short /u/ (written as ou) and a longer /u:/ written as oe, e.g., anroupynghe (Dutch: aanroeping) (H 87: iii, i, 205).55 This is not to say that there was widespread use of Flemish dialectal forms on the streets of Coventry, but illustrates the manner in which dialectal forms influenced writing in the sixteenth century. Many of the incomers to Sandwich and Maidstone were Flemings and so we might expect to find Flemish dialectal forms in some of their letters. Let us now take a closer look at a selection of these.

54 The linguistic terms for these phenomena are prothesis, where an h- is added, and procope, where one is removed (Willemyns 2003: 86). 55 Willemyns writes that we find oe before dentals, e.g., voet, and ou before velars such as bouck and roupen. However, /p/ is not a velar, but a voiceless bilabial stop (Willemyns 2013: 74). We should also note that the possibility cannot be excluded that the rendering of aanroeping as anroupynghe and similar renderings may on occasion reflect local spelling patterns rather than differences in pronunciation. 88 CHAPTER 2

2.3.1.1 Dialectal features in Dutch Church Letters from Sandwich and Maidstone: A Case Study A large number of the Strangers who settled in Sandwich came from the Westkwartier in Flanders. We have several letters written by Lieven vanden Eede, an elder at the Dutch church in the town, which include dialectal features found in varieties of Flemish, in particular West Flemish (Westvlaams).56 On 2 January 1584 he wrote to the church at Austin Friars in London (H 87: iii, i, 730). His letter includes a form commonly found in Flemish cleen (‘small’) (the diphthong ei is typically found elsewhere in Dutch instead of the monophthong ee); and mueghelick (‘possible’), where o instead of ue is found elsewhere (de Vooys 1970: 37; Willemyns 2003: 86; 2013: 87). The latter is an example of what Roland Willemyns refers to as ‘spontaneous palatalization’ (in an open syllable); a feature we find in words containing the Old Germanic ǔ (Willemyns 2013: 72–3). Phonologists call this ‘fronting’. We also find examples of prothetic hypercorrection in this letter, i.e., the addition of an extra letter at the beginning of a word; in this case ‘h’; for example, hulieden instead of ulieden (‘you’) and huut instead of uut (‘out’). In a letter written ten days later, on 12 January, Vanden Eede provides further examples of his tendency towards hypercorrection (H 87: iii, i, 730). Here, we see the forms hulieden and huutersten instead of uutersten (‘most extreme’). We also see the use of mueghelick once more. In a letter dated 22 March 1584, we see the word heesschen (‘to want’). This would typically be written eisen/eysschen and so includes hypercorrection and the replacement of the diphthong ei with the monophthong ee (H 87: iii, i, 743). Phonologists call this ‘fronting’. Turning now to Maidstone, one of early ministers of the Dutch church in the town, Nicasius vander Schuere, also uses prothetic hypercorrection in two letters. In the first, dated 24 December 1569, we find the forms of address hulieder and hulieden where one would typically see ulieder and ulieden. Furthermore, he signs this letter huyt [laste] der Consistorie (‘by order of the Consistory’), where one would typically expect uyt . . . He also removes the initial ‘h’ from words (procope). We see this in Met aesten instead of Met haesten (‘in haste’) at the end of the letter (H 87: iii, i, 99). In the second letter from Vander Schuere we see several examples of prothetic hypercorrection, including huyt and huytgheroepen (‘announced’) (H 87: iii, i, 105).

56 See for example Jacobs (1927), which reproduces several West Flemish texts from the sixteenth century (193–210). Examples of forms discussed above which are found in these texts are as follows: hanebilte instead of aanbeeld (prothesis) (p. 198); eet instead of het (procope) (p. 203); up instead of op (p. 197) (cf. vul instead of vol (p. 197)); meughen instead of moghen (p. 198) (both spontaneous palatalization); and es instead of is (p. 200). Dutch In The Church 89

We find forms often associated with Flemish dialects in another letter from Maidstone, dated 29 May 1572, signed by Joos vander Houve and Godofridus Steerten nomine ceterorum (‘in the name of the others’ (note the Latin)) (H 87: iii, i, 165). Two examples of prothetic hypercorrection are huwe (‘your’) instead of uwe and hende instead of ende (‘end’). The word upbauwinghe (‘edification’) begins with up instead of op found in other forms of Dutch, an example of vowel fronting or ‘spontaneous palatalization’ in a closed syllable (Willemyns 2013: 72). The long vowel au is found in East Flemish, in contrast to ou in West Flemish; in this letter we find au in ghehauden (‘held’, instead of ghehouden) (de Vooys 1970: 36–7).57 Another common feature in varieties of Flemish, although also found in other forms of Dutch, is the use of e for i and i for e. In this letter we find bringhen (elsewhere brenghen). In other letters there are many examples of is being written as es (cf. Willemyns 1979: 98–9). In a letter from Maidstone, written by Pieter van Orliens on 28 January 1573, we find the form haermen instead of aermen (‘poor’) (H 87: iii, i, 190). In a letter from Van Orliens dated 31 May 1574, we see further examples of prothetic hypercorrection: huut (‘out’) and waarhuut (‘out of which’), and huuterste (‘utmost’) (H 87: iii, i, 256). Likewise, in a letter dated 26 December 1588 Lieven vanden Bussche includes the forms of address hu L and hulieden (‘you’) (H 87: iii, i, 885). Although these letters are formal and therefore bespeak the ‘language of distance’ (Sprache der Distanz), described by Koch & Oesterreicher (1985: 23), given the prevalence of hypercorrective forms in the correspondence from Maidstone, is it going too far to suggest that such forms might have been heard in the streets of the town at this time? Letters from Maidstone contain other features associated with varieties of Flemish. For example in the letter written by Lieven vanden Bussche just mentioned, we find mueghelick, mueghen and vermueghen, where moghelick, moghen and vermoghen are found in other varieties of Dutch. One striking difference between the letters discussed here and letters written by church leaders in Norwich is that although those leaders, too, typically came from Flanders, they do not use the hypercorrective ‘h’ in their correspondence (see section 4.3.1).58 However, it is not only features associated with Flemish that we find in the letters from Maidstone. One letter, dated 27 August 1576, contains several features associated with eastern Dutch dialects (H 87: iii, i, 386). The letter is not signed, but the likely author is Gotfried Wingius, who at that time was the

57 In a text written in Ghent in East Flanders in c. 1570 we find similar forms, viz. inhaudende instead of inhoudende and ghebaut instead of ghebou(w)t (Willemyns 1979: 98–9). 58 For these Flemish forms, see also Willemyns (1979: 48–50). 90 CHAPTER 2 minister at Maidstone, and who also served the Dutch churches at Sandwich and London (Backhouse 1981: 75–6; Braekman 1989: 82). The fact that Wingius’ Dutch includes features found in eastern Dutch dialects, such as Limburgs, should not surprise us, for he was born near Liège. In this letter we find the preposition to instead of te (‘at’).59 We also find the umlautization of long vowels, e.g., vör instead of voor, another feature of eastern dialects.60 Another form worth noting in this letter is onkraftiging (Dutch ontkrachtig- ing; ‘weakening’). This form reflects the fact that the shift from -ft to -cht did not occur in some Dutch dialects. We find this feature in Hollands; for example, the Amsterdam writer, P.C. Hooft, uses the form ontkraftighing in his prose history of the Dutch Revolt, first published in 1642. It is also found in the northern parts of Brabant, but Roland Willemyns does not include it in a list of features found in the dialects of Limburg (wnt: Willemyns 1979: 51–4, 157–61; 2013: 74–5).61 In another letter, quoted above, Wingius uses the form hörer (‘of them’) instead of harer (H 87: ii, 700; Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 114). Forms associated with the Brabants dialect such as the vowel length-marker hoigh (‘high’) (instead of hoogh), are also found in the letter dated 27 August and elsewhere in Wingius’ Dutch, although Willemyns (75–6) notes that differences between Limburgs and Brabants are a matter of degree.62 In the seventeenth-century letters in Hessels’ collection, dialectal forms occur less frequently, reflecting a move towards the standardization of the language. We do, though, see dialectal forms in the membership list of the London Dutch church compiled ‘circa 1639–1641’, mentioned above (H 87: iii, ii, 2918). Hessels states that the list is in the handwriting of Timotheus van Vleteren, a minister of the church. One dialectal feature in the list is sint (‘they are’) (Dutch zijn), a form found in eastern Dutch dialects (cf. German sind) (wnt; Hol 1955: 166–8). Furthermore, the entry for Cornelis Vermuyden adds ende sein sohn (‘and his son’), which is closer to German orthography than to Dutch.63

59 In a text written in Cleves in 1540 we find this form frequently; for example in the phrases to Cleve and to Griethuysen (Willemyns 1979: 159). 60 In a letter dated 27 June 1576 we also find umlautization in the form ankümpste (‘arrival’: lnd aankomst). 61 Wingius assisted Johannes Utenhove in the translation of the New Testament. This includes words from a range of Germanic dialects. It may be that the Dutch that Wingius uses is a continuation of this attempt to produce a broad standard language incorporating ‘German forms’ (see section 2.3.6.3). 62 We see this length-marker in the text written in Cleves in 1540 mentioned above, in for example the word hoigh (lnd: hoog) (Willemyns 1979: 159). 63 We find sint and the length-marker ‘h’ in mehr (‘more’) in the text written in Cleves in 1540, although we also find sijn rather than sein (Willemyns 1979: 158). Dutch In The Church 91

2.3.1.2 Variation in the Spelling of English Toponyms Moving away from questions directly related to dialect one of the interesting linguistic features of the Hessels letters is that the Dutch writers spell English toponyms in a number of ways. Canterbury is spelt in 32 different ways; Colchester 21, Halstead 27, Maidstone 56, Norwich 67, Sandwich 68, and Yarmouth 44 (H 87: iii, i, xx). I have already suggested that the spelling of Thetford as Hetfort may reflect the lack of the phoneme /θ/ in Dutch. The spelling of these other toponyms may give us an insight into the ways in which the Dutch pronounced them and also point to other phonemes, which they had difficulty in pronouncing.

2.3.1.3 Forms of Address As I hinted above, we find a range of forms of address in the letters written by Dutch church leaders in England. In the early letters, written in the second half of the sixteenth century, there is a preference for the forms of address ulieden and u.l. For example, of eighteen letters written by church leaders in Norwich in the 1570s and 1580s six use ulieden (or u lieden; ULieden) and seven use u.l., or a variation thereof as the subject form of address. However, one hundred years later, although these forms are still used, there is also regular use of the form of address ue, an abbreviation of u edele or uwe edelheid (‘your Honour’, ‘your Worship’), which originated in chancery Dutch (e.g., H 87: iii, ii, 2527–8). This shift mirrors similar results found in the Brieven als buit (‘Letter as Loot’) project (see Chapter 4), although there the rise of ue seems to have been more gradual (Van der Wal and Rutten 2013: 134). Although most of the letters in the Hessels collection are formal letters exchanged between church leaders, there are also a few letters written by private individuals in the collection. One to mention here is a letter that Rachel Jansdochter wrote from Norwich to the consistory of the Dutch church in London on 28 January 1570 asking for money that she had been owed for six years (H 87: iii, i, 101; fig. 5). Rachel uses ghij as the subject pronoun. As noted in relation to the Quaker, Steven Crisp, in the second half of the seventeenth century, this form of address tended to be used by people who were less well educated than those using other forms of address (Nobels 2013: 93). This included women, for whom educational opportunities were often very limited. However, as will become clear in Chapter 4, it was used frequently by authors of both genders and across the social classes in letters sent from Norwich to Ieper in the second half of the sixteenth century. We should also note that Rachel uses the form ju for the object pronoun. She uses it at the start of the letter: 92 CHAPTER 2

figure 5 Letter from Rachel Jansdochter to the consistory of the London Dutch church. lma clc/180/MS07428/001. London Metropolitan Archives, City of London by courtesy of the Dutch Church in London

Dutch In The Church 93

Frundelijcke Groete gescreven an Ju leve broeder Godefride . . . De orsake mines scrivens is, om dat wij Ju mannichmal gescreven hebben . . .

Friendly greetings to you, dear brother Godefride [Wingius] . . . The reason for my writing is that we have written to you several times . . .

Nicoline van der Sijs argues that this form was derived from Low German, which entered Dutch via language contact with immigrants from Germany who spoke Low German dialects (Van der Sijs 2004: 472–3).64 We know that Rachel came from Flanders, although we do not know from which town or village (Moens 1905: 101). If Van der Sijs is right, then it is interesting that it was being used by someone from a region geographically distant from the Low German language area.65

2.3.1.4 Correspondence Not Written in Dutch Not all the letters in the Hessels collection were written in Dutch. Indeed, until 1570 letters exchanged between leaders of the Dutch churches in England were almost always written in Latin. We even have one letter addressed to Johannes Utenhove in Greek (H 87: ii, 238).66 The fact that many of these early letters were written in Latin should not surprise us for the first leaders of the Dutch churches had either studied at university or been clerics in the Catholic Church, where Latin was still the dominant language. After 1570 the Dutch churches in England, particularly the London church, occasionally received letters written in Latin, typically from Dutch churches abroad (e.g., H 87: iii, i, p. 164, letter 189 from Vlissingen in Zeeland). This may suggest that the Dutch churches in England switched to Dutch in their correspondence earlier than their counterparts on the Continent. Latin was also used in correspondence between the London Dutch church and the English authorities, such as the Privy Council (e.g., H 87: iii, i, 240). In letters and other documents concerning both the Dutch and French churches in London, we occasionally find a preference for French, such as a

64 In Dutch, Van der Sijs refers to Nederduitse dialecten and notes that Nedersaksisch usage mirrored that of Nederduits. See also Aalberse (2009: 57). 65 A hint that it was used in Flanders at this time comes from a letter in the Verheyden collection (see section 4.3.1.2) addressed to the Norwich minister, Carolus Ryckwaert, originally from West Flanders, and written by a relative or close family friend. In this letter the form joe (‘your’) occurs. The subject form of address is ghy (Verheyden 1955; Duke 2014). Rachel states that she had spent time in Frisia, which may also have influenced her use of ju. 66 This was from the scholar, Carolus Utenhove, Johannes’ nephew. 94 CHAPTER 2 memorandum of the proceedings of the coetus of the three Stranger churches in London dated 6 May 1584 (H 87: iii, i, 756). This may have happened for a number of reasons. It is possibly an early example of French having a higher status than Dutch amongst the Stranger communities in London, or it may indicate there was more bilingualism amongst the leaders of the Dutch church than amongst those of the French church.67 We also find the very occasional use of Italian, which is almost exclusively limited to cases where the Italian Stranger church is involved. For example, on 5 April 1591 a certain Nicolo Marini wrote in Italian al venerabil Coetus delle tre chiesse Francexe, Fiamenga et Italiana (‘to the venerable Coetus of the three churches, French, Flemish and Italian’) in London asking for some employment (H 87: iii, i, 921). One case where there is no explicit reference to the Italian church is an undated petition written by the Dutch church to Queen Elizabeth asking for a churchyard adjoining Austin Friars to be restored to it. The authors refer to the church members as li pouerj membri di Christo, rifu- giatj al seno della clementia vostra, cioè quelli della chiesa Fiamenga in questa vostra cita di Londra (‘the poor members of (the body of) Christ, who have sought refuge in the bosom of your mercy, that is those of the Flemish Church in your city of London’). Precisely why the letter is written in Italian is not clear, though one possibility is that it was provided as an example to the leaders of the Italian church (H 87: iii, i, 1211). There are instances of code switching between languages in the Hessels correspondence. Johannes Radermacher, who had previously been a member of the Italian church in London, later became an elder of the Dutch church in the city. A minute recorded in London by Radermacher on 8 December 1579 is mostly in Dutch, but the coda is in Latin (H 87: iii, i, 565). This practice is referred to as tag switching and is something we often see in the ancient world, where, for example, Latin epitaphs were often preceded or followed by a Greek tag or formula (Adams 2003: 21–2; Joby 2014f: Chapter 6). Radermacher signs the minute Tuus Joannes Rotarius. Rotarius is the Latin equivalent of Radermacher, both meaning ‘wheelwright’. It was common for humanists such as Radermacher to have a Latin as well as a vernacular name.

2.3.1.5 Other Types of Documents in the Hessels Collection Mention has already been made of documents written in Dutch in the Hessels collection other than letters. Further ones to mention here are extracts from the church-book of the Dutch church at Colchester in which the sins of the members were recorded (H 87: iii, i, 1193); membership lists such as one for

67 For more on the status and use of French in early modern Europe, see Burke (2004: 85–6). Dutch In The Church 95 the Dutch church at Mortlake dated 16 August 1663 (H 87: iii, ii, 2498); and the minutes of church meetings (e.g., H 87: iii, i, 1360). We also have marriage contracts in Dutch from the London Dutch church; for example, one between Joris Wolf and Dinghenken vanden Plassche dated 30 March 1581 (H 87: iii, i, 619); and another between Adriaen Bolte and Susanna Dumbar dated 8 August 1639 (H 87: iii, ii, 1797).

2.3.2 Meeting Minutes We have the minutes of the consistory meetings of the London Dutch church from 1560 onwards.68 The minutes for meetings between 1 July 1560 and 18 August 1563 are in a mixture of Dutch and Latin. This mixing of languages took a variety of forms. Sometimes, the entry for one meeting would be in one language and the following entry would be in the other, whilst in other cases, the secretary would engage in intrasentential code switching, i.e., switching language mid-sentence. For example, in the entry for 5 July 1560 we find switching from Latin to Dutch: ex semine hominis, een hooftstucke onzer zaligheit (‘from the seed of man, a ground of our salvation’) (Van Schelven 1921: 10). Much more of the minutes for meetings held between 1569 and 1585 is in Dutch, although there is the occasional switch into Latin (Jelsma and Boersma 1993). For example in the entry for 19 December 1569, two French ministers are quoted in Latin, and it may well be that they spoke in Latin to the Dutch (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 29). We also find dialectal forms in these minutes. To give but one example here, the form houffenen is clearly Flemish, with the seemingly everpresent hypercorrective initial ‘h’ and the shorter ou as opposed to the long, slightly diphthongal oe (Dutch oefenen) that we found above in a letter written by Jacobus Regius (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 295; Willemyns 2013: 74). In passing we should note that the edition of these minutes published by Jelsma and Boersma also contains several accounts (rekeninghe), such as one for the money received from collections and the subsequent disburse- ments (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 781–4). As well as giving us an insight into the activities of the church, they also contain useful linguistic data, such as Dutch accounting and finance terms. Later minutes for the meetings of the London consistory were kept in Dutch. We have the minutes for 1609–1632 and those for 1632–1676, which are even provided with an index or Register.69

68 lma clc/180/MS07397. In the 1560s the Dutch (and French) consistories usually met twice a week to deal with a range of matters relating to their churches (Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 7). 69 lma clc/180/MS07397/007; /008. 96 CHAPTER 2

Every few years between 1575 and 1706 representatives of the Dutch churches in England met to discuss matters affecting their churches. The minutes of these colloquies were written in Dutch (Van Toorenenbergen 1872). Occasionally, we find instances of code switching in these minutes. For example, in the entry for 1624 we find the phrase een writ van significavit (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 277). This refers to a writ in English ecclesiastical law, which states that someone may be excommunicated for forty days and put in prison until he or she submits to the church’s authority. One question that arose from time to time in the colloquies was how the Dutch Churches in England should deal with those who married outside their congregation. This was no doubt prompted by real cases, such as that of Oliver Brassen, who sought permission from the consistory of the London Dutch church in 1570 to marry an Englishwoman in an Anglican church because she did not understand Dutch (ende gheen Duytsch en verstondt). In the same year Jacob Macher also signalled to the consistory his intention to marry an Englishwoman who could not speak Dutch (gheen Duytsch en can). Macher, though, could speak English (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 64; 71). At the colloquy of 1583 the leaders of the Dutch church at Sandwich raised the question of what to do with members who married English people without first getting permission to do so from the local Dutch church. At the colloquy of 1609 the question was raised by the leaders of the Yarmouth Dutch church as to how the church should deal with a Dutch member’s wife, born in England, who wanted to become a member herself. It was agreed that she should be allowed to become a member or passant as long as no objections were raised by English clergy. At the colloquy held in 1612 the leaders of the Dutch church at Colchester asked whether the English spouses of Dutch members should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. For the record, it was decided that it would depend on whether it would engender any opposition from an English minister. There was clearly a desire on the part of the Stranger churches to avoid conflict with local ministers, lest they attract the attention of the English authorities, which might lead to the forfeit of their privileges. At the colloquy of 1624 the question was asked about how the Dutch churches should deal with members who ‘distanced themselves’ (haer vervremden) from their Dutch congregation by marrying English people, and by baptizing their children in English (i.e., Anglican) churches. At the colloquy of 1690 it was asked whether a member of a Dutch church who was going to marry an English person could have the banns read in a Dutch church. This was permitted (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 74; 112; 161; 282; 381). Although questions of language are not made explicit here, there would clearly be consequences for the use of language in the church Dutch In The Church 97 domain. If Dutch people were leaving their Dutch church when they married local English people, this would reduce its membership. If English people were joining a Dutch church, this may suggest, at least in the first instance, that some English was spoken in the church domain, or that the husband and wife who had different mother tongues may have communicated in a mixture of Dutch and English. Five synods of the Dutch and French churches in England were held in London between 1603 and 1647. The minutes of the first synod, in 1603– 1604, were recorded in French, suggesting once more a certain priority for French when the two churches worked together (Chamier 1890: 46; Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 100–1). The next synod was not held until 1635. One reason for the long gap may have been the concern that many of those from the London Dutch church did not understand French, or Latin, a fear expressed at the colloquy of the Dutch churches in 1615: vele onder de Colloquenten de Françoysche ofte Latijnsche tale niet en verstaen. Indeed, at the colloquy of 1618, it was recorded that joint synods would not be held, although in an effort to show solidarity with the French churches, it was decided to propose that the colloquies of the respective churches, Dutch and French, be held close to each other in time and place (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 198; 218).70 It was the external threat of the attack on the Stranger churches by Archbishop Laud that led to the next synod being held, in 1635. We have minutes from this synod in French and Dutch (Chamier 1890: 68; Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 304–13). Those written in Dutch refer to the Colloquium of Synode van alle de utlandische Gemeynten der beyde talen (‘Colloquium or Synod of all the foreign Congregations of both languages’). We have the minutes of the joint synods held in 1641, 1644 and 1647. Those for the first synod are in Dutch and English and those for the other two are in English (Chamier 1890: 76; 85; 109; Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 315–20; 330–4). This shift towards English may reflect the fact that it had become a lingua franca for interactions between the Dutch and French congregations. It also reflects the fact that as the seventeenth century progressed, English became the first language of an increasing number of members of these congregations. In this regard it is interesting to note that in London as early as 1649, when one of the members of the Dutch church consistory chaired the monthly coetus of the Dutch and French Church leaders, he took the minutes in English, whereas when the French chaired the

70 In a further attempt to show solidarity with the French churches, in 1624 it was proposed that there should be discussions with them regarding the institution of a suitable ‘day of rest’ (ledichdach). It seems this would be one day a year that all Stranger churches would recognize and celebrate (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 218; 278). 98 CHAPTER 2 meeting they continued to use their mother tongue. In relation to this, Grell argues that by the middle of the seventeenth century the Dutch language was only passively understood by a majority of the congregation. Here, we should also note that during the 1650s, some members asked the London church to provide them with an attestation in English rather than in Dutch and a growing number of the children of ministers and elders had to be examined in English in the main tenets of the Reformed faith before they could be confirmed as members of the church (Grell 1996: 122). On the other hand, the church leaders continued to conduct their affairs in Dutch and the last minutes we have for a meeting of the colloquy, in 1706, are in that language (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 387). The fact that Dutch and English were used side by side in the church domain means that one could even talk of ‘societal multilingualism’ in this sphere in the second half of the seventeenth century.71

2.3.3 Church Registers Registers of church members, baptisms, marriages and deaths provide further evidence of the use of Dutch in the church domain. Several membership lists from the Dutch church in London survive and are preserved at the London Metropolitan Archives. These have been published by R.E.G. and E.F. Kirk. The lists from the early years, upto 1567, evince a mixture of Dutch and Latin. Entries from these lists are provided in Appendix 2. The Kirks also published a list of members of the Dutch church in London from 1617 (Kirk 1907: 155–63). The titles and entries in this list are in Dutch reflecting a shift away from Latin by this time.72 A summarized list of members from 1634, which is primarily in Dutch, but with an English title, indicates that there were 840 members (Mans 359 and Vrouwen 481) (H 87: iii, ii, 1689). In 1694 the minister of the London Dutch church, Aemilius van Culemborg, produced a volume containing a register of members from the foundation of the church in 1550 to 1694.73 The register consists mainly of names and is arranged at the front by Christian name and at the back by surname.74 Although Latin

71 A term related to ‘societal multilingualism’ is diglossia. However, this is a somewhat contentious term, for scholars disagree as to its precise meaning. Willemyns (2013: 155) notes that although diglossia originally referred to two varieties of the same language, it now also refers to two different languages. 72 A typical entry is Abraham van [de] Broecke; Vaderl [and] van Gent; Kind. 6; hier ghewoont 29 jaren (‘Abraham van de Broecke; origin, Ghent; 6 children; has lived here for 29 years’). 73 This was then continued until 1754. 74 lma clc/180/MS07404. Dutch In The Church 99 had ceased to be used extensively in writing in the church, the compiler adds ux. next to some names, short for the Latin uxor, wife. We have baptismal records for several of the Dutch churches in England. Above, an example was given of a typical entry in Dutch in the register for the Dutch Chapel Royal for 1689–1740, which is preserved at the National Archives at Kew, London. At the lma there is a register of baptisms for the London Dutch church for 21 September 1563 to 13 April 1567 (fig. 6).75 Early entries are written in Latin, but from February 1564 onwards they are written in Dutch. The lma also holds the register of baptisms from 1645 to 1728 at the Colchester church.76 The entries in this are again in Dutch (Moens 1905: 1–62).77 We have two sets of baptismal records from the Dutch church in Norwich.78 The first of these, from the early years of the church’s existence, contains records written in a mixture of Dutch and Latin. This is illustrated by an example from August 1600:

Den 21 Augusti, 1600, ghedoept. Josaphat Roemeyor filius Geraert et uxoris Chatarina Cohen filia Jacobs. Testes, Maliaert de bruyne & Susanna vander Mosen.

21 August 1600, baptized. Josaphat Roemeyor son of Geraert and of his wife Chatarina Cohen, the daughter of Jacob. Witnesses, Maliaert de bruyne & Susanna vander Mosen.

In these records and the membership records of the London church discussed above a couple of forces may be at work. It was common at this time for notar- ial documents to be written in mixture of Latin and the vernacular (Burke 2004: 57). These baptismal records have a certain official quality and may even have been written by clerks or ministers trained in the law. The second ‘force’ that may be at work here is that in the sixteenth century, what Mikhail Bakhtin

75 lma clc/180/MS07380. 76 lma clc/197/MS07384. 77 A couple of entries, the former from 1645, the latter from 1726, illustrate this: Samuel, sone van Cornelis Behagel en Maria. De getuigen Samuel Behagel Abraham Hagedoorn den ouden en Judith Hagedoorn. october: 19 (‘Samuel, son of Cornelis Behagel and Maria. Witnesses: Samuel Behagel, Abraham Hagedoorn the elder and Judith Hagedoorn, October 19’); Petrus, s[oon] van Petrus Mortier en Maria. Ged[oopt] in huys. Aug. 31 (‘Petrus, son of Petrus Mortier and Maria. Baptized at home. August 31’). 78 Transcriptions have been made of the records of baptisms, and indeed marriages, in the Dutch community in Norwich from 1598 to 1619. See “The East Anglian; or Notes and Queries”, 3rd series, vol. 12 (1907–08), a copy of which is held at the nro. 100 CHAPTER 2

figure 6 Baptismal records from Austin Friars in 1564 in Latin and Dutch. lma clc/180/ MS07380. London Metropolitan Archives, City of London by courtesy of the Dutch Church in London Dutch In The Church 101 appositely refers to as the ‘interanimation of languages’ reached its high point (Burke 2004: 139). It did, however, continue into the seventeenth century, with the Dutchman Constantijn Huygens being one example of an almost compul- sive code switcher (Joby 2014f: Chapter 6). Nevertheless, the records from the register of baptisms in the Norwich Dutch church for 1676–1717 are written in Dutch alone.79 This second set of records forms part of the Register of the Dutch church in Norwich for 1676–1912 (pp. 1–14).80 This register also includes a number of membership lists in Dutch. One of these was begun in 1677 (p. 35). It lists the elders (Ouderlingen) and deacons (Diakenen) separately as well as the politicke mannen. They are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Below these the members are listed. Often male members have the words ende syn huysvrouw (‘and his wife’) after their names. Some names have the Latin obiit (‘deceased’) with the date of their death added after the list was compiled. This use of Latin has something in common with the addition of ux[or] after names in the London register discussed above. The total number of members on the 1677 Norwich list exceeds 170. The document also includes lists of those who had been accepted as new members. Typically these new members would bring an attestation (attestatie) from their previous church. These were documents used to verify that the people to whom they referred were bona fide members of a given church. The first entry in one of the lists, from July 1694, makes interesting reading (pp. 37–8):

Daniel Arnaud, geboortig in het Vorstendom van Oranien met een Fransche attestatie van Bergen-op-Zoom.

Daniel Arnaud, born in the Principality of Orange, with a French attestation from Bergen-op-Zoom.

Given Arnaud’s birthplace and the language of his attestation, why, one might ask, did he not present himself to the Walloon church in Norwich? The next entry is also interesting from a linguistic perspective, as it points to the continued, albeit limited, use of Latin in the church domain in the late seventeenth century:

79 For example, an entry from 1679 runs: 19 December 1679 Janneken Dochter van Arent Paulusz en syn huysvrouw Janneken getuigen . . . (‘19 December 1679. Janneken, daughter of Arent Paulusz. and his wife, Janneken, witnesses . . . ’). 80 lma clc/197/MS07385. A copy of this is held at the Norfolk Record Office: nro ms 21490. 102 CHAPTER 2

Petrus Geurts ende Matthias Vogts, beyde met Latijnsche attestatien van Sittard gelegen in ’t Hertogdom van Gulick.

Petrus Geurts and Matthias Vogts, both with Latin attestations from Sittard, situated in the Duchy of Jülich.

On 2 October 1698 Wilhelm Diderichs also arrived from Sittard, but his attestation was in (High) German (met een Hoogduytsche attestatie van Sittart). One wonders whether words in languages other than Dutch (and English) were exchanged between members of the Dutch church in Norwich as they entered and left the church. Another list, written in Dutch, consists of those members who had passed away from 1694 onwards (Register van de geene die gestorven zijn tot onze Nederduytsche Gemeynte binnen Norwich behoorende ’tzedert ’tJaar 1694) (pp. 41–2).81 The Norwich document also incorporates copies of registers from the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including one for a small number of marriages from the mid-eighteenth century in Dutch. Most of the records in the Register are in Dutch, though there is the occasional entry in English from the nineteenth century onwards. The final entries recording deaths in the early twentieth century are in Dutch. We have two final examples of registers to mention here. The first is one that records attestaties received in London between 1570 and 1829, preserved at the lma.82 Many of these were written in Dutch although some were written in Latin or English. Secondly we also have records in Dutch of marriages at the London Dutch church from 1571 to 1752.83

2.3.4 Simeon Ruytinck’s Treatise on an Agape Meal A document of quite a different nature was written by the minister of the London Dutch church, Simeon Ruytinck, in the early part of the seventeenth century. It concerns the introduction of a quarterly agape meal or Maeltyd der

81 A typical entry in this list is: 1695 Abigail Waller omtrent 76 jaar oud is gestorven den 21 July—en begraven in St. George a Coalgate (‘1695. Abigail Waller about 76 years old, died on 21 July—and was buried in St. George’s Colegate’). Another entry reminds us of the high infant mortality at this time: Den 26 April (1696) Anna Dogter van Abraham Kolijn zijnde een kind dat 3 maanden oud snel is gestorven op den 26 April, en is den volgenden dag begraven in St. Martins a Palace (‘26 April (1696) Anna daughter of Abraham Kolijn, being a child aged 3 months, died quickly on 26 April, and was buried on the following day in St. Martin’s, Palace Plain’). 82 lma clc/180/MS07386. 83 lma clc/180/MS07381 and clc/180/MS07382. Dutch In The Church 103

Liefde (‘Meal of Love’) at Austin Friars.84 Ruytinck, who was something of a polyglot, wrote the document entirely in Dutch, reflecting his desire that as many people as possible in the Dutch community in London should be able to read it.85 The document consists of two parts, each divided into seven short paragraphs. The first section provides a historical and Scriptural justification for the agape meal, whilst the second consists of specific rules that would guide the Dutch congregation in London when they celebrated the meal.86 Here, we should also mention that Ruytinck probably had a hand in writing the Corpus Disciplinae ofte Forme van Kerckordeninge (‘Book of Discipline or Form of Church Order’) compiled in Dutch in 1612 in order to promote the discipline and good order of the Dutch churches (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 135–52).

2.3.5 Memorials and Inscriptions To this day there is a memorial to the minister of the Dutch church in Norwich, Johannes Elison, mounted on a wall in the Blackfriars’ Hall in Norwich, in which the church congregation worshipped (Fig. 7). This includes two elegies written in Dutch. The first of these is a quatrain written in alexandrines:

Den waerden ELISON wiens heyl’ge leer en leven Soo quamen overeen en maeckten paden even,

84 The document is entitled: Acte Aengaende de Maeltyden der Liefde die voortaen onder de dienaren des woords ende d’ouderlinghen der Gemeinte Christi tot London sullen ghehouden werden tot meerder bevestinghe van t’onderlinghe broederschap (‘Document concerning the Meals of Love, which henceforth will be held by the Ministers of the Word and the elders of the Congregation of Christ in London for the further strengthening of mutual brotherhood’). 85 According to a poem in Dutch by Johannes Brouart written after Ruytinck’s death, he knew six languages: Dutch, English, French, Greek, Hebrew and Latin (Epicedia 1622: Klacht-ghedichten 8). 86 The first section has sub-sections with titles such as Oud gebruyck (‘Old custom’), Richtsnoer (‘Guidance’) and Hoe (‘How [the meal should be celebrated]’). This leads onto two further sections, Vreught (‘Joy’) and Matigheyt (‘Moderation’). The second section has sub-sections such as Tyd, Aenrichters, Plaetse and Spyse. The sub-section of Tyd (‘Time’) tells us that the meal would be held quarterly, on the first Tuesday in October, January, April and July (October, Januarius, Aprilis and Julius). The section Aenrichters (‘Instigators’) tells us who would organize each meal; under Plaetse (‘Place’) we read De plaetse sal zyn der de nooders bequaemst zullen vinden (‘The place shall be the one that those inviting find most suitable’); and under Spyse (‘Food’) we read De spyse die bereydt wordt en zal niet moghen smaken noch te riecken na overdadigheyt (‘The food that will be prepared shall not taste or smell of excess’), reflecting the sobriety of the Reformed tradition (Grell 1996: 191–200; lma clc/180/MS10055, fols. 132r.–134r.). 104 CHAPTER 2

Leijdt hier in’t Stof ontzielt wiens Hemels-vloeyend stem Nu swijght en syns gelyck en komt’er geen na hem.

Worthy ELISON, whose holy teaching and life Were in such harmony with each other and made paths even, Lies here in the dust, lifeless; his Heaven-sweet voice Is now silent and after him no more like him will come.

The second Dutch poem on the memorial to Elison is an eight-line verse in alternating masculine and feminine alexandrines:

Hier Rust ’t Eerwaard gebeent’ ons Vaders Elisons Die door Godts woord ons ziel doorstraalde als de zon Bevroore aarde doed. En deed weer als herleven, Ons gansch bevroore ziel. Hij leijden ons ten leven Steeds door hem zelfs betracht, daar hij is voorgegaan. Hij leerden ons ten heijl om bij Godt wel te staan Hij kreegh zijn avond hier en wacht een blijde morgen Hij wrocht zijn zalicheijd, in’t leven vol VAN ZORGEN.

Here lie the Reverend bones of our Father Elison, Who, through God’s word, irradiated our soul as the sun does Frozen earth. And made, as it were, our completely frozen soul come alive Once more. He led us towards the life, Always lived by himself, in which he led the way. He taught us for our salvation to be right with God He met his evening here and awaits a happy morn He wrought his salvation, in this life full OF CARES.

The name inscribed under these poems is Franc de Bruynne. Unfortunately he does not appear elsewhere in the surviving records. The fact that in each case, the caesura of the alexandrines falls after the third iamb suggests that the author was a poet of some merit. In the early days of the Dutch presence in the cities of southern England such valedictions were probably commonly written in Dutch, yet I have only come across one other inscription outside London; this is again in Norwich, in the parish church of St. Michael’s, Coslany, which lies a few hundred yards north-west of Blackfriars’ Hall, where the Dutch church congregation worshipped. It was transcribed in the nineteenth century and ran (Moens 1887–8: 137; Meeres 2014): Dutch In The Church 105

figure 7 The memorial to Johannes Elison. Blackfriars’ Hall, The Halls Norwich, Norwich City Council Author’s own collection 106 CHAPTER 2

Hier licht begraven Franchoys van der Beke, fs. Huberts van Ypre wyt Vlandren Sterf af den xviii dach May Anno Mccccclxxxvij.

Here lies buried Franchoys van der Beke, son of Hubert from Ieper in Flanders. Died on the 18th day of May in the year 1587.

The use of the Latin f [iliu]s (‘son’) as well as Anno (‘In the year’) is another example of the intermixing of Latin and Dutch, also found in the early membership and baptismal records discussed above.87 Before wwii there were many memorial inscriptions at Austin Friars in London. These were lost when the church was bombed in the war, but thank- fully many of them were transcribed by W.J.C. Moens towards the end of the nineteenth century (Moens 1884: 160–207). Several of these are in English, but the majority are in Dutch. Some of the names are familiar, such as those of Joshua and Gerard Neck, leading members of the London Dutch community in the early eighteenth century. An example from the period under review is as follows (p. 179):

Hier light begraven Josyna Schapelinck oudt 76 Jaeren Gestorven en den 9 Feb. 1689/90 Ende Haere Suster Anna Schapelink Wed[uwe] van John Ellsworthy Overleden den 30 Sepr. 1700 Oudt 77 Jaren.

Here lies buried Josyna Schapelinck 76 years old, died on 9 Feb. 1689/90 and her sister Anna Schapelink, widow of John Ellsworthy. Died 30 Sept. 1700, aged 77.

We know that inscriptions in Dutch of a different sort could be seen on the windows in the church at Austin Friars because one of the members, Cornelius Duyts, wrote to the consistory on 25 April 1644 asking whether the inscriptions were idolatrous. Duyts clearly felt they were and referred to Bible verses to support his position (H 87: iii, ii, 1928):

Ja wat meer is men vint in sommege van die glase vensteren duese afgo- disce gheschriften: De tempel onses Heere Jesum Christum, en in anderen Jesus tempel; of dit is na den regel der schriftuere dat laet ick v.L. ordelen wt duese navolgende schriftuer plaetse: Actorum cap. 7: 48–17: 24; 1 Cor. cap. 3: 16. 17–6: 19; Jeremia cap. 7: 4.

87 St. Michael’s is no longer used as a church and access is not possible, so it is impossible to confirm whether this inscription still exists. Dutch In The Church 107

Indeed, what is more, in some of the glass windows there are idolatrous inscriptions: ‘The Temple of our Lord Jesus Christ and in another ‘Jesus’ temple’; whether this is according to the rule of scripture I shall let you judge from the following places in scripture: Acts ch. 7: 48–17: 24; 1 Cor. ch. 3: 16, 17–6: 19; Jeremiah ch. 7: 4.

Finally in this regard Grell notes that Sir Balthazar Gerbier (1592–1663/1667), a multi-talented Zeelander from Middelburg, who amongst other things trained as a calligraphic artist, painted the Ten Commandments in the Dutch church in London in 1617 (Grell 1996: 134; odnb). Though it is not known for certain, Gerbier’s inscription was probably in Dutch.

2.3.6 Books Printed in Dutch After the Dutch church in London had been established in 1550 its leaders, in particular the minister, Marten Micron, and the elder, Johannes Utenhove, wrote a number of books for use in that church, which were subsequently used by other Dutch churches in England. The fact that these books were written in Dutch served the very practical purpose of providing texts that were accessible to the congregation, and reflected a clear move away from the use of Latin to the vernacular in Protestant liturgies. Before considering the details of the books they wrote, a little background is in order.

2.3.6.1 The Background of the Early Leaders of the London Dutch Church The superintendent of the Dutch church from its founding in 1550 until 1553 was a Polish nobleman, Johannes à Lasco. For five years in the 1540s, he had been superintendent of Protestant churches in East Frisia, before moving to London at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. He had some knowledge of Low German but there is no evidence that he knew Dutch. His major contributions to the literature of the early Dutch church in London were in Latin, and he may well have used this language when speaking with Cranmer, with whom he lodged for a while (Micron 1956: 2; Lindeboom 1950: 3–4; Pettegree 1986: 31).88 The minister, Micron, was most probably born in Ghent in 1523, and after spending a number of years in other European cities that had accepted the Reformed faith, including Strasbourg and Basel, he arrived in London in 1549 (Micron 1956: 2–3). He wrote a number of works in Dutch for use in the London

88 It was very common for the Polish nobility to speak Latin at this time (Burke 1991: 36–7; Axer 1998). See also Burke (2004: 46) on the use of Latin in early modern Poland. 108 CHAPTER 2 church. He also wrote and read Latin. The other minister, Wouter Delen (Delenus) (c. 1500–1563), came from Brabant. He studied at Leuven and then taught Hebrew and Greek in Amsterdam. He moved to England in 1535, where he became King Henry viii’s biblioscopus, producing a Latin New Testament in 1540. One of the elders of the Dutch church was Johannes Utenhove (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 17; Lindeboom 1950: 14–15). He was born in 1516, like Micron, in Ghent. He, too, was educated at Leuven, at a time when Latin was the language of instruction at European universities. He arrived in England in 1548, and one of his first acts there was to set up a Walloon church in Canterbury. He returned to England in 1549, and headed for London, where he was appointed as an elder of the Dutch church in 1550 (Lindeboom 1950: 6–7). It is not clear why he became a member of the Dutch church rather than the Walloon church in London, but like several of his colleagues he was an accomplished multilingual. All of these leaders knew Latin and some of the early Reformed church’s documents and letters were written in that language. However, the leaders of the Reformation recognized that the clergy should not have a monopoly on knowledge; something they accused their Catholic counterparts of retaining. Therefore, there was a shift towards the vernacular, in this case Dutch. We see this most clearly in the liturgical, confessional and pedagogical documents written in Dutch in the first three years of the existence of the Dutch church in London.

2.3.6.2 Church Documents Written in Dutch 1551–1553 In 1551 Utenhove produced ‘A Short Synopsis of the Doctrines of the true and same Community, which has been established by the Communities of Aliens in London’ (Een cort begrip der Leeringhen van die waerachtighe ende eender Ghemeynten, dewelcke door de Ghemeynten der Wytlandischen te Londen is inghestelt). This was in fact a translation of a Latin work by the superintendent, à Lasco, Compendium doctrinae in qua Peregrinorum Ecclesia Londini constituta est (‘A Collection of the doctrine upon which the London Church of Aliens is constituted’) (Micron 1956: 3–4; Pijper 1883: 72).89 Translation into the vernacular was an increasingly common feature of the linguistic landscape in early modern Europe, as the dominance of Latin was increasingly being challenged. A Lasco’s knowledge of Dutch was clearly limited, so it was necessary for someone else, in this case Utenhove, to translate the work to make it available to a

89 Pijper has instituta rather than constituta. He also notes that Utenhove’s Dutch version is not so much a translation as an adaptation of the original Latin; whilst the latter was intended for a learned public, the former was intended for the practical use of the Church. Dutch In The Church 109

figure 8 The titlepage of Johannes Utenhove’s De Catechismus oft Kinderleere diemen te Londen in de Duydtssche Ghemeynte was ghebruyckende Courtesy of the Dutch Church in London. Author’s own collection 110 CHAPTER 2 wider audience. Furthermore, the translation had a practical purpose in that the document acted to some extent as a Confession of Faith, for those who wanted to join the Dutch church in London had to sign it (Lindeboom 1950: 16; Pijper 1883: 74–5; Burke 2004: 79–81).90 During his time in charge of the Protestant churches in East Frisia in the 1540s, à Lasco had used the Emden Catechism (Emder Catechismus), which consisted of 250 questions and answers written in Low German.91 In 1551 Utenhove translated this into Dutch, giving it the title, De Catechismus oft Kinderleere diemen te Londen in de Duydtssche Ghemeynte was ghebruyckende (‘The Catechism or Instruction for Children, which was being used in London in the Dutch Community’) (fig. 8). The title includes the words ‘was being used in London’ because the catechism was first printed not in London, but in Emden, in 1557, several years after the leaders of the Dutch church had been forced to leave England as a result of the Marian persecutions (Lindeboom 1950: 16).92 However, Utenhove concludes his preface to the work with the phrase Te Londen desen xv, maje, anno. 1553, i.e., in London on 15 May 1553, and it is clear from the information given here that the Catechism was both written and used in London. Een cort begrip, which served as a Confession of Faith, and De Catechismus oft Kinderleere, both written in London, were the first documents of their kind to be produced in Dutch (cf. Van den Branden 1956: 302). On reading Een cort begrip one word that jumps out from the page is meughen. This is a form of mog(h)en (‘to be allowed to’), which is another example of vowel fronting, associated primarily with Vlaams (Utenhove was born in Ghent in East Flanders), and less so with Hollands (Willemyns 2013: 73). Further research may uncover other such marked forms. Another avenue for further investigation is the extent to which words used in Een cort begrip and other documents produced in Dutch for the London Dutch church are the first instances of the use of these words. Since several of these texts were the first of their kind to be produced in Dutch, it is quite possible that some of the words they contain are also the first examples of their usage in written Dutch. Finally, Peter Burke makes the point that the printing of the first books in certain vernaculars owed more to the impetus of the Reformation than to

90 For more on translation into and out of Dutch in the early modern period, see Burke (2005/6: 16–19). 91 In some sources, the language is referred to as East Frisian. 92 This catechism was printed in an edition ghedruckt te Embden (‘printed in Emden’), by Gellium Ctematium. Anno. 1557. Dutch In The Church 111 the Renaissance and the publication of these books provides weight to this argument (Burke 2004: 78). In the same year that Utenhove translated à Lasco’s catechism, he also produced the first ten of his metrical psalms for use by the London congregation. Although no copies survive, we know from a later source that they were published by Steven Mierdman in London in 1551 (Luth 1997: 3–5; Lenselink 1959: 250–1).93 S.J. Lenselink has studied these metrical psalms in detail and concludes that one of them is Utenhove’s own versification; another (Psalm 1) is a re-working of a Souterliederken from the collection of Willem van Zuylen van Nyevelt, composed in 1540, and the other eight are translations from the German. The Souterliederkens were popular Dutch metrical psalms and it is likely that they were sung by the Dutch in house meetings in London before the establishment of the church at Austin Friars in 1550 and possibly in the church services before Utenhove produced his versifications in the first half of 1551 (Lenselink 1959: 275). One commentator notes that a particular advantage that Utenhove’s metrical psalms enjoyed over the Souterliederkens was that Van Nyevelt’s versifications were ‘set in a worldly manner’ (op wereldsche wijzen gesteld), whilst his own versions can be seen as the first versifications specifically intended to be sung in church (Pijper 1883: 78). Lenselink argues that Utenhove’s re-working of Psalm 1 demonstrates that he was keen to make the Souterliederken ‘comprehensible . . . and singable’ (verstaanbaar . . . en zing- baar). The source of the eight psalms that Utenhove translated from German is Bonner’s Gesangbuch, first published in 1544 (Lenselink 1959: 255–6). The translations contain Germanisms, which arise from Utenhove’s desire to ensure that his verses rhymed (Lenselink 1959: 275). In the same year Utenhove published an edition of 25 metrical psalms, including the initial ten. Of the 15 additional versifications, only three were based on original German texts. Three were translations of metrical psalms by the French poet, Clément Marot, and a further two were based on versifications by Marot (Lenselink 1959: 309). Again, no copies of this edition survive, but the psalms were included in an edition printed in Emden in 1557, and in another edition printed in Emden in 1558, which also included psalm 119. Reference to London in the title of both editions makes it clear that these metrical psalms had been sung at Austin Friars.94

93 See also Micron (1956: 3); Lindeboom (1950: 16–17); and de Bruin (1937: 224–5). King (1999: 168) describes Mierdman as ‘a Dutch immigrant to London’. 94 The title of the 1558 edition is: 26. Psalmen ende ander ghesangen, diemen in de Duydtsche Ghemeynte te Londen, was Ghebruyckende (‘26 Psalms and other hymns, which were being used in the Dutch Community in London’). It was ghedruckt te Embden, by Gellium 112 CHAPTER 2

In 1552 Marten Micron wrote a Small Catechism (Kleyne Catechismus) consisting of 134 questions and answers for the younger members of the Dutch community (Micron 1956: 3; Lindeboom 1950: 16).95 In 1553 a book was produced for those who wished to partake of the Lord’s Supper, entitled Een Corte Ondersouckinghe des gheloofs . . . (‘A Short Examination of faith . . . .’). Versions of this were written in Latin and Dutch, although the precise relationship between the two versions is unclear. One possible scenario is that à Lasco wrote the Latin version, which was then translated into Dutch, possibly by Utenhove once more. Anyone who wanted to partake of the Lord’s Supper had to be able to learn to recite the answers in the Ondersouckinghe within a reasonable period of time (Micron 1956: 3–4; Lindeboom 1950: 16–17; Pijper 1883: 82–4). This was later to be incorporated into the Dutch psalter of Petrus Dathenus, of which more below. In 1553 King Edward vi died. He was succeeded by his half-sister, Mary, who was intent on turning England back to Catholicism. Many of the members of the Dutch church in London including à Lasco, Micron and Utenhove, left England and a good number, including these leaders of the church, finally reached Emden.96 Micron and Utenhove in particular continued to produce religious works in Dutch.

2.3.6.3 Works Published in Emden by the Leaders of the London Dutch Church In 1554 the first edition of Micron’s Christian Ordinances was published (Microen: 1554; fig. 9).97 The longer title is De Christelicke Ordinancien der Nederlantscher Ghemeynten Christi die vanden Christelicken Prince Co. Edewaerdt den vi. in’t iaer 1550 te Londen inghestelt was (‘The Christian Ordinances of the Dutch Community of Christ which was established in the year 1550 in London by the Christian Prince, King Edward vi’). According to the title page, the book was printed by Collinus Volckwinner buyten Londen

Ctematium (‘printed at Emden by gc’) on 28 January 1558. The edition of 25 of Utenhove’s psalm versifications was also ghedruckt te Embden, by Gellium Ctematium, on 4 April 1557. It also includes musical settings for the Nunc Dimittis (Nu laetstu dynen knecht, In vrede Here gaen gherecht), the Ten Commandments, The Apostles’ Creed (Wy ghelooven in eenen God alleyn), and the Lord’s Prayer, and a number of prayers in prose: Een ghebedt voer t’smorghens in’t opstaen; Ghebedt voer t’savendts in’t slapen gaen; Ghebedt voer eten; and Ghebedt nae eten. 95 See also Heiting (1989). 96 Dankbaar states that 175 members of the church left England at this time (Micron 1956: 3). 97 A copy of the first edition is preserved in the archive at Austin Friars in London, and a digitalized version can be consulted online at eebo. Dutch In The Church 113

figure 9 The titlepage of Marten Micron’s Christelicke Ordinancien Courtesy of the Dutch Church in London. Author’s own collection 114 CHAPTER 2

(‘outside London’). For many years it was believed that Collinus Volckwinner was a pseudonym for Gillis van den Erven, who had also been a member of the Dutch community in London, and who had moved to Emden as a result of the Marian persecutions. More recent scholarship identifies Volckwinner as Nicolaes van den Berghe (Pettegree and Walsby 2011). Although it was printed buyten Londen (probably Emden), it is likely that most if not all of Micron’s Christian Ordinances are based on those used by the Dutch church in London before its members were forced into exile, and therefore that the work was written in London (Micron 1956: 11–12). Abraham Kuyper detected that De Christelicke Ordinancien was a rework- ing in Dutch of a more extensive Latin Forma ac Ratio produced by à Lasco (Micron 1956: 7–8).98 This is a further example of how much of the Dutch literature produced for the church community at this time was derived from original Latin texts. In relation to Micron’s Dutch I have not found any notably marked dialectal forms in it. It is of course possible that any such markers could have been removed as the text was being prepared for printing. After Mary I’s death in 1558, a second edition of De Christelicke Ordinancien was printed in London in 1560, and two editions were printed in 1563 (Micron 1956: 4–6).99 An edition was subsequently printed in Delft in 1582 and a German translation in Heidelberg in 1565. As with other texts discussed in this section, the Ordinances for the London church were the first to be produced by a church in the Reformed faith in the Dutch language. Subsequent ordinances borrowed passages and in some cases whole sections from the London Ordinances. Even in the middle of the twentieth century, some of the passages in a book of liturgical formulae for the Dutch Reformed Church, published in 1955, owed their origin to Micron’s 1554 work, although in some cases they had been modified (Micron 1956: 29). In 1556 Utenhove published a Dutch translation of the Greek New Testament (Utenhove 1556).100 This can be seen as part of a general trend towards producing Bible translations in the vernacular, which saw William Tyndale translate

98 One other document, which seems to owe something to the Forma ac Ratio, is a concise church order for the Dutch church at Sandwich written in about 1562 in Latin. The manuscript containing this church order entitled RITUS MINISTERII ECCLESIASTICI IN ECCLESIA BELGICA ZANDWICI was found in Lambeth Palace Library (Ms. 2002 fols. 49r.– 51v.) and has been published by Boersma (1994: 280–2). 99 A number of authors point to the influence of the work on ordinances in the Dutch congregation in London on the first revision of the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1552. Micron (1956: 23); Davies (1948: 27); Van Schelven (1951: 144ff.); and The First and Second Prayer Book of King Edward vi (1927: 448). 100 Subsequent editions were published in 1562, 1565 and 1566. Dutch In The Church 115 the Bible into English and Martin Luther translate it into the German of the Saxon chancery (Burke 2004: 103). The shift away from the common language of the Latin of the Vulgate would inevitably lead to a fragmentation of meaning and to what Peter Burke refers to as different ‘communities of interpretation’ (Burke 2004: 52). As with Micron’s Ordinances, the first edition of Utenhove’s Dutch New Testament was published in Emden. However, it is also probable, although admittedly not beyond dispute, that this work had begun life in London well before Utenhove was forced to leave the city in 1553 (cf. Lindeboom 1950: 28). One of the distinctive features of Utenhove’s New Testament translation is the use of ‘German forms’ such as am, dem and wenn, and the word aver (‘but’ cf. German aber), which is something of an artificial linguistic construc- tion, but which can be seen as part of an early attempt to develop a standard vernacular.101 Andrew Pettegree writes that Utenhove’s New Testament translation was aimed at producing ‘a Dutch text, which would be comprehensible to readers from all parts of the Netherlands’.102 He is certainly correct in identifying Utenhove’s desire to make his translation broadly accessible, but Utenhove clearly wanted to forge a language, which went beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. Marijke van der Wal argues that Utenhove’s use of words from beyond the borders of the Netherlands was inspired by the range of dialects spoken in Emden (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 201–2). However, others, such as Karel Porteman and Mieke Smits-Veldt (2008: 55), and, somewhat earlier, C.C. de Bruin (1937: 231), argue that Utenhove was already devel- oping this style of language in London, and indeed there were speakers of a number of Germanic dialects in London in the mid-sixteenth century.103 Each argument has its merits and although I tend to side with the latter argument, it may be that both London and Emden played a role in Utenhove’s use of these Germanic words. One other notable linguistic feature of Utenhove’s translation of the New Testament is his use of the spelling guidelines, which promote phonetic spelling, produced by Joos Lambrecht of Ghent in his Nederlandsche Spellijnghe, published in 1550. Few other writers applied Lambrecht’s spelling guidelines (Van der Sijs 2006: 79). Utenhove’s New Testament can be placed within a broader context of attempts at this time to produce Bible translations that covered a range of varieties

101 Van der Wal and Van Bree (1991: 202) refer to Duitse vormen, which I translate as ‘German forms’. 102 Quoted in Burke (2004: 104). 103 See note 8 in the prologue for the problem of trying to identify how many ‘Germans’ or speakers of varieties of German there were in London at this time. 116 CHAPTER 2 of the same or related languages. For example, in the middle of the sixteenth century, there was more than one project to produce Bible translations incorporating different Slavic languages and dialects (Burke 2004: 105). Finally, although a number of other Bible translations into Dutch had been produced in the preceding years, it is Utenhove’s translation of the New Testament which can be seen as the first step towards the States Bible (Statenbijbel), which was first published in 1637 and which influences Dutch Bible translation to this day (de Bruin 1937: 224–34).104 We should also add here that the States Bible was another example of a Bible translation, which drew on a range of language varieties. In this instance, Pettegree’s earlier comment about Utenhove’s Bible is applicable as the translators of the States Bible drew on a range of dialects across the Dutch language area.

2.3.6.4 Liturgical Works Published in Dutch in the Early Elizabethan Period Of the three leaders of the Dutch church in London who had been so productive in the three years before the accession of Mary I, à Lasco, Micron and Utenhove, only Utenhove returned to England after the accession of Elizabeth i, arriving towards the end of 1559 (Beeman 1933–37: 278). He had continued to produce rhymed psalm versifications during his time in Emden and wrote more of them after his return to London. He managed to complete the versification of all the psalms before he died in 1565.105 They were published posthumously by John Day (Ian Daye) in London on 12 September 1566 (Ghedruckt to Londen by Ian Daye den 12. Septembris. 1566) under the title De Psalmen Davidis, in Nederlandischer sangs-ryme, door Ian Wtenhove van Ghentt (‘The Psalms of David, in Netherlandish song-rhyme, by Jan Utenhove of Ghent’). In 1571 the Dutch church in London decided to replace Utenhove’s psalm versifications with those of Petrus Dathenus, which were based on the French psalter of Marot and Beza. One of the reasons stated for adopting Dathenus’

104 One passage that illustrates this is I Corinthians 13 5a. Utenhove’s version runs, Zij handelt niet ongheschicktlick (‘[Love] does not insist on her own way’). The States Bible runs Sij en handelt niet ongeschicktelick. If we compare this with the Deux-Aes Bible, which was produced by members of the Dutch community in exile, and was intended to be an improve- ment on Utenhove’s New Testament, we read Sij en draecht haer niet oneerlick (‘[Love] does not behave dishonourably’) (de Bruin 1937: 268). So in this case at least the States Bible is much closer to Utenhove’s version than to the Deux-Aes Bible. De Bruin (268) provides another example using James 3: 14. 105 There is disagreement over the year of Utenhove’s death. Some sources have 1565, whilst others have 1566. Dutch In The Church 117 psalter was that the Dutch in it was ‘better and more suitable’ than that of its predecessor (de psalmen Datheni in beter en bequamer Nederlandtscher spraken staen) (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 168). However, two hymns written by Utenhove were included in Dathenus’ psalter, one of which, een kort gebed voor de predicatie (‘a short prayer before the sermon’), though somewhat altered, continued to be used by the Dutch Reformed Church into modern times (Luth 1997: 10–11; Lindeboom 1950: 18).106 It is worth noting in passing that Dathenus had been a typesetter for a London printer in the 1550s and a member of the Dutch church at Austin Friars. He knew Utenhove and his psalm versifications, no doubt singing some of the early settings, which Utenhove published in 1551. He was quite critical of Utenhove’s approach and adopted a quite different one both in terms of choice of language and musical settings (Leaver 1991: 278). Three years before the Dutch church in London began to use Dathenus’ psalter, an edition of it was printed in Norwich by an immigrant from Brabant, Anthonie de Solempne:107 De cl. Psalmen Davids wt den Franchoyschen Dichte in Nederlantschen ouverghesett door PETRUM DATHENUM 1568 (‘The 150 Psalms of David translated from the French versification into Dutch by Petrus Dathenus in 1568’) (stc 2741).108 This psalter was used by the Dutch church in Norwich before being introduced in London (Lindeboom 1950: 18). De Solempne also printed a Dutch catechism and a confession of faith. It is likely that both books were used in the Dutch church at Norwich.109 On 2 January 1570, the minister at Sandwich, Jacob Bucerus, wrote a letter in Latin to Gotfried Wingius, who was by now a minister at the London Dutch church, in which he commented that the Sandwich congregation was keen to

106 A list of books written in Latin and Dutch by à Lasco, Utenhove, Micron and other early leaders of the Dutch Church in London exists in manuscript and can be consulted at the London Metropolitan Archives (lma clc/180/MS10055, fols. 116r.–117r.). 107 In the Return of the Norwich Dutch church for 1568, Solempne is listed as tipographus cum uxore et duobus pueris ex Brabantia, i.e., a printer with a wife and two boys from Brabant. 108 De C.L. Psalmen Davids wt den Franchoyschen Dichte in Nederlantschen overghesett door Petrum Dathenum Mitsgaders den Christelicken Catechismo/Ceremonien/en Gebeden . . . Tot Noorwitz Gheprint by Anthonium de Solemne Anno mdlxviii. This edition of Dathenus’ psalter was bound together with a Catechism (Catechismus oft Onderwijsinghe in de Christelicke Leere) in one book. See also Joby (2012: 138) and Sessions and Stoker (1987). The psalter was first published in 1566. See also section 3.2.2.2. 109 Catechismus oft Onderwijsinghe in de Christelicke Leere (stc 2741) and Belijdenisse ende eenvoudige wtlegghinge des waerachtighen gheloofs (stc 23557). 118 CHAPTER 2 adopt Dathenus’ psalter. They had in all likelihood been using the psalms of Utenhove up to that point (H 87: ii, 332).110

2.3.7 Concluding Remarks on Written Dutch in the Church Domain So, we have seen that written Dutch was used in a variety of media in the church domain in early modern England. We have also seen that a variety of ‘Dutches’ were used, from the Dutch interwoven with Latin in early baptismal and membership records to the Dutch of Utenhove’s Bible inflected with German forms such as am. Furthermore, we have seen that church leaders often used dialectal forms in the letters they exchanged with other leaders, in particular in the second half of the sixteenth century. Although much of the early correspondence between leaders of the Dutch churches was in Latin, documents for confessional, liturgical and catechismal use were produced early on in Dutch, often translated from documents originally written in Latin. This reflects a general rise in the use of the vernacular predicated on the need for the faithful of the new Protestant movements to understand their denomination’s texts. The position of Latin in Protestantism was somewhat ambiguous, for on the one hand there was a desire to make a break from the language of the Roman Catholic Church, but on the other hand, many of those who led the Protestant churches were humanists educated in the Roman (and Greek) classical texts (Burke 1991: 24–7; 2004: 79; Joby 2014f: Chapter 1). This statement is somewhat broad-brush, for we perhaps need to talk of ‘Latins’, Vulgate vs. Neo-Latin, and recognize that there were moves to promulgate vernaculars within the Catholic Church. However, this takes us away from our central theme. Two documents written in English illustrate the need to use this language in particular situations in the church domain. One is an annual address by the Dutch church at Austin Friars to the Lord Mayor of London. An address in English has been preserved, which has the Dutch title Forme van jaerlicksche geluckwenschinge aen den Lo. Mayor deser stede (‘Form of annual congratula- tions to the Lord Mayor of this town’).111 The second is a form of public notice to marry for those planning to wed at the London Dutch church at Austin Friars, whose native tongue was English. It was entitled Forme van ondertrouwe so d’een partye Engels is en het Duyts niet en verstae (‘Form of public notice to marry if one party is English and does not understand Dutch’).112

110 According to the minutes of the London Dutch church, Sandwich had still not adopted Dathenus’ psalter by February 1571 (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 168). 111 lma clc/180/MS10055, fols. 32r.–v. 112 lma clc/180/MS10055, fol. 71r. Dutch In The Church 119

Several of the books discussed above were printed in Dutch for liturgical and educational use in these churches. This points to the fact that there was speaking and indeed singing in Dutch in the church domain in England, which takes us onto a discussion of the evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in this domain.

2.4 Spoken Dutch in the Church Domain: A Chronology

One way of looking at the use of Dutch in the church domain is to consider it as the H-language, i.e., the language of high status in the Dutch churches in England. However, I suggest that it might be more fruitful to view the use of Dutch in these churches in more existential terms. The churches were founded on the basis that the congregations would use their own tongue in their services (see for example the Charter of King Edward vi for the founding of the Stranger Church at Austin Friars in 1550 (H 87: iii, i, 4)). If they used English, that would jeopardize their existence, something we saw above in relation to the church at Mortlake, where one of the factors contributing to its demise in 1664 was that the preacher was delivering his sermons in English. In fact, Dutch was spoken throughout the period under consideration, i.e., 1550–1702, as a chronological account now illustrates. It goes without saying that given the historical nature of this study, no spoken sources survive, but we do have plenty of metalinguistic comment, from which to conclude that Dutch was spoken.

2.4.1 The Sixteenth Century Let us start with the church in London. As with the written sources discussed above, Latin was spoken in the early years of the church at Austin Friars, although not for the main Sunday sermon. In a letter to Heinrich Bullinger dated 14 August 1551, Marten Micron writes that two lectures a week were given in Latin, one by Johannes à Lasco and the other by Wouter Delenus (Robinson 1847: 574–7). Micron’s colleague, Johannes Utenhove, had written to Bullinger a few months earlier on 9 April 1551, and his letter gives us further insight into the language use at the Dutch church in London (Robinson 1847: 584–7). He wrote that the leaders were going to discuss scripture and the catechism in Latin with the English, and so Latin was used by those who knew it as a means of com- municating with similarly well-educated English humanists in London. He also wrote that Delenus would be expounding on Genesis in Latin. In February 1553 Micron wrote to Bullinger once more, informing him that à Lasco’s Latin 120 CHAPTER 2 lectures had been suspended due to the death of his wife (Robinson 1847: 581). The use of Latin in the church domain in London reflected a more general trend amongst Protestant reformers, who tended for a bilingual compromise, switching from the vernacular to Latin as the topic and audience required. It may well be that after the hiatus caused by the Marian persecutions, less Latin was spoken in the church at London, something that may also have been prompted by the fact that à Lasco did not return to the city. Turning to the Dutch that was spoken in the church domain, reference was made in the prologue to the possibility of societal multilingualism; varieties of Dutch used for everyday transactions such as greetings and valedictions and a hierolect used by the ministers in conducting services. Such a state of affairs is not uncommon in the domain of religion, although sometimes different languages, rather than different varieties of the same language, are involved. Two examples serve to illustrate this: in 1631 Persians were granted the privilege of a liturgy in classical Arabic; and historically the Catholic Church has used Latin (Burke 1991: 26). Above, reference was made to Roland Willemyns’ comments on the type of Dutch used in the Nederduits Reformed Churches in North America. This was, Willemyns tells us, ‘an archaic, highly-formal language’ (Willemyns 2013: 204). The reason for this, he continues, was that the preachers came from the Netherlands or had been trained there. It is likely that this form of the language was also used in the services of the Dutch churches in England and that similar reasoning can be applied to the case of England, for many of the preachers who served in the Dutch churches there came from the United Provinces or had been trained there. We have already seen that most of the early leaders of the London and Norwich Dutch churches came from the Low Countries. Theophilus Elison, who succeeded his father as minister of the Dutch church in Norwich in 1639, matriculated in theology at Leiden in 1630 along with Johannes Ruytinck, who served at Yarmouth and then Colchester (Grell 1996: 63). Indeed, nine of the seventeen ministers of the Dutch church in Colchester had studied theology at the University of Leiden. All of those who served there after 1666 until it closed in 1728 had been born in the United Provinces (Moens 1905: 89–91). This continuous stream of Dutch-speaking preachers from the Low Countries provided a fount and touchstone for the use of Dutch in the congregations and communities in England. Some of the congregations did not have a minister for certain periods. In such cases they would often read from collections of sermons, such as Heinrich Bullinger’s ‘Decades’. A Dutch translation of this was printed in Dordrecht in 1582 (Forster 1967: 125–6). It is likely that this was the book by Bullinger, referred Dutch In The Church 121 to in correspondence, which was used by the congregations at Halstead and Yarmouth when they were without a minister (H 87: iii, i, 810; 972). We find further evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in metalinguistic comment. In 1569 the mayor of Sandwich told the minister of the Walloon church in the town, who had been called before him (Backhouse 1995: 45):

[you should] observe the order and mynistrenge of the sacrements as the minister in the Fflemishe tonge dothe . . .

Two years later, in 1571, the Archbishop of Canterbury requested a census of the Strangers in Norwich who attended the ‘divine servis in their owne mother toungs’. The mayor of Norwich, Thomas Green, carried out the census and wrote (Slaughter 1933: 27–9):

The aforeseyde Straungers, be of twoo severall churches: the Duche churche, and Wallowne churche. And bothe theye do use their divine servis, and the administracion of Sacraments, in their owne Lauguadge . . .

In 1573 the deacons at the London Dutch church told the consistory that they found it unacceptable that English people who could not speak Dutch were admitted as witnesses to baptisms in the church (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 313). A letter dated 22 September 1576 from the minister of the Dutch church at Maidstone, who at this time was the seemingly ubiquitous Gotfried Wingius, and the elders of the church, to the Church Council at Canterbury (Kercklicke raadt van Kantelberge), contains further metalinguistic comment on the use of Dutch (H 87: iii, i, 393). They write:

Eerstelick dat ons door genade onser ghenadigher Konincklicke Majesteit niet alleene toeghelaten en es, hier te woonen . . . maer ooch . . . onse zielen te voeden met die exercitie des christelicker religie in onse moederlicke tale. Ten 2den dat onder dat woort exercitie verstaen wort, niet alleene prediken ende sacramenten uutrichten: maer oock de oordene, dienst, ende regier- inghe der ghemeinte.

First, that by the grace of our gracious Royal Majesty it is not only permitted to live here, but also to feed our souls with the exercise of the Christian religion in our mother tongue. Secondly, that by that word ‘exercise’ is understood not only preaching and the administration of the Sacraments: but also the order, service and government of the congregation. 122 CHAPTER 2

The letter reproduced by Hessels is in fact a draft letter and may not have been sent, so we have to be careful about the claims we make with it. However, it is striking that it was written in Dutch, for this may suggest that some of those at Canterbury, where the Stranger Church was Walloon, understood Dutch. In passing I should note that the digraph in the form ooch (‘also’) (Dutch ook) is close to that of the German auch, and is another example of the presence of eastern dialectal forms in Wingius’ Dutch (Willemyns 1979: 54; 2013: 76; see section 2.3.1). Did he perhaps use some of these in his preaching? At the colloquy in 1575 it was decided that ‘all the churches of our tongue (i.e., Dutch)’ (alle[] kercken onser tonghe) would meet later in the year, on 16 September, in Sandwich (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 5). At the colloquy in 1599 a decision was taken to follow the Dutch church order ‘as far as possible’ (soo veel moghelick is). The point was repeated at the colloquy of 1604 (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 99; 104). But Dutch was not merely spoken during services. It was also used in the prophesying sessions within Dutch churches, which took place after the services and were used by the Dutch ministers to explain their sermons and by members to ask them questions. These took place in London, Sandwich, Canterbury, Norwich and Colchester (Grell 1996: 62–3). Perhaps here a wider range of varieties of Dutch could be heard. As noted in the previous section, the minutes of the meetings of the London Dutch church were initially recorded in Dutch and Latin, but later on only in Dutch, and those of the colloquies of the Dutch churches in England were usually recorded in Dutch (Van Toorenenbergen 1872). It is sometimes the case that the language of written records differs from that of the speech acts on which they are based, although there is no reason to believe that this happened in these cases.113 At the colloquy of the Dutch churches held in Sandwich on 2 March 1581 the subject of the need for ‘an appropriate and clear translation’ (eene bequaeme ende claere oversetting) of the Bible ‘in our Dutch language’ (in onse Nederlantsche sprake) was raised (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 61). Clearly it was felt that the Deux-Aes Bible, first published in 1562, in part as a response to Utenhove’s New Testament, was not such a Bible. It would not be until 1637 that what is generally agreed to be the appropriate and clear translation of the

113 For example, when clergy in the medieval Catholic Church attended provincial synods, they may have employed the vernacular, whilst decrees were issued in Latin. In the early modern period, sermons given in the vernacular were sometimes published in Latin as well (Burke 1991: 25). However, the minutes of the London Dutch church and the colloquies were not published and I suggest that there it is reasonable to assume that at least parts of the meetings were held in Dutch. Dutch In The Church 123

States Bible was first published. Later, in 1644, the question was asked at the colloquy whether the older Bible translations (and by this is probably meant the Deux-Aes Bible in particular) should be removed from the churches and only the new Bible (i.e., the States Bible) should be read in church. The colloquy agreed to this, describing the States Bible as ‘excellent’ (treflijk), adding that the older translation that had been used contained many errors (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 327). As well as telling us that a Dutch Bible was read in church, this episode points to the fact that the Dutch used in Stranger churches continued to be directly influenced by linguistic developments in the United Provinces. Mention should also be made of the coetus, the monthly meeting of the Stranger churches in London. There were three distinct phases of the coetus. The first of these was from 1550–1553 when there were representatives of the Dutch and French congregations. These meetings were presided over by Johannes à Lasco. Given à Lasco’s own knowledge of languages, it may well be that at least parts of these meetings were conducted in Latin (Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 11). The coetus was restored in 1560, continuing to be convened until 1563, when it again went into abeyance and was restored once more in 1569, when a small contingent from the Italian church in London was admitted. We have minutes from the coetus meetings between 1575 and 1598, and, apart from one section in Latin, these are in French.114 It is likely that this is the language in which these coetus were conducted (Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 58–110).115

2.4.2 The Seventeenth Century At the colloquy of 1612 the Colchester congregation wanted to know if membership could be extended to young Englishmen apprenticed to Dutch masters. Permission was given to admit them as passanten, as along as this did not cause offence to local English clergy (Grell 1996: 60). The fact that these Englishmen were both working for Dutch masters and willing to attend the

114 The section in Latin records a sentence passed on Lowys Teri. It was written by Joannes Baptista Aurelius, the minister of the Italian church, and begins by stating that only ministers and elders from the French and Italian churches were present, i.e., not the Dutch. Aurelius may have written in Latin, as this may have been easier to read for the leaders of the other churches than Italian (Boersma and Jelsma 1997: 70–1). 115 In passing, we should note that the word ‘coetus’ itself is a Latin import into Dutch, although it does not appear in the wnt. The word is in the Latin fourth declension, and has the ablative form coetu. This is used correctly in the phrase in de coetu (‘in the coetus’), which appears in the records of the 1586 colloquy (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 86–7) (cf. den coetui (dative) gheproponeirt (‘proposed to the coetus’, H 87: iii, i, 327). 124 CHAPTER 2

Dutch church in Colchester may indicate that they understood some Dutch and points to a more widespread engagement with the language amongst local English people than one might have expected. At the London colloquy of 1624 there was a discussion about whether to include the Christian ordinances (kerckenordeninghe) of Johannes à Lasco and Marten Micron in the Corpus Disciplinae, and also about whether the Cort Begrijp (and by this I understand Utenhove’s 1551 Een cort begrip, which served as a Confession of Faith) was orthodox or not. So, there was clearly an ongoing debate about the liturgical and dogmatic material that had been written in Dutch in the early days of the church at Austin Friars (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 301–2). As we have seen, a Dutch church was established at Canvey Island in 1631. The articles of foundation stipulated that the church services would have to be conducted in Dutch. Evidence for the continued use of Dutch in the church at Maidstone comes in four letters in the Hessels collection written in the 1630s by the consistory of the Dutch church in the town to its counterpart in London expressing thanks that the leaders at Maidstone are able to preach the divine word and administer the Holy Sacrament in the Dutch tongue, something, they write, that they had been able to do for a long time (H 87: iii, ii, 1570; 1678; 1722; 1794).116 A major threat to the existence of the Dutch churches in England came in the 1630s from the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. He attacked the foreign churches in England because he feared that they were sheltering Puritans. The agent of the Swedish court in London, Michel le Blon, wrote of ‘the unrest that the bishop of Canterbury is stirring up against the Walloon and Dutch congregations’ (d’onrust die den bischop van Canterburi movert tegen de Walsche en Nederlandsche gemeenten) (Sellin 1998: 106). Laud drew up a series of Injunctions, including the requirement that the Dutch churches use a Dutch translation of the Anglican liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer, something Puritans would not be able to tolerate (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 305). In February 1635 the leaders of the foreign churches in Kent wrote a document in which they expressed their objections to Laud’s demand (H 87: iii, ii, 1682). Under the title ‘For the translation of the Liturgie’ they wrote:

116 To these we can add Hessels letter 394 from Maidstone to London (H 87: iii, i, 375). Cesare Calandrini endorsed this with the date 1630, although this was crossed out and replaced with 1576. However given that reference is made to Abraham vanden Bussche (Bossche), the former date must be correct (e.g., H 87: iii, ii, 1982). Dutch In The Church 125

We have a Liturgie of our owne which wee do allwayes use in our churches: 1. The reading of severall chapter out of the Canonicall scripture before Sermon.-2. The rehearsall of the x Commandements, and of the Apostles Creed.-3. The singing of Psalmes, with Prayers, Confessions and thanksgivings.-4. The preaching of the Holy word.-5. After Sermon publique prayers for all Nations and States.-6. The singing of Psalmes.-7. The dismission of the assembly with a blessing out of Numb. 6. This Liturgy wee have hitherto used conformably with the Dutch and French Churches beyond sea . . .

For our purposes this is interesting as it this demonstrates that the Dutch churches were using their own, Dutch, liturgy and also what the elements of that liturgy were. Another of Laud’s Injunctions was that all the members of the Stranger churches born in England should from 1 March 1635 attend their local English parish churches and all remaining members should use the Anglican liturgy translated into Dutch (or French for the Walloon churches). The Bishop of Norwich presented this demand in a letter to the consistory of the Dutch church in Norwich, to which it replied in February 1635 that (H 87: iii, ii, 1690):

Many [of the members of the Dutch Church, even though they were born in England] also that understand not well the English toungue, shall be little edified by the English prayers and sermons which they shall heare.

If we take this letter at face value then it demonstrates that some 70 years after the Dutch church in Norwich had been established, there were still members who knew little English. Of course, this would suit their purposes well so we have to be careful about drawing firm conclusions from this statement. However, what it and the previous quotation do illustrate is that the leaders of these church communities were able to write good English. Although Laud’s Injunctions were implemented it seems that they were widely ignored and they were finally rejected by the Long Parliament of 1640. However, they did have repercussions for the Stranger churches (Grell 1996: 45–8). Grell notes that the less committed members of these churches used Laud’s attacks as an opportunity to leave them. On the other hand, he argues in fact that far from extinguishing the Dutch churches, Laud’s assault on them lead to a sharpening of their Reformed religion and Dutch culture (Grell 1996: 84; 64). For our purposes, this discussion provides further evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in the Dutch churches in England at this time. Another external threat came from the growing number of independent churches, in particular from the ‘Separatists’, who, it was felt, were more 126 CHAPTER 2 concerned with church discipline than the Dutch churches. In response, the Dutch churches required new members to repeat the Kort Ondersoeck ofte Begrip (‘Short Examination or Synopsis’), an abridged version of the Heidelberg catechism written by the Middelburg minister, Herman Faukelius, and to demonstrate that they understood its contents (Grell 1996: 67). As previously noted, members of the Dutch churches joined the Baptists, Puritans and Quakers in the 1640s and 1650s. Evidence that a knowledge of English was an advantage for the church leaders comes in a letter written to the London church in 1639 by the Leiden professor, Anthonius Walaeus, in which he stated that he knew of an appropriate candidate for the vacant position of minister. One of the qualities of this man was that he understood English, having lived in England for a while (H 87: iii, ii, 1791). At the colloquy of 1641 the representatives of the London Dutch church asked whether someone could be a witness to a baptism (in a Dutch church) if he or she did not understand ‘our Dutch language’ (onze Duytsche tale). The answer was given that this was acceptable as long as the witness in question knew the content of the questions and accepted the answers from the heart (die antwoorden van herten toestaen) (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 314). This illustrates that Dutch was still the principal language in which services and rites were conducted at Austin Friars, but also suggests that there were some present, at least at baptisms, who did not have a good understanding of Dutch. At the same colloquy, the question was raised as to whether a preacher (leraar) in a Dutch church could hold an English benefice. It was decided that if it was already so, and if it was financially necessary, then it would be allowed. This tells us that by this time there were Dutch ministers in the Dutch churches in England who had an excellent command of English (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 317–8). The question was also raised at the joint synod of Dutch and French churches held in the same year. The fact that Jan Proost, the minister at Colchester and scriba (‘secretary’) for the synod, took the minutes in English provides further evidence of this (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 331). By the early 1650s the Dutch church at Maidstone was clearly coming towards the end of its life. This was made clear in a letter written in Dutch by the consistory at Maidstone to the London Dutch church dated 2 June 1653 (H 87: iii, ii, 2228). The letter provides a little window into the linguistic knowledge of its members and of those who were leaving the church to go over to the Anglican Church, for it tells us that many understood English as well as Dutch. On 3 October 1655 the Walloon congregation at Norwich petitioned Cromwell for a renewal of their former privileges granted by previous Sovereigns (Moens 1887–8: 106; 251). Cromwell granted them their ancient rights to enjoy ‘the free Dutch In The Church 127 exercise of their Religion in their native tongue’ on 2 July 1656. Although this was specifically in response to a petition by the Walloon congregation it is likely to have also applied to Dutch congregations.117 Also in 1655 there arose a controversy on Canvey Island, which became known, somewhat grandiloquently, as the ‘Battle of Canvey’ and which had a linguistic aspect to it. In 1654 Joannes Beauta(c)q had been appointed as the minister to the church. However, the Dutch church in London did not rat- ify his appointment because he was said to be of ill repute. In October 1655 Beautacq left to preach to the English in a farmhouse. On Whit Monday 1657 local English people, accompanied by Beautacq, assembled outside the church and demanded to use it. The Dutch, however, won the day and preaching in Dutch continued at Canvey into the early years of the eighteenth century. This episode illustrates well the competition that Dutch faced from English during the seventeenth century. This matter was clearly of great concern, for an extraordinary meeting of the Dutch churches in England was held in early 1656 in London to discuss it (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 357–67). At the meeting proposals were made to the Dutch leadership by the leaders of the French churches. These are recorded in French, which again points to a certain priority for French over Dutch where speakers of both languages came together in the church domain. However, to repeat a point made earlier, this may have more to do with the language skills of the Dutch rather than being a indicator of the relative status of each language (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 359–60). After the Restoration, the Act of Uniformity (1662) and the Test Act (1673) provided further challenges to the Dutch churches. Some members responded by moving to the local Anglican parish church, whilst others emigrated. Of those who remained in the Dutch churches many by now lacked a full command of spoken Dutch. At the colloquy of 1666, the question of public confession was discussed. One reason given for why someone might not make a public confession is that they might lack the ability to do so in Dutch (ut gebrec van de Nederlantsche tale) (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 361). In 1669, when a new minister, Dom. Teelingh, arrived in Yarmouth, he was surprised that the church members wanted to speak with him in English (H 87: iii, ii, 2444). This illustrates well that a significant language shift towards English had taken place amongst the members of the church in Yarmouth, something that was probably happening in the other Dutch churches in England by this time.

117 The licence makes clear that it was granted because the Walloons were Protestant strangers and had been granted the right to worship from the time of King Edward vi. The same conditions applied to the Dutch congregation in Norwich. 128 CHAPTER 2

Despite this, the Dutch language was still an essential mark of the Dutch churches in England. At the colloquy of 1660 the question was raised about the extent to which the Dutch churches had to concern themselves with other Stranger congregations ‘of another language’ (van een andere tale). One assumes that the French congregations above all are being alluded to here. They were said to be in great disunity, which was a nuisance to many people (die in groote oneenigheden sijn, tot ergenisse van velen) (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 369). It was common practice for Dutch diplomatic delegations to England to be accompanied by preachers. In the diary he kept on a diplomatic mission to England in 1651–1652, Lodewijck Huygens noted that Dutch sermons were preached at his lodgings (Lodewijck Huygens 1982: 97). Over twenty years later, on 21 October 1674, the Dutch church in London had a guest preacher. This was the Dutch minister in The Hague, Johannes Vollenhove, who was in England with a diplomatic delegation despatched to London in the wake of the Third Anglo-Dutch War. On other Sundays during the five months or so that the delegation was in England, Vollenhove preached to its members (Vollenhove 2001: 28–9). In a poem he wrote in 1679, Constantijn Huygens, Lodewijck’s father, who knew Vollenhove, made fun of his speech by adding a final ‘e’ to most of the words, a feature Willem Frijhoff ascribes to Vollenhove’s Overijssel dialect (spoken in the east of the United Provinces) (Constantijn Huygens 1892–9: viii, 242; Frijhoff 2010: 36). Whether Vollenhove did in fact add a final (unstressed) ‘e’ (schwa) to his words is not known, but that is clearly the implication in the poem of the Hollander, Huygens (Dibbets 2007: 165; lines 1–2 and 6–8):

Mijn Vriendt-e Vollenhoven-e, ’t Is niet-e te gelooven-e ...... Dat ghij spreeckt-e Met staerten-e veel woorden-e Die Hollandt-e noijt hoorden-e.

My Friend Vollenhove, It is unbelievable ...... That you pronounce with tails many words that Holland never heard.118

118 Huygens signed the poem with his Latin name, but again adds an extra ‘e’ (Constanter-e) for comic effect. Dutch In The Church 129

In the previous section evidence was adduced for the written use of Dutch in the records of the Dutch Chapel Royal. One piece of evidence for the spoken use of the language comes in February 1695, when Aemilius van Culemborg delivered an oration in Dutch at the Dutch Chapel Royal ‘covering the deeds of William iii from the Boyne to the death of Mary ii’. This was subsequently published by Henry Hills (Wright 2007: 639, n. 36).119 By the end of the seventeenth century some of the remaining Dutch churches were quite poor and had difficulty in supporting a full-time minister. This prompted the leaders of the churches at Norwich and Sandwich to ask at the colloquy in 1696 whether someone serving in their churches could also hold a position in an English church. A similar question had been asked at the colloquy of 1641. In 1696 an answer was given in the affirmative (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 383–4).

2.4.3 The Eighteenth Century Several pieces of evidence illustrate that Dutch was still spoken, at least for the sermons, in Dutch churches in England into the eighteenth century, taking us well beyond the end date for this book. In 1706, at the colloquy of Dutch churches in London, the question was asked whether the representatives of the church at Canvey Island could still attend the colloquies. The following answer was given:

ja, bijaldien zij den dienst in de Nederduytsche taal onderhouden, beroepende zodanigen eenen tot haren Predikant, die in ’t Duytsch kan prediken en niet alleen in ’t Engelsch.

yes, as long as they hold the service in the Dutch language, appointing as their preacher someone who can preach in Dutch (’t Duytsch) and not only in English.

After 1706 Dutch congregations were still meeting in Sandwich, Colchester, Norwich and London (Austin Friars and the Dutch Chapel Royal). A couple of pieces of evidence point to the continued use of Dutch for preaching at Colchester. In 1708 a translation into English was produced of a sermon in Dutch given by the minister at Colchester, Cornelius Pieter Schrevelius. In 1726 one of the richer and more successful members of the Dutch community at Colchester, Sir Isaac Rebow, wrote his will. In it he bequeathed an annual

119 lma clc/180/MS10055, fol. 177v. 130 CHAPTER 2 sum of £8 to the minister and poor of the Dutch community in Colchester as long as:120

. . . there shall be preaching in the Dutch language in the church chappell or place used . . . for that purpose.

Rebow died in the same year and the church ceased to function in 1728/9. In Norwich yearly church services were held in Dutch into the first decades of the twentieth century (Woods 1981: 76). Finally, weekly services are held in Dutch to this day at Austin Friars in London, which is staffed by Dutch speakers. Roland Willemyns recently wrote concerning Dutch churches in North America (Willemyns 2013: 204):

The fact that the Dutch language and the Church remained so closely linked together for more than a century supported the preservation of Dutch in the United States for a long time.

To my mind, the presence of Dutch churches in English towns and cities such as Colchester, Great Yarmouth, Norwich and Sandwich helped to support the preservation of the language in a similar manner throughout the early modern period.

2.5 Conclusion

I set out to do three things in this chapter. First, to illustrate the extent to which Dutch church congregations were established in England and to give some idea of their size and duration. Secondly, I wanted to provide evidence for the written use of the language in these churches and thirdly to adduce evidence, primarily in the form of metalinguistic comment, for the use of spoken Dutch in the church domain. I believe that progress has been made in all three areas. However, I have gone further than this. I have given a sense of the range of varieties of Dutch used in the church domain, from Flemish dialectal forms in letters written in Kent, to the eastern dialectal forms of the letters of Gotfried Wingius, and the Dutch influenced by German of Johannes Utenhove. In some of the written records discussed, there is mixing with other languages, notably Latin. Indeed in the early days of the Dutch churches in England, Latin was an important competitor to Dutch, even eclipsing it in the letters exchanged

120 ero D/dht/F2/1, fol. 4. Dutch In The Church 131 between church leaders. French also provided competition, notably when the French and Dutch congregations came together, and over time English gained ground in this domain. Nevertheless, Dutch continued to be the dominant language in these churches. From the foundation of the church at Austin Friars in 1550, we can see a process of language spread, as more churches were founded in towns and cities in England. This was followed by a period of language main- tenance, whereby measures such as restricting membership to those of Dutch heritage were aimed, at least in part, at maintaining the priority of Dutch. Clearly, though, an increasing number of members, such as those in Yarmouth who greeted their new minister in English, had that language as their mother tongue, a process described as language shift. Ultimately, Dutch receded to a handful of churches by the end of the period under discussion, although there is sufficient evidence to assert that preaching at least continued to be conducted in Dutch. In trying to understand how and why Dutch continued to be the primary language in these churches it might be useful to think of two forces at work. One of these, already mentioned, is the fact that the use of Dutch was what one might call an ‘existential act’, for not using it would, and indeed did, put the existence of the Dutch churches at risk. The other force at work is that of identity. When those who know more than one language choose to use one particular language and not another, they make what R.B. Le Page and Andrée Tabouret-Keller refer to as ‘acts of identity’ (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 14–15). As the seventeenth century progressed, some members clearly decided to leave the Dutch churches and go to the local Anglican church or a non-con- formist church and in doing so were indicating a shift in their own identity. However, some remained, and others joined them, performing their own acts of identity, which would associate them with the Dutch language. Finally, as we have seen, by no means all those who belonged to Dutch communities in England were members of the local Dutch church. Nevertheless, in many cases, these churches formed the focus of these communities and indeed acted as the institution, which ensured the preservation of the use of the Dutch language within these communities. In the next chapter, we shall consider the use of Dutch in two domains often closely associated with the church domain; the work domain and the government of the Dutch communities. In each case, further evidence is provided for the use of Dutch. CHAPTER 3 Work and the Government of the Dutch Communities

3.1 Introduction

In the last chapter we considered in detail the spoken and written use of Dutch in the church domain. In this chapter we examine the use of Dutch in two domains, which were often closely associated with the church in the Dutch communities of early modern England. The first of these is the sphere of work. In towns such as Norwich, the establishment of a Stranger working community went hand-in-hand with the official sanctioning of a Dutch church. In Norwich, for example, most of the Strangers worked as weavers or in associated industries such as dyeing. In other cases the Dutch church persisted in part in order to support seasonal Dutch workers who visited Britain for a limited period. In Great Yarmouth, for example, the Dutch congregation in the town, which met in the ‘Dutch Chapel’ close to the busy South Quay, continued to function until the 1680s in large part due to the need to provide a place of worship for the Dutch fishermen who worked in the herring fleet each year. Another domain closely associated with the church domain was the government of the Dutch communities. These communities were charged with matters such as looking after their own poor and their orphans and for maintaining law and order amongst their members. To assist this process, communities elected civic leaders, or politicke mannen, each year. The names of these politicke mannen are often found amongst the lists of church elders and deacons. Furthermore, some of the sources, which illustrate that Dutch was used by these politicke mannen, can also be seen as belonging to the church domain, and so there was a considerable overlap between these domains. We begin by considering the evidence for the written and spoken use of Dutch in the work domain.

3.2 The Use of Dutch in the Work Domain

Members of the Dutch communities in England were employed in a wide range of occupations. For example, in records from the early years of the Dutch community in Colchester, 26 different trades are listed. These include a physician,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_005 Work and Government 133 two surgeons, three brewers and six hop-planters (Moens 1905: iii). However, most of the members of the community in Colchester were involved in the textile industry.1 Likewise, many of those who went to Norwich worked in the textile trade, although other professions such as jewellery, carpentry, book- binding, printing, bookselling, brewing and cutlery making are also recorded (Christie 1981: 72; Moens 1887–8: 224). Some of those who visited England on a temporary basis were involved in the fisheries. Others who worked in England for a limited period included other seamen and merchants. In this chapter consideration will primarily be given to the use of Dutch in the five professions or activities for which the most evidence is available. The first of these is the textile industry. Books of orders and letters provide evidence for the written use of Dutch in this industry. Secondly, we consider printing. A number of books were printed in Dutch in London and Norwich during the early modern period, details of which are provided below. Thirdly, engineers such as Humphrey Bradley and Sir Cornelis Vermuyden carried out important work in early modern England. Vermuyden in particular was supported by many workers from the Low Countries, whose native tongue was Dutch. Fourthly, as well as the Dutch fishermen who called in at Yarmouth, Dutch sailors moored their boats in other harbours on the east and south coasts of England, often coming ashore. One notable example in this regard is Plymouth. Finally, Dutch merchants, such as the mercator poetans, Jan Six van Chandelier, went to England on business. There were also English merchants who learnt Dutch in order to trade with other merchants in the Low Countries. We conclude this section by considering the evidence for the use of Dutch in other working environments.

3.2.1 Textiles Most of the members of the Dutch communities established in England in the second half of the sixteenth century and the seventeenth century worked in textiles. This was in part a consequence of the restrictions placed on the types of trade, in which Strangers could find employment. This led to a tendency for them to form close-knit working communities separate from those of the local workers, which in turn slowed down the process of integration

1 Nigel Heard suggests that many of those weavers who migrated from the Low Countries, having initially arrived in Colchester, then moved not only to Halstead in Essex (see section 1.4.1.5), but also to other towns in Essex and Suffolk. He lists Coggeshall, Bocking, Braintree, Witham, Dunmow, Sudbury, Long Melford and Lavenham. Unfortunately, he does not provide direct support for Dutch settlement in these towns (Heard 1970: 112). Furthermore, we have no evidence for the use of Dutch in these towns. 134 CHAPTER 3 into the local communities and perpetuated the use of Dutch in these working environments. We have already mentioned the Dutch weaving communities in Norwich and Colchester. To these we can add those in King’s Lynn and Thetford in Norfolk;2 Halstead in Essex; Sandwich and Maidstone in Kent; and, from about 1620 onwards, in Mortlake in Surrey.3 We have evidence for the written use of Dutch in Norwich and Colchester.

3.2.1.1 Norwich Many of those who are listed in the return for the Dutch church in Norwich in 1568 had occupations related to the textile industry. These included weavers (lanificus/a or textor), fullers ( fullo), dyers (tinctor) and tailors (sartor) (Rye 1887: 200–19; Moens 1887–8: 207–16). When the 24 Dutch masters arrived in Norwich in the mid-1560s (see section 1.4.1.4), the church of St. Mary-the-Less was assigned to them as their Bay Hall. Later, in 1637, this became the Walloon church in the city. St. Andrew’s Hall was then given to the Strangers as their Hall. This adjoins Blackfriars’ Hall, where the Dutch met for worship. In order to regulate its activity in the textile trade the Dutch community produced its own Books of Orders. The first of these was written in 1570. Initially, the leaders of the Dutch community would not hand the book over to the Norwich city authorities and they were sent to jail until they did so. Eventually the book was handed over, but as it was written in Dutch, it needed to be translated into English so that the city authorities could give it their approval (Moens 1887–8: 33). Unfortunately, this first book of orders does not survive. In 1582 a Book of Orders Concerning Wool and Bayes was written in Dutch. This is now preserved at the Norfolk Record Office.4 It contains some 134 regulations, written on 33 folios, governing the industry in Norwich at this time, often accompanied by the penalty for not adhering to these regulations. One regulation runs (fol. 25v.):

2 In the relation to King’s Lynn see Hillen (1978: ii, 734). In 1580 the town of Thetford petitioned for the introduction of a staple trade to encourage people to settle in the town (Hillen 1978: I, 308). 3 We could possibly add other communities such as those at Stamford in Lincolnshire and Barcheston in Warwickshire, although in each case definitive evidence for a Dutch community is lacking (see sections 1.4.1.7 and 1.4.1.8). 4 nro ncr 17d. The date of 1582 was added by a later hand. The orders in the book appear to be copies of those in a book in English entitled ‘Orders concerning Wooll’, which is dated 1577 (Meeres 2014: 141). Work and Government 135

figure 10 The titlepage of the 1582 Book of Orders Concerning Wool and Bayes. nro ncr 17d

Smouten met olie Item datmen gheen inslach wulle smouten en s[]al met olie oft ander quaet smout, maar alleene met boter, op de boete van xv sh. st[erlin]g ten profyte van armen . . .

Greasing with oil Next, that it is not allowed to grease the woof of the wool with oil or other bad grease, but only with butter, else a fine of 15 shillings sterling will be incurred, which will be for the benefit of the poor . . .

Other regulations concern when those involved in the weaving industry may work. One such regulation runs (fol. 28r.):

De vulders niet langher te wercken op Saterdaghen dan tot den xii op de noene. Item es oock ghecuert dat gheen vulders en sullen vermoghen op de zelve avonden te weten op Saterdaghen op bidtdaghen, oft op mestdachavonden langher te werckene dan tot de clocke xii op de noene op ghelycke boete te bedeelen als voren. 136 CHAPTER 3

The fullers are not to work after 12 noon on Saturday. Next, it is also required that no fullers are allowed to work on these evenings, that is on Saturdays, on prayer days, or on feast day eves after 12 o’clock noon, or they will incur the same fine as above.

Some regulations concern financial matters, rather than working conditions. For example (fol. 12r.):

Elcken nyeuwen drapier moet eenen schellinck gheven Item dat alle nyeuwe drapiers werden ghehouden, soe wel Inghelsche, walen als duytsche te betalen eenen sh. st[erlin]g ten profyte van den armen der duytscher kercke.

Each new linen worker must pay one shilling Next, that all new linen workers are required, be they English, Walloon, or Dutch, to pay one shilling sterling for the benefit of the poor in the Dutch church.

Others concern the moral behaviour of the workers, for example (fol. 10v.):

Gheen officieren te iniurierene Item dat hem nyemant en vervordere eenighe officieren te naer te spreken, beschimpene, scheldene oft iniurierene op de boete van v sh. st[erlin]g gaen(de) in tween den armen ende den bayllyus, ende correctie van mannen.

Not to do injury to any official Next, that no-one dare speak to any officer taunting, cursing or doing injury to him, else they will pay a fine of 5 shillings sterling, which will be divided amongst the poor, and the bailiff, and punishment of men.

The Book of Orders is written in a calligraphic style with the first letter of each order given a face in the manner of medieval manuscripts. It is relatively easy to read and deserves to be fully transcribed. It provides a fine example of a sixteenth-century manuscript written in Dutch. One does though have to wonder how often it was used given its pristine condition. Many years later, in 1642, with concerns that anti-Stranger sentiment was on the rise at the start of the English Civil War, the old book of orders was revived, and a number of articles were presented to the corporation court. These were by now all written in English (Moens 1887–8: 103). Work and Government 137

We gain a small insight into the everyday life of weavers in Norwich from a letter written in Dutch on 2 November 1593 by the Norwich consistory to its London counterpart. They had refused Pieter Vermant an attestation because he was in debt, including for a weaver’s loom acquired from Rutsart van Ceulen (H 87: iii, i, 961). Most of the Strangers listed in the Return for Norwich of 1622 were described as weavers or had related occupations such as ‘comer’ and ‘twisterer’ (Moens 1887–8: 189–93). Later, in 1662, when he visited Norwich, the Dutchman Willem Schellinks wrote in his travelogue:

In Norwich leven veel Duijtze werklieden de welke de Engelsche geleert hebben het maken van alderleij stoffen. is daar voor vermaart dat daar de beste en meeste geweven werde.

In Norwich, there live many Dutch workers, who have taught the English how to make all sorts of materials. It is renowned for making the best and most woven products.5

Did Schellinks talk with some of these workers in Dutch during his visit to Norwich? As noted above, there were weavers in the Dutch communities elsewhere in Norfolk, at Thetford and Lynn, as well as tailors and dyers at Lynn. A return for Lynn made in 1568 lists 25 Dutch working in textiles, although this number had fallen to 11 by 1571 (Rye 1877; 1887: 228–35).

3.2.1.2 Colchester Many of the Strangers in Colchester were weavers, who were particularly adept at producing the lighter ‘new draperies’ such as bays and says. By 1571 there were reckoned to be 185 resident aliens or Strangers in the town of whom 177 were classed as Dutch. In the return of that year 27 Dutch were listed as having occupations associated with textiles, whilst others listed simply as ‘merchants’ may also have been involved in this trade (Moens 1905: 95–101). A separate Dutch bay hall operated from the founding of the Dutch community in the

5 nro mc 1628/1; a transcription by G. Kelly and H.L. Lehmann of part of Schellinks’ travelogue. Two versions of the manuscript survive; one in the Royal Library, Copenhagen (Ny Kgl. Saml. 370, I–iii), the other in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (D’Orville 558, 559, 560). For a detailed discussion of these manuscripts see Schellinks (1993: 16–22). This book also contains a full translation of the part of the journal that relates to Schellinks’ time in England. 138 CHAPTER 3 town in the early 1570s until 1728 (Wilson 1946: 14).6 Evidence for the writing of Dutch in the work domain in Colchester comes in the form of half a dozen or so letters composed in the language by the governors of the bay hall. These letters also illustrate the close relationship between the Dutch working and worshipping communities in Colchester, a point underlined by a document written in 1637 in Colchester on the state of the Dutch congregation in the town (H 87: iii, ii, 1747):

The estate of the Dutch congregation in the Towne of Colchester. I. Present. 1. That our Number is about 600 Communicants, as well Strangers as of all descents, Men and Women, single-men and maids. 2. That our Calling and Trade is very laborious and drudging in making of Bayes, Sayes and other forreine draperies . . .

On 15 February 1581 a letter was sent from Colchester to the London Dutch church complaining that members of the London church were counterfeit- ing the seals of the Colchester bay-makers, something which, the letter states, would have condemned them to the gallows in the Low Countries (H 87: iii, i, 607). It concludes:

Wt Colcestre Anthonus algoet uut name ende laste der ganscher generalit- eijt der nerijnghe vander Draperie ende tsamen der Kercken raet. Orconde der Kerckenseghel hier op ghedruct.

From Colchester, Anthonus Algoet in the name of and by order of the entire government of the trade of the drapery and also the Church council. The church seal stamped here is witness to this.

Algoet was a minister of the Dutch church in Colchester and so this letter also provides further evidence of the use of Dutch in the church domain. The same could be said of another letter written by Algoet on 20 March 1582 to the London Dutch church, which likewise touches on matters concerning the weaving community in Colchester (H 87: iii, i, 661). On 9 October 1584 Geraert Truyen, a London wool merchant, addressed a letter an de Mannen vande Draperie te

6 Charles Wilson (1971: 75–6) writes that in Colchester by 1570, some 200 ‘Dutchmen’ had been welcomed ‘making bays, says, perpetuanos, shaloon, grosgrains and serge . . . ’ Wilson continues by noting that immigrants were scrutinized before they could settle. A typical clearance certificate runs ‘Jan Gelison, dyer, of Flanders. No fanatic. His conversation is honest’. Work and Government 139

Colchester, making a complaint against them (H 87: iii, i, 776).7 Truyen’s letter prompted a quick response from the governors of the Colchester Bay Hall with a letter dated 13 October, addressed to the ‘Ministers and Elders of Jesus Christ of the Dutch Church in London’ (Dienaren ende Ouderlingen Jesu Christi vander Duutsche Kerke tot Londen), which concluded (H 87: iii, i, 777):

In Coolcester ghescreven bij laste gouvernuers ende mannen, desen 13en October 1584. Den uwen goetjonstigen Jooris Heyns . . .

Written in Colchester by order of the governors and (political) men, this 13th October 1584. Yours benevolently, Jooris Heyns . . .

The role of the political men is discussed below. This letter, which deals with the matters raised by Truyen, was addressed not to him, but to the consistory of the London Dutch church, again revealing the intimate relationship between the church and the sphere of work. Furthermore, Jooris Heyns, who drafted this letter on behalf of the bay hall governors, was elected an elder of the Colchester church in 1581 and again in 1586 (Moens 1905: 92). On 3 November 1602 Franchoijs Everaert wrote a letter in Dutch to the Dienaren des godlicken wordts ende Ouderlijnghen der ghemeente Jesu Christij binnen Londen (‘Ministers of the divine word and Elders of the congregation of Jesus Christ in London’) Bij laste des ghouvernemens (‘By order of the governing body’) of the Colchester Bay Hall asking them to deal with a member of the London Walloon church, Esaias de Hovenij, who had contravened the regulations of the Colchester seal of the says (H 87: iii, i, 1085). As with Jooris Heyns, Everaert was elected as an elder of the Colchester Dutch church, in his case in 1594 (Moens 1905: 92). Over a century later, on 30 December 1709, John Kersketer and Jacob Knockhard sent an instruction to the Governors of the Bay Hall in Colchester to pay rent, but significantly this was now in English.8 During the thirteen years in which there was a Dutch community at Halstead, from 1576–1589, the Dutch weavers also had their own governors and officers and a bay hall of their own.

7 One notable linguistic feature of Truyen’s letter is that it includes the form gecoft (‘bought’). From an entry in the minutes of the Dutch church in London we learn that Truyen came from Horebeke in East Flanders (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 487). This may suggest that the shift that was underway at this time from the historic form -ft to -cht (Late New Dutch has gekocht) had not yet affected the dialect of that region. 8 ero D/dc 18/28. 140 CHAPTER 3

3.2.1.3 Other Textile Communities In Sandwich, in 1563, there were 173 baize workers and 74 serge workers of Flemish descent (Backhouse 1981a: 77–9).9 The Little Black Book 1552–1567 tells us that the Flemish were granted a market hall for the sale of their yarn at the Cross in the Cornmarket on Wednesday mornings. Restrictions were often placed on the Strangers. In August 1568 a tailor, Lyven Symons, was only allowed to work in his own home and only employ the Flemish (Gardiner 1954: 176). In 1567 the town of Maidstone petitioned the Crown to allow sixty Stranger families to be able to make a variety of cloths, as well as paving tiles, pots and other wares. Smiles writes that some of the Flemings who settled in Maidstone also spun thread and made lace (Smiles 1889: 110). In 1576 the number of male Strangers reached 200. In Surrey the establishment of the Mortlake Tapestry Works by Sir Francis Crane in 1619 attracted some 50 Flemish and Brabant weavers to the town (Grell 1996: 178). To repeat a point made earlier, the fact that in each of these cases workers whose mother tongue was Dutch were working separately from local workers contributed to the perpetuation of the use of Dutch in these working environments. Furthermore, the close association between the worshipping community in towns such as Colchester and Norwich and the sphere of work helped to perpetuate the use of Dutch in the latter.

3.2.2 Printing Let us now consider the second sphere of work in which there is evidence for the use of Dutch; printing. Two cities in which books were printed in Dutch are London and Norwich. Let us consider these in turn.

3.2.2.1 Printing in London In London several books associated with the church domain were printed in Dutch. Steven Mierdman published a collection of the first ten of Jan Utenhove’s rhymed psalm versifications for use by the London congregation in 1551 (Luth 1997: 3–4). A complete edition of Utenhove’s psalm versifications was published posthumously by John Day (Ian Daye) in London on 12 September 1566. Day was also to publish Jan van der Noot’s collection of poetry, Het Theatre oft Toon-neel (‘The Theatre’) in 1568. In 1570/1 Henry Bynneman published a second collection of Van der Noot’s poetry in London, Het Bosken (‘The Grove’) (Forster 1967: 6–7; 49–51). In a letter dated 25 October 1570 written from Antwerp by a bookseller, Guilelmus Sylvius, there is reference to Jan

9 See also Backhouse (1981b) and (1995). Work and Government 141 dae drucker (H 87: iii, i, 123). Is this in fact John Day (printer)? Sylvius refers to Guillame Molijns figuersnijer den sone van Jan Molijns (‘Guillame Molijns, sculptor, the son of Jan Molijns’) who was living with this printer in London. In 1606 George Elde published Marten le Mayre’s ‘The Dutch Schoole Master’ in London, possibly the first book for English learners of Dutch to be printed. On the title page Le Mayre presents himself as ‘professor of the said tongue (i.e., Dutch)’. In 1659 ‘The Dutch-Tutor: or, a new-book of Dutch and English . . . ’ was published anonymously in London. Both books are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. In 1612 Thomas Snodham published a work in London by the minister of the London Dutch church, Simeon Ruytinck, entitled GULDEN LEGENDE vande Roomsche Kercke, mitsgaders hare Heylighdommen ende Aflaten, aenden Toet-steen der Waerheyd beproeft (‘GOLDEN LEGEND of the Roman Church, together with her Sacred Things and Indulgences, Assayed on the Touchstone of the Truth’). The book attacked certain aspects of Roman Catholic practice and tradition, in particular the stories contained in the Golden Legend. In 1645 the Dutch church in London ordered 800 copies of the Corpus Disciplinae to be printed by Ralph Smith of London. These are included in a statement of income and expenditure drawn up in Dutch by the minister, Cesare Calandrini, in 1647 (H 87: iii, ii, 1996; 2043). Later, in February 1695, Aemilius van Culemborg, the minister of the Dutch church in London, delivered an oration in Dutch at the Dutch Chapel Royal ‘covering the deeds of William iii from the Boyne to the death of Mary ii’. This was subsequently published by Henry Hills (Wright 2007: 639 n. 36).

3.2.2.2 Printing in Norwich In the 1568 return for the Norwich Dutch church, two printers (tipographus) are mentioned. One is Anthonie de Solempne from Brabant, who established his printing business near the Maddermarket in the city, and operated his presses between 1568 and 1570.10 The other is Albert Christiaensz. from Holland (Moens 1887–8: 207–16). No imprint bearing Christiaensz.’s name has come to light, but he may well have printed a book that de Solempne published, and done other typesetting for him (cf. Sessions and Stoker 1987: 54; Forster 1967: 32).11 One other person who may have worked with de Solempne is Jan Jacobsz. Paetz. He is listed in the 1568 return as a bookseller (bibliopola).

10 For more on de Solempne’s career, see also Bostoen (2014: 83–4, 89–90). 11 Christiaensz. had quite a colourful career. He printed propaganda for the Sea Beggars in Vianen, and in 1565 published a book in French entitled Vraye prédiction pour 20. ans, commencant l’an 1564 et continuant d’an en an, jusques en l’an, 1583 . . . (‘True prediction for 142 CHAPTER 3

He later moved to Leiden, where he published many books from 1578 onwards. Again no imprint bearing his name in Norwich has come to light (Sessions and Stoker 1987: 55–8). De Solempne printed several works in Dutch although scholars disagree on precisely which works he did print, often citing discrepancies in typeface.12 This is not something in which I claim any expertise, so I shall leave such discussions to others. However, there is general agreement that de Solempne printed at least five and possibly eight (or seven if the first two are treated as one) works in Dutch between 1568 and 1570. Five on which there is general agreement are:

De cl. Psalmen Davids wt den Franchoyschen Dichte in Nederlantschen ouverghesett door PETRUM DATHENUM 1568 (stc 2741); Catechismus oft Onderwijsinghe in de Christelicke Leere (also stc 2741); Belijdenisse ende eenvoudige wtlegghinge des waerachtighen gheloofs (stc 23557); Eenen Calendier Historiael (stc 401.6); and The first edition of Historie van B. Cornelis Adriaensen van Dordrecht (Bostoen 2014).

The first three books in this list were intended for the church and were used by the Norwich Dutch congregation. They are the psalter compiled by Petrus Dathenus, a Catechism, and a Confession of Faith. The fourth book in the list, Eenen Calendier Historiael, records the fairs and market days in various towns in England as well as on the Continent. This might have been useful for Dutch merchants living in Norwich as well as for those on the Continent who traded with England (Forster 1987: 31).13 It also records notable events such as the first service of the Norwich Dutch church held on Christmas Eve 1565. There has been much scholarly ink spilt over the place of publication and identity of the printer of the first edition of Historie van B. Cornelis Adriaensen van Dordrecht, a satire on the misdeeds of a Friar Minor (minderbroeder) in Brugge. The most recent contribution to this discussion, by Karel Bostoen, argues convincingly that Norwich, rather than Brugge or Ghent, was the most likely place of publication for this work, and that the book was printed by

20 years, beginning in the year 1564 and continuing year by year until the year 1583’). See also Bostoen (2014: 90–1). 12 See Sessions and Stoker (1987) for a detailed account of this discussion. 13 The work also includes many Dutch Bible quotations. Further research might identify the Bible translation(s) from which these are taken. Work and Government 143

Albert Christiaensz. and published by de Solempne in the city in 1569 (Bostoen 2014). To this list Paul Valkema Blouw has added three more works in Dutch, which he asserts were printed by de Solempne in Norwich (Valkema Blouw 1999). Andrew Pettegree and Malcolm Walsby include these in their list of books printed in the Low Countries and Dutch books printed abroad before 1601 (Pettegree and Walsby 2011):

Fernando Alvarez Alva, Bewijsinge dat de commissie die ducq Dalve heeft laten uutgaen, by den paus met zijn tyrannighe adherenten op den naem vanden coninck, onwetelijcken versiert, gedicht ende hem verleden is (1570) item 783; Requiem aeternam, dat is, het Nederlantsche claechliedt, ghemaeckt op dese teghenwoordighe tyden inde Nederlanden, die nu suchten onder dat jock der Spaenscher moordadigher tyrannie. Buyten Köln (1568) item 22230; and Bewijsinghe dat in alle de Nederlanden gheen papist of catholijck persoon en is, na het seggen der Spaenscher inquisiteuren ende het concilie van Trenten (1570) item 22232.

Peter Burke notes that printers of this period often got involved in language questions, such as the standardization and purification of language (Burke 2004: 106). The works printed by de Solempne do not evince any great consistency in spelling (there is, for example, no consistency in the printing of the past participial prefix ge-/ghe-); he did not print any works that could be seen as ‘corpus planning instruments’ (Willemyns 2013: 80–1); nor do we have any statements from de Solempne advocating the need to standardize or purify the language.14 This is in contrast, for example, to the Ghent printer, Joos Lambrecht, discussed in the Prologue. Apart from Jan Jacobsz. Paetz there were three other booksellers listed in the 1568 return for the Dutch Church in Norwich: Cornelis van Hille, Pieter Jass and Antony Rabat.15 To these we can add Gilles Navegeer, who worked as a bookbinder ‘probably for the printer de Solemne’ (Moens 1887–8: 71; Bostoen

14 However, in De Historie van B. Cornelis, there are both West Flemish and ‘standard’ Dutch forms, e.g., brocht/bracht, cleen/cleyn etc. This may reflect the fact that there were two typesetters at work on the first edition, most probably published by de Solempne. This feature of the work should receive further academic attention. Cf. Bostoen (2014: 110–11). 15 Jass had arrived in England in 1562, the others in 1567, the year before the return was made. See also Bostoen (2014: 91–2) for more on Paetz, Van Hille, Jass and Rabat. 144 CHAPTER 3

2014: 91). The fact that more than half a dozen Dutch Strangers were involved in printing, binding and selling books in Norwich in the period 1568–1570 suggests that there was a very active book trade amongst the Strangers at this time.16

3.2.2.3 Printing elsewhere in England A little earlier a printer named Anthony Skoloker had been active in Ipswich. He established a printing press in the town in 1547. He was recorded in the Subsidy Rolls as an Englishman, but the name suggests either a Dutch or, more likely, a German origin. In 1548 he published a book entitled Ordenarye for all faythfull Chrystians, which, according to the title page, was ‘Translated out of Doutche into Inglysh by Anthony Scoloker’. He also translated and published two other books, in 1549 and 1550, ‘out of Doutch’ in London (Hoftijzer 2013: 212, n. 43). In Ipswich in 1547 Skoloker had published ‘The just reckenyng . . . of the yeares, from the beginning of the world unto this presente yere of 1547’. This was ‘translated out of the Germaine tongue into Englishe by Anthony Scoloker . . . ’ Whether this reference to ‘the Germaine tongue’ means that the reference to ‘Doutch(e)’ is more likely to be to Dutch than German is something we cannot know for certain, but the possibility is there (Sessions 1984; 12–13; 23; 26).17 Two further examples hint at least at the use of Dutch in this working environment. First, in his study of aliens in early modern Ipswich, Vincent Redstone refers to ‘John Olyver alias Vyter, who was a bookseller, printer and publisher of books imported from Flanders’ (Redstone 1919–24: 185). Secondly, Dutch typesetters were employed in the Oxford University Press (Hoftijzer 1988: 123).

3.2.3 Drainage and Engineering Dutchmen were heavily involved in the design and execution of drainage schemes across large tracts of land in England. In 1589 Humphrey Bradley, a Dutchman of English descent, born in Bergen-op-Zoom in Brabant, drew up

16 See also Eßer (1996: 125–33) for more on printing in Norwich between 1568 and 1570. 17 There may be a connection between Skoloker and the Ghent printer, Joos Lambrecht, mentioned in the Prologue and Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6.3), the author of Nederlandsche spellijnghe (1550) and Het Naembouck, the purist Dutch-French dictionary first published in 1551. There is a woodcut of a printing office in Skoloker’s Ordenarye for all faythfull Chrystians, which originally belonged to Lambrecht. Skoloker may have brought it back to England from the Continent, or it may simply have been copied (Watson 1949: 7). John King (1999: 169) ascribes this flurry of printing activity from Skoloker (and also from John Oswen) in Ipswich to the town’s proximity to the Continent and to the relaxation of censorship under Edward vi. Work and Government 145 a scheme for the draining of the Fens and submitted it to Lord Burghley. The scheme was rejected, perhaps in part because Bradley was a foreigner. Personal correspondence written in Dutch by Bradley in England is discussed in section 4.3.1.4. Sir William Russell, Earl of Bedford invited three Dutchmen over to England in 1590 to survey the Thorney estate in Cambridgeshire. Most famously, the Zeelander, Cornelis Vermuyden, managed the drainage of several areas in England including Dagenham (1621–1622); the Royal Park at Windsor (1623) (Harris 1953: 33; 38); Canvey Island; Hatfield Chase (1626–1629) (Summers 1976: 62); the Dutch River at Goole (1633); Sedgemoor on the Somerset Levels; Malvern Chase in Worcestershire (Wilson 1968: 80);18 and the Fens. Vermuyden was a member of the Dutch church in London (H 87: iii, ii, 1781; 2917). We have a couple of letters that he wrote to its leaders in Dutch. The first of these, dated 27 June 1639, almost exclusively concerns business matters. We learn that Vermuyden owed a large sum of money (een groote somme gelts) to a Mr. Lamote, probably as a result of business ventures that had turned sour. He writes to explain how he intends to settle his debt. One of the ways he mentions is to sell his shares in large leadmines (groote lootmijne). This indicates that Vermuyden had business interests other than simply draining marshland (H 87: iii, ii, 1794). The second letter, dated 12 February 1646, is addressed directly to the minister, Cesare Calandrini (H 87: iii, ii, 2005). This letter is not concerned with business, but rather with the fact that Vermuyden had chosen to have one of his children baptized in an Anglican church, rather than in the Dutch church, something that he realized would at the very least annoy Calandrini and his fellow ministers and elders. The forms of salutation that Vermuyden uses in these letters; Weerde Broeders ende Vrienden (‘Worthy Brothers and Friends’) and Broeder Calandryn (‘Brother Calandrini’), suggest a certain familiarity with the leaders at Austin Friars. He also uses the form of address UE in both letters. In the letters in the Hessels collection from the second half of the sixteenth century, ul., ulieden and related forms of address are dominant, but by the middle of the seventeenth century, UE was also in regular use. This form and its variants are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. There are no particular dialectal features in Vermuyden’s letters (he originally came from Zeeland). There are, however, a good number of verbs ending in -eren, derived from French (in the second letter we find compareren, presenteren, inclineren, practiseren, adviseren and obliegeren). He also uses French loanwords, such as discours (‘discussion’). The earliest entries for this

18 Wilson gives 1630 as the date for the work at Malvern Chase. 146 CHAPTER 3 word in the wnt are from the first half of the seventeenth century, which suggests that it may not at this point have become fully integrated into Dutch. This tendency to draw on French, directly or indirectly, which could be seen as an affectation, is something we often see in Dutch diplomatic letters, and, later on, in the correspondence of William iii. I have more to say on this in Chapter 5. Another Dutch engineer who worked in England was Jan Barents Westerdyke. He had put forward plans for draining the Fens, but was defeated by Vermuyden in 1630 (Hills 1967: 9). Another was John Kiviet, an associate of the diarist John Evelyn, who had projects for wharfing the Thames with brick and draining the meres around Newmarket (Wilson 1968: 99). Other Dutchmen who arrived in England at about the same time as Vermuyden in the early 1620s were General Count Michael Vernatti, whose name is commem- orated by the Vernatt’s drain near Spalding; Abraham Vernatti, an ancestor of the Earls of Gainsborough (the Vernattis were descended from Italian refugees in the Netherlands); Sir Matthew van Valckenburgh; and Cornelius and Marcellus van Bueren. Others from the Low Countries who reclaimed land in England were Cornelius Vanderwelt, a Dutchman; a Fleming named Freeston, who reclaimed the marshes near Wells in Norfolk; and a Dutchman, Jan van Hasedonck, who reclaimed marshland around Wiveton in north Norfolk and elsewhere in the county in the 1630s. Many workers, who had Dutch as their native tongue, worked for Vermuyden and the other drainage engineers. At Canvey Island drainage work was carried out by a company of Dutch workmen (Wilson 1968: 84). Vermuyden’s work- force on his project in Hatfield Chase included many Dutch, drawn from the communities at Dagenham and Canvey Island (Wilson 1968: 85; 1941: 88). Some of the workers on this project were of French descent, their families having moved to the United Provinces after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572 (McNeile 1948: 174–5). In the Fens Vermuyden brought in many workers from the United Provinces, as local Fenmen were opposed to the drainage of the area, although many of these workers were Walloons (Bevis 1983: ii; Wilson 1968: 80; 84; 86).19 The hostility towards the incomers was reflected in a local ballad sung in the Fens (Wilson 1968: 86):

The Dutchman hath a thirsty soul, Our cellars are subject to his call . . . To the new world in the moon away let us goe,

19 See also Wentworth-Day (1954: 55–6). Work and Government 147

For if the Dutch Colony get thither first, ‘Tis a thousand to one but they’ll drain that too.20

However, we are left to speculate as to whether the language was used in these drainage enterprises. The fact that a Dutch congregation was established on Canvey Island and a Dutch and Walloon Stranger community at Sandtoft near Hatfield Chase (and there were possibly some Dutch at Thorney in Cambridgeshire: see section 1.4.1.6) suggests that Dutch was used when the members of these communities were at work, but we can say nothing more definitive on the matter. One case, though, is more promising. In 1653, 500 Dutch sailors, who had been captured in an engagement off Portland Bill during the First Anglo-Dutch War, were put to work on helping to drain the Fens, such as the cutting of the New Bedford River at Earith and excavation work at Denver in Norfolk. There can be little doubt that these prisoners-of-war exchanged words in Dutch as they dug into the enemy’s soil. Some of them died during this work, but those who survived were released after the end of hostilities and many stayed and integrated into the local communities (Bevis 2003: 3–4; 7; Hanson-Smith 2004: 84). Other Dutchmen were involved in engineering projects in England. Joas Johnson of Middelburg planned and constructed the new harbour at Yarmouth in 1567 (Wentworth-Day 1954: 52; Meeres 2007: 30–1). Skilled Flemish workers were brought across to Dover towards the end of the 1570s to provide advice on the building of a new harbour. However, due to the cost of the proposed scheme, a decision was postponed until 1581, when work was eventually begun after Queen Elizabeth agreed to support the project financially using a tax raised on ships entering and leaving the country (Hasenson 1980: 26–7). In 1584 men from the Low Countries were listed in a letter in association with the building of the new haven at Dover (Overend 1888–9: 127). The project was led by a number of engineers during the course of its design and con- struction. One of these was the Dutchman, Ferdinand Poins, and another was his fellow Dutchman, Humphrey Bradley, mentioned above.21 In 1582 the first successful project for providing London with drinking water was executed by the Dutchman, Peter Morice (Wentworth-Day 1954: 52–3; Wilson 1968: 84). In 1620 Brading Haven in the Isle of Wight was enclosed by Sir Hugh Myddelton

20 See also Smiles (1864: 36). 21 Hasenson (1980: 28) for Poins; and Overend (1888–9: 138) for Bradley. Overend also lists Peter Harringman from Zierikzee and William Halse from Zutphen as advisers on the project. 148 CHAPTER 3 with the help of ‘Dutchmen brought out of the Low Countries’. The Dutchman Cornelius Vanderwelt enclosed Wapping Marsh by means of a high bank along which the present High Street was made (Wilson 1968: 84). In Een Klein Chronyk (‘A Small Chronicle’), first published in his Haerlemmermeerboeck in 1641, the Dutch hydraulic engineer, Jan Adriaensz. Leeghwater (1575–1650), who went to England to give advice on drainage schemes, noted that he had visited Zand-wyck (Sandwich), where of course there was a large Dutch community, Doveren (Dover) and Romey (Romney) in Kent. Here, a word is in order about Leeghwater’s renderings of English toponyms. It is quite common for speakers of one language to adapt foreign toponyms and indeed loan words to the phonology of their own language. It may be that the lack of a word-final /ʧ/ in modern Dutch played a role in Leeghwater’s rendering of Sandwich as Zand-wyck (Goossens 1974: 87; Booij 1995: 7). Alternatively it may have been inspired by analogy with Dutch toponyms such as Katwijk and Naaldwijk in the province of South Holland, or indeed both of these factors may have been at work here. We see something similar elsewhere in the rendering of Norwich as Noortwijk. The rendering of Dover as Doveren may owe something to the fact that the suffix -en is often used to form plurals in Dutch. The name of Dover derives from an Old British plural, Dobra, meaning ‘the waters’; the Latin form, Dubris, a locative, and indeed the French form, Douvres, are also plurals, and it may well be that Leeghwater took his lead from the French form (Watts 2004: 192–3; Ekwall 1960: 149). I should add that these forms are also found in the work of other Dutch people in this period. Finally, Leeghwater clearly enjoyed his time in England for he writes that there was everything in abundance there (daar van alles abondant was) and that ik menig Berg en Dal over gereist heb, en menig zoet en zuur gesmaakt heb (‘I travelled over many hill and dale and tasted much sweet and sour’).

3.2.4 Fishermen and other Sailors In 1570 Queen Elizabeth issued a licence to named Dutchmen to settle in Great Yarmouth and prepare herrings according to their own customs. Thirty master fishermen were allowed to settle in the town with their families. They were given permission to operate only ten pinks and had to have at least three Englishmen in their crew (Williams 1988: 78; Meeres 2007: 28).22 We also find nine coopers from Zeeland and one from Holland in Yarmouth in 1571, who were probably employed in making barrels for the herring (Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 528, 533, 537; “Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 291–6). Adriaan

22 nro col 6/2. Flemish settlers in Yarmouth also introduced the arts of salt-making and herring-curing (Smiles 1889: 113). Work and Government 149

Jansz. (Jonson), from Vlissingen, is listed as a shipwright in the 1571 return of aliens living in Yarmouth, and we find two ropemakers, one from Zeeland, the other from Holland in the return. They, too, probably earned their liveli- hood from the herring industry (Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 534; “Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 291–6). During the seventeenth century, from June to September each year, the Dutch herring fleet sailed from the Shetlands to the Thames in what was known as De Groote Vischerij (‘The Great Fishery’). The Dutch herring bus- sen collected at Bressay Sound in Shetland early in June. The official start of the season was St. John’s Day, 24 June. Until 25 July, St. James’ Day, the fleet was limited to the Isles and as far south as Buchan Ness. Until 14 September it moved down to the Northumberland coast and then by St. Catherine’s Day, 25 September, to the waters off Great Yarmouth. Finally, it reached the mouth of the Thames in early December. The herrings were salted and barrelled for consumption at home and sale abroad. Some 32,000 men were employed in the herring fleet and another 5000 in the associated Dogger Bank fisheries. The fishermen who landed on the English (and Scottish) coast often misbehaved, polluting churches and pulpits, stealing poultry and eggs and, on one occasion holding an honest young woman selling stockings upside down. Hugo Grotius felt compelled to apologize for the behaviour of his fellow Dutchmen. The Dutch were eventually forced to take out English licences to fish off the English coast (Zickermann 2013: 96; Wilson 1968: 64–7). In a letter dated 9 September 1593 the consistory of the Dutch church in Yarmouth wrote to its London counterpart stating that the leaders of the church could not absent themselves for the forthcoming colloquy because of the need to look after the herring fishermen: ende de harrinck teelt nu op de hant is (‘and the herring fishing season is now underway’) (H 87: iii, i, 959). In 1627 the consistory reported that twice a year ‘foreigners’ (uutlanders) arrived in Yarmouth to fish herring and to repair and dry their nets, and that many of them came to the Dutch church on Sundays (H 87: iii, i, 1352).23 In a letter from the Yarmouth consistory to its London counterpart dated 17 June 1630 the specific concern of the Dutch church leaders is spelt out: that if the fishermen did not go to church, they would spend too much time in the local pubs: al waer sy ander sins in drinckhuyssen haeren tyt in idelheyt souden ombringhen (H 87: iii, i, 1474). The Yarmouth consistory makes a similar point in a letter to the London consistory dated 22 June 1640 (H 87: iii, ii, 1829). Here, though, we learn that it was because the passanten understood no English that they

23 See also a letter written in August 1628 by the elders and deacons at Yarmouth, where a similar point is made (H 87: iii, i, 1386). 150 CHAPTER 3 needed to worship at the Dutch church. Later, in the early 1670s, in a bid to encourage the Dutch to invest in Yarmouth, Sir Robert Paston drafted a set of proposals, into which he inserted a Dutch text (Gauci 1996: 124). In the early modern period a number of pidgins were used by sailors who had different mother tongues. The original lingua franca, a mix of Venetian, Portuguese and Arabic, had evolved in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages and continued to be used throughout the early modern period. We have no record of the language spoken by the Dutch as they dealt with local English people in Yarmouth and elsewhere, but one wonders if something of a pidgin developed as the sailors landed their catch or negotiated terms with local traders (Burke 2004: 127). Ships regularly sailed between Nieuwpoort in Flanders and Norwich via Yarmouth. The captain of one of these vessels was Wulfaert Boeteman (Moens 1887–8: 11; 71). In a couple of letters written by Flemish immigrants in Norwich to family members in Ieper between 1567–1569, discussed in more detail in the next chapter, mention is made of Boeteman (Moens 1887–8: 221). Many other ships crossed the North Sea between the Low Countries and England on a regular basis. N.J. Williams gives a sense of the extensive trade undertaken by Dutch and English boats between ports in the Low Countries and East Anglia in the second half of the sixteenth century (Williams 1988: 73). Boats had sailed to the continent from the port of Harwich in north-east Essex since the Middle Ages. There are records of ships carrying mail and passengers from Harwich to the United Provinces from early in the seventeenth century. However, it was not until 1661 that the first recorded regular service was established, when the Postmaster General and the City of Amsterdam agreed that all mail between England and the United Provinces should pass through Harwich on English ships. This service continued for many years, although it was less regular when England and the United Provinces were at war. The ships from Harwich, which also carried freight and passengers, typically arrived at Hellevoetsluis, though on occasion also at Den Briel. One commentator notes that packet boats plied the route between Harwich and Hellevoetsluis two or three times a week (Wilson 1946: 26). The packet boat service is mentioned in a letter dated 17 August 1703 from London (H 87: iii, ii, 2757). Here, ‘Harwich’ is rendered as Harwits, another example of how those who used Dutch dealt with the lack of a word-final /ʧ/ in the language. One notable Dutch visitor to Harwich was King William iii. He visited the town on four occasions, staying at the house of Captain Thomas Langley, who referred to himself as ‘Captain of the Packet Service’. In all likelihood, William spoke English during these visits, and further research would be required to discover whether he also spoke any Dutch in Harwich (Weaver 1990: 5; Carlyon Work and Government 151

Hughes 1939: 140; Wilson 1946: 35–40).24 On 25 March 1693 the king wrote to his close confidante, Hans Willem Bentinck, Earl of Portland, from Harwich. Both King William and Bentinck were originally Dutch, but as was usual in their correspondence, the letter was written in French (Japikse 1927–37: I, i, 174). We return to the subject of William’s use of Dutch in England in Chapter 5. Due to their proximity, there was also a lively trade in smuggling between England and the Low Countries (Williams 1988: 69). It was concern about smuggling that led to the building of the Customs House, incidentally in the Dutch style, in King’s Lynn in 1683; Flemish weavers, who had settled at Blythburgh (near Southwold on the river Blyth) on the Suffolk coast, may also have exported their wares without paying duties (Hanson-Smith 2004: 72). There are plenty of other stories of boats from the Low Countries smuggling goods ashore in the East of England, but of course no record of their use of language survives (Jarvis 1987). Finally, we learn from a letter written in Dutch in 1631 by a Dutchman, Jaen Heindrickxsn Schaets, in Plymouth (Pleijmoeyen) that there were ‘50 to 60 sailing ships of Dutchmen, indeed more than that’ in the harbour at that time. The ships were typically on their way to Africa or other distant destinations such as Pernambuco in Dutch Brazil (H 87: iii, ii, 1520–1). Other facts which at least suggest the presence of the Dutch in England at this time are first that many English ships, particularly merchant ships, were built by the Dutch; and secondly, the imposition of the Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660 was based on the premise that many Dutch ships were entering English ports in the middle of the seventeenth century (Wilson 1971: 171; 163–4).

3.2.5 Merchants Dutch merchants were based in London during this period. In the second half of the sixteenth century we find a group of well-educated merchants in the city including Johannes Radermacher, Emanuel van Meteren and Jacobus Ortelianus Colius. Radermacher worked in London in the service of the Antwerp merchant, Gillis Hooftman. We have already seen that he wrote a Dutch grammar in London in 1568. One of the interesting features of the introduction to Radermacher’s grammar is that he compares the quality of the speech of various groups of people, using what one might call a rudimentary sociolinguistic classification (cf. Dibbets 2003: 23). He writes that the merchant speaks better and in a more measured manner than the artisan (de steetsche coopman [spreekt] beter en besetter dan de ambachtsman). However,

24 Carlyon Hughes suggests that a somewhat irregular service may have run from Harwich as early as 1625. 152 CHAPTER 3 according to Radermacher, the learned man (de geleerde) writes much more carefully and clearly (veel voorsichtigher . . . ende claerder) than the merchant (Bostoen 1985: 42). His knowledge of Latin suggests that he might have belonged to both of these groups. On a more mundane level, merchants wrote letters in Dutch in London. In 1581 a pamphlet was published, the majority of which comprised a Dutch translation of a Confession of Faith by King James of Scotland. The pamphlet also includes a letter touching on the religious situation in Scotland, which was written in Dutch by a London merchant (een Coopman van Londen) to a colleague in Antwerp. We learn from the title page that this merchant was responsible for the pamphlet (Belydenisse 1581).25 We also have letters in Dutch written by merchants, which deal with commercial matters. A wonderful example of this is the letter book of Nicholas Corsellis, a Dutch merchant, who, in addition to his work, served as a deacon and elder at Austin Friars (Grell 1996: 93; H 87: iii, ii, 2113). The book contains many letters written in Dutch in London in the mid-1660s to commercial associates in cities in the Low Countries, such as Ghent, Antwerp and Ostend, and further afield such as Hamburg, Cologne and Paris.26 A number of examples serve to illustrate this. To one associate in Ghent he wrote in March 1664:

Mons. Ick hebbe noyt de eere gehadt aen UL te schreven desen . . . dient om UL. te adviseeren dat Sr. Louijs van Acker van Niewport aen UL. sall con- signeeren 10 Cassen Indigo . . .

Sir. I have never had the pleasure of writing to you. This [letter] . . . is to advise you that Mr. Louis van Acker of Nie(u)wpo(o)rt will send 10 boxes of indigo to you . . .

A letter dated 12 June 1665, also from London, to another associate in Ghent begins:

Monsieur. De UL van 17 deser is my geworden waer op tot antworde sall segen dat UL sonder schroom . . . linwaet heerwards moght senden . . .

Sir. Your letter of 17th inst. came to me, and in reply I shall say that you may without fear send linen here . . .

25 A copy of the pamphlet can be consulted in the library of Austin Friars in London. 26 ero D/du 457/7, fols. 1v., 12r. and 16r. Work and Government 153

figure 11 A letter written by Nicholas Corsellis to Christian Kluxen of Cologne on 30 June 1665 ero D/du 457/7, fol. 16r Reproduced by courtesy of the Essex Record Office

On 30 June 1665 he wrote to Christian Kluxen of Cologne (Cuelen), beginning the letter in a similar manner (fig. 11):

Monsieur. De UL van 3de deser is my geworden waerop tot antworde sall seggen dat advis hebbe van Oste[n]d[e] dat beyde de packen No. 11 en 12 aldaer waeren gearriveert en op Antwerpen versonden sodat will niet twyffelen of syn vooreijsen all tot Antwerpen well aengekomen.

Sir. Your letter of 3rd inst. came to me, and in reply I shall say that I have received advice from Ostend that both packages, nos. 11 and 12, have arrived there and are being sent on to Antwerp so that you should not worry whether all that you require will arrive in Antwerp.

The style in this last letter is quite formulaic and elliptical, often lacking in subject pronouns (in this case the Dutch lacks the first and second person singular subject pronouns), something we see in voc letters. We find another letter book of interest in the National Archive of Scotland.27 This contains draft letters in both English and Dutch written in London in the 1670s by a merchant, who signed himself John Swinton under the former and Jan Swinton under the latter. A letter from London dated 21 August 1677 to a certain Jan de Witt concerning a shipment of ginger from the Caribbean begins:

27 National Archive of Scotland (nas), cs96/3264. 154 CHAPTER 3

Hier mede gaat factuer en connossem[ent] van hondert en eleven (sic.) sacken met gescraapt witte gember voor UL gecoft door ordr van U schoonvader . . .28

Herewith are the invoice and bill of lading for 111 bags of scraped white ginger purchased for you by order of your father-in-law . . .

The letters in both letter books provide both interesting insights into commercial activity between England and the Continent at this time and also a valuable source of commercial Dutch, offering ample opportunity for further research. Boats from Amsterdam, Dordrecht, Enkhuizen, Haarlem, Middelburg, Rotterdam, Veere and Vlissingen, and other ports in the United Provinces, carrying Dutch merchants and crews landed at King’s Lynn. John Wallis of Lynn was an English merchant who traded with the Low Countries and is likely to have spent time there. Indeed, whilst giving evidence to the court of Star Chamber in 1610 he stated that he was fluent in Dutch (Metters 2009: 36–9).29 Later when Willem Schellinks visited Lynn in 1662 he met a Mr. de Jongh, a Dutch merchant from Rotterdam living in Lynn, and Mr. Kruyt also from Rotterdam. Unfortunately, Schellinks does not record whether they exchanged words in Dutch as they drank absinthe together (Schellinks 1993: 154–7). By contrast a dispute between two London merchants, Paschier van der Mote and Lowys Thieri, does make reference to spoken Dutch. The case came before the consistory of the London Dutch church. In the minutes of the consistory for 25 August 1579, it was recorded that the two men had met ter borsen (‘at (Gresham’s?) exchange’) and that Lowys had said to Paschier, Gij lieght als een boef, ende diergeliken scheltwoorden in Duyts ende Engels (‘“You lie like a crook” and similar curses in Dutch and English’); an interesting case of code switching (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 527).

28 The form eleven (‘eleven’) is unexpected and may be derived from the pronunciation of elf as ellef with a svarabhakti vowel. If so, the stress would be on the first syllable and not on the second as in English. The use of gecoft (‘bought’), instead of gecocht/gekocht, illustrates that the shift from -ft to -cht was only partial. As noted in Chapter 2, it did not occur in some Eastern dialects, nor in Hollands or northern Brabant. See also note 7 above. 29 See also Williams (1988: 70). Williams notes that there was also much trade between Antwerp and the ports of eastern England in the sixteenth century, although given the multilingual nature of Antwerp, it is difficult to come to any firm conclusions about the extent to which this would have led to the speaking of Dutch in these ports. Work and Government 155

Reference has already been made to the Dutch sailors calling in at Plymouth (Wilson 1946: 17). Dutch cloth traders did business upto the end of the eighteenth century with the port of Topsham; Dutch names such as Steenwyke and van der Bush are found in local records.30 An English merchant who spoke Dutch was Sir John Elwill from Exeter. He was educated at Oxford and Leiden. Other English merchants including John Badcock, David Bosanquet and Nathaniel Adams sometimes wrote letters to Dutch business contacts in Dutch. English merchants also wrote in Dutch to the Dutch merchant, David Leeuw, and the staple merchants, the de Neufvilles, although they may have employed Dutch clerks to write their letters. Charles Wilson mentions Dutch merchants in London who wrote in Dutch to Leeuw and other Dutch business contacts, although most of his examples come from the eighteenth century, and so fall outside the period under consideration in this book (Wilson 1941: 31–2). In the Essex Record Office there is a statement in Dutch dated 1602 by Cornelius Arens about his ship and the voyages he made. It belongs to the papers concerning a prize case in the Court of High Admiralty, Hendrick Witte and Company v. John Troughton, so the statement may well have been written in London.31 The Dutch of Colchester were involved in shipping at the town’s port. Indeed, the extent to which they carried out this activity caused concern amongst English boat-owners and led to the intervention of the Privy Council in 1616 (H 87: iii, i, 1762; 1763). Dutch merchants also arrived at the port aboard Dutch boats to buy and sell (Cooper 1994: 86–7). One Dutch merchant who visited the town was Jan Six van Chandelier (1620–1695). In autumn 1655 he celebrated a fine meal of oysters in Colchester with the poem Oesters te Kolchester (‘Oysters in Colchester’) (section 6.2.9). Twenty merchants are listed in the return of members of the Dutch church in Norwich in 1568 (Moens 1887–8: 207–216). Amongst these is Walter Gruterus, the father of the poet and scholar, Janus. Walter had been a wealthy cloth merchant in Antwerp, before being forced to leave the city with his family in 1567. As in London commercial disputes arose from time to time in the Dutch community in Norwich. In 1573 there was a dispute between two Dutchmen, Thomas Hodgeson and Thomas Bateman, who was one of the original Dutch masters to arrive in the city in the mid-1560s. The dispute turned on a contract

30 Another item, which was shipped in great quantities from the Netherlands to Topsham, was clover-seed (Wilson 1968: 88). 31 ero D/dp L38/8. 156 CHAPTER 3 between them, which was written in Dutch. Unfortunately the contract itself has not been transcribed, and the original has not survived.32 Several merchants with Dutch names are listed amongst the Strangers in Norwich in the 1622 Return of Strangers. They will have bought and sold the textiles produced by the many weavers in the city also listed in the return. One of the merchants was Jan Cruso (1592–fl. 1655), who is described as a ‘marchant and hosyer’ (Moens 1887–8: 190). We do not know if Cruso used Dutch in his activities as a merchant, although he may well have done so as he dealt with local weavers. However, we do have two collections of Dutch poetry and letters written by Cruso in Dutch. His poetry is discussed in Chapter 6 (section 6.2.4). In the 1571 return of aliens for Yarmouth, we find two wine merchants; one, Jan van de Perre (listed as John Vanperden), was originally from Mechelen, and the other, Nicolaas Thuys (listed as Clase Tewse), was from Middelburg (Rooze- Stouthamer 1996: 505, 511–2). Two other merchants from Zeeland, Cornelis Clase and Willem Jansz. Cooman (listed as William Janson), both from Veere are also listed in this return (Rooze-Stouthamer 1996: 538; “Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 291–6).33 A number of the Hessels letters written in Dutch include reference to merchants in the Dutch communities in Colchester and Norwich, as well as in Sandwich and Ipswich, providing further evidence of the close links between the domains of the church and work in these communities (H 87: iii, i, 877). Letters written in London refer to the ‘Merchant Strangers’ there (e.g., H 87: iii, i, 1258), which suggests that they were sufficiently numerous to be considered as a separate group within the Stranger community in the city. In March 1626 a list was drawn up of The Names of the Marchants Netherlands or Lowe Countries being of the Entercourse, Marchants themselves, Factors or Servaunts to Marchants of the said Lowe Countries in London (H 87: iii, i, 1318). Forty-two names were on the list. The Merchant Adventurers were a body of merchants, who traded in the United Provinces. They had left the Netherlands during the First Anglo-Dutch War, but the city of Rotterdam was keen to invite them back as soon as the war ended. Samuel Avery had previously lived in Rotterdam as the Courtmaster, the head of the body that governed the Adventurers in London. In 1654 he received a letter in Dutch inviting him back to Rotterdam. He replied on 15 June in Dutch addressing his letter to the Edele erentfeste wyse voorsienighe

32 nro ncr 20; Quarter Sessions Minute Books, including depositions before the Mayor. I am grateful to Frank Meeres for this example (Meeres 2014: 142). 33 Rooze-Stouthamer (1996: 530) also lists Adriaan Knape as a merchant, although in the return of aliens he is listed as a fisherman. Work and Government 157 seer discrete Heeren (‘Noble, Honorable, Wise, Provident, Very Discerning Gentlemen’) of Rotterdam telling them that he had received their letter. He agreed that the Adventurers would return to Rotterdam as long as it was without any rules, limitations or restrictions (sonder eynighe Reglementen, Limitatien ofte Restrictien). Regarding himself het zou aen [m]ijne uyterste devoir niet mancqueeren bij alle voorvallende occasien (‘it would be my utmost duty not to fail in any situations arising’) (Te Lintum 1905: 198–9).34 In the late seventeeth century some of the bankers upon whom the British Treasury relied for credit and other assistance were members of the Dutch community in London. These included Muilman, Crayesteyn, Willink, Van Hemert and Woesthoven, the latter two being deacons of the Dutch church in London. The leaders of the Dutch community in London at this time were Gerard and Joshua Neck, who were the sons of the Paymaster of William iii’s land forces (Wilson 1946: 18; 24–5). The first chairman of Lloyd’s of London was a Dutchman, Martin Kuyck van Mierop, and a man who made an important contribution to the theory of free trade, Sir Matthew Decker, was a Dutchman who settled in London (Wilson 1946: 28). Charles Wilson writes ‘at Jonathan’s Coffee House, Dutch speculators helped to reproduce the intricate apparatus of speculation which had already been perfected at Amsterdam a hundred years before’ (Wilson 1946: 240). English traders and merchants who wanted to acquire a knowledge of Dutch could do so from Marten le Mayre’s ‘The Dutch Schoole Master’, mentioned above, which was published in London in 1606. The book was clearly aimed at the commercial sector, with the largest group of phrases coming under the title ‘To buy and sell / Om te coopen ende vercoopen’.

3.2.6 Other Working Environments We find the occasional piece of evidence for or hint of the use of Dutch in other working environments. In 1568 Willem Courten, a wealthy cloth merchant, and his wife, Margaret Cassier, fled their home town of Menen in Flanders with other family members and managed to reach London. To celebrate this Willem had a large silver drinking cup made, which had an inscription around the inner rim in Dutch telling of how he had been imprisoned by Alba’s Council of

34 The quotations in Dutch are from Te Lintum. For some reason he quotes Avery in the third person (it seems that he is quoting Avery in the manner of indirect speech, but in quotations marks), although he does stress that the letter was written in Dutch (ook in ’t Nederlandsch). The originals of this and other letters written by Avery were in the Rotterdam city archive (’t Rott. Archief ) when Te Lintum published his book in 1905. For more on the Merchant Adventurers, see also Sprunger (1982: 233–61). 158 CHAPTER 3

Troubles on 2 March 1568, but thanks to divine providence in the form of his wife, he had managed to escape prison almost four weeks later (Grell 1996: 9; 13; fig. 12):

Den 2 Marcij in meenen 1567 dacht duc dalve Ghuilliame Courten te beroven sijn leven maer godt heeft den 29 Marcy 1567 sijn huysvroue Marghueriete victorie ghegheven.35

On 2 March in Menen in 1567, the Duke of Alva thought that he had robbed Willem Courten of his life, but God gave his wife Margaret victory on 29 March 1567.

Courten’s name appears in letters written by the Dutch church in London (H 87: iii, i, 955). He became a deacon in 1574 and twelve years later an elder of the church (Grell 1996: 9). In the wake of William iii’s invasion of England in 1688, many other people such as artisans and labourers arrived from the United Provinces, settling in areas such as Middlesex and Soho (Onnekink 2007: 131).36 In the last chapter much evidence was adduced for the use of Dutch in the church domain. For the ministers of the Dutch churches, who wrote primarily in Dutch, and who delivered sermons in the language, this was of course a working environment. In the next chapter, evidence will be adduced for the use of Dutch in another working environment: the schools of the Dutch communities in England. Other environments in which the Dutch worked in early modern England are discussed in Chapter 1. So, what have we learnt about the use of Dutch in the work domain? Clearly there is a good deal of evidence for the writing of Dutch in this domain. This comes mainly in the form of letters, such as those written by the merchant, Nicholas Corsellis, in London in the 1660s, but also from the working regulations for the weavers in Norwich. As for the spoken language, we have to admit that the evidence is thin on the ground. On occasion we find metalinguistic comment such as the fact that the herring fishermen in Yarmouth spoke no English and the testimony of the King’s Lynn merchant, John Wallis, that he spoke Dutch. Otherwise, we unfortunately have to enter the realm of speculation. Clearly, in a historical study of this nature,

35 The cup is now in the collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (see fig. 12). The discrepancy in dates is a result of the fact that the year typically began on 25 March at this time, so 2 March 1567 was in fact in 1568. 36 Onnekink notes that the arrival of the Dutch in these areas led to frequent outbreaks of xenophobia. See also Van Alphen (1938). Work and Government 159

figure 12 The silver drinking cup made for Willem Courten to celebrate his escape from prison in 1568. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 160 CHAPTER 3 evidence for the spoken use of the language will be much harder to find than that for the written use of Dutch. What I have tried to do is offer cases in which Dutch might have been spoken. In due course further evidence might be found to confirm this.

3.2.7 Dutch Loanwords in English in the Work Domain Before considering the use of Dutch in the government of the Dutch communities in England, I briefly want to discuss some Dutch words relating to various working activities that entered ‘standard’ English and dialects during this period.

3.2.7.1 Standard Language First, a number of Dutch loanwords relating to painting entered English at this time. According to the oed, ‘easel’ (Dutch: (schilders)ezel) entered English in the late sixteenth century. The oed also records ‘landscape’ (Dutch: landschap) meaning a picture of natural scenery entering English in the late sixteenth century. Two words that entered English from Dutch in the middle of the seventeenth century are ‘etch’ (lnd: etsen), and ‘sketch’ (lnd: schets) (both oed). In seafaring, the term ‘avast’, meaning ‘stop’ entered English in the seventeenth century from the Dutch hou’ vast (‘hold fast’) (oed). The Dutch origin of the word ‘skipper’ is well known. However, according to the oed this was first used in Late Middle English. Another term that entered English from Dutch at this time was ‘decoy’. Decoys were a popular method for catching ducks in the Netherlands. The English word derives either from the Dutch eendekooy (lit. ‘duck cage’) or de kooi (‘the cage’). The first recorded one in England was built for Sir William Wodehouse at Waxham in Lincolnshire in 1641. Sydrach Hilcus, a Dutchman, built a decoy in 1665 for Charles ii in a lake in London (Hanson-Smith 2004: 75).

3.2.7.2 Dialect One commentator gives an extensive list of words in the Norfolk and other East Anglian dialects borrowed from Dutch. These include the sea-faring terms brabble, dabby, luff, lubber, rack, swabber, and woulders; the fishery terms corf, coy (from ‘decoy’), kiplins, scud, waver, went; and the draining and embanking phrases breck, cramatting, delph, gull, plash, scradge and stow (Nall 1866: 701).37 Further investigation may reveal precisely when these words entered the English dialects. One geographical feature that may owe something to Dutch is ‘gat’, a term for a passage between shoals at sea. Corson Gat off the

37 Nall ascribes the origin of some of the words in the last group to ‘Frisic’, i.e., Frisian. Work and Government 161 coast of Yarmouth is a toponym that incorporates the term. The edd points to either a Dutch origin (lnd: gat ‘hole’), or a Scandinavian one. This concludes our survey of Dutch in the work domain, and we now turn to the use of the language in the government of the Dutch communities in England.

3.3 The Government of the Dutch Communities

A number of the Dutch (and French) communities in England elected politicke mannen each year. I have not come across the use of this term in Continental Dutch sources; it does not for example appear in the wnt, although similar terms such as politicke officiers do. It may be a direct translation of the French term hommes politiques.38 The role of these men was to keep order within the communities and to deal with the local civic authorities. Although they were distinct from the church leaders in the Dutch communities, they clearly worked closely with them. A letter dated 14 April 1584 from Norwich is signed by representatives of the three ‘Colleges’ (collegien): the elders and deacons of the Dutch Church and the ‘polytitsche mannen’ (H 87: iii, i, 750). We find a further example of this in a letter from Maidstone dated 20 August 1576, written by Gotfried Wingius (H 87: iii, i, 383). It begins:

Wy Auderlingen, Diakenen ende politische mannen der vthlandischen Gemeynte to Mädston betuygen by desen . . .

We the Elders, Deacons and political men of the foreign community at Maidstone witness hereby . . .

A number of other letters from Maidstone begin with similar formulae. In Chapter 2 I discussed some of the features of Wingius’ Dutch, which are associated with the eastern dialects of the language. Here, to Mädston

38 When, in 1566, the Reformed attained a semi-official position in some towns, there was a move to add socially prominent individuals to the original consistory, which was often made up of ‘gens de petite qualité’. This occurred at Valenciennes, Middelburg and Breda (and probably elsewhere). These more experienced men could then negotiate with the magistrates. See Beenakker (1971: 61–2) and Van Vloten (1873: 70; 128; 160). The politicke mannen probably represent a later stage in this development. The consistory dealt with discipline amongst the members of the church, whilst the politicke mannen dealt with the local authorities and civil legal matters, such as provision for orphans of the community. A similar development can be seen amongst the French Protestants. I thank Alastair Duke for this information. 162 CHAPTER 3

(‘at Maidstone’) is another example of this. The form of the pronoun höre instead of haer (‘her’) and the umlautization of long vowels, as in the word dörluchtig in the phrase den dörluchtigen (Prince van Orangie) (‘the illustrious (Prince of Orange)’), are other eastern dialectal features found in this letter (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 114). In ‘Certaine Articles’ relating to the petition of the Strangers to Lord Burleigh to establish a community at Stamford in 1572, there was a request to allow for the election of about seven politicke mannen (Strype 1711: appendix 114):

. . . and that it maye be Leful to the same Estraungers at Stanford . . . to chewse amongs them selffes seven Menne (more or fewer) evin as the Straungers of Norwiche and Sandwiche have in theyre Churches; The whiche dewlie, havinge fyrste taken theyre Othes at the Magystrates Haundes, maye lefully afterwards decyde and ende all manner of Civil and Politicq Debates, Differences and Controversies, rysen, or to ryse betwene Straungers, if they canne.

I have already indicated that it is difficult to establish basic facts about the Stranger community in Stamford and so questions such as whether there were in fact politicke mannen in the town, for how long, and what language they spoke must remain unanswered at the present time. However, this article provides us with a useful summary of the objectives of the politicke mannen and tells us that they were elected in Sandwich and Norwich.39 It is in relation to the politicke mannen in Norwich that we find the most evidence for the written use of Dutch, and it is this that we shall now consider in some detail.

3.3.1 The politicke mannen in Norwich When Thomas Parker was mayor of Norwich in 1568–1569, he made an order that the Strangers elect eight Dutchmen and four Walloons each year, although final confirmation of their appointment lay with the mayor himself (H 87: iii, i, 1042).40 We have two documents recording the activities of the politicke

39 In the minutes of the colloquy held in 1576, the representatives from Sandwich are recorded as wanting to know how to discipline someone convicted of lying door polityken Gouverneurs ofte mannen openbaer. This may be a further reference to politicke mannen at Sandwich (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 25). 40 It was claimed that some of the Strangers were wandering the streets at night ‘drunken and of great dysorder’: they were told not to walk the streets after the eight o’clock bell Work and Government 163 mannen in Norwich.41 One covers their activities between April 1583 and July 1590, with additions and notes for 1591–1600, whilst the other records their activities between 1605–1615. Let us consider each of these in turn. The first document is preserved at the Norfolk Record Office.42 It is a manuscript consisting of four unbound gatherings foliated 2–49, with folio 1 having been torn away. Entries are in Dutch and French and were in large part written by the secretary to the body of the politicke mannen in Norwich, Pieter Weynoet. Many of the entries concern orphans. The following example illustrates this (fol. 17v.):

Jeremias Galant. Desen iien Novembris xv lxxxiiij en syn voor ons polityckque mannen ver- schenen Jeremia Galant fil. Bossaerts voochden, met namen Jacques Galant et Fransois van Dycke, dewelcke selve rekenynge ghedaen hebben van die administratie . . . en daer leverden tot profyte van de weese £17–18–0 ster- lincq Ingels gelt. Hier tegen verschoten als volcht . . .

Jeremias Galant. On this 2 November 1584, the guardians of Jeremia Galant, the son of Bossaert, appeared before us politicke mannen, in particular Jacques Galant et Fransois van Dycke, who ourselves have done the accounts of the administration . . . and handed over there, to the benefit of the orphan 17 pounds, 18 shillings and 0 pence, English sterling money. This was taxed as follows . . .

The use of fil., an abbreviation of filius is a further example of the use of Latin in Dutch records. There then follows a list of items with values against them. These include:

Derst den clerck van een quitancie te schryven Item van eenen mantel Item van ii paer . . . coussen Item van stofferinge Item gelt om te reysen

was rung from the church at St Peter Mancroft (nro ncr 17d). It would have been the duty of the politicke mannen to deal with such cases. 41 For more on the politicke mannen in Norwich, see Eßer (1992) and Eßer (1996: 72–84). 42 nro mc 189/1. 164 CHAPTER 3

First (for) the secretary writing a receipt Also (for) one coat Also for 2 pairs of stockings Also for trimmings Also money for travelling.

Some of the entries list the politicke mannen for the year in question. For example on folio 17r., there is a list of the twelve politicke mannen for 1584:

Mannen in dat iaer (‘Men in that year’)

Adriaen Waleweyn. Jooris Fenne. Anthonius Paeschesone. Caerle Schorre. Godefroy Ham. Hendrijck Gheraert. Mahieu Vriem. Lowys Cantyn.

Mannen der walscher ghemeynte (‘Men of the Walloon community’)

Noe le Turck. Adrian de Leme. Hector d’Ecquire. Cornille de la Vultre.

Clerck. Pieter Weynoet.

The same document also contains the inventory of the possessions of a certain Jacob Sumeren, dated 3 April 1585 (fols. 24r.–v.). The list contains some one hundred items and begins:

Derst ende alvooren een plumen bedde met den oorpullen ende decksels Den spoelewiel, met een waschaeck en andere prondelinghe Item een vrauwen samarie Item eenen incarnaete vrauwen rock Work and Government 165

Item een vellen kinderk[l]eertken43 Item een groen kinderrocqken Item eenen swarten vrauwen rock Item een root vrauwen rocksken . . . Item ii kinder mutskens Item een paer slapelakens.

First and foremost a feather bed with pillows (lit. ‘ear cushions’) and covers The spinning wheel, with a linen bag for the washing and other odds and ends Also a woman’s long dress Also a flesh-coloured woman’s skirt Also a small item of children’s clothing made of animal hide Also a small green child’s skirt Also a black woman’s skirt Also a small red woman’s skirt . . . Also 2 small children’s caps Also a pair of bedsheets.

The secretary, Weynoet, also wrote French entries in these records and knew Latin. Evidence for this comes from the occasional words of Latin that we find in these records, such as politicorum virorum scriba (‘secretary of the politicke mannen’), which he used to refer to himself under an entry made in 1590. Perhaps this should not surprise us, for we learn that he had matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge at Easter 1577, and was bequeathed books ‘aswell lattyn as Dutch’ in the will of his stepfather, Joos de Ram, from whom he probably took his Latinized name, Ramus (Forster 1967: 39). Finally, the names in the volume have been transcribed by Raingard Eßer (Eßer 1990). Before considering the second document from Norwich, mention should be made of a book, which provides further evidence of the use of Dutch in this domain. It also points to the contingent nature of some of the sources with which we are dealing here. In his collection of ‘Antiquarian Miscellanea’ compiled at the end of the nineteenth century, Walter Rye lists a number of documents handed to him by J.L. White, whose name had been corrupted from the Dutch, De Witt. One of these consisted of five leaves from an old book, which

43 The ‘l’ in Kinderkleertken is lacking in the manuscript. 166 CHAPTER 3 were very dilapidated and the first of which was dated 28 February 1592. Rye provides an extract from this (Rye 1887: 194):

Ich Pr. Weynoot alias Ramus Kenne & belyde mits desen wel & denchdelick ontfangh’ te hebben uit’ de handen van Bondewijn de men & Pr. S’diere de voochde & ozyfieders van de Weesen Wijlent Rojier Brad’ de somme wel & tranwelick te rembourseen & c.

I P[ete]r Weynoot alias Ramus acknowledge and confess hereby that I have indeed and in good order received the sum from the hands of Boudewijn, the men and P[eter]r S’diere, the guardian and educator[] of the orphan Wijlent Roijer Brad’ . . . indeed and honestly to reimburse [the sum] etc.

De men is a reference to the politicke mannen in Norwich. This aside, there are clearly some problems with this transcription. The ‘n’ of Bondewijn and tranwelick should be ‘u’ and ozyfieders may well be opvoeder(s) (‘educator(s)’) (why this is in the plural and voochde in the singular is not clear).44 However, if the form ich (‘I’) is correctly transcribed, then this suggests that Weynoet may have come from the East of the Dutch language area, such as the Limburg dialect region, where pronoun forms ending in ‘ch’ such as ich and mich (‘me’) are more common than ik and mij (Willemyns 1979: 54; 2013: 76).45 The other document concerning the politicke mannen in Norwich is preserved in the British Library.46 This covers their activities for 1605–1615 and consists of 183 pages. A majority of the entries are written in Dutch, though some are written in French, with a very few English, whilst some of the titles for entries are in Latin.47 The passages in Dutch are often difficult to read, in particular some of the names. One entry dated 26 July 1603 begins (fol. 42v.):

Cornelis Janson oudt xliij Jaeren ofte daer ontrent verclaert voor de waerheit dat Johannes van . . . verkocht heeft syns moeders part.

44 Another possibility is that ozyfieders should be opzieners (‘supervisors’). 45 The forms ich and mich are a result of the ‘High German sound shift’, also known as ‘the second sound shift’. This was a two-stage process by which a shift in sounds in High German, in the southern parts of the German language area, such as to and

to gradually moved northwards, losing strength as it did so. Although this shift is deemed to mark the border between High and Low German dialects, its effects did reach parts of the Dutch language area, notably Limburg (Willemyns 2013: 34–35; 76). 46 British Library (bl) Add. Ms. 43862. 47 Examples of entries in English are to be found on fols. 45v., 84r., and 104v. Work and Government 167

Cornelis Janson, 43 years old, or thereabouts, declares it to be true that Johannes van . . . has sold his mother’s horse.

In 1609 Pieter Weynoet was still the secretary. In the record for 22 June 1609 he lists the eight politicke mannen present. The record for this date begins (fol. 56r.):

Ordinancien ghemaeckt bij de onderschrevenen tot onderlijnghe eenicheit ende vrede.

Ordinances made by the undersigned for mutual unity and peace.

The guardianship of children is another matter, with which the politicke mannen concerned themselves. An entry for July 1609 runs (fol. 57r.):

P[i]eter Wallewein ende Nicolaijs Doijnaert ghetuyghen als dat Jan van Ixem voocht ende curateur van Susanne de dochter van Abraham van Ixem ghestelt is . . .

P[i]eter Wallewein and Nicolaijs Doijnaert witness that Jan van Ixem has been made guardian and trustee of Susanne, the daughter of Abraham van Ixem . . .

Well-known names occasionally crop up in this document. For example in an entry for 1609 the name Mordecheus Fromenteel is recorded. The family, who became famous clockmakers in London, were members of the Norwich Dutch community (fol. 68r.). On 12 February 1610 the men heard the following case (fol. 86r.–v.):

Jehan van Hecke contre Simon Doen . . . beclaeght hem dat den . . . sijn accord ghebroken heeft.

Jehan van Hecke vs. Simon Doen . . . (Van Hecke) complains that the . . . has broken his agreement.

The decision was recorded as follows:

De mannen ghehoort hebbende het different tusschen Jan van Hecke en Simon Doen, ordineeren dat Simon Doen syn accord sal volbrynghen dat is voor(?) een jaer te wercke stellen . . . ofte . . . ende veertien daghen werkens loon gheven ende syne oncosten betalen. 168 CHAPTER 3

The [politicke] mannen, having heard the disagreement between Jehan van Hecke and Simon Doen, order that Simon Doen shall complete what he agreed, that is working for one year . . . or . . . and give 14 days’ wages and pay his costs.

At a meeting in February 1611 all twelve politicke mannen were present. They were examining a case between two men, Enghebaert and Holnoet. The decision was recorded as follows (fol. 102r.):

De mannen ghelet hebbende opt different tusschen Jacques Enghebaert en . . . Holnoet en gheexamineert hebbende de lecheragie van weerzyde ghe- exhibeert ordineeren . . . Holnoet te betalen xxxxiij Ɣ met de oncosten.

The [politicke] mannen, having noted the disagreement between Jacques Enghebaert and . . . Holnoet and having examined the calumny exhibited on both sides order . . . Holnoet to pay 43 Ɣ with costs.

The loop after the figure may stand for shillings.48 The word translated as ‘calumny’ lecheragie is a rare term, not found in the wnt. It is sometimes written as lachteragie. The style of Dutch used in these records is quite formal, a fact reflected by the use of multiple participles: ghelet hebbende and gheexamineert hebbende before the main verb, ordineeren. Furthermore, the term different (‘disagreement’) is a technical term, used primarily, according to the wnt, in legal documents. This indicates that the secretary, Weynoet, had a knowledge of Dutch legal terminology. The fact that many of the activities and decisions of the politicke mannen in Norwich were written in Dutch could be taken as evidence for the spoken use of the language during their meetings, but of course that is not beyond dispute for they could have used another language, French or English or even some Latin, or indeed more than one language, during their deliberations. The politicke mannen in Norwich continued to fulfil their function during the seventeenth century. In the Register of the Dutch church in Norwich for the years 1676–1912, discussed in Chapter 2, the list of church members made in 1677 refers to four ‘Politike mannen’.49 Whether there were still eight in total from the Dutch community is not known, but it is clear that this office was still in use at this time.

48 Another possibility is gulders, although other entries use the signs for pounds, shillings and pence. 49 lma clc/197/MS07385 (nro ms 21490). Work and Government 169

We also find reference to the politicke mannen in correspondence from Norwich. On 5 June 1572 Hermannus Modet wrote on behalf of the Dutch church in Norwich that peaceful elections had been held for elders, deacons and politicke mannen (piesibelick verkiesinge van ouderlingen, Diakenen, ende Mannen gedan), and he expressed the hope that the community could soon return to the Low Countries (H 87: iii, i, 168). On occasion the politicke mannen wrote letters in their own name in Dutch. For example, on 22 September 1574 they wrote a letter to the consistory of the Dutch church in London warning them not to send any more Strangers to Norwich as their number far exceeded that permitted by Queen Elizabeth (H 87: iii, i, 268):

Uute dien den nombre vanden Vremdelingen alhier residerende, verre exce- deert t’getal by hare Majesteit toegelaten, ende daeromme gevreest is datter corts vele zullen van hier moeten vertrecken . . .

Given that the number of the Strangers residing here far exceeds the number allowed by her Majesty, and it is therefore feared that many will soon have to leave here . . .

The author of this letter was one of the politicke mannen for that year, Jan Ruytinck, who had previously been an advocate with the Raad van Vlaanderen in Ghent before being forced into exile. Ruytinck was a notary in Norwich and also ran a school. We shall have more to say about him in the next chapter. His son, Simeon, mentioned above in the section on printing (3.2.2.1), was a minister at Austin Friars for some 20 years. Finally, mention was made above to a letter written in 1584 signed by representatives of the three ‘Colleges’, one of which was the politicke mannen. On 16 February 1593 the secretary to the politicke mannen, Pieter Weynoet, wrote a document in Dutch concerning a case of adultery and made a translation of it into French. He sent both versions on behalf of the three Colleges to the coetus of the Stranger churches in London (H 87: iii, i, 951). A reply was received in Dutch.

3.3.2 The politicke mannen in other Dutch Communities We also have evidence for the presence of politicke mannen in Halstead, Thetford and Yarmouth, and, from the early seventeenth century, London. In a letter from Halstead there is mention of de mannen who imposed a fine on Jan Bertolf for joining the English (die hem met de Inghelsche ghevoucht heeft), something that the community in Halstead feared would lead to them losing their privilege (H 87: iii, i, 867). We may assume that de mannen refers to the politicke mannen in the Dutch community in Halstead. 170 CHAPTER 3

From a letter dated 13 April 1580 from the consistory of the Dutch community in Thetford to its London counterpart, we know that there were politicke mannen in the Dutch community in the town at this time (H 87: iii, i, 573). One of its members, Paesschier Clarebout, had asked the town’s Mayor to hold an election for politicke mannen, without the knowledge of the consistory (hij [heeft] anden maijor beghert een verkiezynghe van polijtijtsche mannen, buijten het weten der Consistorie). The members of the consistory were clearly not happy about this. A letter dated 9 September 1593 from the consistory of the Dutch church in Yarmouth refers to elections being held after the Sunday sermon. The first election was to be held for de Mannen, which is likely to refer to politicke mannen, who were elected annually (H 87: iii, i, 958). In London, the role of politicke mannen does not seem to have emerged before the beginning of the seventeenth century. Eight Dutch and four Walloons were elected for a period of two years each, and in this regard it seems that the London community was taking its lead from Norwich (Eßer 1996: 83). One of the primary functions of the politicke mannen in London was to maintain good relations between the Stranger communities and the local civic authorities. For example, they were responsible for collecting the money for the annual gift to the new Lord Mayor. There were politicke mannen in London until at least 1631 (Grell 1989: 86–7). Above, reference was made to the politicke mannen of Sandwich. I have not yet found any evidence for the use of Dutch by these men. However, we do have a letter from the overseers of the orphanage of the Dutch (Flemish) community at Sandwich (Weserie der Vlamscher Ghemeynte tot Santwyc), written in Dutch on 15 September 1594 (H 87: iii, i, 972). The letter concerns the guardianship of one of the orphans; the oversight of the guardianship of orphans was one of the duties of the politicke mannen. One final intriguing piece of evidence for the written use of Dutch in this sphere comes from an unexpected quarter: Canterbury. In 1575 a civic compact, consisting of fourteen articles of agreement, was drawn up between the Mayor and Magistrates of Canterbury and the Strangers in the city. As noted in Chapter 2, Canterbury had many Walloon immigrants and a Walloon church. So, it is surprising that the agreement was drawn up in Dutch, all the more so given that in 1578 it was recorded that only a few members of the congregation understood Dutch. So why write this agreement in Dutch? No answer has yet come to light (Cross 1898: 28–30).50

50 Unfortunately, Cross does not given the Dutch original, nor does he provide a reference for the agreement, so until further evidence comes to light, we have to rely on his report Work and Government 171

In concluding this section, we have seen evidence for the presence of politicke mannen in more than half a dozen of the Dutch communities in England. The principal evidence for the written use of Dutch in the government of these communities comes from the two sets of records of the politicke mannen in Norwich. We also have a number of letters written in Dutch in this domain, which offer us insights into the nature of the language at this time. We lack firm evidence for the speaking of Dutch in this domain, but I would suggest that the use of Dutch in the written records of the meetings and judgements of the politicke mannen involving members of the Dutch community makes it very likely that Dutch would often be the medium for discussions.

3.4 Conclusion

So, what can say in conclusion about the use of Dutch in the domains of work and the government of Dutch communities? First, we have to acknowledge the critical role that archival material has played in providing evidence for the written use of Dutch. Both the Norfolk Record Office and the Essex Record Office contain documents written in Dutch referred to in this chapter. From the former, we have the 1582 Book of Orders for the textile workers in Norwich and the first of two documents recording the activities of the politicke mannen in the city. From the latter, we have the letter book of the London merchant, Nicholas Corsellis. These together with the Hessels correspondence preserved at London Metropolitan Archives, form the backbone of this chapter. Evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in these two domains is unfortunately very limited, and certainly much less than was the case for the church domain discussed in Chapter 2. What I have presented are situations where Dutch people were together in early modern England and therefore probably spoke Dutch. Further research might reveal whether these people did speak their mother tongue in these situations. In the next chapter, we consider the use of Dutch in two more domains closely bound to the Dutch communities, and more specifically the Dutch congregations, in England: learning and the domestic domain.

of the agreement. The document may have been a translation from French, although this would still not explain why it was written in Dutch. CHAPTER 4 Learning and the Home

4.1 Introduction

In the last chapter we considered the use of Dutch in two domains, which had a close relationship with the church domain. In this chapter we examine the use of Dutch in two further domains, often closely related to that of the church: learning and the domestic domain. In relation to the former, Dutch communities often operated schools for the children of their members. The church leaders took an active role in organizing these schools and in some cases the ministers also worked as schoolmasters. In addition, the church congregations took responsibility for the catechizing of children. Adults, too, were catechized. Some learning, though, was less closely associated with the church domain. The brightest sons of members of the Dutch communities attended university, sometimes in the United Provinces, but also Oxford and Cambridge. Furthermore, a number of university professors at the two English universities had a Dutch heritage. Having set the boundaries of this domain broadly, I then move on to consider the use of Dutch in England by the idiosyncratic Alkmaar-born inventor, Cornelis Drebbel, who worked at the court of King James I. Later, in 1660, the Royal Society was established. Consideration will also be given to the use of Dutch associated with this institution. The microscopist Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek wrote letters to the Society in Dutch, which were then translated into English. One leading English figure in the Society, who learnt Dutch in order to read scientific works written in the language, and probably Van Leeuwenhoek’s letters, was Robert Hooke. Finally, in this section consideration is given to the books for learning Dutch available to people like Hooke whose native tongue was English. The second domain that will be considered is the domestic domain. Three types of document, wills, inventories and private letters, provide evidence for the written use of Dutch in this domain. There is a limited amount of metalinguistic comment on the speaking of Dutch in this domain, but we also have private letters; as ego documents they come close to the language of everyday speech, and so both provide evidence that Dutch was spoken in the domestic domain and indicate what sort of Dutch this was. Particular attention will be paid to a cache of letters addressed to friends and relatives in Ieper in the late 1560s. Over thirty of these were sent by members of the Dutch community in Norwich, and they offer us a rare insight into the written and spoken language

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_006 Learning And The Home 173 in the immigrant population in the city. We begin, though, by considering the use of Dutch in the domain of learning.

4.2 The Domain of Learning

First, we shall consider the education of children in the Dutch communities in England. This will be followed by a discussion of the education of those members of the Dutch communities who went on to study at university. In each case, evidence for the use of Dutch will be provided, although there was of course competition from other languages, notably Latin and English. Consideration is then given to learning in less structured situations, most notably the Royal Society, an institution founded in 1660, which in its early days had much to do with Dutchmen working in the field of natural philosophy. We begin, though, by considering the use of Dutch in the education of children in the Dutch communities in England.

4.2.1 The Education of the Children in Dutch Communities in England One of the most important means, by which the children of members of the Dutch communities in English towns and cities were educated, was in the schools established by these communities. Of the Dutch or Nederduits used in the Reformed Church in the Dutch settlements in America, Roland Willemyns writes that it ‘was used in the churches and taught in the Dutch schools’ (Willemyns 2013: 204). This tells us two things, which are of use for the present discussion. First, that the Dutch language was used in these schools and secondly that there was a close association between Dutch church congregations and Dutch schools. In England there was a similarly close association between Dutch church congregations and Dutch schools, with the schools typically being established and governed by these congregations. This close association is important for as we saw in Chapter 2, the churches in the Dutch communities often acted as a focal point for the use of the Dutch language within the communities. One piece of evidence for the close association of the church and school in the Dutch communities in England is that the minister of a Dutch church congregation would also sometimes act as the schoolmaster. Further evidence of the close links between the church and school in the Dutch communities is found in the minutes of the colloquies of the Dutch churches in England, in which schoolmasters are mentioned on several occasions. For example, at the colloquy of 1576 there is reference to the shortcomings of a number of the schoolmasters (schoolmeesters) (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 23). At the colloquy of 1609 reference is made to schoolmasters once more. 174 CHAPTER 4

Here a question was asked concerning the discipline that should be meted out to a schoolmaster who conducts classes against the consent of the church, on the basis of a licence from a commissaris or a spiritual court (geestelick hof ).1 The answer given was that the lack of competence of the teacher should be brought quietly to the attention of the commissaris and he should be informed that he was acting against the interests of the church. In the Corpus Disciplinae of the Dutch churches in England compiled after the colloquy of 1609, there are two points concerning the education of the children of these communities. First, that the churches should ensure that there are ‘pious’ schoolmasters (Doctors in Theology at universities), and secondly that the churches would check what books schoolmasters are using and encourage children to go to church (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 111; 138). Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence for the close connection between the Dutch churches and schools, and indeed for the use of Dutch in these schools, comes in a list of grievances drawn up by the leaders of the Dutch and Walloon churches in Kent on behalf of the Stranger churches in England in 1635 in response to the Injunctions of Archbishop Laud against these churches (see section 2.4.2). One of Laud’s aims was to force the children of the Strangers born in England to go to Anglican churches, referred to in the document as the ‘severing of our Natives to their parish Churches’. The relevant passage in the list of grievances runs (H 87: iii, ii, 1682):

Our children [are] being brought up by Dutch Schoolmasters and used to Dutch bookes and catechised in the Dutch toung and so growen up are incapable to understand Divine Service in the English toung, and ther- fore not to be urged to their Parish Church.

There may be an element of hyperbole here as the leaders were trying to demonstrate that the knowledge of Dutch of the children in their communities was insufficient for them to attend the local Anglican church, as Laud had wanted, but it does once more emphasize the close relationship between the churches and Dutch schools and also indicates that Dutch was still the medium of instruction in the schools run by the Dutch communities many years after the first of these had been founded.

1 A number of meanings are given for commissaris in the wnt. One meaning is that of an official who examined schoolmasters. This comes closest to the sense of the usage in this context. Alternatively, commissaris may simply be a Dutch version of the English ‘commissary’, who was an official appointed by the bishop. Examples of this latter usage are given below (see, for example, section 4.2.1.4). Learning And The Home 175

One further piece of evidence for this link is that it was clearly felt to be the responsibility of the schoolmasters to ensure that the children of the Dutch communities whom they taught were catechized appropriately. In relation to the learning of the catechism by these children, the Corpus Disciplinae for the Dutch churches in England, mentioned above, makes (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 145):

Een ernstige vermaninghe, dat d’ouders en de schoolmeesters haer bevlij- tighen om de kinders t’huys wel t’onderrichten, opdat se geschicktelick voor de Gemeinte andwoorden.

A serious exhortation that the parents and schoolmasters be diligent in educating the children at home, so that they answer appropriately in front of the community.

Although the Dutch schools run by the church congregations formed the focus of the education received by children in many of the Dutch communities, they were not the only means by which children were educated. In some cases, members of the communities ran their own schools, although they would often seek pupils from amongst the children of the local Dutch congregations; some children received private tuition from members of their communities; and in other cases children attended the local English grammar schools, where, although Latin, and sometimes Greek and French, were on the curriculum, it is no surprise that Dutch did not enjoy this status.2 Let us now consider in detail the education of the children in the Dutch communities in England.

4.2.1.1 London In the first years of its existence between 1550 and 1553, the London Dutch church established its own school in its precincts and employed a schoolmaster, Hermes Backereel.3 Marten Micron’s De Christelicke Ordinancien der Nederlantscher Gemeynten Christi . . . te Londen (‘The Christian Ordinances of the Dutch Congregation of Christ . . . in London’) recommended public examinations twice a year for children who had reached the age of five, and afternoon services on Sundays were limited to half an hour to allow time for the ministers to examine the older children in the articles of faith. Backereel

2 For the teaching of French in English schools see Lambley (1920; 2013). 3 Backereel is mentioned in a letter written by the Dutch church in Norwich to London in 1577 (H 87: iii, i, 459). 176 CHAPTER 4 was employed to ensure that the children received the necessary instruction to pass these examinations. When the Dutch church was re-founded after the Marian exile, it did not continue with its own school nor did it employ its own schoolmaster. Rather it relied on the services of self-employed schoolmasters, who ran their own schools, in and around London, some of whom were of Dutch origin.4 However, there were concerns about whether such schoolmasters could provide suitable religious instruction. It was probably this that encouraged a former elder at Austin Friars, Franciscus Marquinus, to become a schoolmaster in around 1580, operating his own school. By 1583 he had 24 Strangers’ children as pupils. One of the subjects that Marquinus’ school offered was Latin. Initially, this was taught by Petrus Heuriblock, but he died when trying to save a pupil from drowning and was replaced by Jan Cabeliau, an alumnus of the Dutch church, who had returned from the University of Leiden, and who was also to preach at the church (H 87: iii, i, 775). In addition to Latin, Marquinus’ school offered the customary reading, writing and arithmetic, with a special emphasis placed on the teaching of accountancy, underlining the importance of trade and commerce to the Dutch community (Grell 1996: 147–9). In the early seventeenth century Marquinus’ position as the leading pro- vider of a free school education for the London Dutch church was assumed by Abraham de Cerf. His curriculum also included reading, writing and arithmetic, but not Latin (Grell 1996: 150).5 De Cerf died in 1642. One schoolmaster who taught the children of wealthier members of the Dutch church in London was an Englishman, Richard Dafforne. He had kept a school in Amsterdam during the 1620s and married a Dutchwoman, Vroutie Jacob.6 He had proved his proficiency in Dutch by publishing the Dutch reader Grammatica ofte Leez-Leerlings-Steunsel (‘Grammar or Aid for those Learning to Read’) with J.E. Kloppenburgh in Amsterdam in 1627. On his return to England he taught Dutch to the children of members of the Dutch church in London (Grell 1996: 150–3). Despite Dafforne’s activities, the Dutch church in London spent several years trying to find a full-time schoolmaster for the children of its members. It was stipulated that the successful candidate should be able to teach both Dutch and French, as well as arithmetic. In a letter written in 1638 by the con-

4 Grell refers to these as ‘free’ schoolmasters. 5 As a consequence, his own son, Johannes, had to go elsewhere for instruction in Latin. 6 Grell records that Jacob was a teacher herself. This was not so unusual at this time. In Antwerp in 1576 there were 70 schoolmistresses (Marnef 1996: 35). Learning And The Home 177 sistory, there is reference to ‘our school’, although it is not clear whether the church’s school was in fact active at this time. If it was then it may be that ministers and other senior members of the church were providing instruction (H 87: iii, ii, 1768). Eventually, in 1646, Andries Minet, who had come from Middelburg, became the first teacher to be employed by the church since Backereel in the early 1550s. He was able to teach the children of Dutch parents (de jonge jeucht van de Duijtsche ouders geboortich inde selve tale) writing and arithmetic, and Dutch and French (te oeffenen in’t schrijven, cijfferen, als oock inde Duijtsche ende Fransche Tale te instrueren) (H 87: iii, ii, 2217). Minet’s employment was not successful for a number of reasons and his early death in January 1654 brought the arrangement and the Dutch church’s employment of a schoolmaster to an end. One linguistic aspect to his employment was that in February 1652, the minister Cesare Calandrini informed the rest of the consistory that the French church in London had complained that the preaching of French was taking place in Minet’s house (Grell 1996: 155–9). Clearly it was important that the linguistic boundaries that had been set for the French and Dutch worshipping communities a century earlier were adhered to. In 1682 the post of schoolmaster for the London Dutch church congregation was again vacant and we learn that one of the applicants for the position was Hendrik van Meppen, a schoolmaster from Leiden (H 87: iii, ii, 2930). Later, in 1701, Anna Guidet, a member of the Dutch congregation, wrote to the London consistory asking for a pension or sum of money to help her maintain her school. She instructed the children of members of the Dutch congregation in the faith (H 87: iii, ii, 4021).

4.2.1.2 Norfolk The children of members of the Dutch church at Norwich and of the other Dutch churches in Norfolk were taught the catechism, possibly using the one printed by the Brabant refugee, Anthonie de Solempne in 1568 (see section 3.2.2.2). As I shall discuss shortly a few of the Strangers’ children were educated alongside English children in the local grammar schools. In the 1568 return of the Dutch church in Norwich four men from the Dutch community are listed as schoolmasters (magister puerorum or ludimagister): Johannes Ruytinck, Egidius Honnenagel, Jodosorus van der Slaet and Richardus van der Varent, although no further details are given.7 Apart from Ruytinck we know nothing more about the extent to which they worked as schoolmasters in the city, but

7 Moens lists one Johannes Fyntincke as a schoolmaster in Norwich. This is probably a mis- reading of the name Ruytinck. 178 CHAPTER 4 on the other hand given that over 500 of those listed in the return were aged under seventeen, there would have been demand for their services (Rye 1887: 200–19; Moens 1887–8: 209–16). One other member of the Dutch community we should add to this group is Matthias de Rijcke (Matheus Richius). He is listed in the return as a doctor medicus. However, he is recorded in the Registers of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge as the teacher of Janus Gruterus, before he left Norwich for Cambridge (Forster 1967: 41). We return to Gruterus below. Johannes (Jan) Ruytinck had been an advocate with the Raad van Vlaanderen in Ghent. As one of the leading Calvinists in the town he had been forced to leave Flanders in 1567 (Decavele 1975: I, 105). He settled with his family in Norwich and worked there as a notary.8 He also established a school in the city, to which he made reference in a letter he wrote in Dutch to the consistory of the London Dutch church on 10 July 1577 (H 87: ii, 593). The letter seems to be a response to a request by the London church to Ruytinck to train as a minister to serve the Dutch congregations in England. Ruytinck writes that he runs a school, which had recently received youths from Flanders, who were boarding, and adds that other pupils were already living with them. He points out that if he were to train for the ministry, there would be no-one else to teach French to these Flemish children as well as some local English children:

Voorts zyn my noch onlanx gezonden wt Vlaenderen Jonghers die ic inden cost anveert hebbe neffens tgoet getall van andere die met my ooc woenen, Alle de welcke ende veel andere die myn schole frequenteren ghedestitueert zouden worden van middel om hier tFrançois te leeren, midts dat ic alleene ben die de Vlaemsche ende Jnghelsche kinderen inde Fransche tonghe instruere . . .

Furthermore, recently some boys were sent to me from Flanders, whom I received (into my house and provided with) board and lodgings along with a good number of others who also live with me; all of these and many others who attend my school would be without a means of

8 There is disagreement as to when Jan arrived in Norwich. Moens includes his name in a list of those representing the ‘Draperie’ in relation to a dispute around the election of wardens for the drapers in November 1571 (Moens 1887–8: 35). Grell writes that he fled to Norwich in 1573, but does not refer to a primary source to support this assertion (Grell 1996: 194). The first time Ruytinck’s name occurs in Hessels’ collection of correspondence is under a letter from the Dutch church in Norwich to the London Dutch church written on 27 June 1573 (H 87: iii, i, 232–3). Learning And The Home 179

learning French here, since I am the only one who instructs the Flemish and English children in the French tongue . . .

Given that Ruytinck describes some of his pupils as Flemish, I understand by this that their mother tongue was Dutch (Flemish), although some of them may well have been bilingual. This being so, it seems that Ruytinck was teaching French as a second language, at least to some of the pupils and therefore Dutch would have been one of the languages of instruction. That said, he may well have used English and French to varying degrees. This case reflects well the trilingualism of Norwich at this time to which Peter Trudgill has previously referred (Trudgill 2001: 183). In passing, one should note a couple of features of Ruytinck’s language that catch the eye. One of these is the hypercorrection of adding an initial ‘h’ associated with the Flemish dialect (prothesis), which is perhaps to be expected given that Ruytinck came from Ghent. In this letter we see zo ick hachte (‘as I thought’) instead of zo i(c)k acht[t]e.9 Willemyns notes that the length marker i in words such as voight (voogd) is omnipresent in Brabant, but completely absent in Flanders. However, we find it in Ruytinck’s use of the forms oirdeelen (‘judgements’) and woird (‘word’) (Willemyns 2013: 75–6). Ruytinck also uses the Brabant form anveert (‘accepts’), in which the long vowel has been umlau- tized (elsewhere a(a)nvaart) (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 119). Later, in 1590, the Mayor’s Court Book for Norwich makes reference to a Dutch school in the city. Ffraunces van Water was required to appear before the Mayor along with the minister of the Dutch church. Because there was a plague in the city, the authorities had demanded that the schools be suspended. Van Water’s refusal to comply with this demand was the reason he was being called before the Mayor (Eßer 1996: 121). In the 1622 Return of Strangers, two men ‘Borne Beyond the seas’ are listed as ‘scholemaster’: Francis Boy and John Cokele. However, in each case no further information is provided as to what they taught and to whom. Certainly there would still have been demand for the services of a Dutch schoolmaster in Norwich at this time, but it is not possible to say whether they spoke Dutch or whether they taught in Dutch in their work (Moens 1887–8: 191–2). The return of 1568 for King’s Lynn, which provides details of the Dutch Strangers in the town, gives us a couple of pieces of information regarding

9 For contemporary texts written in Flanders exhibiting prothesis and procope, see Willemyns (1979: 102–6). It was, though, not used by all authors at this time. Willemyns (pp. 98–101) reproduces a text written in Ghent, Ruytinck’s home town, in c. 1570, which exhibits neither prothesis or procope. 180 CHAPTER 4 the education available to the community. One of these is that a dozen of the Strangers were being catechized (pro Catechumenis habentur), most probably in Dutch. Of these ten were adults and two are described as adolescens, i.e., juvenile. The other is that one of the elders, Justus Junius, was a teacher. The return tells us that he had previously been a schoolmaster in Breda in Brabant (occupatione ludimag[iste]r) quondam in Civitate Brabantie quae vocatur Breeda).10 It goes on to tell us that he was now running a school in Lynn (nego- cium agens Scholasticum) (Rye 1887: 228). Given that 111 of the 176 Strangers listed in the return were under sixteen, there would have been demand for his services. No details are given as to what was taught at his school. At the end of the return it is stated that Judocus Junius, an elder at the church, was not able to sign it because of a lack of knowledge of Latin (propter Latine Lingue (sic.) defectum). Judocus and Justus are two versions of the same name, so we can assume that if he taught any Latin, it would have been at a very basic level. Given that he and his pupils had all arrived in England in 1567 or 1568 and that he had previously worked as a schoolmaster in Breda, it is most likely that lessons were given in Dutch. The return of aliens at Great Yarmouth carried out in May 1571 listed ‘a skolemaster’, one John Richardes from Zeeland. He had already been living in the town for one year (“Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571” 1896–98: 291). We have no further details about what Richardes taught, but again it is likely that he would have given lessons in Dutch. Finally, it may be that the minister at Thetford provided the children of the Dutch church members with the necessary instruction to be catechized, but no details have yet come to light. In Norwich sons of leading members of the first wave of immigrants were taught by other members of the Dutch community. Janus Gruterus provides a good example of this. He arrived in Norwich with his parents from Antwerp aged seven in 1567. He received lessons from the doctor, Matthias de Rijcke (Forster 1967: 41). He left Norwich aged sixteen to attend Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge (Venn 1922–7: ii, 272; Forster 1984: 28–9). In the next generation, leading members of the community sent their sons to the local grammar school, Norwich School. Unfortunately, the records of the school from this period are no longer available. However, we know of several members of the Dutch community, who attended the school from the records of those young men who subsequently matriculated at Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge University. Between 1592 and 1663 no fewer than seventeen sons of Dutch and French Strangers from Norwich matriculated at Gonville & Caius

10 This is probably the same person as Me Josse, maistre d’escole, who was banished from Breda on 17 August 1568 for acts of iconoclasm (Beenakker 1971: 163; 167). Learning And The Home 181

figure 13 The building forming the architectural core of Norwich School in the early modern period, now the School’s chapel Author’s own collection

College, Cambridge.11 Some of these are discussed below (Moens 1887–8: 58). Others may have attended the school, but not then subsequently matriculated at Oxford or Cambridge. It is likely that one person who falls into this category is Jan Cruso, who would later write Dutch poetry, which is discussed in section 6.2.4 (see also Appendix 1). Cruso may well have sat next to John Cosin, the future Bishop of Durham, who attended the school, and who would later recall with fondness ‘my ancient friend Captain Cruso’, a reference to Jan’s involvement in the Norwich militia (Joby 2014c).

4.2.1.3 Essex An early reference to a schoolmaster in the Dutch community at Colchester comes in a letter from the consistory of the Dutch church in the town written

11 The close links between Gonville & Caius and Norwich result in part from the fact that the College was refounded by John Caius, a former pupil at Norwich School. One interesting result of the link is that the college library holds a manuscript copy of the order of the Dutch church in Norwich: Constitutiones Ecclesiae Belgii-Germaniae quae Nordowici est, Library ms 389/609, 61–81. 182 CHAPTER 4 on 27 November 1582 (H 87: iii, i, 695). Here, the author, Anthonius Algoet, refers to ‘our schoolmaster’, which suggests that the person referred to was being employed by the Colchester church community. In 1600 Jan Proost, the newly-installed minister of the Dutch church in Colchester, wrote to the consistory in London informing it that his church was not ‘properly’ provided with a schoolmaster (H 87: iii, i, 1467). He asked whether there was someone well trained in the art of writing and acquainted with the French language, who could take up this position. These facts tell us that some basic level of education was being provided to the children of the Dutch community in Colchester, but that a better level of provision was required. Unfortunately, no response from the London consistory survives, so we cannot say whether or not Proost’s request met with success. As in the case of Norwich, some of the children of members of the Dutch community in Colchester attended local English schools. Proost’s predecessor, Theodorus vanden Berghe (Montanus) (1572–1598), sent his son, Samuel, to the local Free Grammar School in Colchester (Grell 1996: 107; H 87: iii, i, 962). Moens provides a list of some seventy boys who attended the Grammar School between 1637 and 1739 and who were ‘probably of Dutch descent’ (Moens 1905: 132–5).

4.2.1.4 Kent A letter dated 29 June 1607 from the Dutch church in Sandwich to the church in London tells us something about how the Dutch educated their children in the early years of their presence in the town (H 87: iii, i, 1201). It concerns a member of the church, Boudewijn de Bac. He had been refused permission to set up a school and had then gone to the commissary of the Archbishop of Canterbury to make a complaint against the church for its refusal. From the letter we learn that the Dutch church in Sandwich had appointed its own schoolmasters for the past forty-six years (die wy gepleecht hebben eenighen tyt dese 46 jaren), i.e., since about 1561. The Sandwich consistory wrote that it was against de Bac’s plans, because it feared that its church government and discipline would suffer. It sought advice from the Dutch church in London about the action it should take against de Bac (H 87: iii, i, 1201). In a letter dated 8 May 1575, written by the consistory of the Dutch church in Sandwich, it is stated that if its minister were to leave to take up a position in Antwerp, not only would the congregation suffer, but also the education of its members’ children (H 87: iii, i, 303).12 In a letter dated 13 April 1590 there is

12 In his commentary on this letter Hessels refers to one ‘school’. However, the form scho- len, which is used in the letter, is plural, so it seems that there was more than one Dutch school in Sandwich. Learning And The Home 183 reference to a teacher, Jan Monsij, who had left Sandwich for London the previous year (H 87: iii, i, 907). One of the Strangers in Sandwich was the Latin teacher, Robert Fleming. He had taught Latin in Ieper and is likely to have given instruction in the language to some of the Strangers’ children in the town (Backhouse 1995: 49; 67). On 27 December 1598 one of the members of the Dutch community at Sandwich, Pieter de Leeuwe, wrote to the London Dutch church offering his services. He informed it that he had been teaching reading, writing and counting at a school in Sandwich to over 80 children for 18 months, but found that his income was insufficient to support his family (H 87: iii, i, 1033). It is not clear from the details given whether de Leeuwe ran his own school, or was employed at the school run by the church. One child of Dutch Strangers in Sandwich, who would later give us a small insight into his education, is Willem Baudaert (Wilhelmus Baudartius) (1565– 1640). He was born in Deinze in Flanders, but grew up in Sandwich speaking both Dutch and French at home, and learnt English playing with local children on the street. He went to the French school in Canterbury run by Paul le Pipere and then to the Latin (Grammar) School, first in Sandwich and then in Ghent, to which town his family returned after the Pacification of Ghent in 1576 (Frijhoff 2010: 13–14). Baudartius would later contribute to the compila- tion of the States Bible, first published in 1637, and write works in Dutch such as Morghen-wecker der vrye Nederlantsche Provintien (‘Rising Sun of the free Dutch Provinces’) (1610). The Dutch congregation at Maidstone established a school for its children. From a letter dated 15 July 1574 from the consistory of the Dutch church at Maidstone to the London Dutch church, we learn that they had asked the Sandwich community for a minister and a schoolmaster and that Adrianus Obrius, originally from Den Briel, had gone to Maidstone to fulfil both tasks (H 87: iii, i, 261). It was the Dutch congregations of Sandwich and Maidstone, together with the Walloon congregation at Canterbury that wrote the response in 1635 to the Injunctions of Archbishop Laud quoted above (H 87: iii, ii, 1682). We can infer from this that Dutch schools were still operating in both towns at this time, although the numbers at the school in Maidstone would probably have been quite small. Finally, in relation to Kent, we learn that in 1571 there were three schoolmasters from Flanders living in Dover, but no further details are provided (Overend 1888–9: 111). So, we have seen that in a number of the towns and cities in which Dutch communities were established, such as London, Colchester, Sandwich and Maidstone, the Dutch churches set up and ran their own schools, in which Dutch was the principal language. Schools that often had a close association 184 CHAPTER 4 with the local Dutch church were also established by members of the Dutch communities. In the case of Richard Dafforne and Anna Guidet in London and Jan Ruytinck in Norwich, there is evidence to suggest that in the establishments they ran Dutch was again the principal language of instruction. Over time, English no doubt crept in and could be heard in these schools. However, in London at least the cases of Anna Guidet, and later that of the Dutchman, Jan Raam, who took up the post of precentor and schoolmaster in 1743, and who taught reading, writing, arithmetic, the singing of psalms and the catechism, indicate that the children of Dutch members of the London community continued to be taught and catechized in Dutch into the eighteenth century (H 87: iii, ii, 2834).

4.2.2 Further Education Some of the sons of members of the Dutch communities in England went onto further study in England. Some also studied in the Low Countries, as did a number of English students. Furthermore, a number of Dutch taught at Oxford and Cambridge universities. Let us consider examples of people in each group and the extent to which they might have used Dutch in the given academic institutions.

4.2.2.1 The Academy at Austin Friars The training of ministers was undertaken from early on by the Dutch church in London; it was academic in nature, and took place in Latin and Dutch (Braekman 1989: 70–1). A number of references to this training occur in the minutes of the church for 1569–1585. In 1572 a decision was taken that each Thursday there should be a meeting to evaluate the sermons of the trainee ministers (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 288–9).13 An entry made in 1578 lists five men who were to be trained as ministers at the London church (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 486). One potential minister who declined the offer of training was Jan Ruytinck. He wrote to London in 1577 indicating that the obligations of his school in Norwich meant that he was unable to train for the ministry either in London (tuwent lit. ‘at your [academy]’) or in Holland (H 87: ii, 593). Clearly, though, the programme of training met with some success, for in 1579 the London church received a letter from the Reformed community in Ghent asking for a minister (Jelsma and Boersma 1993: 514).

13 The full text of the minutes 1569–1585 can be consulted online at http://resources. huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/acta_london/#source=1&page=734&view=homePane. Accessed 31 July 2014. Learning And The Home 185

4.2.2.2 The Sons of Strangers Studying at Oxford and Cambridge Universities Mention has already been made of a number of the sons of members of the Dutch communities, who matriculated at Oxford or Cambridge. Here, of course, Dutch faced competition from other languages, notably Latin and English. Five Flemings matriculated at Cambridge in 1567 alone (Forster 1967: 19, n. 4). In Chapter 3 we met Pieter Weynoet, who matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge at Easter 1577. A contemporary of Weynoet at Cambridge was Janus Gruterus. He was born in Antwerp in 1560, where his father, Walter, had been an important and wealthy citizen involved in the cloth trade (Forster 1967: 2). As a result of religious persecution he and his family left Antwerp and settled in Norwich in 1567. Janus lived in the city until he was sixteen, when he went up to Cambridge University. He studied there for seven years at Gonville & Caius College, before moving to Leiden and eventually onto Heidelberg, where he became professor of history. One contemporary wrote that Gruterus penned some five hundred sonnets in Dutch during his time in Leiden, although only a few of these survive (see section 6.2.2). It has been suggested that he was probably already writing Dutch sonnets in Cambridge (Forster 1967: 6–14). Another illustrious scion of a family in the Norwich Dutch community who matriculated at Cambridge was Aquila Cruso, the younger brother of Jan Cruso, mentioned above. Their parents had left Hondschoote in the modern- day Département du Nord in France and arrived in Norwich at some point during the 1570s or 1580s. Their father, also somewhat confusingly called Jan, was a cloth merchant, and was later described as being mediocris fortunae (‘of moderate wealth’) (Venn 1901: 209).14 Aquila was born in St Saviour’s parish, Norwich on 21 January 1597.15 After spending four years at Norwich School,16 in 1610 he was admitted as a scholar to Gonville & Caius College, where Janus Gruterus had earlier matriculated, and which had strong connections with Norfolk. Aquila matriculated in 1611, took a B.A. in 1613–1614 and an M.A. in 1618, and was a Fellow of the College from 1616–1634. In 1619 he had been appointed as a lecturer in Greek at Cambridge University and was clearly gifted in both Greek and Latin. It is likely that he is the author of a Latin play, Euribates, or

14 See also O.P. Grell, ‘Cruso, John ( fl. 1595–1655)’ (odnb). Accessed online at: http://www .oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=6852 on 10 April 2014. 15 nro ncr 16a. The Mayor’s Court Books. 16 Venn and Venn (1922–7: I, 429) give Aquila’s school as ‘School, Norwich’. J. Venn (1901: 209) gives the details for Aquila’s secondary education as ‘School, Norwich, under Mr Stonham, four years’. See also Moens (1887–8: 58). 186 CHAPTER 4

Euribates Pseudomagus, written during his student days at Cambridge.17 There is no direct evidence that the play was ever performed, although it has been identified with a ‘Comedie’ produced at Gonville & Caius in 1615–1616.18 He also penned a 100-line Latin poem written in hexameters, which was an epicedium, or funeral ode, for the late minister of the London Dutch church, Simeon Ruytinck, published in 1622 (see section 6.2.4). He signed this ‘Posuit A. Cruso Cantabr’.19 One can imagine that Aquila wrote other poems in Latin, but to date none of these has come to light. From a letter written by Aquila in Latin dated 11 January 1615 it is evident that the Dutch church in London had provided financial support for his studies at Cambridge (H 87: iii, i, 1614). He would later acknowledge his debt to the London church in a declaration he wrote in Dutch in its minute book on 28 June 1621.20 From this entry and a letter from his brother, Jan, written in Dutch to the London Dutch church (H 87: iii, i, 1285),21 it is clear that the leaders of the church were concerned that they would lose their investment in Aquila’s education, for in the previous year he had been ordained as a deacon and priest in the Anglican church. He would go on to hold a number of posts in the Anglican church, and in this role, English would clearly take precedence. Later, Aquila would return to Norwich, where his son Francis, was baptized in 1652. Like his father, Francis would also attend Norwich School, and take a B.A. at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge (Venn 1901: 209; 436; Moens 1887–8: 58).

17 One other work by Aquila survives. This is an oration entitled ‘Εὐδαίμων Aristotelicus: Somnium’ (‘The Fortunate Aristotelian—Dream’). It was published posthumously in a collection of Latin works in 1665. It is possible that one other work in this collection, Antimachus Gigantum, was written by Aquila, for in the contents page the letters ‘AC’ precede this title: Aquilæ Cruso, τοῠ μακαρίτου, Εὐδαίμων Aristotelicus; Richardi Watson Ludio Paræneticus; orationes olim habitæ Cantabrigiæ . . . Prioris adhuc Antimachus Gigantum; posterioris alia, etc. London, 1665. See Venn (1901: 209). 18 A manuscript of the play is preserved in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge: ms iii i 17. For a description of it, see Rhodes James (1904, item 185). For a published reproduction of the manuscript, see Coldewey and Copenhaver (1991). This edition also includes a short overview of Aquila’s life and a synopsis of the play (pp. 6–12). The manuscript has the colophon ‘Authore Mr. Cruso Caii Colle. Cantabr.’, with the ‘M’ being written over a ‘D’. J. Venn (1901: 304) states that Aquila’s nephew, John Cruso (i.e., the son of the poet, Jan), was the author of Euribates. Forster (1967: 67, n. 1) agrees. However, more recent commentators attribute authorship to Aquila. See, for example, Grell, ‘Cruso, John’ (odnb), and Coldewey and Copenhaver (1991: 12). 19 Epicedia (1622: 29–33). 20 clc/180/MS07397/007, fol. 87v. 21 The letter is addressed to Eerweerde (‘Reverend’) Compere. Compere is an old Dutch word for ‘godfather’ (wnt). Unfortunately, we do not know the identity of this man. Learning And The Home 187

One other scion of the Norwich Dutch community to mention here is Theophilus Elison. He was the son and successor (from 1639) of the minister of the Dutch church in Norwich, Johannes Elison, whom we met in Chapter 2. Like Gruterus and Aquila Cruso, Theophilus attended Norwich School and subsequently matriculated at Gonville & Caius. He received his B.A. from Cambridge in 1629 and matriculated in theology in Leiden in the following year (Grell 1996: 63). Despite attending an English school and university, where Latin was the medium of tuition, Theophilus retained his knowledge of Dutch as evidenced by the many letters he wrote in the language, published in Hessels’ collection, in his capacity as minister of the Dutch church at Norwich. He was, though, as one might expect given his education, clearly able to mix with the local English population, for he is recorded as being present at a meeting concerning Norwich City Library in 1657, which was conducted in English (Wilkins-Jones 2008: 48). One further student of Dutch heritage to mention is Richard Verstegen (c.1550–1640). He was the grandson of a Dutch immigrant from Gelderland. He studied at Christ Church College, Oxford, but as a Catholic could not take his degree. His faith later forced him to flee England, eventually settling in Antwerp, where he became a prodigious writer of Dutch verse. Given this and given his heritage, we have to ask whether he knew, and even used, Dutch at Oxford.

4.2.2.3 Students from the United Provinces at Oxford and Cambridge Universities Dutch students also studied at English universities. One example of this is the future Leiden Professor of Theology, Franciscus Gomarus. He studied at both Oxford and Cambridge during the early 1580s. Later, in Leiden he would take in as student-boarders alumni from the Dutch church in London (Grell 1996: 232–3). Another, rather less straightforward case is that of Cesare Calandrini. Although it would probably be going too far to call Calandrini Dutch, he studied in the United Provinces and was the minister of the Dutch church in London for many years. He was born at Stade in 1595, the son of Italian refugees from Lucca. He matriculated at the Academy in Geneva in 1612. He then studied at the Academy at Saumur before spending a short time in Oxford, where he was admitted as a reader to the Bodleian Library. In 1616 he matriculated at Leiden University, where he became acquainted with his contemporary, Constantijn Huygens, and in 1619 finished his studies in theology at Exeter College, Oxford under the Regius Professor of Divinity, John Prideaux (Grell 1996: 105–7). 188 CHAPTER 4

Finally, having received a doctorate in law at Leiden University, the Dutch- born Philibert Vernatti, who would go on to finance drainage projects in England, was incorporated into Oxford University in 1613 (Clark 1887: 377).

4.2.2.4 Studying in the Low Countries Going in the other direction, apart from Janus Gruterus and Theophilus Elison, a number of other sons of members of the Dutch communities in England studied in the United Provinces. Simeon Ruytinck, mentioned above, who preceded Cesare Calandrini as minister of the Dutch church in London, studied at Leiden, and indeed Geneva (Grell 1996: 109; Ruytinck et al. 1873: 395).22 His son, Johannes, matriculated at Leiden in 1630, studying there at the expense of the consistory of the London Dutch church. Interestingly, it seems that he had initially gone to study at Cambridge. He wrote a letter in Dutch from Syd. Col., i.e., Sydney Sussex College, in which he complained of the ‘corruption’ of his times, by which he meant that the cost of his ‘first promotion’ (£10), together with living expenses (£5 per quarter), would make it too dear for him to continue his studies (H 87: iii, ii, 2912). This letter is not dated, but it is likely that he left Cambridge after a short while to pursue his studies at Leiden. Ruytinck would later serve as a minister of the Dutch church at Colchester. One of Ruytinck’s predecessors at Colchester, Jan Proost, mentioned above, was born in London and matriculated at Leiden in 1592 (Moens 1905: 89). The son of Proost’s own predecessor, Samuel vanden Berghe (Montanus), mentioned above, wrote in Latin to the consistory of the Dutch church in London in 1594 thanking it for helping to defray the costs of his studying at Leiden (H 87: iii, i, 968).23 Among the boarders at Leiden from the London Dutch church whom Franciscus Gomarus took in was Tobias Regius, the son of Jacobus Regius, one of the early ministers at Austin Friars. On 3 September 1605 Gomarus wrote a letter in Dutch to the London Dutch church giving its leaders a report on Tobias’ studies (H 87: iii, i, 1164). He recorded that he had made Tobias study at

22 Ruytinck wrote two theses in Latin at Leiden that are still preserved in the university library: Theses Physicae de Elementis (Leiden, 1597) and Disputationum Theologicarum Repetitarum (Leiden, 1598). Grell (1996: 117, n. 46). 23 A letter dated 18 December 1593, written by Vanden Berghe’s father, Theodore, indicates that he had studied at Cambridge for two years, with the financial support of two members of the London Dutch church. However, no reference to Samuel can be found in the registers of the university (H 87: iii, i, 962). Learning And The Home 189 the Latin School for six months before teaching him Greek and Latin texts. He was shortly to begin studying Hebrew and then theology. Between 1590 and 1642 a total of 491 students from England matriculated at Leiden, amongst them 162 in medicine and 72 in theology. Of those who matriculated in theology, over half came from the Dutch and Walloon immigrant communities in England. To those students already mentioned we can add members of the Regenmortel family. As well as theologians, this family also produced one student, Assuerus, who studied medicine at Leiden (Grell 1996: 234–7). Some of the 491 students from England were English. A well-known English student at Leiden was Thomas Browne, the author of Religio Medici, who was awarded a Degree of Doctor of Medicine from the university in 1633.24 We do not know whether he used any Dutch during his time in Leiden as he could probably have got by with Latin and English, and possibly French. Other students at Leiden were Scots and details of some of these are provided in Chapter 7. In 1700 it is reckoned that a third of the students at Leiden were British (Wilson 1946: 165). Finally, many students went to study at Leuven, in the province of Brabant, from both Britain and Ireland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For example, between 1616–1658, 239 Irish students studied at Leuven and between 1689–1700 another 170 (Vandermeersch 1989: 11–12, 23).25

4.2.2.5 Dutch Scholars Teaching in England Scholars of ancient languages at Oxford and Cambridge came from the Dutch communities in England and the Low Countries. An example of the latter is John Drusius, and of the former, Edwardus Meetkercke (Meetkerkius), both of whom lectured at Oxford. A Regius Professorship in Hebrew was established at Christ Church College, Oxford in 1546. In some sense a knowledge of Hebrew had to be imported from elsewhere and the disturbances in the Low Countries in the 1550s and 1560s provided the necessary source for Hebrew scholars. Drusius, or Jan vanden Driessche, was born in Oudenaarde in Flanders in 1550 and studied at Ghent and Leuven. He was incorporated into Oxford University in 1572 and taught Hebrew, Syriac and Aramaic there for a few years

24 Brent Nelson notes that relatively little is known about Browne’s time at Leiden University (Nelson 2008: 83). Reid Barbour states that Browne may have stayed in Leiden for as little as one month, at the end of 1633, although he also suggests it is possible that Browne resided and studied there for most of 1633 (Barbour 2008: 15). See also Feenstra (1989: 28). 25 For a brief introduction to Dutch in the Southern Netherlands in the seventeenth century, see Willemyns (2013: 96–7). This is a subject that has received relatively little academic attention. 190 CHAPTER 4 in the 1570s. Later, his son, Jan, also taught at Oxford, although he died at a young age (Fletcher and Upton 1989: 119, 128; Clark 1887: 377; 381). Edwardus Meetkercke was the son of a Flemish father, Adolf, who had fled the Netherlands after having been involved in the Earl of Leicester’s failed coup d’état in 1587 (Grell 1996: 224). He was born in London and baptized at Austin Friars in 1590. He became Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford from 1621 to 1626. In July 1618 he guided a young Constantijn Huygens around Oxford when he visited the city during his first diplomatic mission to England (Constantijn Huygens 1911–17: 1, 52; Huygens 2003b: I, 87 l. 402). One wonders what language Meetkercke and Huygens spoke to one another. It could have been Dutch, Latin, English or French, or possibly more than one of these. In 1622 Meetkercke contributed a Latin poem to the collection of Latin and Dutch elegies published after the death of Simeon Ruytinck. He also wrote poetry in Hebrew (dnb).

4.2.2.6 Household Academies Finally, mention should be made of the household academies of leading Puritans, which were attended by some of the ministers of the Dutch churches in England. For example Jan Proost attended Richard Blakerby’s household seminar (Grell 1996: 41; 77). One would assume that the business of these academies was conducted in English, although the use of other languages, including Dutch, cannot be entirely excluded.

4.2.2.7 Concluding Remarks on Learning in Further Educational Establishments So, what does this tell us about the use of Dutch in early modern England? On the one hand, we have the training of ministers by the London Dutch church in Dutch (and Latin). On the other hand, we find only the occasional hint of the use of Dutch amongst the various groups of students discussed in this section. Janus Gruterus may have written some Dutch sonnets at Cambridge. Sons of members of the Dutch communities in England who studied at Leiden had the opportunity to speak their mother tongue at its source, and possibly to improve it. Did the English students who studied at Leiden pick up some Dutch and possibly use their knowledge of the language on their return to England? Further research may provide the answer. But perhaps what this discussion allows us to do is to recognize the competition from other languages that Dutch faced amongst what one might call the educated elite. Greek and Hebrew played an important role in the studies and teaching of some of the individuals mentioned above, and then we come to the question of the role of Latin at English universities. There is perhaps a general perception that Latin was an all-pervasive language and that it was used in lectures and disputations, Learning And The Home 191 and in the quads and dinner halls at Oxford and Cambridge. This probably comes close to the truth, but not entirely. In the early seventeenth century, the president and fellows of Queens’ College, Cambridge, enjoined undergradu- ates to speak Latin in hall at dinner and supper (Burke 1991: 32). This suggests that they were not doing so at this time, or at any rate, may have been using their vernacular on occasion. Certainly some students from the Dutch community in Norwich were contemporaries at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, or at other Colleges, such as Pieter Weynoet at Corpus Christi. We do not know if they exchanged words in Dutch with each other outside their lectures or tutorials, but the possibility is certainly there. So far, the focus of this chapter has been on the use of Dutch within the confines of academic establishments such as schools and universities. Let us now broaden our horizons slightly and consider the use of Dutch within the larger domain of learning.

4.2.3 Cornelis Drebbel: A Case Apart The early modern period was an age of scientific discovery. One Dutchman who worked in this field in early modern England was Cornelis Drebbel (1572–1633). He was born in Alkmaar and went to England in 1604, possibly at the invitation of King James I, to whose court he was attached intermit- tently. Charles Wilson refers to Drebbel as ‘half alchemist, half scientist’, who contrived stage effects for the royal masques, allegedly invented a submarine boat that travelled under the surface of the Thames and a patent brand of fire- ship for naval use (Wilson 1946: 94). He was also something of a multilingual. Drebbel wrote to James in Latin and, at least initially, they may have spoken to each other in the language (Harris 1961: 187–8). Whilst in London Drebbel published works on the Continent. In 1607 he published his Wonder-vondt van de eeuwighe bewegingh, a book in Dutch on perpetual motion, in Alkmaar. It includes a 24-line poem in Dutch alexandrines based on French verse by du Bartas and a long dedication in Dutch by Drebbel to King James.26 He worked for several years in Prague at the court of Emperor Rudolf ii before returning to England. In 1621 he published his treatise on the nature of the elements in Dutch: Een Kort Tractaet van de Natuere der Elementen (‘A Short Treatise on the Nature of the Elements’), in Haarlem and Rotterdam. He had first published

26 The author of the verse is not indicated. At the end of the dedication Drebbel remarks that he had written it not in English nor in Latin, but in Dutch (duyts), so that he could fully express his opinions: maer also mijn meyninghe niet en can volcomen uytbeelden noch in de Engelsche noch in de Latijnsche tael so hebbe dat in Duyts geschreven. 192 CHAPTER 4 this in Haarlem in 1604.27 He would publish it again in Haarlem in 1632, the year before his death.28 Constantijn Huygens devotes several pages of his early autobiography (in Latin) to his encounters with his fellow Hollander, Drebbel, on his early visits to London. He talks of having had many interesting conversations with Drebbel, though does not tell us the language in which they conversed (Huygens 1987: 127–33).29 Dutch would seem most likely, although Latin and English (and possibly French) are other possible candidates. Huygens would write to his parents from England (in French) in 1622, telling them that he had met Drebbel and that he was not, as some were saying, a sorcerer, a rumour doubtless fuelled by his interest in alchemy (Constantijn Huygens 1911–17: 1, 89). Another person with whom Drebbel might have spoken Dutch is the Antwerp-born artist, Anthony van Dyck. It is possible that a portrait that Van Dyck painted in London in around 1632 is of Drebbel.30 Towards the end of his life, in 1633, Drebbel was involved in a plan to drain the Fens around Cambridge, while living in near-poverty running an ale house. He died in London in that year (Wilson 1971: 73; 1968: 99–100). We return to Drebbel in the next section.

4.2.4 The Royal Society The Royal Society was established in 1660. A Dutchman who visited the Royal Society, and was indeed elected as a Fellow of the Society, was Christiaan Huygens. However, given his facility with languages, including French, Latin and English, there would have been no need for him to use Dutch at the Society. He did, though, keep a diary in Dutch of his visit to London in 1663, when he was elected as a member (see section 6.4.3.4). Another Dutchman associated with the Royal Society was the microbiol- ogist, Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723). He sent letters on his work in Dutch to the Society, which were immediately translated into English and published in ‘Philosophical Transactions’, the journal of the Royal Society established by Henry Oldenburg in 1665 (Hoftijzer 1988: 125).31 The German-born

27 In 1608 Drebbel published his treatise on the nature of the elements in Leiden in German, whilst still in London. 28 The information on these editions comes from http://www.drebbel.net/Tractaet.pdf and http://www.drebbel.net/Drebbel%20Biblio%20overzicht.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2014. 29 Huygens talks of Drebbel visiting him, whereas another commentator talks of Huygens visiting Drebbel often at Eltham Palace (Huijs 2005: 33). 30 This now hangs in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. 31 Visit http://www.vanleeuwenhoek.com/Letters.htm for translations of Van Leeuwen hoek’s letters to the Royal Society. Accessed on 31 July 2014. Learning And The Home 193 multilingual Oldenburg seems to have translated Van Leeuwenhoek’s letters into English (Schierbeek 1959: 63). Van Leeuwenhoek’s work was held in such high regard that he was unanimously offered a Fellowship of the Royal Society in 1680. The certificate he received was worded in Dutch for Van Leeuwenhoek’s benefit, as he had little knowledge of English (Schierbeek 1959: 37). He wrote to one of the Society’s members, Robert Hooke, to express his gratitude at being offered the Fellowship (Schierbeek 1959: 34). By this time Hooke could read Dutch, having begun to learn the language in 1672.32 Did Hooke have a hand in writing the certificate for Van Leeuwenhoek in Dutch? He makes a number of entries in his diary in relation to the language, which will now be considered (Hoftijzer 1988: 134). Hooke began to learn Dutch in December 1672. On 11 December he wrote in his diary ‘Began to learn Dutch with Mr. Blackburne’; on 14 December ‘learnt Low Dutch’; and on 18 December ‘learnt Dutch with Blackburne’. Clearly he made quick progress for on 19 December he made an entry ‘Bought in Duck Lane . . . Dutch book 1sh.’ Interestingly on 9 January 1673 Hooke ‘bought of Mr. Blackburn High Dutch dictionary for 2 sh’. He was certainly quite an accomplished linguist, learning inter alia a little Chinese and planning a universal language with his friend, Francis Lodowick (Jardine 2003: 286). On 29 January Hooke wrote in his diary that he had received Nicolaas Witsen’s work on shipbuilding, Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier (‘Ancient and Modern Shipbuilding and Navigation’), published in Dutch in Amsterdam in 1671. On 21 February he wrote (Hooke 1968: 16–30; Hoftijzer 1988: 134):

bought of Pits, Little Britain, High Dutch bible, 2 low dutch testaments 1sh. Stevins mechanicks, Dutch 4d . . . Dutch grammar and Dutch Corderius 3d.

‘Stevins mechanicks, Dutch’ probably refers to Simon Stevin’s De Beghinselen der Weeghconst (‘The Principles of Statics’) (statics was one of the many subjects that Hooke was interested in); and ‘Dutch Corderius’ to a Dutch translation of the Colloquia by Maturinus Corderius (1479–1564). Unfortunately, Hooke does not record which ‘Dutch grammar’ he bought from Pits. But the fact that he could buy these books in a London bookshop suggests that there was demand for Dutch publications in the English capital. On 18 March 1674

32 Hooke may also have read some of Van Leeuwenhoek’s Dutch letters. One diary entry runs, ‘Received letter from Leeuwenhook, paid’ (Hooke 1968: 426). Did he read this in Dutch before passing it onto the Royal Society? Hooke mentions other letters from Van Leeuwenhoek on a number of occasions in his diary, but does not reveal whether he read them in the Dutch or in translation. 194 CHAPTER 4

Hooke ‘bought of Tower Hill bookseller Dutch book of Dying’ (Hooke 1968: 92). Hooke also bought ‘3 peices of Snellius 6s.’ from Pits on 13 August 1674 (Hooke 1968: 117). We are not told whether these books were written in Dutch, but the possibility is certainty there. On 14 December 1674 he ‘bought in Little Brittan, Gheens Soldier postures 3 ½ sh.’ (Hooke 1968: 135). It was this book that Rembrandt had earlier consulted for the postures of militia men in his most famous work, ‘The Nightwatch’, painted in 1642. Later, in 1680, Hooke makes a number of entries with the single word ‘Dutch’ and on Monday 5 April he ‘borrowed 2 dutch Voyages of Pits’ (Hooke 1968: 442–3).33 Was this a further engagement with the language?34 The Dutch naturalist and anatomist, Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680), had a network of friends and colleagues including members of the Royal Society (Porteman and Smits-Veldt 2009: 851). Extracts of two of Swammerdam’s letters addressed to the Royal Society were published in the Society’s ‘Philosophical Transactions’.35 Unlike those of his fellow countryman, Van Leeuwenhoek, these were written in Latin. Robert Hooke was certainly interested in Swammerdam’s work. His diary entry for 5 August 1678 indicates that he purchased Swammerdam’s Ephemeri Vita (‘The Life of the Ephemeron’). Despite the Latin title, the subtitle and the book itself were written in Dutch; it was first published in Amsterdam in 1675 (Hooke 1968: 370).

4.2.5 Materials for Learning Dutch For those English people, like Robert Hooke, who wanted to learn Dutch a number of Dutch learners and grammars were available. In 1606 George Elde published Marten le Mayre’s ‘The Dutch Schoole Master’ in London, possibly the first book for English learners of Dutch to be printed. On the title page Le Mayre presents himself as ‘professor of the said tongue (i.e., Dutch)’. He tells the reader that he wrote the book because he had ‘perceived that there was not any Booke in print in the Dutch and English tongues, for to learne the said Languages’. He advises readers that to improve their Dutch they must ‘acquaint your self with some Dutch-man’ and ‘frequent also the Dutch-church, having a Dutch Bible, and marking how the Reader readeth, and hearing the Sermons’.

33 Pits seems to have had good Dutch connections, for on 26 March 1674, Hooke records ‘Sent letter to Const. Hugens by Pits’ (Hooke 1968: 93). This letter is not included in the collection of Huygens’ correspondence edited by J.A. Worp (Constantijn Huygens 1911–17). 34 Hooke notes conversations with the German-born multilingual, Theodore Haak. Although Haak knew Dutch, we are told that he and Hooke conversed in Latin (Nichols 1994: 120; Miller 1992: xxiv, 59). 35 Philosophical Transactions, 1 January 1673 vol. 8, no. 92–100, 6040–6042. Learning And The Home 195

Further advice includes acquiring a Dutch dictionary. This would still be something of a relative novelty at this time and one wonders how easy it was to acquire a Dutch dictionary in London at this time. He also advises the reader to ‘learne to translate the hardest booke you can finde’. The primer includes a guide to the pronunciation of Dutch, focussing in particular on Dutch diph- thongs and what Le Mayre refers to as ‘Triphtounges’, such as waeyt and maeyt. He advises the student to pronounce them as if they were written wayte and mayte. There are also verb conjugations and some useful words and phrases. The largest group of phrases comes under the title ‘To buy and sell / Om te coopen ende vercoopen’, which suggests that the book was primarily aimed at merchants and traders. Smaller sections include guidance on visits to the tailor (Den Cleermaker), the shoemaker (De Schoenmaker) and the barber (De Barbier). The book concludes with the Lord’s Prayer and twelve articles of faith, the Ten Commandments and a number of prayers in both languages (Le Mayre 1606). There are no obvious dialectal features in Le Mayre’s Dutch. The advice on how to improve one’s Dutch and on pronunciation together with the ‘mixed economy’ of verb conjugations and useful phrases bespeaks an approach to language learning, which was quite progressive for this period. Dibbets argues that Le Mayre’s book owes its origins to the Vocabulare, the well-known polyglot phrase book compiled by the Antwerp schoolmaster, Noel de Berlaimont and first published in 1530 (Dibbets 2003: 63).36 In 1637 an English edition was published in London of de Berlaimont’s Vocabulare. Dutch (Flamen) and English phrases sit side by side. The phrase ‘Friend, what will you buy’ is rendered in Dutch as Vriend, wat wildy coopen (Osselton 1973: 16). The use of the d-form personal pronoun dy in this and other phrases is quite late for this form of address, which suffered a heavy blow when it was not used in the States Bible (Statenbijbel), published in the same year. In 1659 an anonymous book, ‘The Dutch-Tutor: or, a new-book of Dutch and English. Containing plain and easie Rules for the ready Pronouncing, Writing, Speaking and understanding the Dutch-Tongue . . .’, was printed in London. It includes rules on pronouncing Dutch, a discussion of the parts of speech in Dutch, the Ten Commandments and a couple of prayers, and a series of parallel dialogues in English and Dutch. These include dialogues on ‘morning salutations’ (Morgen groetenissen), ‘familiar discourse on rising in the morning’ (Bewoonlick Koutinge van s’ morgene op te staen), and what to say at ‘a meal of

36 Kathleen Lambley (1920: 241–2) lists two works printed in London in the second half of the sixteenth century, which include Dutch (Duche and Fflamen), which, she concludes, were adaptations of de Berlaimont’s work. 196 CHAPTER 4 ten persons’ (Een maeltijdt van thien persoonen).37 The tutor concludes with tips for letter writing and a small vocabulary.38 Neither Le Mayre’s 1606 book nor the anonymous 1659 ‘The Dutch-Tutor’ appears in an article written by Scheurweghs in 1960 entitled: ‘English grammars in Dutch and Dutch grammars in English in the Netherlands before 1800’ (Scheurweghs 1960). This may simply be because Scheurweghs was unaware of these grammars. However, if he was aware of them, the fact that he does not mention them would suggest that both books were published for people in England who wanted to learn Dutch. What is generally regarded as the first Dutch-English/English-Dutch dictionary of any consequence, A copious English and Netherduytch Dictionarie, was published in Rotterdam in 1647/8 by the English-born author and soldier, Henry Hexham. Although published in Holland, it was intended for use by ‘students, divines and merchants’ on both sides of the North Sea (Hoftijzer 2013: 223–4). Thirty years earlier, in 1617, John Minsheu, a teacher of a number of languages in London, had published Ductor in Linguas/‘The Guide into the tongues’, an etymological dictionary in eleven languages, which, he tells us in his letter to the reader, includes legal terms and will self-evidently be of use to merchants. One of the eleven languages was Belgica, or ‘Low Dutch’. In a further preface, Minsheu notes that he sometimes puts ‘Low Dutch’ words together with ‘Saxon’, though does not elaborate on this. He also makes a distinction between ‘Belgick, or Low Dutch’, ‘Flanders Dutch’, ‘Holland Dutch’ and what he calls ‘Friesland Dutch’! Finally, to reassure the reader, Minsheu lists scholars and members of the London Stranger communities, who testified to the correctness of the words in his dictionary. One of these is Simeon Ruytinck, listed as Symeon Rutingius, Ecclesiae Londino Belgicae Pastor. Ruytinck may well have encouraged Minsheu to make the distinction between the various ‘Dutches’ listed. Finally, a receipted bill from 1670 in the Essex Record Office signed by Christopher Glascock includes ‘Goldmans Dutch’ for 15 shillings and 5d.39 One possibility is that this refers to Francis Gouldman’s ‘A copious dictionary in three parts’, first published in 1664. However, this is a Latin-English dictionary, and so the reference to ‘Dutch’ would seem out of place.

37 A similar section can be found in de Berlaimont’s Vocabulare (Osselton 1973: 15). 38 The 1660 edition of this book is available online at eebo. For more on the dating and sources of ‘The Dutch-Tutor’, see Dibbets (2003: 63–9). 39 ero D/Dba A67/16. This is from the archive of the Barrington Family of Hatfield Broad Oak. Learning And The Home 197

4.2.6 Dutch Books in Private and Public Collections Before we conclude our survey of the use of Dutch in the domain of learning, mention should be made of other Dutch books in early modern England, which provided useful information in particular areas of human endeav- our. Mention has already been made of Witsen’s Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheeps-Bouw en Bestier, published in 1671. As well as Robert Hooke, another Englishman who received a copy of the book was King Charles ii. Constantijn Huygens sent a copy of it to him together with a letter dated 30 November 1671 (Huygens 1911–17: 4, 6814). This does, though, of course tell us nothing about Charles’ ability to read Dutch. Dutch books on architecture were often used by architects working in England during the Elizabethan period (Davies 1964: 15). The inventories of private libraries provide further insight into the presence of Dutch books in England. Johannes Radermacher, the writer of the first Dutch grammar in London in 1568, whom we have already met, had an extensive library, primarily of books on theology. It comprised over 1500 volumes, more than 560 of which were in Latin, and many others in Spanish, Italian, French, English, German and Dutch (Grell 1996: 118–9, n. 74).40 One book we know of in Radermacher’s library was a copy of Otfrid von Weissenburg’s Old High German paraphrase of the Gospels, published in Basel in 1571.41 The initials JR and the date ‘20 Jan. 1579’ are on the title page. It is likely that Radermacher was still in London at this time.42 This copy of the book would later be purchased by Constantijn Huygens, who clearly shared Radermacher’s interest in Germanic philology (Bremmer 2004). In the Hessels collection there is a list of 60 books from the private library of Rudolphus Loderus in London, together with an acknowledgement dated 16 January 1686 for the receipt of proceeds from the sale of the books (H 87: iii, ii, 2668). They are in a number of languages; some of the Dutch titles are a Dutch and Latin grammar by Gerardus Vossius (Gram. Vossij Belgica et Latina), Marnix’s Den Byencorf (‘The Beehive’) and Jan Fruijtiers’ Gebeden over Genesis en de Psalmen (‘Prayers on Genesis and the Psalms’).

40 Visit http://www.johanradermacher.net/anglfol.html for an online version of the auction catalogue of Radermacher’s library. This includes 35 books in English and many of the Dutch books produced by the leaders of the London Dutch church discussed in Chapter 2. Accessed on 31 July 2014. 41 Otfridi Evangeliorum Liber: veterum Germanorum grammaticae, poeseos, theologiae, praeclarum momentum . . . Basel, 1571. Huygens’ copy is now in Leiden University Library (1498 E 15). 42 Radermacher left London in 1580 (Bostoen 1985: 11). The year given, 1579, may refer to 1580 (at this time the calendar year began on 25 March), hence the uncertainty as to whether he was still in London at this time. 198 CHAPTER 4

Another inventory of particular interest is that of the books of Sir Thomas Browne and his son, Edward (fig. 14). They were sold at auction in London on 11 January 1711. There are at least ten books in the auction catalogue in Dutch. It is not clear from the catalogue which books had been purchased by Edward and which passed on by Sir Thomas to his son. However, most of the books in Dutch are dated from before 1682, the year of Sir Thomas’ death, so he may well have purchased them (Finch 1986: 66–7). In truth, the Dutch books represent only a fraction of the number of books in the entire catalogue (2448 titles). Nevertheless they may indicate that father or son, or indeed both, had a reading knowledge of Dutch.43 One book that catches the eye is ‘The English School-master—Engl. & Dutch’. This refers to ‘Den Engelschen School-Meester/The English Schole-Master’, first published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1646. Does this suggest that Sir Thomas or his son in fact actively studied the language? We also find a Dutch translation of Sir Thomas’ own work, Religio Medici. This was produced by A. van Berkel and published in Leiden in 1665 (Finch 1986: 119). The phrase ‘like father, like son’ springs to mind when one sees that there was also a translation into Dutch of a book by Edward. His ‘Travels’, first published in 1673, was translated into Dutch by Jac. Leeuw. The first edition was published in Amsterdam in 1682 and the Browne library contained a second edition of Leeuw’s translation (Amsterdam, 1696), listed as ‘Edw. Brown Reysen door Nederland, Duytsland, & c.’ Another book in Dutch is ‘De 150 Psalmen Davidis, door P. Athenum. 1651’. ‘P. Athenum’ is a compiler’s or printer’s error for P[etrus] Dathenus. His metrical psalms, published many years earlier in the city by Anthonie de Solempne, would have been sung in the Dutch church in Norwich. Finally, we should note that there are other books in the catalogue not listed in the section for Dutch books (Dutch and German books are listed together), which are partly in Dutch. For example under the books in duodecimo on ‘history and philology’ we find ‘Q. Horatius Flaccus Latine & Belgice’ published in Amsterdam in 1654. This would seem to be a Dutch translation of Horace, in which case it is most likely to be a copy of the prose translation of his verse published by Joost van den Vondel (Q. Horatius Flaccus Lierzangen en Dichtkunst). Under the French books in octavo and duodecimo, we find ‘Gabr. Meurier Vocabulaire Francois-Flameng.’ published in Antwerp in 1574. This refers to the bilingual French-Dutch dictionary compiled by the French grammarian and lexicographer, Gabriel Meurier (Finch 1986: 40, 57).

43 See Eßer (1996: 133) for a word of caution about whether possession of a book can be used as proof of the ability to read the book. Learning And The Home 199

figure 14 A statue of Sir Thomas Browne in the Haymarket, Norwich Author’s own collection

Here, is perhaps also the best place to mention a number of Dutch books in the collection of Norwich City library, which was founded in 1608. In a catalogue of the collection made in 1706 one entry refers to ‘Several pieces in Dutch. 1575’ from the collection of Mr. William Adamson, Rector of St. John’s, Maddermarket, in Norwich. Also from Adamson the catalogue lists ‘H.N. 200 CHAPTER 4

Glass of Righteousness Dutch’ (Brett 1706: 17). This may have been an edition of Hendrik Niclaes’ Den spigel der gerechticheit, a mystical work published in Antwerp c. 1556 and 1562, usually treated with great suspicion by mainstream Protestants and Catholics (Hamilton 1981). If so, one wonders what an Anglican rector was doing with such a controversial work. One other entry is of particular interest: ‘Liturgy Dutch with their catechism Gr. 1646’ (Brett 1706: 20). The book had previously belonged to Sir Thomas Browne. It does not appear with the Dutch books in the sales catalogue of his library that we have just considered. Was this a liturgy of the Dutch church in Greek? This seems unlikely. Has the ‘Gr.’ been misplaced, meaning that it refers simply to a copy of the Dutch liturgy and catechism that Thomas may have donated to the library? Another possibility is that the ‘Gr.’ stands for ‘Groningen’. If so, this may be a reference to a book such as the Porismata theologica ad dominicam decimam quintam catecheseos Belgicae, De passione & crucifixione Domini nostri Iesu Christi published in Groningen in 1646.44 Finally, another collection of Dutch books to mention is that held at Austin Friars. In 1605, the minister Simeon Ruytinck began to make a collection of books for the church community, both for ministers and lay members interested in theology. In 1658 a decision was taken to build a separate library room for the church to house the increasing number of books and papers. Many of the papers from the collection are now preserved at the London Metropolitan Archives, whilst some of the books held at Austin Friars today date back to the early days of the church (Lindeboom 1950: 163–4).

4.2.7 Concluding Remarks on Learning Mention of private libraries takes us to the edge of the domain of learning and domestic domain and it will shortly be time to consider the use of Dutch in the latter domain. However, before we do so, some concluding remarks are in order about the use of Dutch in the domain of learning. The operation of Dutch schools in the Dutch communities in England, often governed by the local Dutch church, was an important element in sustaining the use of the language by members of these communities. There was little opportunity for members to continue to use Dutch in the domain of learning, apart from those who were training for the ministry. In making this domain as broad as possible, I have introduced other people who contributed to learning in the Dutch language in early modern England. Although Latin continued to play an important role in the natural sciences,

44 ‘Theological corollaries to the fifteenth Sunday of the Dutch catechism, on the passion and crucifixion of our Lord, Jesus Christ’. Learning And The Home 201 vernaculars were gaining ground in this field. This was in part a result of the fact those who engaged in this field were often not interested in learning languages. For example, Robert Boyle, one of the founders of the Royal Society, claimed he had no time to learn languages (Burke 2004: 78), and although he could read Latin, Descartes had no great interest in the classical languages (Kenny 2006: 34). To this group we can add Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek, whose Dutch letters were translated and avidly read by members of the Royal Society. However, one exception is Robert Hooke, who took the trouble to learn Dutch, recognizing the importance of the language in the study of the natural sciences in the seventeenth century.

4.3 The Domestic Domain

Let us now turn to the second domain to be considered in this chapter, the domestic domain. A range of documents including personal letters, wills and inventories attest to the written use of Dutch in this domain in early modern England. Let us consider examples of each of these in turn.

4.3.1 Personal Letters In 2006 Marijke van der Wal, the lead researcher on the Brieven als buit (‘Letters as loot’) project, wrote that if we want to fill in the gaps in the history of the Dutch language then we need new sources or existing sources that have not previously been examined (Van der Wal 2006).45 A collection of 61 letters written in Dutch between 1567 and 1573, almost all of which were addressed to people in Ieper in West Flanders, fall into this category.46

4.3.1.1 The Norwich Ieper Corpus At least 32 of these letters were written in Norwich. One notable feature about the immigration into Norwich was the number of Strangers who came from Ieper. It is reckoned that no fewer than 64 of the Strangers who began arriving in Norwich from the summer of 1567 hailed from this town. This contrasts with only fourteen families from Ieper settling in London at this time.

45 Dutch: Willen we witte vlekken in de Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis opvullen, dan zijn nieuwe of nieuw te ontsluiten bronnen nodig. 46 There may well be other such letters in other archives. One hint of this is a letter written from Norwich by a Pierre Faber (possibly the individual referred to as Pieter de Smet in other records), originally from Kortrijk. This is reported in Diegerick (1851–4). I thank Alastair Duke for this reference. 202 CHAPTER 4

One of the first ministers at Norwich, Carolus (Karel) Ryckwaert, had been a minister in Ieper before coming to Norwich in 1567 and this may have been one of the reasons for the arrival of so many Ieperlingen in the city (Duke 2014). Of those letters in the collection not written in Norwich we know that several were written in London and one in Sandwich. Most of the letters were written in the second half of 1567. A small number were written in 1568, two in 1569 and two letters concerning the Dutch Church at Thetford, numbers 64 and 65 in the Ieper collection, were written in 1573. However, it is the letters written from Norwich that will form the focus of our discussion. To begin with a little background is in order. William Labov has written of the contingent nature of the historical material that survives, and this is certainly the case here (Labov 1982: 20). At this time of high religious tensions, it seems that officials in Ieper had been carrying out house searches in the town and from the letters they compiled a dossier of information that could be used against those who sent and received them. Indeed one of the difficulties in dealing with these letters is that in some cases the author is clearly trying to conceal his or her identity doubtless mindful of the precarious situation in Ieper at this time. In the middle of the nineteenth century Hendrick Janssen, a Dutch Protestant minister and church historian, was made aware of this correspondence in the Ieper town archives. Janssen’s interest in the letters was primarily in the religious affiliation and consequent actions of the authors. Therefore he only published extracts from them in a journal in Middelburg in 1857 (Janssen 1857a; 1857b (henceforth J 57a; J 57 b)).47 To my mind there is no reason to suspect that this alters the fundamental picture that emerges of the language use of the authors of these letters, although it does reduce the size of the corpus used in this study. Unfortunately the original letters were destroyed by enemy action in 1914 and so Janssen’s transcriptions are the only record that we have of them. The Ieper letters are valuable in that they not only provide us with evidence of the written use of Dutch in the domestic domain. Koch and Oesterreicher (1985: 23) make a distinction between the ‘language of distance’ (Sprache der Distanz) and the ‘language of proximity’ (Sprache der Nähe).48 Whilst the former denotes a formal register of language, the latter denotes a more spontaneous, informal variety of the language that one uses with family and friends. Needless to say, the language of private letters tends towards the ‘language of

47 Translations of extracts from two of the letters (56 and 62) can also be found in Peters (1985: 96–7). 48 See Landert and Jucker (2011) for a useful refinement of the model suggested by Koch and Oesterreicher. Learning And The Home 203 proximity’. This being so, they can be taken as evidence both of the fact that their authors spoke the language in which they wrote and of the nature of the language that they spoke.49 Furthermore, some of the authors of the letters written in Dutch to friends and family in Ieper did not belong to the educated elite such as ministers and merchants. One example is a letter written on 21 August 1567 by the tanner, Clais van Wervekin, in which he tells his wife that the English are very friendly and that if she came to live in Norwich she would never want to return to Flanders (J 57a: letter 56, p. 226 (56, 226)):

. . . ende ghy ne soudt nemmermeer ghelooven, hoe vriendelick dat tvolck tsaemen es, ende oock de Ynghelschen, hoe minsaemich zy tot onser natie vallen, zoo, dat ghy hier waert met half ons goedt, ghy ne soudt nemmermeer peinsen om in Vlaenderen te commen wonen.

. . . and you would never believe, how friendly that all these people are, and the English too, how genial they are towards our nation, so that if you were here with half our possessions, you would never think of going back to live in Flanders.

Such letters can be used to make a first attempt at constructing a ‘language history from below’ of Dutch in early modern England (Elspaß 2007; cf. Nobels 2013: 9–14). As already noted, specific attention will be paid to those letters written from Norwich, which will be referred to as the Norwich corpus. This will give us an unparalleled insight into the language of the common people in the Dutch community in Norwich, rather than of the educated elite. However, before we consider this in detail, we need to enter some caveats. One of the most significant drawbacks of the corpus is that we are working with transcriptions, rather than original documents. This is unavoidable given that the originals have been destroyed, but it does raise a number of methodological problems. One potential problem is the accuracy of the transcriptions. However, in this case I have found no evidence to indicate that this is an issue. Where Janssen could not read a certain word in a manuscript he makes this clear in the transcription. The principal linguistic feature that will be discussed in detail is forms of address. The range of these in the letters recorded suggests that there was no attempt to ‘standardize’ these forms in the transcriptions and that what we have is a faithful reproduction of what was originally written. Nevertheless, the fact that we are working with transcriptions rather

49 It is important to stress that the ‘language of proximity’ and the spoken language are not identical, but they are certainly related (cf. Nobels 2013: 7). 204 CHAPTER 4 than original documents does make it difficult to confirm the authorship of the letters. In other words, was the person who signed the letter the person who actually wrote it? This is clearly an important question and would usually demand a detailed response. However, in the opinion of Janssen, very few of the letters were written by an amanuensis.50 Furthermore, given the results discussed below, I have decided that in this case questions of authorship are not material to the key findings. A related problem is that most of the transcriptions are not complete. One thing that is clear is that the choice of whether or not to transcribe certain passages was not based on linguistic concerns. Of the 32 letters in the Norwich corpus thirteen of the transcriptions do not include a subject form of address, an aspect of language that will be considered in some detail. Clearly this leaves only a relatively small corpus. By contrast the Brieven als buit corpus consists of 595 letters written by 441 different writers. One might even ask if the small size of the Norwich corpus brings the value of its results into question. In response, I would have to agree were it not for the fact that the data on forms of address from the Norwich corpus provides unambiguous results. After discussing these in some detail, I shall briefly compare the use of forms of address in the Norwich corpus with their use in letters written in Norwich at about the same time in the church domain, published in the Hessels collection. This provides some interesting results. However, before analyzing the forms of address in the Norwich corpus and Norwich church letters, it will be useful to discuss briefly the evolution of these forms in the Dutch language from Middle Dutch onwards in order to provide some context for the results from these corpora. In Middle Dutch there were two competing forms of address: the d-form of address (subject: du; object: di) and the g-form of address (subject gij; object u). The d-form was restricted to the singular and cases involving friendship, the expression of strong emotions and where inequality of speaker/writer and addressee was emphasized. The g-form was used as a general plural form and for cases of politeness and distance in the singular. Vermaas (2002: 36–7)

50 On four occasions Janssen notes that he does not consider the named author to be the person who wrote the letter (J 57a: 23, 247; 25, 248; 26, 232; 28, 273), although in the case of letter 25, none of the transcription affects the Norwich Ieper corpus. In one other case in the Norwich corpus, concerning a letter written by Carolus (Karel) Ryckwaert, one of the ministers at the Dutch church in Norwich, Janssen refers to it as deze eigenhande brief: i.e., it was written by Ryckwaert himself, although Janssen provides no details of how he arrives at this conclusion (J 57a: 2, 217). Learning And The Home 205 argues that the d-form was used more in speech, whilst the g-form was used more in writing. However, this distinction was by no means absolute. The g-form with which we are most familiar, gij (and variant spellings such as ghij and ghy), evolved as a diphthongised form of ghi (Vermaas 2002: 41). A gradual increase in the use of the g-form from the twelfth century onwards can be detected as it began to take over functions previously preserved for the d-form. One commentator ascribes the rise of the g-form to its use by the church and aristocratic writers of Dutch. Another commentator argues that this is an example of how an intimate form, the d-form, gives way to a form of distance and formality, the g-form. By the sixteenth century the g-form had clearly become the dominant form of address, but in the second half of that century there were still those who wanted to preserve the d-form. In his grammar, Twe-spraack vande Nederduitsche Letterkunst (1584), Hendrick Spiegel argued for the retention of d-form, saying that its absence meant that the form ghylieden would have to be used for the plural, something ‘which cripples the language and robs it of its beauty (decoration)’ (t’welck de taal verkruepelt ende die van haar ciraat beróóft) (Van Leuvensteijn et al. 1997: 309). Spiegel makes reference to the use of the d-form by the Brussels-born noble, Marnix van St.-Aldegonde, in order to make his case (Dibbets 1985: 465). Marnix defended the d-form in part as he considered the use of the g-form in the singular as obsequious. He noted the influence of print on the written language in general, and forms of address in particular, when in the preface to his translation of the Psalms he observed how the printers encouraged the replacement of du by ghij (Burke 2005: 17).51 As late as 1633 the grammarian Christiaen van Heule wanted to retain the distinction between the d-form and the g-form, as he found it ‘very useful’ (seer dienstich) (Vermaas 2002: 39–40). The days of the d-form, though, were clearly numbered when the g-form was used for the Statenbijbel, first published in 1637. In sixteenth-century texts from the south-western regions of the Dutch language area, in which Ieper is situated, the d-form was still in use, but it was mostly reserved for utterances expressing strong emotions, such as anger and religious or worldly love (Nobels 2013: 80).52 As we shall see shortly one of the striking features of the Ieper corpus is that none of the authors uses the d-form of address.53

51 See also Zwaan (1939: 395–9), where Marnix’s detailed defence of the d-form is reproduced. 52 See also Muller (1927: 196–7) for views on the extent to which du was used in the West- Flemish dialect upto and including the sixteenth century. 53 For a recent study on the decline of the d-form of address and reasons for it, see Postma (2011). 206 CHAPTER 4

In his Dutch grammar written in London in 1568, Johannes Radermacher provides lists of pronouns and possessive adjectives. Here, there is reference to ghi and ghylieden, but no mention of du/di. Nevertheless, there is reference to the d-form possessive adjective, dyn, but no mention of the g-form possessive adjective, uw, perhaps pointing to a lack of systematization in Radermacher’s work (Bostoen 1985: 33). In seventeenth and eighteenth century grammar books the g-form was declined as follows:

1 gij (subject) 2 uwer/uws (possessive) 3 u (indirect object) 4 u (direct object)

Let us now return to the Norwich corpus of Ieper letters, and begin by looking at the form of address used for the subject pronoun. Nineteen letters sent from Norwich have a subject pronoun; in 17 of these the pronoun ghy was used. In one of these the plural form ghyleeden was also used, and in another the plural forms ghelyeden/ghylieden. In one letter only ghyliederen was used and in another the form uwe liefde, from which the epistolary form ul. developed (De Korne and Rinkel 1987: 37).54 Examples of these are as follows:

Ende daeromme bidde ick u, dat ghy soo seere niet en sorght . . . (J 57a: 62, 229);

Ende voorts van het geld, dat ghyleeden my gesonden hebt (J 57a: 45, 235);

Ic wilde . . . dat ghyliederen, dese namen van de personen . . . hartelicke wilt groeten (J 57a: 28, 273);

[groeten aan] alle die uwe liefde wel kent (J 57a: 30, 234).

Aalberse (2009: 58) notes that in the seventeenth century we see the rise of plural marking on pronouns in forms such as ghylieden (‘you people’). Here, we see examples of its use in the 1560s. It is worth mentioning that the form of address ghy is used across the social spectrum: by Pieter de Wulf, described as a nobilis (‘urban patrician’), and by Pauwels de Coene, a faber (‘smith’ or

54 A related form, geleêre, was still in use in West Flanders in the nineteenth century. Learning And The Home 207

‘craftsman’) (J 57a: 44, 256; 9, 225).55 The fact that ghy is used so extensively in these letters should perhaps not surprise us as it has been described as the standard form of address in the written and spoken language in the Southern Netherlands in the sixteenth century (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 266; Mooijaart and Van der Wal 2008: 57). Let us now consider the results for the object pronoun for the Norwich corpus. Twenty-two letters in the corpus contain an object pronoun for the form of address. In 14 of these the object pronoun is u. Other forms that appear in a few cases are ul., ulieden, ulieder, uliedere, uliederen and uleder. However, a form that appears in five of the Norwich letters is hu. This is another example of the hypercorrection associated with the Flemish dialect, instances of which have been discussed in previous chapters in this book (Willemyns 2003: 111; 2013: 73). The wnt lists hu as a Middle Dutch form that is an onorg. vorm voor u, pers. en bezitt. vnw. (‘an inorganic form for u, personal and possessive pronoun’). Onorg. is short for onorganisch, also written anorganisch, which is defined as being met het vreemde voorvoegsel, i.e., with an alien (lit. strange) prefix. One might reasonably ask whether the authors of the Norwich letters in which hu appears saw anything strange or unusual about this form. They would not have had any Dutch grammars to tell them what was right and what was not right, and perhaps this is a good example of how private letters can tell us how people spoke as opposed to standardizing grammars, which tend to marginalize or even ignore certain forms of speech (cf. Elspaß 2007: 152). From the data available there does not seem to be a sociological distinction between the authors who use u and hu in the Norwich Ieper corpus. Two of the letters containing hu were written by Adriaan Walewein, a highly literate merchant (mercator), who would later serve as one of the politicke mannen in Norwich (J 57a: 8, 252; 39, 255), and a further two were written by the wife of Jacques Rollier, who was a cap-maker (pileorum factor), to her son Torkin and a certain Inghele Neckebaert (J 57a: 16, 236; 22, 236). The fifth was written by the tanner, Clais van Wervekin (J 57a: 56, 226).56 One might ask whether any social variables associated with the addressee might have played a role in the use of

55 By contrast in the Brieven als buit corpus from the second half of the seventeenth century, although ghy occurs in letters written by members of all social classes, it is commoner in letters written by the lower classes, something that the larger scale of this corpus allows one to analyze (Nobels 2013: 92). 56 Van Wervekin describes himself as a hudevettere. This is usually understood as ‘tanner’. Moens (1887–8: 220) translates this as ‘hatmaker’, which is not correct. He does not appear in the 1568 return, although this was limited to church members. 208 CHAPTER 4 hu. Van Wervekin uses the form in a letter to his wife, whilst Walewein uses it in two letters to Gelein Everaert, an alderman (schepen) of Ieper. So from this limited evidence the identity of the addressee does not play a role in the use of hu. Nevertheless, the writing of this form in private letters suggests that it might have been heard in Norwich in the 1560s, just as, I suggested in Chapter 2, it might have been heard on the streets of Maidstone. Taken together with the data on the subject pronoun, ghy/u is the most frequently occurring subject/object combination. Nevertheless, we can conclude along with Judith Nobels in her study of subject/object combinations in the Brieven als buit corpus from the seventeenth century that ‘there is no such thing as a fixed relationship between these two forms of address’ as other combinations were used (Nobels 2013: 98). As noted above, there is no trace of the d-form of address in this corpus. The Norwich corpus only contains a few examples of the form of address following a preposition. U is again the most common form of address in this position. The only additional point to make is that in one of her letters the wife of Jacques Rollier writes met huleder (‘with you’) (J 57a: 22, 236). Twenty-one of the letters written from Norwich to Ieper contain possessive adjectives for the form of address. Here, the picture is much more varied than in the case of the subject and object pronouns used in these letters. Several of the writers make a gender agreement between the noun and the possessive adjective. Pauwels de Coene, a craftsman or smith living in Norwich, refers to uwen brief (masculine) and uwe reise (feminine) (J 57a: 9, 225). Pieter de Wulf, mentioned above, writes uwen raedt (masc.), uwe moeder (fem.) and uwe vaderen (plural) (J 57a: 44, 256). On occasion authors do not inflect the possessive adjective. Clement Baet, who sent a letter to his wife in Ieper two days after arriving in Norwich, refers to u kleere (J 57a: 57, 231), whilst Pauwels de Coene, just mentioned, refers to u kinderkens. Jan Piels uses the plural form ulieder [excuse] in a letter from Norwich written in 1573 (J 57b: 64, 330–1).57 Four of the letters from Norwich contain hypercorrective, aspirated forms of the possessive adjective, associated with the Flemish dialect. Two of these were written by the wife of Jacques Rollier, who also used an aspirated form of the object pronoun. She writes by huven moeder and hu beminde husvrauw (J 57a: 16, 236; 22, 236). In a letter written by Adriaan Walewein, in which he also used the object pronoun, hu, we find the forms (tot) huwen huuze, huwe husvrauwe

57 Precisely how this letter ended up in Ieper (hence its inclusion in the Norwich Ieper corpus) is not clear. Janssen suggests that Piels may have been a member of the Pils family of Ieper (J 57b: 332). Another possibility is that Karel Ryckwaert took it with him when he left Thetford and eventually made his way back to Ieper. Learning And The Home 209 and al huwen vriendt (J 57a: 8, 252). One other author who used an aspirated form of the possessive adjective is François de Jaghere, who had previously lived in Ieper. In a letter to his mother, in which he writes that he had arrived in Norwich fourteen days after leaving Ieper, he refers to himself as den allen huwen sone (J 57a: 21, 247). He might also have used the object pronoun, hu, but some parts of his letter were not transcribed. Let us now compare these results with those of a similar number of letters (25) written by leaders and members of the Dutch church in Norwich between 1571 and 1582. Ideally, one would have used letters written in the late 1560s and early 1570s. However, we only have two letters from the 1560s and one from 1570 and these were written in Latin, in common with many of the early letters exchanged between the leaders of the Dutch churches in England (H 87: iii, i, 109; 121; 144). Nevertheless, although the two sets of letters were written in different periods, these are so close to each other that this would not account for any difference in form of address between them. It is also the case that whereas most of the letters in the Norwich corpus are addressed to one person, those in the Norwich Dutch church corpus are addressed to several people. In all but one case they are addressed to the leaders of the London Dutch church. The exception is a letter addressed directly to Jacobus Regius, one of the ministers of the London Dutch church (H 87: iii, i, 433). One other significant difference between these corpora is that whereas the Norwich Ieper letters are private letters, those in the Norwich Dutch church corpus are official letters between two churches and thus more formal. Here, the distinction made by Koch and Oesterreicher (1985: 23), discussed above, between the ‘language of proximity’ and the ‘language of distance’, associated with more formal letters such as the Norwich Dutch church letters, is applicable. So is this difference reflected in the forms of address used in the two corpora? The short answer is affirmative. Of the 25 letters in the Norwich Dutch church corpus eighteen have a subject pronoun form of address. In six of these letters it is ulieden (or u lieden; ULieden) and in another seven it is u.l. (or a variation on this, viz. u.L., ul., uL). In one letter we see both forms. One other, related form that appears in one letter is uwer L. In two of the letters in this corpus we see the form of address, ghy; in one we find ghylieden and in one other both ghy and ghylieden. Ulieden, u.l. and associated forms did occur in the object position in the Norwich Ieper corpus, but not in the subject position. In the Norwich Dutch church corpus less than a quarter of those letters that contain a subject pronoun have ghy(lieden). This is almost the reverse of the situation in the Norwich Ieper corpus, in which only one of the nineteen letters with a subject pronoun did not have ghy or a plural form of this pronoun. Given that those letters containing ghy in the Norwich corpus are private letters written 210 CHAPTER 4 to friends and relatives, and those containing ulieden or u.l. or variants thereof in the Norwich Dutch church corpus are formal letters, we can tentatively state that there was a T-V (Tu/Vos) distinction between ghy and what we might call u-form subject pronouns amongst the Dutch Strangers in Norwich at this time. Further research might reveal whether there was a similarly sharp distinction between these forms of address in the Southern Netherlands in the second half of the sixteenth century.58 Turning to the object pronoun forms of address these occur in 20 of the 25 letters in the Norwich Dutch church corpus. Here, pronoun usage is much closer to that of the Norwich Ieper corpus. The forms that predominate are ul. and ulieden (and variants of each). There are though two differences worth noting. First, in one of the Norwich Dutch church corpus letters, written by the elder, Jan Ruytinck, the form U Eerweerden appears (H 87: ii, 161). This form of address means ‘your Reverences’ and it is attested to in the wnt.59 Secondly, whereas in the personal letters written from Norwich to Ieper we see instances of aspirated object pronouns (hu), there are no such instances in the Norwich Dutch church corpus. We should be cautious about drawing any conclusions from this, for as we saw in Chapter 2, Hessels’ collection of Dutch church letters includes instances of hypercorrection in, for example, the letters written by Nicasius vander Schuere in Maidstone. However, such cases are rare and it may be that the authors of the Norwich Dutch church letters intentionally avoided this form of hypercorrection. Turning to the possessive adjectives used in the Norwich Dutch church corpus, although the same forms occur as in the Norwich Ieper corpus, the distribution is somewhat different. In the latter corpus, of the 21 letters that contain a possessive adjective, only one contains the form ulieder (J 57b: 64, 330–1). There is no instance of u.l. as a possessive adjective in that corpus.

58 For more on the use of ghy and other forms of address in sixteenth-century Dutch, see Muller (1926: esp. 115–9). Muller describes ghy as the standard, ‘neutral’ form of address in the ‘normal’ language of writing from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He bemoans the fact that there were few letters from the period upto and including the seventeenth century which were written in the language of everyday speech, so he was clearly unaware of the Ieper letters that had been transcribed by Janssen in 1857. He also gives examples of the use of the various forms of address, viz. gij, ul. and U.E. and their related forms, in correspondence from the seventeenth century (p. 116). 59 Ongetwyfeld zal uw Eerwaarde my met het achtbaar Synode van Dordrecht, zoeken te over- tuigen, dat ik dwaal. The reference given in the wnt is Aanh. op WOLFF en DEKEN, Leev. 45 [1786], i.e., De Historie van den heer Willem Leevend by Betje Wolff (1738–1804) and Aagje Deken (1741–1804). Learning And The Home 211

By contrast of the 21 letters in the Norwich Dutch church corpus, which contain a possessive adjective, 13 have ulieder or ulieden and 6 contain u.l. Two letters, both written by the minister, Salomon de Smet, contain the form uwer L. A number of these letters also have inflected forms of uw, which dominate the Norwich Ieper corpus. Given that almost all the letters in the Norwich Dutch church corpus were addressed to a group of people rather than to one individual, this suggests that the authors did not make an absolute distinction between using uw for the singular and ulieder etc. for the plural.60 Finally, as in the case of the object pronouns discussed above, there are no aspirated forms of the possessive adjective in the Norwich Dutch church corpus. An important result of this study is that it tells us about the use of Dutch in sixteenth-century Norwich. The fact that the Norwich Ieper corpus is comprised of private letters or ‘ego documents’ confirms that Dutch was spoken in the city. Furthermore, the letters tell us something about the nature of the Dutch language spoken in Norwich. The fact that only one of the letters in the Norwich Ieper corpus does not use ghy as the subject form of address suggests that this was an important, probably the most important, form of address amongst the Strangers in sixteenth-century Norwich. This gives us a glimpse of the Dutch language spoken in Norwich and indeed England as a result of the large-scale migration of Dutch speakers from the Low Countries from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards. Furthermore, the Norwich corpus includes letters from across the social spectrum and allows us to contribute to the writing of the ‘language history from below’ of Early New Dutch in both England and the Low Countries (Nobels 2013: 77).61 The letters written from Norwich to Ieper can provide other information about language beyond that adduced here. In one of the letters referred to above, from Adriaan Walewein to Gelein Everaert, dated 7 January 1568, concerning the education of his youngest brother, Walewein notes that in Norwich he was applying himself to learning both English and French (more often) (J 57a: 8, 252): . . . ’t welc ic houde om Inghels en[de] meer Franchois te leerene, tot

60 This is also the case for the seventeenth-century Brieven als buit corpus (Nobels 2013: 87; 94). 61 This contrasts with a number of previous studies on forms of address, such as Daan (1982), which focused on the forms used by well-known authors and members of the upper class; although it should also be added that this focuses on the seventeenth century, rather than the sixteenth century (Nobels 2013: 77). 212 CHAPTER 4 dat God anders bescicken zal.62 This tells us that Dutch was his first language. This should not surprise us, although unfortunately such a direct confirmation of this is rare. Dialectal forms such as wul (elsewhere wol), cleen (klein), hert (hart) (Willemyns 2013: 73–5) confirm what we already know; that the authors of these letters came from Flanders. The Ieper letters, from which the Norwich corpus is drawn, have a number of limitations, which mean that further information gleaned from them would be largely descriptive rather than analytical, but this should not prevent us from studying other parts of the language in these letters such as epistolary formulae, in particular salutations and valedictions. The letters often start with informal salutations including the word lieve (‘dear’), e.g., Lieve huusvrauwe (‘my dear wife’), rather than more formal salutations such as Eerweerde broeders (‘Reverend brothers’) found in the Norwich Dutch church letters. The use of schwa-apocope (e.g., ik bid rather than ik bidde) and negation, especially the use of ‘bipartite negation’ (i.e., en/ ne . . . niet) (cf. Nobels 2013: 131), are other parts of language, which could be usefully studied. Here, again, one would have to be careful about the claims one could make based on such studies, but this should not prevent us from engaging with such a rare and valuable set of private letters which tell us something about the Dutch written and indeed spoken in early modern England.

4.3.1.2 The Verheyden Letters Another valuable set of personal letters written at about the same time as the Norwich Ieper corpus has come to be known as the ‘Verheyden letters’ (Verheyden 1955). At the end of February 1570 a courier by the name of Henri Fléel was apprehended close to Calais and was found to be carrying 79 letters bound for Netherlanders in south-east England. The letters he was carrying disappeared into the archives of the Council of Troubles for this was the court charged with the prosecution of Fléel. In 1955 the Belgian scholar, Alfons Verheyden, published these letters. Most of them were written in French, whilst others were in Dutch. Interestingly, no fewer than five of the 15 letters in Dutch were intended for Norwich (Duke 2014). To give but one example here, in a letter in Dutch addressed to Jan Kacaut in Norwich, we see the Flemish hypercorrective ‘h’ in the pronouns hu and hulieden.63 I have not included further linguistic details of these letters in this book as the letters were written on the Continent. However, they would provide us with an excellent insight into

62 See also Moens (1887–8: 223) for a summary of this letter in English. The letter was in fact dated 7 January 1567 (see note 42 above for an explanation of this). 63 He is listed as a carpenter in the 1568 return (‘Jan Cacant’, a slight mistranscription) (Moens 1887–8: 208). Learning And The Home 213 the everyday language of Dutch-speakers at this time and could usefully be compared in more detail to the Norwich Ieper corpus just discussed.

4.3.1.3 Private Letters in the Hessels Collection Other letters written by private individuals can be found in Hessels’ collection of correspondence. Many of these letters belong to the domestic as well as the church domain. One of these, written from Norwich by Rachel Jansdochter to the consistory of the Dutch church in London on 28 January 1570, was discussed in Chapter 2. It is worth repeating here that although she uses ghij as the subject pronoun and uwe for a possessive adjective, Rachel uses the form ju for the object pronoun form of address (H 87: iii, i, 101). We did not find this at all in the Norwich Ieper corpus of letters written at about the same time. The two letters in Hessels’ collection written by Rachel deserve further study to identify any features of her use of Dutch which may be found more commonly in the language of women than in that of men (see also H 87: iii, i, 225) (cf. Burke 2004: 34). Some twenty letters in the Hessels collection were written in Dutch by private individuals in Colchester. As with Rachel’s letter, they often touch on church matters and could be seen to belong to the church domain as well as the domestic domain. In fact, the earliest letter from Colchester in the collection was written on 20 June 1571 by Rachel’s husband, Abraham de Vriese, a surgeon, who like Rachel wrote to the consistory of the Dutch church in London asking for payment of money that they had been owed for seven years (H 87: iii, i, 140):

. . . daer wy nu bij seven Jaren lanck mede belast sijn geweest, in het onthouden van hetgene dat men ons wettelijck schuldich is, nietiegen- staende dat wij soo menige brieven tot versoeck van onse schult ghescreven hebben, ende daer tegens ontfangen brieven van u Lieder hant, waermet ghijlieden niet alleene schult en bekent, maer belooft de drije pont sterlinx geheel ende al metten eersten te betalen, niet als ghijlieden ryck genoech wesen sult, maer soo haest als ghijlieden iet vermogen sult, ghelijck uwen jegenwoordigen brief luijdt.

. . . since we have been burdened for seven years by being denied that which is legally owed to is, notwithstanding the fact that we have written so many letters asking for our debt (to be paid), and in response have received letters from your hand, in which you not only acknowledge the debt, but also promise to pay the three pounds sterling in full and straight 214 CHAPTER 4

away, not when you are rich enough (to do so), but as soon as you are able to, as your present letter tells us.

There are a couple of points to make regarding de Vriese’s Dutch. First, he uses the subject form of address ghij(lieden), which dominated the Norwich Ieper corpus. Secondly, we know from the Colchester records of Strangers that he came from Brabant (Moens 1905: 101). One feature of the Brabant dialect already referred to is the tendency to use the spelling to indicate a long vowel. We see this in Abraham’s writing of behoirden (‘belonged’), which is otherwise written behoorden (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 119; Willemyns 2013: 70). In 1600 Cathelyne, the widow of Mattheus de Waele, wrote a couple of letters in Dutch from Colchester to the London Dutch church consistory complaining that she had been wronged by the widow of Cruepel Hans (H 87: iii, i, 1050; 1053). In 1631 the wonderfully named Tristram Jagheduivel (‘devil-chaser’) wrote a letter in Dutch from Colchester to the London church asking for for- giveness for his daughter, Judick, who had committed theft three years previously and was now repentant (H 87: iii, ii, 1514). Elsewhere in Essex, we have a letter from Canvey written in Dutch by Anna Catherina van Rentzen on 1 April 1705 to the Dutch church in London (H 87: iii, ii, 2765). She was the widow of the last minister of the Dutch church at Canvey, Aemilius van Culemborg. Van Culemborg, whom we met in Chapter 2, had previously been a minister at the London Dutch church and whilst there had continued work on the history of the Dutch community in London begun many years earlier by Simeon Ruytinck (Ruytinck et al. 1873).64 In the letter, the main purpose of which is to seek an increase in her pension, Anna writes that she had found a copy of the manuscript containing the Historie en handelinge van de Nederduitsche Natie en Gemeente tot London (‘History and acts of the Dutch Nation and Congregation in London’) and would send this to London at the first opportunity.65 We have private letters in the Hessels collection from London. One of these was written in Dutch in London by Emanuel van Meteren to his uncle, the cartographer, Abraham Ortelius. It is dated 14 November 1592 and in it Van Meteren covers a range of issues including news of a number of Dutch in London (H 87: I, 540–3):

64 Van Culemborg did not lead the church at Canvey for very long, for he wrote a letter of resignation from his position in London on 28 October 1703 (H 87: iii, ii, 2763). 65 Van Culemborg wrote the history for the period 1625–1627. Learning And The Home 215

. . . onsen Cousyn Jaques Cool [is] dese leste weke aencomen . . . Hier is den Dr. Paulus Cnibbius gestorven, sieckelijck de reys aengenomen hebbende, laet aghter bij Meetkerckens doghter 5 kinderen.

. . . our cousin, Jacobus Cool, arrived here last week . . . Here Dr. Paul Knibbe has died, being sick when he commenced his journey and leaves behind him 5 children by the daughter of Meetkercke.

Jacobus Cool (Colius Ortelianus) would later publish a poem in Dutch on the London plague of 1603. This is discussed in Chapter 6. ‘Meetkercke’ refers to the Flemish exile in London, Adolf van Meetkercke. His daughter (Anna) was the sister of Edwardus Meetkercke (Meetkerkius), later to become Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford and an Anglican clergyman, mentioned above (section 4.2.2.5; dnb). On 4 November 1607 Pieter Cool wrote a letter in Dutch to his brother Jacobus, who was in Antwerp at the time. He tells his brother that he was currently alone waiting for his family to return from Lutvield (Lichfield/Lutfield?). He mentions several places close to London that he hopes he and his brother can visit on his return from Antwerp. These include Hijgaet, stratforde, and Baerkinge (Highgate, Stratford and Barking). He concludes the letter thus (H 87: I, 815):

Van mynent wegen en mijner huysvrouwe (die ic bij naer eens ter weken gae besoecken) sy ul seer gegroet met ons Suster ul huysvrouwe . . . Janeken myn Ooms Jonckwyf die was . . . VL broeder en vrint Pieter Coole.

Greetings from myself and my wife (whom I visit almost once a week), to you and our sister, your wife . . . [and] Janeken who was my uncle’s wife . . . Your brother and friend, Pieter Cool.

Like his brother, Pieter Cool also wrote poetry. One of his verses is discussed in Chapter 6.

4.3.1.4 Other Private Correspondence Written in Dutch Besides the Hessels collection, there are other sources for private letters written in Dutch in early modern England. In Chapter 3, mention was made of the Brabant-born drainage engineer, Humphrey Bradley, of English descent. In London in June 1589 he married Anna Sermartens, who had recently moved from Delft. Shortly after the wedding, Anna wrote a letter in Dutch to her mother in Delft and from the letter it is clear that she had had a child out of 216 CHAPTER 4 wedlock by Bradley. She wrote to her mother again a week or so later telling her that the child had been left with ‘a poor widow’ (een arme weduwe) in Delft (Harris 1961: 67–9). We have two letters written in Dutch in England by Bradley, dated 3 March and 6 March 1592, to his aunt Elizabeth van Dalem, whose husband, the agent of the States of Holland, Joachim Ortell, had died in London on 3 October 1590. In the letters Bradley hints at some early engineering works in the Fens in which he was engaged and also makes reference to his children, two of whom appear in the baptismal records of Austin Friars in London (Harris 1961: 70).66 We have two private letters written by members of the Dutch community in Great Yarmouth in 1598–1599. The letters were addressed to Vedastus Coornwinder, minister of Berkel en Rodenrijs in South Holland. The originals of these are held in the Rotterdam Municipal Archives, whilst facsimiles are held at the Norfolk Record Office.67 It must be said that the facsimiles are extremely difficult to read, but a short postscript in one of the letters has previously been transcribed. The letter is dated In Yarmus den 6e Decembris 1599 and the postscript runs:

In mijne laetste heb Ick U.L. gheschreven vande bouck, namelijk vande Historie, die U.L. ghesonden hebt. Wien U.L. dien toegheschickt hebt ende wat dat hy coste. Dan verhope dat U.L. dat selve mondeling duen sult ende soe daer noch wat wtghegeven is van Pieter de Biscop, sendt ons wat oft bringhet met U.68

Yarmouth, 6 December 1599. In my last letter I wrote to you about the book, namely the book of the history, which you have sent. Whom did you send this to and what did it cost? Further, we trust that you will say this [in person] and if there has been anything published by Pieter de Biscop, send us this or bring it with you.

66 Harris records that the letters are in the Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, Collectie Ortell, inv. nr. 61. 67 The facsimiles are items Y/PP1/1–2 at the nro. The extract above comes from Y/PP 1/2. The original letters are preserved in the archive for Berkel en Rodenrijs, which is held at the Gemeentearchief in Rotterdam. The catalogue reference is 1306/538. Here, the sender of the letters is identified as Cornelis de Keijser. I thank Christa Schepen of the Gemeentearchief, Rotterdam, for providing me with this information. 68 Boek/bouck is now a neuter noun in standard Dutch. However, in the past it was also masculine and in the late modern period has been masculine in the spoken Dutch of the southern Netherlands (wnt). Learning And The Home 217

The rendering of Yarmouth as Yarmus reflects the lack of the phoneme /θ/ in Dutch. Above, we met the extraordinary Dutchman, Cornelis Drebbel of Alkmaar, and considered his use of Dutch in the domain of learning. Let us now examine his use of the language in the private domain. In 1608 or 1609 Drebbel wrote a letter in Dutch to a friend in Alkmaar, Ysbrandt van Rietwijck. We know that he wrote the letter from London for he concluded it with the words In haest uyt Westmunster door uwe dienstwillige vrundt (‘In haste from Westminster, by your obliging friend’). The letter itself contains some of Drebbel’s more outlandish claims such as his ability to make himself invisible and to assume the form of a tree! (Hierenboven verandere mijselven in een natuere boom). However, it is language that concerns us here. First, he addresses his friend using the form UE, one we have met on a number of occasions, which at this time was limited to the upper echelons of society. Secondly, he uses the word oochconst, which we could translate as ‘optics’. The wnt only has one entry for this word, from a 1662 poem by Vondel. Did Drebbel perhaps coin the word? Furthermore, the use of -const rather than -cunst is a feature more typical of the southern dialects of Dutch, rather than Hollands; the variety spoken in Drebbel’s hometown of Alkmaar (de Vooys 1970: 38; Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 119). Drebbel also uses the form peert (elsewhere paard/t ‘for horse’), a form found in southern dialects above all Brabants, and vercken (‘pig’), the Hollands form of which was varken (wnt; Willemyns 2013: 75). Two other written documents contain examples of Drebbel using Dutch in England. Both of them include his motto: Oefend u gaven recht! (‘Use your gifts correctly’). The first is signed and dated Cornelis Drebbel Autor Perpetui mobi- lis Van Alcmaer Ano 1610 den 7. Junij in London (‘Cornelis Drebbel, Author of Perpetual Motion, of Alkmaar, 7 June in the year 1610 in London’). The second is a page in the Album Amicorum of Daniel Stolcius (held by the University of Uppsala). It includes his motto and is signed and dated Cornelius Drebbel In Straetfoort Langton Ao 1623 den 20 Augs, indicating that Drebbel was staying at the time in Stratford Langton in Essex.69 Franciscus Junius was a Dutch scholar who spent many years in England. He wrote extensively in Latin, but also occasionally in Dutch. He lived mainly in London, but spent the summer of 1622 in Ludham in Norfolk, at the Palace of the Bishop of Norwich, Samuel Harsnett, eight miles to the east of the city.

69 These documents can be consulted at http://drebbel.net/2013%20Drebbels%20 geschriften%20compr.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2014. The letter to Ysbrandt van Rietwijck is in the Const. Huygens-bundel xlvii, der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (knaw) in Amsterdam. 218 CHAPTER 4

On 10 June 1622 (N.S.) he wrote a long letter in Dutch from London to his sister, Johanna, who lived in Middelburg, informing her of his plans (Van Romburgh 2004: 268–79). He begins the letter:

Vrede in Christo, Hert-grondelick beminde suster, ’t en kan U.E. niet on-bekent wesen met hoe grooten vreughd ick . . . wt U.E. schrijven . . . ver-nomen hebbe de goede ghesondheyd van U.E. en alle d’uwe . . .

Peace in Christ, Dearly beloved Sister, it cannot be unknown to you with what great happiness I have learnt of your and all your family’s good health from your letter . . .

He then informs her of his forthcoming visit to Norwich:

Maer dese mijne reyse is maer alleen ontrent Norwich gheleghen, al-waer ick desen somer 8 of 9 Engelsche mijltijens van de stad in ’t land mijne woon- inghe hebben sal in ’t huys van den E. Bisschop van Norwich . . .

But my trip is directed only to the vicinity of Norwich, where I shall have my accommodation this summer, at the house of the Reverend Bishop of Norwich, 8 or 9 English miles from the town in the countryside . . .

Towards the end of the letter he refers to some Dutch people living in Norwich, the parents of the son-in-law of Pieter Dircksz Carre, a merchant from Rotterdam. The son-in-law was Abraham van Bartem, a Dutch merchant who occasionally delivered letters and parcels for Junius. It was Van Bartem who took care of the shipping of Junius’ first major publication, De Pictura Veterum (Van Romburgh 2004: 4; see section 6.2.8). Junius also wrote letters in Dutch from London to another sister, Elizabeth, who lived in Leiden. On 10 March 1629 (N.S.) he wrote to her, beginning his letter Waerde suster (‘Worthy sister’). He was in the employ of the Earl of Arundel at this time and in one part of the letter makes reference to the Earl’s wife (Van Romburgh 2004: 350–3):

De gravinne van Arundell was nu onlanghs heel ernstigh met mij dat ick voor haer een vaetijen op-rechte goede Hollandsche boter soude ont-bieden; U.L. weet best of de Leydsche, Warmondsche, of Delfsche boter waerdigher Learning And The Home 219

is om aen sulcken persone te ver-eeren; in-dien U.L. een wt-nemende goed tonneken bekomen kan, ick sal ’t U.L. met grooten danck ver-goeden.

The Countess of Arundel was recently most serious with me that I should send for a small cask of really good butter from Holland; you know best if butter from Leiden, Warmond or Delft is worthy enough to honour such a person. If you are able to obtain an exceptionally good little barrel, I shall reimburse you for it with many thanks.

Although Junius was employed for his learning, it is clear that he also had to deal with more mundane matters in the Arundel household! Junius wrote to Elizabeth again in Dutch on 25 July 1630 (N.S.) and from the address we learn that she was married to the Leiden professor, Gerardus Vossius (Gerrit Janszoon Vos), whom we met in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3; Van Romburgh 2004: 390–5). Here, a word is in order about the forms of address that Junius uses in his letters to his sisters. In the letter to Johanna, he uses the form U.E. This is the abbreviation of u edele or uwe edelheid (‘your Honour’, ‘your Worship’), and originates from the chancery (Nobels 2013: 79). Daan (1982: 127) notes that it emerged as the standard form of address in the letters of aristocrats in about 1620 and thereafter became popular in upper-middle class circles. Junius’ use of it in 1622 tells us something about his own background.70 However, in the letter dated 10 March 1629 to his other sister, Elizabeth, he uses the form of address U.L., found so often in the Norwich Dutch church corpus from the second half of the sixteenth century.71 In the letter that he wrote to Elizabeth on 25 July 1630 he again uses U.L. However, in a letter to the same sister dated 9 August 1641 from London Junius uses U.E. throughout (Van Romburgh 2004: 724–7). Two things are of note here. First, Junius initially uses a different form of address for his sisters. It was not unknown for the same author to use distinct forms of address to different family members, as Judith Nobels discovered in the Brieven als buit corpus from later in the century.72 Why Junius used these particular forms for each sister, would, though require further investigation. Secondly, Junius’ shift from using U.L. to U.E. in his letters to Elizabeth is perhaps to be expected, as the latter gradually replaced the former. However, in general the shift took place much later and at this stage, the use of U.E. was still

70 In the Brieven als buit corpus from the second half of the seventeenth century, it is only used in 11% of cases as a form of address (Nobels 2013: 82). 71 In this letter Junius does use U.E. on one occasion, as a possessive: U.E. Johannes (‘your Johannes’). 72 For example, Jan Leinsen uses ul to his father and u to his brother (Nobels 2013: 109). 220 CHAPTER 4 relatively rare, although it was more common amongst the upper classes than the lower classes (Van der Wal and Rutten 2013). Junius’ sister, Elizabeth, and her husband, Gerardus Vossius, had a son called Joannes. He wrote to his uncle Franciscus on 11 December 1634 (N.S.) from Texel (Van Romburgh 2004: 472–7). He had previously spent time in England, where he studied for a while at Cambridge, and visited his uncle in London. He recorded some of his experiences there in an entry on 7 November 1628 (Van Romburgh 2004: 1064–7). It begins:

Des anderen daegs ’s morgens, hebbe ick mij begeven naer het huijs van Milort of Arondel, ende oom in seer goede dispositie gevonden . . .

The next day in the morning I went to the house of Milord of Arundel, and found Uncle in excellent spirits . . .

Junius was clearly trying to encourage his nephew to learn some English for Joannes continues:

Hij verhoopte dat ick haest soo veel engels soude konnen leeren, dat ick hem in die tael soude konnen salueren.

He hoped that I could quickly learn enough English in order to be able to greet him in that language.

Later in the entry he remarks somewhat elliptically:

Dat ick belgice geschreven hebbe, is wijl ick noch niet bij mijn boeken kan . . .

I wrote in Dutch because I cannot get to my books yet . . .

One imagines that Joannes is apologizing for not writing in Latin, though English, or even French, cannot be excluded. He slips in a Latin term for ‘in Dutch’ belgice, an example of intra-sentential code switching. This may confirm in a paradoxical manner, that it was Latin that he felt unable to write without his books. In a Latin letter to Vossius dated 2 July 1639 Junius wrote in self-effacing terms that he had struggled to reassemble the fragments of his Dutch (reliquias linguae nostrae vernaculae) when translating his own Latin treatise on art (De Pictura Veterum) into Dutch (Van Romburgh 2004: 652) (see section 6.2.8). However, his Dutch had clearly not deserted him for, as we learnt above, he Learning And The Home 221 wrote in Dutch from London to his sister, Elizabeth, now living in Amsterdam, on 9 August 1641 (Van Romburgh 2004: 724–7). Finally, we should note that although most of his correspondence with English people is in Latin, Junius was eventually able to compose letters in English. An early example of this is a letter from London dated 7 July 1638 to Aletheia, Countess of Arundel (Van Romburgh 2004: 604–6). He also translated De Pictura into English. This shift to English, and to Dutch in his self-translation of De Pictura into that language, is directly related to his study of Germanic philology and the growing realiza- tion that Dutch and English were sufficiently elegant for the writing of prose (Van Romburgh 2004: 48).

4.3.2 Wills Wills provide further evidence of the written use of Dutch in the domestic domain. The Essex Record Office archive contains some thirty wills written in Dutch in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some of these are written in both Dutch and English and some are replete with religious language. A number of examples illustrate this. The will of Pieter Beke, a deacon of the church and a maker of wool cards, was drafted in Dutch and English on 6 February 1603 (H 87: iii, i, 1229).73 As might be expected, it is cast in a stylized religious terminology; it begins with the words In den name des heeren onses Gods die een heere des levens ende des doots is . . . (‘In the name of the Lord our God, who is a Lord of life and death . . .’) and later states indient de heere beliefde naer mijn overlyden . . . (‘If it please my Lord after my death . . .’). The will was signed by the minister, Jan Proost. It was written in very stylized almost calligraphic script, but it is not clear whether Beke himself wrote it, or Proost, or indeed a notary. Proost signed the will of Christiaen de Hane, written in Dutch in 1616.74 This begins:

Inden Name des Heeren Amen. Ick Christiaen de Hane woonachtich tot Colchester, teghenwoordich cranck sijnde in den Lichame, maer gesont van verstande . . .

In the name of the Lord, Amen. I Christiaen de Hane, living in Colchester, am currently sick in body, but healthy in mind . . .

73 ero D/abw 7/71. 74 ero D/abw 12/376. 222 CHAPTER 4

He states that after his debts are paid, his goods are to be divided amongst his six children. The will concludes:

T’oorconde van de waerheijt hebbe ick dit als myn . . . wille met myn eyghen hant onderteeckent in Colchester den 6 Septembere 1616 . . .

As a witness to the truth, I have signed this as my . . . will with my own hand in Colchester on 6 September 1616 . . .

De Hane also signed the will. The style of De Hane’s signature and that of the writing in the rest of the will is similar, so it maybe that he wrote it, although again the possibility of a notary writing the will cannot be excluded. De Hane’s will was recorded in the Calendar of Wills of the Bishop of London’s Court, London, Essex and Hertfordshire (Moens 1905: 80). It is described as a ‘Dutch will’ as are five others in the Calendar. One will that does not carry Proost’s signature is that of Cladys Cleenwerck made in 1601.75 The beginning and end of the will run as follows:

Cladys Cleenwerck als nu in groote cranckheyt nae den Lichaeme, doch gesont van verstande . . . Tot kennisse van desen hebbe ick myn ghewoon- lyck hantteecken . . . onderghestelt desen A[nn]o 1601 . . . by my Cladys Cleenwerck.

Cladys Cleenwerk, being now gravely sick in body, but healthy in mind . . . In acknowledgement of this I have signed this with my usual signature, on this . . . in the year 1601, Cladys Cleenwerck.

An example of the will of a woman is that of Rachel Dewele. It was dated 25 November 1608 and written in English and Dutch. The Dutch version begins in a manner similar to those already discussed:

Ick Rachel Dewele cranck in lichaeme, maer ghesont in verstande en van goeden memoire . . . hebbe goet ghevonden . . . myn Testament als wtersten wille te maken als volght . . .

I, Rachel Dewele, being sick in body, but sound in mind and of good memory . . . have found it good to make my Testament and last will as follows . . .

75 ero D/abw 10/120. Learning And The Home 223

Amongst Rachel’s bequests was a donation of 20 shillings to the poor of the Dutch congregation of Colchester.76 Although the words at the start of Rachel’s and Cladys’ wills are slightly different they effectively have the same meaning and reflect well the formulaic nature of legal documents. One will in Dutch in the Essex Record Office archive from Halstead is that of Adrian Loy, listed as an alien in Halstead. The will consists of four folios and is written in English, Dutch and Latin.77 The third folio is in Dutch. It is not written in a neat hand and some words are difficult to decipher. It concludes:

. . . de waerheyt dat dit myne laetste ende uyterste will ende testament is . . . hebbe . . . dit ondertekent met myn eyghen hant . . . desen 9den september 1585 int 27 jaer der regeringe onser genadighe coninginne van ingelant Elisabeth.

. . . the truth that this is my last and final will and testament . . . [I] have signed this with my own hand . . . on this 9th day of September 1585 in the 27th year of the reign of our gracious Queen of England, Elizabeth.

As well as being signed by Loy, it was signed by the minister of the Dutch church at Halstead at this time, Jan Soillot: by my Jan Soillot dienaer synde des god- delycken woorts, and three elders, Adriaen Bogart, Andries Kolven and Robert Bertoloot. As with wills of members of the Dutch community in Colchester, this could belong to the domestic domain as well as the church domain. Some wills of members of the Dutch communities in England were written in English. One is that of an early minister of the Dutch church in Colchester, Theodore vanden Berghe, written on 1 March 1597.78 Another is that of his successor, Jan Proost, who was the minister of the Dutch church in Colchester between c. 1601–1641. His will is dated May 1637.79 It includes references to ‘my picture made by William Drossate’ and ‘myne owne picture drawen by Mr. Mytens’. Was William related to Martin Droeshout, the engraver of Flemish descent, who famously made the engraving of Shakespeare that was used as the frontispiece for the first folio edition of his work, published in 1623? Was ‘Mr. Mytens’ Daniel Mytens, the Dutch portrait painter who worked at the courts of James I and Charles I? If so, did Proost speak Dutch with either artist as he sat for them? His will also refers to his French books, which he decided not

76 ero D/acw 4/281. 77 ero D/abw 23/256. 78 ero D/acw 3/166. 79 ero D/abw 13/81. 224 CHAPTER 4 to give to his son, but does not refer to any Dutch books. One hint of Proost’s Dutch heritage is his spelling of the word ‘library’ as ‘librarije’. There are though plenty of non-linguistic hints of Proost’s position in the Dutch community in Colchester, including a bequest to the poor of the Dutch congregation in the town. I have come across no wills in the Norfolk Record Office written in Dutch, which is surprising given the number of Dutch Strangers, who lived in four towns in the county. There are however wills of Dutch Strangers written in English.80 One is that of John Smallbone. In the Return of Members of the Dutch church in Norwich made in 1568 he is listed as Jan Smalbeen, a widower and a fuller from Flanders (Moens 1887–8: 214). In his will he is described as a Stranger and he left money both to the poor and the minister of the Dutch church in Norwich. Witnesses to the will included George de Hounde and Peter van Bambricke.81 The will of the Norwich minister Johannes Elison was also written in English in 1639.82 He is described as a ‘preacher unto the Dutch congregation in the citty of Norwich’. He left money to the poor of the congregation. Amongst the items he bequeathed was a book in folio to ‘Mr. John Cruso captain of the Dutch company’. Cruso was also a witness to the will. He left other books as well but does not tell us the language in which any of these books was written. The wills of some of the early Norwich Strangers do sometimes contain explicit references to Dutch books. Joos de Ram’s will, dated March 1577, included books ‘aswell lattyn as Dutch’. We should also note that De Ram’s will was written by Gerolfe van Renterghen. Van Renterghen is a Flemish name, and so he is likely to have come from Flanders. This is possibly the earliest example we have of a Norwich Stranger writing English (Forster 1967: 39; 129–30).83 In October 1603 Lowysken van Rokegem bequeathed a copy of a psalter, most probably that of Dathenus (Forster 1967: 135–6). One seventeenth-century observer noted that ‘the Dutch are mighty singers of psalms, both at home and in their churches’ (Dunthorne 2007: 258). Although this referred to the Dutch in the United Provinces, the presence of a copy of the metrical psalms in Lowysken’s house at least suggests that she may have sung psalms in Dutch at home. Another Dutch book found in a Stranger’s will was Het offer des Heeren

80 For more on the surviving wills of the Norwich Strangers, see Eßer (1996: 133–6). 81 nro, ncc will register Moyse 9 (1580). 82 nro, ncc will register Green 194 (1639). 83 Van Renterghen’s name does not appear in the 1568 Return, although this is limited to Dutch church members and may not be complete. Learning And The Home 225

(‘The sacrifice to the Lord’), a volume of poems and songs about martyrs first published in 1562 (Grootes and Schenkeveld-van der Dussen 2009: 165). Sometimes the details of books given in the wills are insufficient to allow us to draw firm conclusions about the language in which they were written. For example, a copy of Heinrich Bullinger’s collection of sermons, ‘Decades’, is mentioned in one will. This may well have been the Dutch translation printed in Dordrecht in 1582, which was used by a number of Dutch congregations in England, when they were without a minister (Forster 1967: 125–6).

4.3.3 Household Inventories Household inventories provide further evidence of the written use of Dutch in the domestic domain. In section 4.2.6 mention was made of private libraries containing Dutch books. An inventory of the possessions of Jacob Sumeren of Norwich was discussed in Chapter 3. Another example from Norwich is a probate inventory of Elisabeth van de Sande, widow of Jeroen Schipman, written in September 1613 (fig. 15). It has the title Dit syn de goederen die ghevonden syn in het sterfhuijs van Elisabeth van de Sande weduwe van Jereoen . . . Schipman (‘These are the goods found in the home of the deceased, Elisabeth van de Sande, widow of Jeroen Schipman’). Items listed include 3 pairs of bedsheets (3 paer slaeplakens), a tablecloth (tafelcleet), a skirt (rock), a woman’s long dress (samarie), a mirror (spieghel), a pair of shoes (2 schoen) and 3 boxes (3 doosken).84 Inventories of the goods of Dutch Strangers in Sandwich often contained Bibles and psalters. Mary Valkenes, who died in 1581, owned a ‘Flemish Testament’ (Backhouse 1995: 68; 133). On a different note, an inventory written in English in 1618 for the Barrington Family of Hatfield Broad Oak in Essex lists various coins including ‘peeces of Dutche Dollars’.85

4.3.4 Other Evidence of Written Dutch in the Domestic Domain Another type of document associated with this domain is title deeds. Two deeds for transferring title to property are preserved at the Essex Record Office, both written in Dutch for Little Laver, a village near Epping Forest in Essex; one dated 1560; and the other 1588.86 Finally, returning to the written language, we should mention a mortar for domestic use in the collection of the Bridewell Museum at Norwich. It has the inscription ‘LOF GODT VAN AL ANNO 1586’ (‘PRAISE GOD IN EVERYTHING. ANNO 1586’). It would be easy to see this as

84 nro dn/inv 26/176B. Elizabeth’s name (Elizabetha Vander Sande) is listed in the register of wills proved at the consistory court in Norwich for the year 1613 (Moens 1887–8: 195). 85 ero D/Dba F29/2. 86 ero D/du 295/31; D/du 295/34. 226 CHAPTER 4

figure 15 The probate inventory of Elisabeth van de Sande. nro dn/inv 26/176B Learning And The Home 227 further evidence of the use of Dutch in everyday life in Norwich in the late sixteenth century. However, nothing is known of the provenance of this item, and although it may have been dug up in the city at some later date, there is no indication as to whether it was made in Norwich or somewhere else, and if it was somewhere else when it came to the city.

4.3.5 Concluding Remarks on Written Dutch in the Domestic Domain So, what have we learnt about the use of written Dutch in the domestic domain? I suggest that the range of documents discussed provide evidence not only that Dutch was written in the domestic domain but furthermore that different ‘Dutches’, to bring us back to one of the more general themes of this book, were used. One striking feature of the examples given is the range of forms of address in use in the language at this time, from the informal ghij, found so often in the Norwich Ieper corpus, to the form ue derived from the chancery, used by Cornelis Drebbel and Franciscus Junius, as well as U.L. and related forms, used in the Norwich Dutch church corpus and also by Junius. Some of the letters that we have considered, notably those addressed to friends and relatives in Ieper are informal, coming close to the language of everyday speech, whilst others, such as wills, are more formal and indeed quite formulaic. Whilst the Dutch of Junius could be considered ‘standard’ Dutch, we have also seen dialectal features in some of the letters discussed, notably forms associated with the Flemish dialect in the Norwich Ieper corpus, such as the hypercorrective form of address hu. Indeed, this corpus provides an excellent resource for the study of the Flemish dialect in the second half of the sixteenth century. Let us now consider the evidence for the spoken use of Dutch in the domestic domain.

4.3.6 Spoken Dutch in the Domestic Domain Hard evidence that the immigrants spoke Dutch at home is by its very nature very difficult to come by. However, as already noted, some of the personal letters discussed above can be adduced as evidence for the speaking of the language in this domain. They can also tell us something about the nature of the Dutch spoken. It is perhaps the Norwich Ieper corpus of letters, together with the letters sent from elsewhere in England in the larger Ieper corpus, that offer us the best chance of gaining an insight into the spoken language in the Dutch communities. Clearly, gaps will remain in our knowledge. For example, we have no letters from King’s Lynn and so can only rely on details of the provenance of the Strangers in that town in order to get some sort of picture of the Dutch spoken there. In other cases, more work needs to be done. In relation to Great Yarmouth, we know that most of the members of the Dutch 228 CHAPTER 4 community came from the northern provinces of Zeeland and Holland. Furthermore, the Dutch fishermen who moored their boats in the town’s harbour each year also came from the northern provinces. Further analysis of the two letters sent to Vedastus Coornwinder of Berkel en Rodenrijs in South Holland may offer us an insight into Dutch spoken in the town. The formal church letters in the Hessels collection often contain dialectal features and, although they point to the ‘language of distance’, they may, as we saw with the letters from Maidstone discussed in Chapter 2, also offer us an insight into the Dutch spoken in Yarmouth. This, we should add, is also true for other towns in England in which Strangers communities were established. There may be some readers who ask whether it is really necessary to try and establish whether Dutch was spoken in the home. They might consider it obvious that recent immigrants would continue to use their native tongue in the domestic domain. In response I would say that I have a certain sympathy with this view, but imagine that there will still be readers who would like to see evidence for this. They may point out that some of the immigrants were bilin- guals and so would not necessarily have used Dutch in the home. They may also want to know what sort of Dutch was spoken, a question we have begun to answer, and how long the use of Dutch in the home would have persisted. In order to answer such questions two types of source may be of use: recent linguistic studies and contemporary metalinguistic comment. Let us consider these in turn.

4.3.6.1 Modern Sociolinguistic Studies One modern study was conducted on Dutch immigrants in Australia (De Bot and Clyne 1994). For our purposes this is interesting as the first language and the language of the host country are the same as in the case of the Dutch Strangers in England. Speech material was gathered from Dutch-English bilin- guals in Australia questioned in 1971 and 1987. It shows no evidence of attrition in Dutch and concludes that first-language attrition does not necessarily occur in an immigrant setting and that immigrants who maintain their language in the first years of their stay are likely to remain fluent in their first language. This study also provides examples of Dutch immigrants in Australia code switching, and it may well be that those Dutch Strangers in early modern England who did shift towards English went through a similar process of code switching.87

87 An example of this is a sentence spoken by a Dutch immigrant to a bilingual interviewer: My son was daar, hij was first here op de nzbank en hij studyde nog bij voor ’t bookkeeping and after than he go to de anz bank. Quoted in de Bot (2010). I thank Peter Trudgill for bringing these studies to my attention. Learning And The Home 229

Two other studies consider language shift of immigrants to Australia from the Netherlands.88 They conclude that around 60% of these immigrants shift to English in the first generation, whilst this figure rises to 95% in the second generation. Caroline Smits (1996) describes a similar rapid decrease in the use of Dutch by immigrants who arrived in the American state of Iowa in the nineteenth century (cf. Willemyns 2013: 206); and Madeleine Hulsen (2000) has identified that language shift amongst three generations of Dutch migrants to New Zealand was intergenerational, rather than intragenerational. These results tell us that it is most likely that Dutch was used in the home in early modern England. However, when it comes to the question of whether the shift to English happened with similar speed, we need to recognize that the sets of variables differ in each case. The fact that the Dutch communities in early modern England were geographically close to the Dutch-language area probably allowed Dutch to persist longer in them than in geographically more distant areas such as Australia, New Zealand and Iowa. Furthermore, the widespread use of English today in many media may have accelerated the process of shifting to English in modern Australia and New Zealand in relation to early modern England. But there are other reasons why the shift to English may well have occurred more slowly in the Dutch communities in England. First, most of the immigrants in Norwich expected to return sooner or later to the Low Countries. This will have reduced their desire or need to learn English. Second, they often lived in areas in which there was a high concentration of immigrants (one could even talk of ghettoes), they employed immigrant apprentices, and in the early days at least typically inter-married. Third, it may also be the case that the language shift of the Dutch Strangers was slower than that of their modern counterparts in Australia and New Zealand because of social factors such as restrictions on the type of work they could do. Fourthly, we should recall the role of Dutch churches, which sustained and perpetuated the use of Dutch in the English towns in which they were established. In this regard the Dutch communities in England have something in common with those established in the seventeenth century on the east coast of what is now the United States. Dutch was still spoken in New York and New Jersey in the nineteenth century, and it is likely that there, as in England, the presence of Dutch churches helped to preserve the use of the language (Willemyns 2013: 203–5). For these reasons we can tentatively conclude that, in contrast to the

88 The studies are by Kipp and Clyne (2002) and (2003). These are quoted in Rubino (2007: 100). Data is provided for the years 1991 and 1996. In 1991 the figure for the first generation was 57%, and in 1996 it was 61.9%. The figure for the second generation remained constant at 95%. 230 CHAPTER 4 recent studies in Australia and New Zealand, Dutch continued to be spoken in the home in the Stranger communities in England well beyond the second generation.

4.3.6.2 Metalinguistic Data One person who explicitly tells us that he spoke Dutch in his youth in England is Wilhelmus Baudartius, whom we have already met. His parents came from Deinze in East Flanders, and moved to Sandwich in Kent before Wilhelmus was two years old. He tells us that he spoke Flemish at home, and French, as his mother was Walloon; he learnt English whilst playing with the local children in the street (Backhouse 1995: 67). He would later attend the French school in nearby Canterbury run by Paul le Pipere (Frijhoff 2010: 13–14). In the last chapter we learnt that in Sandwich in 1568 the tailor, Lyven Symons, was restricted to working in his own home and only employing Dutchmen (Gardiner 1954: 176). Such circumstances suggest that Dutch was spoken in his home. Despite what has just been said, over time some of the Strangers did gradually increase contact with the local English population. In a letter dated 8 February 1579, written by the Norwich Dutch consistory to its London counterpart, Moddaert Trioen, a Norwich Dutch Stranger, is accused of abandoning his wife and keeping the company of other women, including English women (H 87: iii, i, 542):

dat hy met andere vrauwen ende jonghe dochteren ooc wel ynghelsche vrauwen persoonen te doen heeft.

[] he has been involved with other women and young women (lit. daugh- ters) as well as English women.

However, we do not know what language Trioen spoke to the English women. Did a pidgin language emerge by which the Dutch communicated with local English people, or did some form of code switching take place, as was the case in the recent study in Australia? We do not know. A Francis Trioen is listed in the 1568 return of members of the Dutch congregation in Norwich. Is this the same person, or is Moddaert one of Francis’ sons, also listed in the return? In either case, had he acquired a good knowledge of English by 1579? Others were said to be marrying ‘secretly’ amongst the English (H 87: iii, i, 653). In 1587 the consistory of the Dutch church in Norwich wrote to the Ministers and Elders of the Dutch church in London concerning the case of a woman referred to as ‘Jacquemyne N.’ and Charles van Werven, who were married in an English church (H 87: iii, i, 857). Another case of a man from Learning And The Home 231 the Stranger community marrying an English woman arises in a letter dated 9 February 1589 (H 87: iii, i, 888). Again one is left to wonder about the nature of the language in which these married couples communicated, but no evidence for this survives. Do the names of servants offer clues as to the language spoken in a given household? In his diary, Constantijn Huygens jr., who lived in England for much of the period between 1689 and 1695, had a household in London. He gives the full names of two of his servants in London: his valet, Pieter Bergnaer, and the coachman, Hans Henrick. He also refers to Dammis and Daniël whom he hired in 1694 and the maids Mary, Lysbeth and Sophy (Dekker 2013: 143). One is left to ask whether he spoke Dutch with any of these servants, or indeed whether they spoke Dutch to one another. Finally, mention should be made of a few individuals who may well have spoken Dutch in the domestic domain in Sandwich and Colchester. Up to 1610 the congregation of the English Reformed church in Leiden, established in 1607, relied on sermons given by the minister of Oegstgeest, Jonas Volmar. He was bilingual (at least), born to Dutch parents in Sandwich and educated as an alumnus of the Dutch church in London at Leiden University (Grell 1996: 232). One of the foremost grammarians of the Dutch language in the seventeenth century, Petrus Leupenius (1607–1670), was born in Colchester to Pieter and Barbara Leupen. He matriculated at Leiden University in November 1622 and went on to become a minister in the Dutch Reformed church in the United Provinces. He wrote a work on the Dutch language entitled Aanmerkingen op de Neederduitsche taale (‘Comments on the Dutch language’) (1653), which provides clarification on earlier Dutch grammars such as those of Spiegel and Van Heule. Leupenius shows pride in his parents’ tongue when he writes that it is a language die wy alle eerbiedigheid schuldig syn (‘to which we owe all respect’) (Dibbets 2003: 72). He also wrote another book in Dutch De geessel der sonden (‘The scourge of sins’) (1651), in which he deliberately avoids using loanwords (Dibbets 2004). Given these facts, i.e., the surname of his parents is Dutch, he was a minister in the Dutch church and he wrote in and on the Dutch language, it would be reasonable to assume that one of the languages that he acquired and used in the first fifteen years of his life in Colchester was Dutch. But his early years in England also gave him a knowledge of English. This is underlined by the fact that nearly ten per cent of the books in his library were written in English, which was quite unusual for this period within the Dutch Republic (Dibbets 2003: 74). Two other individuals who may have spoken Dutch in Colchester in the domestic domain are King William iii and Sir Isaac Rebow, a member of the town’s Dutch community, whose will was discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.4.3). 232 CHAPTER 4

The King lodged with Rebow in Colchester on his way from Harwich back to London when returning from the Continent. This is a fact that Daniel Defoe notes in the journal of his tour of Britain (Defoe 1971: 59).89 However, given that William also spoke French and English, he and Rebow may have used one of those languages instead of Dutch, or indeed more than one language.

4.4 Dutch Words in English Dialects

The use of Dutch in the domestic domain has left its mark on dialects in the East of England. The English Dialect Dictionary (edd) gives ‘dwoile’ (lnd: dweil) for a floorcloth or rag in the Norfolk and Suffolk dialects. The edd also gives ‘crowd’ meaning ‘to push’ (cf. lnd: kruiwagen = wheelbarrow) in the Norfolk dialect, and it gives ‘fye’ (sometimes with ‘out’) meaning ‘to sweep’ (lnd: vegen) in the Norfolk and Suffolk dialects, although other variants e.g., ‘fay’, are found elsewhere in England. Peter Trudgill also suggests hake, ‘a hook over a cooking fire’ found in the Norfolk and Suffolk dialects, may come from the Dutch haak (Trudgill 2013: 17). Finally, we should mention the dialectal word ‘bor’, immortalized in the song by the ‘Singing Postman’, Allen Smethurst, ‘Hev yew gotta loight, bor?’ According to the edd this is found in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. The oed suggests it may have been used in Old English, but is uncertain about this and draws a comparison with the Dutch buur (neighbour). The earliest entry in the oed is from 1677 and it includes a quotation from Forby’s ‘The Vocabulary of East Anglia’ from 1830, viz. ‘Co’ bor, let’s go a sticking in the Squire’s Plantations’. It may be that the word was used in Old English, but gained a renewed impetus in the East of England in the early modern period with the arrival of the Dutch Strangers. ‘Dwoile/dwile’ is also found in the Essex dialect. Another word, ‘naarbour’ meaning ‘neighbour’, in the Essex dialect may also owe something to the presence of Dutch speakers in Essex in the early modern period, but it is also possible that they owe their origins to other influences (Charnock 1880: 32).

89 The frequency with which Defoe refers to the Dutch in his journal raises the question of whether he knew Dutch. Ton Broos (2012) has recently written on this subject and comes to the conclusion that ‘there is only very slim and circumstantial evidence that Defoe read Dutch’. Learning And The Home 233

4.5 Conclusion

I have already commented on the range of ‘Dutches’ that we have encountered in this chapter. What is also striking is the diversity of the sources which point to the use of Dutch in early modern England. In the domestic domain, we have seen personal letters from a range of echelons in society, from the scholar, Franciscus Junius, to the Norwich tanner, Clais van Wervekin. The cache of Dutch wills in the ero are an unparalleled source of such documents in England and deserve further study. In the domain of learning, Cornelis Drebbel is likely to have written at least some of the works that he published, such as his long dedication to King James, in England, and Junius translated his Latin treatise on art into Dutch on English soil. A range of Dutch books were available at London bookshops for those, such as Robert Hooke, who wanted to read about discoveries in the natural sciences written in the language. Hooke probably read at least some of the letters received by the Royal Society in Dutch from Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek. In both domains, those of learning and the home, Dutch faced competition from other languages. In learning this came from Latin and English and in the home from English and French to varying degrees. Although we have strayed beyond the confines of the Dutch communities in England, they remained the focus of the use of Dutch for both domains: in the Dutch schools and in the homes of the Dutch Strangers, where personal letters in Dutch were written and the language was spoken. In the next chapter, the emphasis shifts to the use of Dutch by people who typically did not belong to these communities, but who went to England for a temporary period: diplomats, soldiers and navy sailors. We also consider the use of Dutch at court, in particular that of the Anglo-Dutch king, William iii. CHAPTER 5 The Court, Diplomacy and the Military

5.1 Introduction

In the previous three chapters the emphasis has been on the use of Dutch within the Dutch communities in England. In this chapter, the focus shifts somewhat, though not entirely, to the use of Dutch in the upper echelons of society. Throughout the early modern period there was much diplomatic activity between England and the United Provinces. In the early years of the period this was concentrated on cementing the relationship between Protestant allies against Catholic Spain. However, in the second half of the seventeenth century, three naval wars were fought between the countries. This led to diplomatic activity of a quite different nature. In some cases, diplomats such as Noël de Caron lived in England. In other cases, diplomats visited England together with an entourage. We consider the written and spoken use of Dutch in both sets of cases. A second area of activity to be considered in this chapter is the court. A number of Dutchmen visited the late Tudor and Stuart courts. However, it is the use of Dutch at the court of the Dutch-born king, William iii, who invaded England in 1688 and ruled as its monarch from 1689–1702, that demands most of our attention in this area. Although William’s reign has been well docu- mented, little attention has been paid to his use of language during his time in England. His use of Dutch and of other languages, namely English and French, will be considered along with the use of Dutch by others at his court. Two further spheres of activity to be discussed in this chapter are the military and the navy. There were many Dutch soldiers in early modern England. William iii invaded England with an army that included Dutch officers and soldiers (Pinkham 1954: 152–4). Amongst these were members of the Blauwe Garde (‘Blue Guard’), who remained in the British Isles during William’s entire reign. Other Dutch soldiers also went to England during the early modern period, most notably during the English Civil War. In relation to the navy, there are several reports of Dutch soldiers and sailors setting foot on British soil during the three Anglo-Dutch wars. But we are not only concerned with Dutch sailors in this regard. We also have evidence that English sailors who worked on Dutch ships picked up some of the language.

Before we consider the use of Dutch in the diplomatic domain in early modern England, we should address a possible objection to the approach adopted here. Many of the examples adduced in this chapter for the use of Dutch were written by Dutch people who visited England only for a temporary period. Some might ask what this adds to our knowledge of the Dutch language in the early modern period. In response I would argue that one of the principal aims of this book is to illustrate the extent to which Dutch was used in early modern England. For our purposes, the question of who was using it is, in some sense, of secondary importance to the question of whether and to what extent it was being used. To repeat a point made in an earlier chapter, one of the main reasons that this book has been written is to address a lacuna in studies of Dutch from this period, i.e., little or no reference to its use in Britain. This means that sources written by those living permanently in Britain, as well as those who visited for a limited period, have tended to be ignored both in general accounts of the history of the language and more focussed studies on particular sources. In some sense I am attempting to redraw the boundaries of the debate and to ask that those, who study Dutch in the early modern period and those who write reference works which include it, take into account sources written in the language in early modern Britain, whether they be written by those who settled permanently, those who visited for a limited period, or indeed Britons who learnt the language for a range of reasons. With this in mind let us now consider the use of Dutch in the diplomatic domain.

5.2 The Diplomatic Domain

It was, and probably still is, common for diplomats to know a number of languages. Those in the early modern period would have been expected to know at least Latin as well as their own vernacular, and probably French, too (cf. Burke 2004: 113–14). Dutch diplomats would have been no different in this regard, so, at first glance, it is interesting that almost all the correspondence written by Dutch diplomats in England is in Dutch. Two decisions are important in this regard. First, in 1477 Dutch became the official language of Zeeland and Holland. Although many official documents written in these provinces prior to this date were written in Dutch, it was the loss of more than half of the French possessions of the Burgurdian state after the death of Charles the Bold which led to this move, as Burgundy became, in the words of Roland Willemyns, ‘essentially a Netherlands state’ (Willemyns 2013: 58). Secondly, in 1582 Dutch 236 CHAPTER 5 became the language of the States General (Burke 2005: 14).1 This is of particular importance to the current discussion for much of the correspondence written by Dutch diplomats in England was addressed to the States General. In this regard, it may be instructive to make a comparison with the correspondence of the Dutch court in The Hague. For example, the letters written to the stadholder Frederik Hendrik (1625–1647) by his secretary, Constantijn Huygens, are in French. This is also the case for Huygens’ vast correspondence with Frederik Hendrik’s wife, the German-born Amalia van Solms (Joby 2014f: Chapter 3). This of course has something to do with the origins of the stadholder and his wife, but nevertheless it underlines the fact that we should not necessarily expect Dutch to be used in official correspondence in the United Provinces at this time.

5.2.1 The Written Use of Dutch in the Diplomatic Domain Several editions of correspondence provide ample evidence of the written use of Dutch by diplomats in early modern England. One such edition contains letters written by Johann van Oldenbarnevelt (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934). He and his colleagues wrote many letters in Dutch from England during the 1580s. On 21 July 1585 he and his fellow envoys from the United Provinces, including Noël de Caron, wrote to the States General Uyt Londen (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 103–4). The letter begins with a highly formulaic salutation:

Eedele, eersame, hoochgeleerde, wyse, voorsienige, seer discrete heeren. Wy hebben Uwe E. by onse brieven van den xviiien deser in ’t generael geadverteert van ’t geene tot dien dage toe alhier . . . was gepasseert . . .

Noble, honorable, highly erudite, wise, providential, most discerning gentlemen. We advised you in our letter of the 18th inst. in general terms about what has been happening here up until today . . .

1 There is evidence that during the Revolt pride in the Dutch language grew. The Breda peace negotiations (1575) were apparently conducted in Dutch and once the Walloon provinces dropped out of the Union, the States General decided to use Dutch as the medium for their discussions. This may have influenced the choice of language for the diplomatic correspondence of the United Provinces. The proceedings are recorded in Dutch in the pamphlet, Cort ende warachtich verhael, van het gene dat op de handelinge vanden vrede nu coreelinghe tusschen den Prince van Oraengien, met die Staten van Hollandt ende Zeelandt, ende Gheassocieerde, aen eene zijde: Ende die Spaensche Gouuerneur der Nederlanden met den synen aen de andere zijde, tot Breda geschiet is. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 237

The form of address, Uwe E., is one of a number of abbreviated forms of u edele or uwe edelheid (‘your Honour’, ‘your Worship’); a form deriving from the chancery, used first by the aristocracy and then adopted by the upper- middle classes in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (Daan 1982: 127; Nobels 2013: 79; 90). In the previous chapter we met a related form, UE, used by Cornelis Drebbel, and by Franciscus Junius to address his sisters. This extract also includes two verbs with the suffix -eren derived from French verbs (adverteren (geadverteert is the past participle) and passeren (gepasseert)). The use of such verbs derived from French was a common feature of Dutch diplomatic correspondence throughout this period and they are considered in detail in section 5.2.1.1 below. Clearly, the salutation was a standard formula for addressing the States General, for a letter dated 18 August 1585, on this occasion from Kingston (Uuyt Kingston), again addressed to the States General, signed by Van Oldenbarnevelt, de Caron and others begins with an identical salutation (apart from orthographical variants) Edele, eersame, hoochgeleerde, wyse, voorsienighe zeer discrete heeren (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 104–5). The Van Oldenbarnevelt collection also contains letters from de Caron to Van Oldenbarnevelt. On 3 December 1596 (O.S.) (den derden Decembris 1596 na den Ouden Stijl), de Caron wrote to his colleague from Streatham in Surrey, asking amongst other things for any news concerning Colonel John Norris (Noreys) (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 320–3):2

Ik bidde UE. my t’adverteren, wat in de saek van den Gouverneur Noreys word gedaen, die ik versta dat nu tegenwoordig in Holland is . . .

I entreat you to advise me, what is being done in the case of Governor Norris, who, I understand, is currently in Holland . . .

As the reader will note, de Caron uses the form of address ue. just discussed and another verb ending in -eren, adverteren. In a letter dated 9 September 1596 (N.S.) de Caron tells Van Oldenbarnevelt of the response in London to the signing of an Anglo-French alliance against the Spanish. Here he includes a small amount of intrasentential code switching to French to record the cries of support for the French King, Henry iv (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 340–2):

. . . En alsoo my selfs den Hertog desen morgenstond geseyt heeft, so is hy te Londen met sulke exclamatie en toejuychen van de gemeente ontfangen

2 Slightly confusingly the editors give the year as 1595 in the heading for the letter, whilst the transcription refers to 1596. 238 CHAPTER 5

geworden, met roepen van en van de Koninginne, etc . . . Alle de klokken van Londen hebben geluyt, het geschut is afgeschoten en vuuren en andere tri- umphen gemaekt . . .

. . . And as the Duke (of Bouillon) said to me this morning, he was received in London with such exclamation and acclaim from the local people, with cries of ‘Vive le Roy’ and the Queen, etc . . . All the bells in London rang out, the canons were fired and fires lit and other triumphal acts carried out . . .

The Dutch Republic would shortly join the English and French to form the Triple Alliance against Spain. On 13 May 1598 (N.S.) de Caron wrote to Justinus van Nassau and Van Oldenbarnevelt from Canterbury, a useful place to break journeys to and from the Continent (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 386):

Mijn Heeren, Alsoe ic hier te Cantelberghe desen avent naer den negen uren gearriveert sy, soo ben ic blyde geweest te verstaene doer seecker eedelluyden, die ic hier vinde . . . dat ic Uwe E. noch te Dover sal vinden . . . Te Cantelberghe den xiiien Mey 1598.

My Lords, As I arrived here in Canterbury this evening after 9 o’clock, I was happy to learn from certain gentlemen-in-waiting whom I find here, that I shall find you still at Dover . . . Canterbury 13 May 1598.

A linguistic subject already touched on is the Dutch rendering of English toponyms. The Dutch rendering of Canterbury as Cantelberghe, as in de Caron’s letter, goes back to at least the Middle Ages (see also section 1.4.1.3). Apart from the rendering of ‘-bury’ in English as -berg(h)e in Dutch, what is of particular note is the use of an ‘l’ in Dutch in place of the first ‘r’ in English. I have found no occurrence of the toponym in English texts with an ‘l’ before the ‘b’ (Watts 2004: 114; Ekwall 1960: 85). However, /l/ and /r/ are both liquid approximants, produced by touching the roof of the mouth with the tongue.3 Although the Late Modern English pronunciation of ‘Canterbury’ is non-rhotic, in versions of English up to and including Early Modern Standard English it would have been rhotic, as the /r/ was produced in just about all positions, including before a /b/ (Barber 1997: 127–8). This, I suggest, helps to explain the Dutch rendering Cantelberghe. It is reasonable to conclude that the second ‘r’ did not

3 Phonologists seem to disagree to some extent on how to categorize these phonemes. However, common sense and practice tell us that they are closely related phonetically. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 239 undergo this orthographical change, as -berghe is an established toponymic suffix in Dutch. Joachim Ortell was the agent of the States of Holland in England. He wrote a number of letters in Dutch in the late 1580s from London, which are included in the Van Oldenbarnevelt correspondence (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 176–81; 182–6; 187–94). On 3 October 1590 (N.S.) Elizabeth van Dalem wrote from London to Van Oldenbarnevelt (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 215). We learn that she was the wife of Ortell and that he had recently passed away. She writes:

Mijn heere, Alsoe het Godt gelieft heeft mynen lieven man Joachim Ortell desen achternoen corts naer den twee uren tot hem te roupen, zeer christe lijck ende vromelijck in den Heere verstervende, met goeden verstande totten lesten adem zijns levens, hebbe ick niet connen nalaten Uwer E. aenstonts daervan te verwittighen . . .

My Lord, As it has pleased God to call my dear husband Joachim Ortell to himself this afternoon shortly after two o’clock, he dying in a very Christian and pious manner in the Lord, being of sound mind until the last breath of his life, I could not delay letting you know of this as soon as possible . . .

Elizabeth’s use of the form of address, Uwer E., merits our attention. It is another variant derived from the chancery forms u edele or uwe edelheid (‘your Honour’, ‘your Worship’). The chancery was dominated by men and even in the second half of the seventeenth century it was relatively uncommon for women to use this form of address.4 Elizabeth’s choice may well have been influenced by the fact that she was writing to a diplomat, Johann van Oldenbarnevelt. Further investigation may reveal how frequently women used this form in the second half of the sixteenth century. One dialectal feature of Elizabeth’s Dutch is the word roupen (elsewhere roepen), reflecting the pronunciation of a short /u/ before labials (and velars), often found in dialects spoken in the west of the Dutch language area (Willemyns 1979: 49–50; 2013: 74).5

4 From the Brieven als buit corpus, we learn that by the second half of the seventeenth century it was still uncommon for women to use this form of address in private autograph letters (Nobels 2013: 89). Elizabeth’s letter does in some sense fall into this category, although she addresses it to a diplomat, hence its inclusion in this section. 5 Elizabeth’s husband was a member of the famous Antwerp family to which the mapmaker Abraham Ortelius belonged, but it is not known whether Elizabeth also came from Antwerp. 240 CHAPTER 5

Moving onto the reign of Charles I, Michel le Blon, the son of Protestant refugees from the Low Countries who became the Swedish Ambassador to London, records his audiences with King Charles in Dutch, as well as detailing contemporary events in the language. Paul Sellin (1998: 105) provides a number of extracts from this diary, which is a useful source for those who study the court of Charles I. From the linguists’ perspective, one passage in these extracts catches the eye:

. . . des conings galderije . . . alwaer zijnne Mat. deurgaens spatzeren gaet, en met wien ick deselve fraeijicheden famillarisere.

. . . the King’s gallery . . . where his Majesty goes walking incessantly, and with whom I enjoy the same freedoms.

The words spatzeren and famillarisere do not appear in the wnt. The former possibly comes from an eastern Dutch dialect or more probably from German, in which language the modern spazieren (‘to walk’) is still used. Le Blon was born in Frankfurt, and so he may have picked the word up there. The latter word, famillarisere[n], is another verb ending in -eren derived from French that we find in diplomatic correspondence. Given that it does not appear in the wnt, Le Blon may simply have taken the French verb familiariser and made it into a Dutch verb by adding -en (see section 5.2.1.1). In the days prior to the First Anglo-Dutch War the leaders of a Dutch diplomatic mission to London wrote letters (in Dutch) to the States General, some concerning Dutch ships taken by the English Admiralty (Gardiner 1899: 72–4). For example we have one letter from December 1651 (29th), 5 letters from January 1652, 4 letters from February and 5 from March 1652. They are all from De Heeren [Jacob] Cats, [Gerrit] Schaep en [Paulus] van de Perre te Londen. The salutation used in these letters addressed to the gentlemen of the States General was Hoogh Mogende Heeren (‘Their High Mightinesses, My Lords . . .),6 a much shorter salutation than that used by the diplomats in the 1590s discussed above.7 This would be Anglicized as

We do know that she was the aunt of Humphrey Bradley, whom we met in Chapter 4. He was born in Bergen-op-Zoom in Brabant. 6 I take this translation from Downing and Rommelse (2011: 15). 7 bl Add. Ms. 17677, U, fols. 85–90; 93–4; 97–9; 101–8; 111–9; 121–8; 133–6. These are copies of originals preserved in the Dutch National Archive in The Hague. Gardiner (pp. 72–5) provides translations into English of extracts of two of the letters from February. There are also other letters from this delegation in Dutch from later in 1652 in this collection of manuscripts. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 241

‘Hogen mogens’, which eventually became a general term of abuse for anyone who was thought to be getting above their station (Downing and Rommelse 2011: 15). Further letters were written in Dutch by the delegation later in 1652. One junior member of this delegation who did not sign these letters was Lodewijck Huygens. His diary of his experiences of this mission, kept in Dutch during his time in London, provides some useful details of the languages used by members of the diplomatic mission. In Chapter 2 we learnt that Dutch sermons were preached at Lodewijck’s lodgings, probably by a Dutch minister accompanying the delegation. On 29 December 1651 Jacob Cats, the leader of the delegation, addressed the Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall in Latin. Lodewijck adds that the Speaker was given the address in both Latin and English (Lodewijck Huygens 1982 (LH 82): 41; 184). A modern commentator describes Cats’ Latin as ‘a model of baroque eloquence’. However, contemporary ‘spin doctors’, keen to influence public opinion, put out the word that it was ‘academic, pedantic, high-sounding nonsense’ (Miller 1992: 10–11). On 13 January 1652 an agent of the Count of Oldenburgh called Milius visited the Dutch delegation and delivered a speech in High German mixed with Latin. Jacob Cats responded in Dutch mixed with Latin (LH 82: 53–4). On 20 February Lodewijck writes that he ‘received a few things to translate into Latin and into English’ (Ick [kreegh] eenighe dingen in t’Latijn en in t’Engelsch te translateren) in connection with a meeting on the following day (LH 82: 80; 224). Indeed, many of the documents exchanged during the diplomatic negotiations were written in Latin, though as this extract indicates the Dutch also delivered documents in English (Miller 1991). A week later Cats sent Lodewijck an abstract in Dutch from which he was required to produce a letter in English, which he did. On the following day, 28 February, Lodewijck records that he was acting as interpreter for Cats’ conversation with an Englishman (LH 82: 83–4). One of the notable things about this is that by his own account Lodewijck did not know English before he had arrived in England with the delegation in December 1651. If this is so, he made rapid progress in learning the language, something that did not go unnoticed by other members of the delegation (Joby 2014f: Chapter 7). Further details from Lodewijck’s diary are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. We also have a letter in Dutch on matters of state written on 12 March 1652 from Canterbury. The author writes Cantelberg, a variant on the spelling of the toponym discussed above. The letter is addressed to the secretary (Griffier) of the States General and uses the salutation Hooch Geëerden Heere (‘Highly Honoured Sir’). Unfortunately the author’s name is illegible. He adds a postscript saying that since he wrote the letter he had moved onto Rochester and 242 CHAPTER 5

Sittenham (Sydenham), providing news of military movements on the English side in the build up to war.8 The published correspondence of Johann de Witt, Raadpensionaris of Holland from 1653–1672, contains many examples of letters written in Dutch from England during the Commonwealth and the early years of the Restoration. For example, on 18 July 1653, at the height of the First Anglo- Dutch War, two Dutch envoys, Van Beverningk and Nieuwpoort, wrote to de Witt from Westminster in Dutch. They wrote other letters to de Witt in 1653 and 1654, although sometimes Van Beverningk wrote letters to de Witt on his own from Westminster (Fruin and Japikse 1919: 80–96). Van Beverningk wrote one such letter to de Witt on 6 March 1654. It concerns amongst other things a letter from the Swiss envoy, which had fallen into the hands of Cromwell (Fruin and Japikse 1919: 91):

Den heere envoyé van Switzerlandt heeft een bryef geschreven aen Flemmingh, dye ick wete in handen van Cromwel te sijn gevallen, met sooda- nigen inckt geschreven, dat den Staet hem daerover verobligert is, hebbende derselver candeur, machte ende wijsheyt soo beschreven, dat ick mijn penne nyet vertrouwen soude hem daerin te imiteren.

The envoy of Switzerland has written a letter to Fleming, that I know has fallen into the hands of Cromwell, and indeed wrote it with such ink that the State is thankful to him, having written with such candour, power and wisdom, that I would not trust my pen to imitate him in.

The letter reflects the air of suspicion in England at this time during the First Anglo-Dutch War. Indeed, some of the letters to de Witt were written in code lest they fall into Cromwell’s hands too. In terms of language, candeur, from the French, is not listed in the wnt. This may simply be a case of the author insert- ing a French word into his letter, regardless of whether it had gained common usage in Dutch. Imiteren is another verb derived from French and the verb verobligeren is a combination of the Dutch prefix ver- and the verb obligeren, again derived from the French (wnt). We also have the transcriptions of letters from De Heeren van Beverningk, Nieuwpoort, Van de Perre, all three of whom are mentioned above, and Jongestall, written to the States General in 1653 and 1654. The final three gentlemen signed a letter dated 30 June 1653 from Gravesend in Kent, a regular port of

8 bl Add. Ms. 17677, U, fol. 129–30. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 243 arrival for the Dutch coming to England, after a crossing from Middelburg. Van Beverningk signed one letter from Westminster dated 4 July 1653 and we have many other letters in Dutch from Westminster, some from all four men, others just from some of them, dating from July 1653–December 1654, addressed to the Hoog Mogende Heeren of the States General.9 It is of course rare for diplomatic letters written in England by English people to be in Dutch. In 1618 John Merrick, an English negotiator at the peace talks between Russia and Sweden, wrote in Dutch from London to the commander- in-chief (generalissimus) of the Swedish troops in Russia, Jacob Pontusson de la Gardie (born in Swedish Estonia in 1593) (Muller 1939: 92–3). De la Gardie’s knowledge of Dutch was no doubt helped by the fact that he served under the stadholder, Prince Maurits, for a number of years. Another case is less straightforward. During the First Anglo-Dutch War, the Swedish ambassador to The Hague was Harald Appelboom (1612–1674). At this time Sweden did not have representatives in England, and so Appelboom received regular correspondence from an agent in London. He wrote to Appelboom from London on 22 August 1653 (Colenbrander 1919: I, 85 (see also 21–22)):

’T is seecker dat d’Engelsche niet meer verlooren hebben als 2 scheepen, ’t een een brander, ’t ander een schip . . . te voor genomen van de Hollanders, genaemt d’Eykeboom. De Engelsche hebben meede te huys gebracht over de 1000 gevangens, en verclaeren datse de Hollandsche vloot hebben gejaecht tot binnen 3 mijl aen strant. De Engelsche hebben verloren 250 man, soo dat men niet en can twijfelen of de victorie is op onse sijde.

It is certain that the English have not lost more than 2 ships, one being a fire ship, the other a ship previously taken from the Dutch, called the Eykeboom (‘Oak Tree’). The English have taken with them more than 1000 prisoners and declare that they chased the Dutch fleet to within 3 miles of the shore. The English have lost 250 men, so that it cannot be doubted whether the victory is on our side.

The question arises as to whether Appelboom’s correspondent was an Englishman or not. Muller asserts that the agent most probably was an Englishman and that he wrote in Dutch because it is likely that Appelboom did not know English (Muller 1939: 92–3). He does not unfortunately provide reasons for this assertion. Reference to the victory ‘on our side’ may, however, support this view, for at this time the Dutch were allied with Denmark, which

9 bl Add. Ms. 17677, U, fol. 180–9; 191–462. 244 CHAPTER 5 itself was at war with Sweden. This would seem to suggest that the author was on the Swedish/English side, and therefore possibly an Englishman. The Dutch is certainly less complex than that found in other diplomatic correspondence from this period, notably lacking multiple participial phrases. This may suggest that the author was not familiar with this highly stylized form of writing, although he may have chosen a simpler style as Dutch was not Appelboom’s native tongue. However, given that there is nothing intrinsically ‘wrong’ with the Dutch, the possibility remains that the anonymous correspondent was a Dutchman.10 Both of these cases remind us of Huizinga’s observation that Dutch was often used as a diplomatic language in the Baltic region during the seventeenth century, including cases where one of the parties was English (Huizinga 1948– 53: 229–30). There may well be other correspondence between representatives of the Baltic nations and the English, or people in England, written in Dutch. Shortly after his arrival in London from The Hague, P. Cunaeus (possibly Petrus Cunaeus, a son of Petrus Cunaeus, the author of De Republica Hebraeorum (‘The Hebrew Republic’)), the secretary to the Dutch delegation to London, wrote a letter in Dutch dated 9 January 1665 to Johann de Witt (Colenbrander 1919: I, 148–9). He informs de Witt about the ships that were being taken by the English before what would become the Second Anglo- Dutch War. He refers to a list of 104 ships that had been sent the previous week and now adds details of several more:

Ick ben hier wederom gearriveert voorleden Woensdach . . . ’tSedert voorleden weeck sijn behalven de schepen waervan UE. met de laeste post een lijste overgesonden is noch tot Portsmouth opgebracht drie Nederlantsche Bordeauxvaerders namelijck het Postpaert met wijn en brandewijn, de Winthont met castanien en de Gekroonde Pen met wijn en brandewijn . . .

I arrived here again last Wednesday . . . Since one week ago, apart from the ships about which you received a list with the last post, three further Dutch Bordeaux ships have been captured in Portsmouth, namely the Postpaert with wine and brandy, the Winthont with chestnuts and the Gekroonde Pen with wine and brandy on board . . .

Once more we see the form of address, UE., which seems to have been the standard form of address in Dutch diplomatic correspondence. In contrast to other Dutch correspondence, Cunaeus uses the standard English spelling of the

10 One other possibility is that this Dutch text is a translation of an English text. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 245 toponym ‘Portsmouth’. This is sometimes rendered differently due to the lack of the phoneme /θ/ in Dutch (see section 5.5). On 13 April 1665 a Dutch diplomat, Michiel van Gogh, wrote to de Witt from Chelsea, relating an incident concerning the great Dutch sea captain, Michiel de Ruyter (Colenbrander 1919: I, 164; fig. 16):

Een schip van Lisbona hier aengekomen brengt tijding dat aldaer een schip van de cust van Guinea was gearriveert, relaterende dat de Ruyter op gemelde cust den tijdt van ses weecken hebbende geweest, alle de schepen de Engelsche Royale Compagnie toebehoorende hadde aengehaelt, ende deselve ontladen ende tot Sierra Liona die wederom hadde vrij gestelt, ende wijders verders was voortgeseylt sonder eygentlijck te weten waerhenen.

A ship that has arrived here from Lisbon brings news that a ship had arrived there from the coast of Guinea, relating that de Ruyter had been on that coast for a period of six weeks, had taken in all the ships belonging to the English Royal Company, and unloaded them and released them once more in Sierra Leone, and had sailed on further without in fact knowing where to.

As indicated in the discussion on Harald Appelboom’s correspondent above, long, complex sentences such as this were common in official Dutch correspondence at this time, made possible by the use of participles. In this extract, we find the past participle aengekomen, and the present participles relaterende, hebbende (geweest) (more precisely a present perfect participle) and toebehoorende. A letter addressed to the States General from Van Gogh and L. de Nassau van Hoorn written from Westminster (West-munster) on 28 January 1662, and another dated 30 December 1661 from the same men and same place, were published in 1662 by Claes Verbiest in Rotterdam.11 They formed part of a publication entitled,

Origineel Historisch verhael van ’t gene binnen den tijt van ses weken . . . tot 31. January 1662 tusschen Engelant ende Hollant wegens de nieuw te maken Tractaten gepasseert is.

Original Historical account of what happened within the period of six weeks . . . until 31 January 1662 between England and Holland because of the Treaties, which were to be concluded.

11 bl, shelfmark 8122.ee.7 (17). 246 CHAPTER 5

figure 16 Portrait of Michiel Adriaensz. De Ruyter. Ferdinand Bol 1667. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Two letters written by Van Gogh in Dutch from Oxford in 1665 are published in the Hessels collection. From the letters it transpires that there were Dutch prisoners in Oxford jail.12 Van Gogh was writing to the Dutch church in London

12 These may be the same prisoners, seven in number, about whom Joas Eversen wrote (in Dutch) from Oxford to Jan Proost on 14 December 1665 (H 87: iii, ii, 2524). They had escaped from prison and boarded a French ship at Gravesend, but were recaptured by the English. Eversen’s letter, like many discussed in this section, is replete with verbs ending in -eren derived from French. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 247 to thank its leaders for providing assistance to the prisoners (H 87: iii, ii, 2521; 2547). The correspondence of Coenraad van Beuningen provides further examples of Dutch diplomatic letters written from England. He was sent to England in 1670 in order to discover whether King Charles ii was maintaining the Triple Alliance and dispatched letters in Dutch back to the civic leaders in Amsterdam keeping them abreast of political developments in England. Shortly before Van Beuningen’s arrival in England, Charles had in fact secretly concluded the Treaty of Dover with Louis xiv (Franken 1966: 83–5). Some of Van Beuningen’s correspondence is preserved at the Amsterdam Municipal Archive and the Dutch National Archive in The Hague, as is that of his colleague, the ambassador, Johan Boreel (Franken 1966: 274–6). Boreel was one of several Dutchmen that Christiaan Huygens met on a number of occasions when he visited London in 1663 to be made a Fellow of the Royal Society (for details of these meetings see section 6.4.3.4). Occasionally we find letters written in Dutch to English people. On 5 July 1672 François de Vliegher wrote to Joseph Williamson, the English secretary of the Council, in Dutch concerning the appointment of William, Prince of Orange as stadholder. De Vliegher wrote to Williamson again in Dutch on 13 July 1672 concerning the capture of two French vessels (Colenbrander 1919: ii, 143–4; 159–60). From diary entries we learn that Williamson was in the Southern Netherlands by 18 July 1672 (Colenbrander 1919: ii, 162). Whether he was there on 5 July, when this letter was written, is not, unfortunately, clear. Again, whether Williamson would have understood the letters or would have needed them translated would require further investigation.13 Two other Dutch diplomats to mention here are Jacob Hop and Nicolaas Witsen. Hop wrote a number of letters in Dutch to the Raadpensionaris, Anthonie Heinsius, from Westminster towards the end of the seventeenth century (Japikse 1927–37, esp. vol. I). We have already met Witsen as the author of the book on shipbuilding of which both Robert Hooke and Charles ii received copies (see sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.6). He was appointed as one of the ambassadors extraordinary to England in 1689. Clark describes him as a ‘vigorous, dis- tinguished, and obstinate man, with a habit of writing his experiences down’ (Clark 1920: 536). Whatever his personal shortcomings, it is the final comment that is of interest to us, for he wrote a number of documents in England in Dutch including letters to Anthonie Heinsius; letters to the Amsterdam

13 The entry for Williamson in the odnb gives no evidence that he knew Dutch. 248 CHAPTER 5 burgomasters and Verbalen, in which, amongst other things, he quotes William iii, by now King of England, directly and indirectly. We discuss some of Witsen’s quotations of William below. In 1685, at the start of the short reign of William’s uncle and father-in-law, James ii, an Extraordinary Embassy (Extraordinaris Ambassadeurs) consisting of Jacob van Wassenaar-Duivenvoorde, Arnout van Citters and Everard van Weede van Dijkveld visited the court in London. They wrote reports (Verbalen) to the States General, the majority of which were in Dutch, though some were in French, and some in French and Dutch. A letter written in Dutch in June 1685, concerning the capture of a Dutch ship in the English Channel, begins with the salutation Ho. Mogende Heren, Mijnheren, similar to the salutation Hoogh Mogende Heeren discussed above (Verbaal 1863: 85). There is a note under the letter that runs Den inhoud deses aen S.H. de St. v. H. en Ut. den selfde dito overgeschreven. This tells us that the content of the letter was transcribed for Sijne Hoogheid de Stadhouder van Holland en Utrecht (‘His Highness the Stadhouder of Holland and Utrecht’), i.e., William iii. The same or similar wording is to be found under subsequent letters. Some of the correspondence from this Embassy concerned Monmouth’s rebellion: the duke was the illegiti- mate son of Charles ii, and had the support of William. Two such letters from the Embassy run as follows (Verbaal 1863: 123; 145):

Hoog Mogende Heren, Mijnheren . . . Negen soldaten onder de alhier uyt Holland gearriveerde Schotse regi- menten, met den andre op de gesontheyd van den Hertog van Monmouth gedronken en eenige andre onbehoorlijke discoursen gevoerd hebbende, sijn deselve gisteren daer over te regt gesteld, en 2 daer van gecondemneerd om op overmergen, als wanneer den Coning de gem[elde] revue sal doen, geharquebuseerd en een ander onder de galg gegeesseld te werden. Waermede etc. Westmr den 31/21 Julij 85.

Their High Mightinesses, My Lords . . . Nine soldiers from the Scottish regiments which have arrived here from Holland, having drunk with the others to the health of the Duke of Monmouth, and having had some other unseemly conversations, were yesterday executed because of that, and two of them have been condemned to being shot with an harquebus the day after tomorrow, when the King has carried out the aforementioned review, and another [has been condemned] to being whipped under the gallows. With which etc. Westm[inste]r 31/21 July 1685. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 249

Hoog Mogende Heeren, Mijnheeren . . . Van de Rebellen gecondemneerd in Taunton sijn 257 vervoerd na de Westindien, 155 geëxecuteerd en 23 gecondemneerd; van die tot Exeter sijn 150 getranspoorteerd, 44 geregt en 10 gepardonneerd; van die tot Wells sijn 187 overgescheept, 35 gejusticieerd en 12 vergeven. Waermede etc. Westminster den 2/12 Octob. 1685.

Their High Mightinesses, My Lords . . . Of the Rebels condemned at Taunton, 257 were transported to the West Indies, 155 executed and 23 condemned; of those at Exeter 150 were transported, 44 executed and 10 pardoned; of those at Wells, 187 were transported, 35 executed and 12 pardoned. With which etc. Westminster 2/12 Octob. 1685.

One does not have to know Dutch to spot the number of words, or more specifically past participles (in bold) ending in -eerd, particularly in the second extract. These are further examples of verbs derived from French which have been incorporated into Dutch by the addition of the infinitive ending -e(e)ren. The use in the first letter of the words discoursen, for which the earliest entry in the wnt is from the mid-seventeenth century, and to a lesser extent revue (first attested with any regularity in the second half of the sixteenth century), adds to the sense that diplomatic Dutch from this period was heavily influenced by French. Given the frequency with which French loan words and verbs ending in -eren appear in the diplomatic correspondence considered so far, we should now discuss them in more detail.

5.2.1.1 French Loan Words in Dutch Diplomatic Correspondence For much of its history the Dutch language has incorporated words from the French language. Occasionally, it has been felt that the stream of words entering Dutch from its southern neighbour was too great and so there have been sporadic attempts to ‘purify’ the language. In the prologue we met Jan van der Werve’s Het Tresoor der Duytscher Talen (1553), which rails against the invasion of Dutch by French and other Romance languages and calls for Dutch to be rid the language of such ‘impurities’. Both Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert and Hendrick Laurensz. Spiegel, writing in the second half of the sixteenth century, borrowed an image from tailoring to bemoan the fact that ‘impure patches of French and Latin’ were being sewn onto the cloth of the Dutch language (Dibbets 1985: 512). Later, in poems such as Batava Tempe (1621) and Hofwijck (1651), Constantijn Huygens mocked those who constantly used loan words from French and verbs ending in -eren, where there were perfectly good 250 CHAPTER 5

‘native’ equivalents (Joby 2014f: Chapters 2 and 3). However, despite these efforts, both serious and satirical, Dutch diplomatic correspondence of this period does seem to have large numbers of both types of word, in particular verbs ending in -e(e)ren. In some cases, such as the verb arriveren, these words had long been incorporated into Dutch and would not necessarily have been considered ‘alien’, although the ‘native’ Dutch aankomen could have been used instead.14 In other cases, such as harquebuseren, for which the earliest entry in the wnt is 1645, the loan word may still in some sense have felt ‘alien’ to Dutch. Words such as these could be described as Gallicisms, i.e., loan words from French, which have not gain widespread acceptance in Dutch, often with a negative connotation (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1991: 38).15 There may be a number of reasons why Dutch diplomatic correspondence contained so many French loan words. One reason is that it is an affectation. The language spoken by upper-class Germans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was similarly replete with French loan words. One commentator ascribed this to the desire to stand apart from the masses (Burke 2004: 32). Was something similar at work amongst the Dutch? Alternatively, the extensive use of French loan words may simply reflect the importance of that language to an individual’s linguistic identity. This is something we see in the written Dutch of King William iii, discussed below. These diplomats may well have had to write in French to correspondents outside the United Provinces and this may have influenced their use of French loan words and verbs in -eren in Dutch. Perhaps what we can say at the moment is that there clearly was a high incidence of French loan words and verbs in -eren in Dutch diplomatic correspondence and further investigation may reveal the reasons for this. In concluding our discussion of Dutch diplomatic correspondence written in England we can say that Dutch diplomats typically used their native tongue in this correspondence, and furthermore we have been able to identity patterns in the use of certain salutations, forms of address, notably ue and related forms, and a tendency to use verbs in -eren, derived from French, and French loan words. We have also discussed at least one Englishman, John Merrick, who wrote diplomatic correspondence in England in Dutch.

14 The earliest entry for arriveren in the wnt is dated 1240 in Limburg. 15 In truth, the term ‘Gallicism’ is somewhat difficult to define precisely. One author uses the term to refer not only to words that have a clear French origin, but also terms which use ‘native’ Dutch words but which are clearly influenced by French, e.g., indruk maken influenced by the French faire impression (Muller 1920). What the various definitions of Gallicism have in common is that they see the influence of French as excessive and negative to varying degrees. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 251

5.2.2 The Spoken Use of Dutch in the Diplomatic Domain When we turn to the question of whether Dutch was spoken amongst diplomats in England at this time, there is much less evidence available. One example adduced above was the use of Dutch (mixed with Latin) by Jacob Cats when addressing the agent of the Count of Oldenburg, Milius, in London in 1652. However, such useful metalinguistic comment is rare. Verbalen, such as that of Nicolaas Witsen, often include quotations, although one cannot always be sure that the language in which someone is quoted is in fact the language that person spoke. Other cases are suggestive of the use of Dutch, though they fall short of providing definitive evidence. Several groups of Dutchmen on diplomatic missions in England have already been mentioned. Another group to mention is a diplomatic delegation that went to England in 1618, during reign of James I, to discuss the affairs of the East India Company and the herring fleet. In this delegation were Joachim Liens, the brother-in-law of the drainage engineer, Cornelis Vermuyden, Edward van Dussen of Zutphen and Jan van Goch of Delft (Harris 1953: 30). Presumably these three Dutchmen conversed in Dutch in England.

5.2.3 English Diplomats Who Knew Dutch Before moving on to consider the use of Dutch at the English court, a word or two is in order about a small number of English diplomats, who came into contact with Dutch, some of whom, along with John Merrick, had a knowledge of the language. George Gilpin (1514–1602) was to be one of the most important diplomatic figures in the negotiations between England and the United Provinces during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Gilpin clearly knew Dutch, for he produced an English translation of an important work in the Dutch Calvinist canon, Marnix’s De Roomsche Byen-korf (‘The Roman Bee-hive’). This was published by John Stell in London in 1579.16 Gilpin may have picked up his Dutch, whilst studying civil law at Mechelen, or whilst working as secretary to the Merchant Adventurers in Antwerp in 1564. From 1586 onwards he served as English Secretary to the Dutch Council of State and became a Councillor in 1593, continuing to perform this role until his death.17 There are letters written

16 The Beehive of the Romishe Churche. Wherein the author, a zealous Protestant, under the person of a superstitious Papist, doth so driely refell the grose opinions of Popery, and so divinely defend the articles of Christianitie, that (the Sacred Scriptures excepted) there is not a booke to be founde either more necessarie for thy profite, or sweeter for thy comforte. Translated out of Dutch into Englishe by George Gilpin the Elder, 1579. 17 See also http://www.livesandletters.ac.uk/bodley/biography.html, where it is stated that Gilpin was fluent in Dutch. Accessed 11 April 2014. 252 CHAPTER 5 in Dutch signed by Gilpin in the archive of the States General in The Hague. If, as seems to be the case, Gilpin also composed these letters, then he certainly wrote good Dutch. This is illustrated by the beginning of a letter dating from January 1599:18

Mijn Heeren, Alhoewel hare Mateijt tsindert het aencomen van Monsr. de Maijsse, Ambassadeur van weghen den Connick (sic.) van Vranckrijck par- ticuliere spraeke ghehouden heeft met UE agent den H. Caron nopende die negotiatie vanden selven Ambassadeur . . .

Sirs, Although Her Majesty, since the arrival of M. de Maysse, the Ambassador of the King of France, has had private conversations with your agent, Mr. Caron, concerning the negotiations of the same Ambassador . . .

Sir Dudley Carleton and Sir Thomas Bodley were both diplomats who worked in the United Provinces. They were both accomplished linguists. I have not found evidence for their knowledge or use of Dutch and they may have got by with their knowledge of French. Sir William Temple (1628–1699) was the English ambassador to The Hague from 1668–1670. In the preface to his edition of Temple’s ‘Observations Upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands’, first published in 1673, George Clark observes (Temple 1972: xvi):

It is not easy to tell what were the limits of [Temple’s] equipment, for instance in knowledge of the Dutch language. He knew the meanings of some words, of course, but for his daily business he needed no more than his good command of French, and perhaps at times an interpreter. He reports a conversation with an ancient mariner at Enkhuizen, but seafaring men are usually linguists. He has nothing to say about Dutch literature.

On 14 July 1668 two letters were written in the name of King Charles and delivered to the States General in The Hague by Temple. One of the letters was in French (Lettre de Creance), the other in Dutch (Brief van Credentie). The printed book in which the letters are published has the following title for the Dutch letter (Brief 1672):

18 Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Archiefnummer 1.01.02, inventarisnummer 5883, dated January 1599. See also Japikse et al. (1915–70: X, 502–4). The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 253

Brief van Credentie van den Koningh van Groot Brittannien door desselfs Ambassadeur Sr. William Temple, aen Haer Ho. Mo. De Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenigde Nederlanden overgelevert.

Letter of Credence from the King of Great Britain delivered by the Ambassador of the same, Sir William Temple, to their High Mightinesses, the Lords of the States General of the United Netherlands.

Given that our concern here is the extent to which Dutch was used in England the question arises as to whether the letter in Dutch was written in London. It is signed Gegeven in ons Hof tot Withal den 14. Julij 1668. Uwen goeden Vriendt Charles R. (‘Given at our Court at Whitehall on 14 July 1668. Your good Friend, Charles R[ex]’). The word gegeven (‘given’) is interesting, for it stands in contrast to the French letter, which was Escrit a nostre Court a Whithal (‘Written at our Court at Whitehall’) on the same day. Was a letter dictated in English or French in London and then translated into Dutch? Or was a letter in English or French sent to The Hague, translated into Dutch by Temple or one of his clerks and then presented to the States General? We do not know. Sir George Downing was appointed resident at The Hague in 1657. In the British Library there is a collection of statements made by Downing in Dutch addressed to the States General in the early 1660s during his time as ambassador to the States General. They are as follows:

A Memoriael dated 17 April 1660; An Aenspraeck dated 18 June 1661; A Memorie dated 13 May 1662; A Memorie dated 18 June 1662; A Replicatie dated 13 July 1662, concerning a couple of ships; A Replicatie dated 13 July 1662 concerning another ship, the Carel; A Memorie dated 1 September 1662, concerning the same two ships as earlier de Bonne Esperance ende Bonne Adventure.

Only this last Memorie has the words Uyt het Engels overgeset (‘translated from the English’) on its title page. So, we do not know if Downing wrote the other statements in English and had them translated, or whether he wrote part or all of them.19 From the details given Downing is likely to have presented at least the statements himself, such as the Aenspraeck (‘Address’) of 18 June 1661, which was Gedaen in de Vergaderingh van de Heeren Staten Generael

19 bl, shelfmark 599.c.37 1–12. 254 CHAPTER 5

(‘Made in the Meeting of the Lords, the States General’).20 In another collection of documents in the British Library, concerning reprisals between the Dutch and the English, we have one entitled Pretentien Tegens d’Oost-Indische Compagnie . . . door Sir George Downing (‘Claims Against the Dutch East India Company . . . by Sir George Downing’) printed in Dutch at The Hague in 1662.21 In his extensive article on Downing’s contribution to Anglo-Dutch state- building, Jonathan Scott is silent on the question of whether Downing knew or used Dutch (Scott 2003). It may well be that the speeches Downing made in Dutch were prepared for him by a native speaker. From the evidence available it is impossible to make any firm claims about his knowledge or use of the language, not least in England. However, he was clearly engaged with the language. Finally in this section, we should note another bound collection in the British Library, which includes a set of documents relating to Anglo-Dutch relations. They are mainly in Dutch and printed for the most part in the United Provinces. One document was clearly written in Dutch in London, although it may have been printed in the United Provinces. It is entitled,

Aenmerckelyck Schryvens Aen seker Heer van Staet in Hollandt, Rakende de t’samen-sprake, voor-gevallen tusschen den Koningh van Groot- Brettaignen, ende de vier Nederlantsche Ambassadeurs te Londen.

Notable Writings to a certain Gentleman of State in Holland, Concerning the Conversation which took place between the King of Great Britain, and the four Dutch Ambassadors in London.

It was dated Londen 24 Maert 1661 and written with great speed (met grooten haeste).22 The conversation itself is likely to have taken place in French, although other languages including English cannot be ruled out.

5.3 Dutch at Court

Let us now move from diplomacy in early modern England to the court and consider the knowledge and use of Dutch by English monarchs, their courtiers and others individuals at court.

20 For a detailed account of Downing’s time in Holland, see Downing & Rommelse (2011). 21 bl, shelfmark 712.9.18. 22 bl, shelfmark 8122.ee.7, 1–42, no. 8. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 255

5.3.1 Elizabeth i For obvious reasons Dutch was one of the languages used at the court of the Dutch-born King, William iii. He was not the only English monarch to know Dutch. Elizabeth I is said to have known the language (amongst many others), evidently having been taught it by her lady-in-waiting, Katherine Champernowne, although the extent of her knowledge of Dutch seems to have been questioned by one visitor to her court, the Scottish emissary, Sir James Melville (Osselton 1973: 10).23 There were also Dutchmen and Flemings at Elizabeth’s court. One Fleming who worked at her court was the Brugge-born portraitist, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (c. 1561/62–1639). We do not know if he used Dutch at court, but may have done so in the domestic domain. In 1568 he is recorded as living with his son and a Dutch servant in the London parish of St. Mary Abchurch. In 1571 he married for the second time to Susanna de Critz, the daughter of an exiled family from Antwerp (Hearn and Jones 2003: 11–14). In 1569 a painting entitled ‘Queen Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses’ was produced. The probable artist was Joris Hoefnagel, the uncle of Constantijn Huygens on his mother’s side. If this is so it suggests, though is by no means beyond doubt, that Hoefnagel spent time in the presence of the Queen (Van Dorsten 1973: 57). Hoefnagel was also a poet and we return to him in Chapter 6. An Englishman who spent much time in the Low Countries was the Queen’s astrologer, John Dee. He may well have picked up some Dutch during his visits to Leuven and Antwerp in the 1560s (Van Dorsten 1973: 22). One occasion on which Dutch will have been spoken at court, albeit a somewhat stylised form of the language, was at the performance for Queen Elizabeth of Thomas Dekker’s play, ‘The Shoemaker’s Holiday’, in 1600. Before we leave Elizabeth’s court, mention should be made of a letter in the Hessels collection written to one of her privy councillors, Francis Russell, 2nd Earl of Bedford (1527?–1585). In 1565 he had been asked to settle a dispute that had arisen at the Dutch church in London concerning the question of whether they should allow children to have godfathers and godmothers. On 27 September 1565 the leaders of the church wrote an extremely long letter to Russell in Dutch (H 87: ii, 250). The salutation was Den edelen Welgheboren heere, Den grave van Betfort onsen ghenaedighen Heere (‘To the noble, well-

23 Melville records that Elizabeth’s Dutch was ‘not gud’, and elsewhere he records that she could not speak Dutch. There is a possibility that Melville is referring to High Dutch, i.e., German, or indeed both Low and High Dutch, as he uses the term ‘Dutch’ somewhat indiscriminately, something which as previously noted was by no means unique to him at this time (Melville 1827: 125). Quoted in Lambley (1920: 73, n. 6). 256 CHAPTER 5 born lord, the Earl of Bedford our gracious Lord’). The question arises as to why the letter was written in Dutch. Could Bedford read Dutch? He had spent time in Geneva during the Marian persecutions, so may have met Dutch Calvinists there. One would have expected such a letter to be written in Latin. The Dutch church leaders wrote in the language and Bedford could write in it, having sent a letter in Latin to Bullinger whilst in Venice in 1557 (dnb). There may have been a Latin version of this letter, but why take the trouble to write a Dutch version? Hessels is silent on the matter.24

5.3.2 James i A triumphal arch was provided by the Dutch community in London to celebrate James I’s coronation (Grell 1996: 165–74). A leading figure in the creation of this triumphal arch was Conraet Jansen, who is described both as a joiner and an architect. He wrote a pamphlet in Dutch on the arch entitled Beschryvinghe vande Herlycke Arcus Triumphal ofte Eerepoorte vande Nederlantsche Natie opgherecht in London (‘Description of the Glorious Triumphal Arch or Gate of Honour, Erected by the Dutch Nation in London’), published in 1604–1605 by Richard Schilders in Middelburg. He clearly hoped that it would be purchased by members of the London Dutch community as it was indicated on the front page that the pamphlet could be purchased at the house with the pair of golden compasses in Southwark on the South Bank of the Thames.25 A number of Dutch and Flemish assisted Jansen in the realisation of the arch. These included Joos Otger, deacon to the London Dutch church since 1595; the Antwerp painters Daniel de Vos and Pauwels van Overbeke; and two other artists already resident in London, Adriaen van Sond from Breda, and Martin Droeshout, whose contribution to Shakespeare’s First Folio we have already discussed (see section 4.3.2). The inscriptions on the arch were in Latin (Grell 1996: 165–74; Bergeron 1971: 78–82). If I read him correctly, in his history of the Dutch community in London already referred to, Simeon Ruytinck mentions that the inscriptions written by himself and Jacob Colius, whom we met in Chapter 4, presumably in Latin, were subsequently translated into Dutch (Cool 1962: 8–9). A speech was delivered by a boy on behalf of the Dutch

24 Bedford was known as a gifted linguist, although I have found no explicit reference to a knowledge of Dutch. The inventory made after his death contains no books described as Dutch, although it does include many books in Italian (St. Clare Byrne 1931: 394; 396–405). 25 Although it was published in Middelburg, Jansen may have compiled his work in London. Hood argues that it was printed in Middelburg and not in London as Jansen was keen to show his work to a Northern European market in the hope of gaining further commissions (Hood 2003: 51). The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 257

Strangers. This was in Latin.26 It was reproduced by the English playwright, Thomas Dekker, mentioned above, in his record of the whole pageant, ‘The Magnificent Entertainment’. In his description of the Dutch contribution to the event, Dekker writes,

Above [their] heads, you may with little labour, walke into the Mart, where as well the Froe, as the Burger, are buying and selling . . .

Mart (‘Market’), Froe (‘Woman’) and Burger (‘(Male) Citizen’) are italicized in Dekker’s text indicating they are foreign, i.e., Dutch, words. Code switching between English and Dutch is something we also see in Dekker’s plays (see section 6.3.1). A number of Dutchmen came into more direct contact with the court of James I. Daniel Mytens the Elder was born in Delft. In 1618 he moved to London, where he gained commissions from James I. The Dutchman, Christopher Frederick, was the Royal Surgeon at James’ court (Grell 1996: 219, n. 33). The Dutch (Flemish) botanist, Matthias de l’Obel, was appointed by James as Botanographus Regius. He may also have been a doctor to Elizabeth I (Van Dorsten 1959–60: 21). There were several diplomatic missions from the United Provinces to England during James I’s reign. Constantijn Huygens accompanied four of these between 1618 and 1624. On the first visit, in 1618, Huygens played the lute for King James and on the third visit he was knighted by the king (Joby 2013a). He wrote a number of his important early Dutch poems during his visits to England (see section 6.2.6).

5.3.3 Charles i On the occasion of the marriage of James’s son, Charles, to Princess Henrietta Maria of France, the foreign residents of London, including the Dutch, decided to erect a triumphal arch. However, their plans did not get very far and the arch was not built. In Hessels’ correspondence, there is a description of the planned arch in Latin and French, with several lines of Dutch, referring to a bridge of ships stretching from Calais to Dover (H 87: I, 865–9):

Een brugghe geleydt over de zee, tusschen Calais ende Dover, op schepen, int midden vande brugghe eenen Janus, met een aensicht siende nae Engelandt met het ander nae Vranckrijck, ende de Ladder van Jacob, met de Engelen

26 See also ‘The Pegme of the Dutchmen’ stc 12863 for an English translation of the Latin speech. 258 CHAPTER 5

op ende neer gaende; nae de brugghe rydende de Princesse Henriette in Vranckryc in een coetse met 6. peerden, ende over d’ander syde in Engelandt nae de brugghe ooc rydende den Coninck Charles, ooc in een Koetse, met 6. peerden.

A bridge stretched out over the sea, between Calais and Dover, on ships, in the middle of the bridge a Janus, with one face looking towards England and the other towards France, and Jacob’s Ladder, with the Angels going up and down; towards the bridge Princess Henrietta in France rides in a coach with 6 horses and on the other side in England also riding towards the bridge is King Charles, also in a Coach, with 6 horses.

We are not told who wrote the description, although a footnote indicating that Jacobus Colius had written in the margin next to one of the Latin passages suggests the author may have been Colius himself. The Strangers in London enjoyed more success in building a triumphal arch for Charles’ coronation entry. Prominent amongst those who worked on the arch were the architect Bernard Jansen, who also wrote in English, signing himself as Bernard Jhonson (H 87: iii, ii, 1320), and the leading English poet and playwright, Ben Jonson (Grell 1996: 174–7).27 There is no evidence that Jonson used Dutch in his involvement with the Strangers on this project. He had served as a soldier in the Low Countries in the English regiments of Francis Vere. We get the faintest hint of a knowledge of Dutch in his play, ‘The Alchemist’, where the character Subtle says (Act iv, Scene iv: 21–4):

Donzel, methinks you look melancholic, I do not like the dulness of your eye; It hath a heavy cast, ’tis upsee Dutch.

The word upsee is a corruption of the Dutch op zijn (‘in the (Dutch) manner’). It may, though, have been a relatively well-known term in England, or at least in London. We see it again in Thomas Dekker’s ‘Northward Ho!’ in the phrase upsie freese (‘in the Frisian manner’) (see section 6.3.1). Charles I was renowned for the extravagance of his court, particularly in relation to art. Initially, he employed Daniel Mytens, mentioned above, as court painter, but Charles replaced him in due course with the Antwerp-born artist, Anthony van Dyck. We have evidence of Van Dyck writing Dutch in England.

27 Grell writes that the decision to hire Jonson would also have meant a change of language from Latin to English. This is unexpected, for Jonson’s knowledge of Latin is well attested (Grell 1996: 177). The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 259

For example, he wrote a letter dated 24 August 1636 from Eltham Palace, where he was staying, to Franciscus Junius, whom we met in the previous chapter. Junius was living in London at the time, and in the letter Van Dyck makes reference to Junius’ book on art history, De Pictura Veterum. Van Dyck’s letter begins (Van Romburgh 2004: 578–81):

Myn Heere, Den Baron Canuwe heeft my uyt see weder gesonden het Exemplar van Ue werck de pittura vetrum dwelck hy estraordinas estimeert et voor een seer geleert werck houdt.

Sir, Baron Conway has sent me back again from sea a copy of your work De Pictura Veterum, which he thinks is extraordinary and considers to be a very learned work.

Ue is yet another abbreviated form of address deriving from u edele or uwe edelheid, similar to the form U.E. Junius himself used in letters to his sisters, Johanna and Elizabeth (see section 4.3.1.4).

5.3.4 Charles ii In Chapter 1 other artists who worked at the English court are mentioned. There I raised the possibility of Dutch being spoken at the court of Charles ii by three Dutchmen; the artists Sir Peter Lely and Willem van de Velde the Younger, and the sea captain, Cornelis Tromp, on the occasion of Tromp’s portrait being painted in 1675. The plethora of Dutch and Flemish artists at the English court may mean that other such occasions arose. We have already seen that Charles ii received a copy of Witsen’s book on shipbuilding (Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheepsbouw en Bestier) from Constantijn Huygens (section 4.2.6). Huygens sent this with a letter in French, having previously written to Charles in English (Huygens 1911–17: 6, 6814). Finally, on 13 July 1664 a letter was sent from Charles ii to the States General. It was subsequently published in Dutch by Robbert Doet (Gedruckt nae de Copie tot Londen (‘Printed according to the Copy in London’)), possibly in The Hague, in the same year. It is not clear whether it was translated into Dutch in London or The Hague.28 If it was in London, then one wonders who made the translation at Charles’ court. Charles certainly spent many years in exile in the Dutch language area, moving to The Hague in 1648, during the Second English Civil War, and later living in Brugge (1656–1658). He may have picked up some

28 bl, shelfmark 8122.ee.7 (27). 260 CHAPTER 5

Dutch, although French and English would probably have sufficed in the social milieu in which he moved.

5.3.5 The Commonwealth One English leader who did know Dutch, according to J.H. Huizinga (1948–53: 229), was the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. Here, of course, we are not dealing with a court as such, but should perhaps be prepared to step over another boundary and investigate a little further. Unfortunately, Huizinga does not provide evidence to back up his claim, so we have to look elsewhere. One source might appear to be a booklet in quarto published in Dutch in 1654 listed in the British Library catalogue. Its title is given as Den smeeckende Hollanse Student, aen den Engelse Professor (Cromwel) versoockende ootmoede- lyck . . . om in de groote schoole tot London angenommen te werden. Gestelt in vraeghen en antwoord (‘The entreating Dutch Student, humbly petitioning the English Professor (Cromwell) . . . to be accepted in the great school in London. Presented in questions and answer’). Cromwell himself is listed as a contrib- utor in the catalogue. However, on closer inspection the tone of the work is somewhat satirical, an idea underlined inter alia by reference to Cromwell as den Groot Professor ‘the Great Professor’. London is given as the place of publication on the title page, although the catalogue’s suggestion of Emden as an alternative seems more likely. Huizinga also asserts that Cromwell’s Latin secretary, John Milton, knew Dutch. It may be that Milton was able to read Dutch, but when it came to translating official documents, this work was given to others. For example, the task of translating the ‘Declaration of Parliament’ in 1652 from English into Dutch was given to the German-born multilingual, Theodore Haak (Miller 1992: xxiv, 59). Returning to the English court, so far it has really been at the edges of the court that we have found evidence for the use of Dutch. The letter written by Van Dyck, the Dutch description of Charles I’s triumphal arch and Conraet Jansen’s description of James I’s arch are examples of this. Perhaps the one exception is the performance of Thomas Dekker’s play, ‘The Shoemaker’s Holiday’ before Elizabeth I in 1600. Elizabeth’s own knowledge of Dutch is most intriguing although we lack definitive evidence for the extent of this knowledge. The amount of Dutch used at court would, though, increase dramatically after 1688 when England was invaded by the Anglo-Dutch Prince of Orange, William iii (fig. 17). He brought with him Dutch favourites and low-ranking Dutch civil servants, who worked for his court. This brought Dutch in from The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 261 the edges of court life to its very centre. The use of Dutch in England by King William, his favourites and others at court is now considered.

5.3.6 William iii Let us begin by analyzing William’s own use of Dutch. Unfortunately William’s private papers disappeared at some point so this leaves gaps in our knowledge of his use of language. Nevertheless much of his correspondence remains. One person to whom William wrote regularly in Dutch was the Raadpensionaris, Anthonie Heinsius (Van der Heim 1867–80: passim). For example on 29 March 1689 (O.S.) he wrote to Heinsius from Hampton Court (Hamtoncourt). The letter begins (Krämer 1907: 1):29

’Tis mij ten hooghste aengenaem geweest te verstaen dat de Hn staten van Hollandt aen Ued. hebben gedéféreert het provisionele bedininge van het raetpensionaris-ampt, en dat Ued. het heeft aengenomen. Ick wil hoopen dat Ued. sigh sal laeten bewegen om het ampt selfs te willen aenvaerden, sijnde volkomentlijck gepersuadeert datter niemandt en is die bequamer is om de provincie en de ganschen staet dienst te doen als Ued. in dat voorsz. ampt.

It was most pleasing for me to learn that their Lordships, the States of Holland, have honoured you with the provisional responsibilities (lit. conditions) of the function of Raadpensionaris, and that you have (lit. your worship has) accepted it. I hope that you will be moved to want to accept the position itself, (I) having been completely persuaded that there is no-one more suitable to serve the province and the whole state than you in the aforementioned position.

The form of address, Ued., that William uses for Heinsius is another example of an abbreviated form of u edele or uwe edelheid. Although the use of this and related forms had been almost entirely restricted to the upper echelons of society in the early seventeenth century, by the end of that century and the following century, its use had become much more widespread and was by no means limited to the aristocracy and upper-middle class, a point touched on in

29 The volume edited by Krämer contains 483 letters from the correspondence between William iii and Heinsius in Dutch between 1689 and 1697. Many, though not all, of those that William wrote were sent from England. Some of the others were from the United Provinces, for example from his hunting lodge at Het Loo, whilst others were written on campaign, e.g., from Ireland in 1690. 262 CHAPTER 5

Chapter 2. Rutten and Van der Wal (2013) note that in the eighteenth-century correspondence of the Brieven als buit corpus, it is used as a form of address on 71% of occasions. One thing that is striking about William’s Dutch is the extent to which it is littered with verbs ending in -eren derived from the French, something we saw in the diplomatic correpondence discussed above. The earliest entry for déféreren (replete with acute accents in William’s letter) in the wnt is not before 1600 and there is only one entry for persuaderen prior to 1600, suggesting that they were both fairly recent introductions to Dutch when William used them (Van ’t Hoff 1950: 45–8). He wrote to Heinsius again on 7 May 1689 (O.S.) using two further verbs derived from French ending in -eren, recommendeeren and destineren (in the form gedestineert), and the loan word rendesvous:

Ick moet nogmaels ued. seer ernstigh recommandeeren syn uyterste best te willen aenwenden, dat de scheepen . . . naer het gedestineerde rendesvous . . . moogen werden gesonden.

I have once more to recommend to you very seriously that you do your utmost (to ensure) that the ships can be sent to their intended point of rendezvous.

In each of these cases, the word had by this time become well established in Dutch, but they again illustrate the extent to which Dutch has borrowed from French over time. Another person to whom William wrote in Dutch from England was Michiel ten Hove. He wrote to ten Hove on 22 March 1689 from Hampton Court concerning events in Switzerland. Here again we see William’s predilection for using verbs ending in -e(e)ren, derived from French verbs. He includes consid- eren, recommanderen, depescheren, mentionneren, souteneren and fomenteren (Japikse 1927–37: ii, iii, 102–3; 105–6). The last of these, fomenteren, does not appear in the wnt. William may simply have taken the French verb fomenter (‘to foment’) and turned it into a Dutch verb by adding the suffix -en. Souteneren does appear in the wnt, but there are no entries for it before 1700. So again it may be that William simply took the French verb (soutenir) and created a French verb from it. In cases such as these we could perhaps talk in terms of Gallicisms (see section 5.2.1.1).30

30 Another author examines the use of words from French in the correspondence of William’s contemporary, the natural scientist, Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek. Amongst these we find considereren and mentionneren, both of which occur in William’s correspon- The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 263

figure 17 Willem iii, Prince of Orange, King of England and Stadtholder, Godfried Schalcken, c. 1692. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

William may have suffused his Dutch with French loan words in order to stand apart from others, as was the case with upper-class Germans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, mentioned above. However, it is more likely that he was simply drawing on his knowledge of French to express himself

dence. The implication here is that as in the case of William, Van Leeuwenhoek’s letters bespeak an over-reliance on French words, or Dutch verbs ending in -eren derived from French verbs (Jongejan 1940). 264 CHAPTER 5 in Dutch. After all, French had been and remained the primary language of the Dutch court in The Hague for many years, although the use of this language by the stadholders and those around them may also have been part of a strategy to differentiate themselves from other Dutch people.31 William’s facility with French is illustrated in his extensive correspondence in the language with his Dutch favourite, Hans Willem Bentinck (Japikse 1927–37). We return to Bentinck shortly. Let us now consider William’s use of English in England. He could certainly read the language. Before becoming King of England, Scotland and Ireland, William received letters in English in the United Provinces. In 1677 James, Duke of York, wrote to William in English, beginning with the greeting, ‘Deare Nephew’ and concluding with ‘Your most affectionat[e] uncle, James’. William had agreed to visit England and shortly after his arrival, his marriage to James’ daughter, Mary, was concluded. In the same year, 1677, Charles ii wrote to William in English, addressing him as ‘my deare Nephew’ (Groen van Prinsterer 1861: 348; 351). Other letters from King Charles and his brother, James, to William are in English. A number of other leading figures wrote to William in English including Lord Halifax and Lord Sunderland. I have not yet, though, found evidence of William writing in English. Indeed, one commentator observes that William refused to write in English (Baxter 1966: 248). This caused problems for naval administration, for William took on a great deal of it himself, and his First Lord of the Admiralty could read nothing but English (Baxter 1966: 307). But what of William’s spoken language in England? There are several excellent recent accounts of William’s court in England, such as that provided by David Onnekink, but this and other accounts do not tell us which language(s) William spoke with his inner circle (Onnekink 2005). He certainly spoke English, which is perhaps to be expected as it was the language of his mother, Mary Henrietta Stuart. In his late teens, before he became stadholder, he developed a good relationship with the English ambassador to The Hague, Sir William Temple, mentioned above. Within a year of establishing contact with Temple in the late 1660s, Prince William was speaking English in the embassy (Haley 1988: 35). William also spoke English in England although clearly he did not feel comfortable speaking it there. According to Stephen Baxter this was one of the reasons why William did not make so many friends in England (Baxter 1966: 248). He writes:

31 The stadholders may also wanted to have use the language, i.e., French, that was increasingly becoming the first language of courts across Europe. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 265

Although the King spoke English he lacked confidence in his command of the language.

When William had to address the English Parliament, he wrote his speeches in French and they were then translated by someone else into English. On one occasion when he had to make a speech from the throne, he wrote his text in French. It was then translated into English by his secretary, Nottingham, and subsequently discussed by the Cabinet Council before final revisions were made (Baxter 1966: 308). Furthermore, it is reported that when he addressed Parliament he spoke with an unmistakeable ‘foreign’ accent (Haley 1988: 37). The question then arises as to whether he spoke French or Dutch in England. One source with which we may be able to answer this question is the extensive diary kept in Dutch by his Dutch secretary, Constantijn Huygens jr. Huygens quotes the King in French and Dutch, but of course we cannot necessarily conclude from this that the words he actually spoke were in these languages. On 1 January 1689 Huygens made the following entry (Constantijn Huygens jr. 1876: 53):

Steenberck verhaelde . . . dat de Coningh tegen Dorp, die mede van sijne garde was, geseght hadde: Que dans nostre armée il y avoit beaucoup de catholiques. Hij antwoorde: Ouy, Sire, mais ils ont des espees protestantes.

Steenberck said . . . that the king had said to Dorp, who was in his body- guard: ‘There are many Catholics in our army’. [Dorp] replied, ‘Yes, Sire, but they have Protestant swords’.

An example of Huygens quoting the king in Dutch comes in his entry for 10 May 1689 (Constantijn Huygens jr. 1876: 122):

Naermiddachs bij de Con[inck] wesende, die mij werck gaff tegens de post, seyde hij: ‘Het is warm weer; het is nu Haeghsche kermis. O, dat men nu soo, gelijck een vogel door de lucht, eens konde overvliegen! Ick gaff er wel hondert duysent g[u]l[den] om’; en een weynich daer nae: ‘Jae, ick gaf er wel twee hondert duysent g[u]l[den] om’.

In the afternoon, when I was the presence of the King, who gave me work for the post, he said, ‘The weather is warm; it is now the Hague fair. Oh, that we could just fly over there, like a bird through the air! I would give 100,000 guilders for that’, and a little later: ‘In fact, I would give 200,000 guilders for it’. 266 CHAPTER 5

Another quotation from William in Dutch relates to his reception of a deputation from the Dutch church in London, shortly after his arrival in England, on 14 January 1689. One of the ministers, Samuel Bischop, asked the king for his protection of the Stranger churches in England. William thanked the Dutch and French churches and informed them that they could presume he would serve them as far as he was able:

Ick bedancke de Nederlantsche en Fransche kercken, en sy mogen staet maecken, dat Ick haer sal Dienste Doen, wat ick kan.32

Again, one has to be careful about inferring too much from this quotation, but given the circumstances, a Dutch-speaking king talking to a Dutch-speaking minister, it is certainly possible that these were his own words. The same applies for quotations in Dutch recorded by William’s Dutch physician, Govert Bidloo. He published a daily account of the deterioration of William’s health up to his death in March 1702, Verhaal der Laaste Ziekte en het Overlijden van Willem de iiide etc. (‘Account of the Last Illness and Death of William iii etc.’) in Leiden in the same year, 1702. It is a vivid account, entirely in Dutch, which gives us, for example, a regular update on William’s passing of stools (stoel- gangen), which he no doubt examined in order to assess the king’s health. An example of a quotation in Dutch from William in London is to be found in the entry for 20 November 1701:

Den 20sten: Zond: vond ik Z.M: wel gedaan, hebbende ten 7. uuren een grooten stoelgang gehad, zijnde des zelfs beenen ten eenemael ontzwollen, zeggende mij Z.M: Ik dacht niet datmen zoo drâa kon beeter worden, ik heb gisteren te paard gereeden en wel gegeeten.

Sunday 20th: I found His Majesty doing well, having passed a large stool at 7 o’clock, with the swelling on his legs having subsided once more, His Majesty said to me: ‘I did not think that one could get better so soon. Yesterday I went horse-riding and ate well’.

Another example comes on the following day, when the king, having eaten some chocolate and drunk some tea with fresh milk (zoetemelk) said to Bidloo in the evening, Ik krijg mijn ouwen manier van leeven wêer (‘I’m getting my old

32 lma clc/180/MS07412/001, fols. 119–122, quoted in Grell (1996: 121) (Grell gives the old reference ms. 7412/1). Grell has Dien to Doen, but this must be wrong. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 267 way of life back again’) (Bidloo 1702: 41–2). Although Bidloo published his account in Leiden he is likely to have written some of it in England. In February 1689 an extraordinary embassy arrived in London from the United Provinces (Onnekink 2007: 66, n. 16). The embassy consisted of William, Count of Nassau, Lord of Odijk; Everard van Weede, Lord of Dijkveld; and Nicolaas Witsen, mentioned above. Witsen wrote a detailed Verbaal or report of the embassy’s activities in London. He quotes William both directly and indirectly. An early entry runs (Witsen 1823: 134):

Den 18den spraken zij zijne Hoogheid te Londen; die zeide: wat zegt men nu tot uwent. Is ’t nu wel, dat gij mij dit werk geraaden hebt?

On the 18th they spoke to his Highness in London; he said, ‘What are they saying to you now? Is it good that you advised me [to undertake] this work?’

Although the context is lacking, ‘this work’ no doubt refers to William’s invasion of England. On occasion Witsen quotes William indirectly. An entry for the same day runs:

Zijne Hoogheid hadt Koning Jacob, weer op Whitehall gekomen zijnde, doen aanzeggen dat hij moest vertrekken.

Having come to Whitehall once more, His Highness had given King James notice that he had to depart.

Once more, though, we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from these examples. The edition that we have of the Verbaal is, it seems, somewhat redacted and so we do not know precisely what Witsen recorded. Witsen does quote some English, for example the cry, ‘God blese the King’. This may suggest that when someone speaks Dutch, they are recorded in Dutch, but on the other hand English people are also quoted indirectly in Dutch (Witsen 1823: 139; 143). Sometimes we even get code switching between Dutch and English, for example (Witsen 1823: 142):

Men zingt schimpende liedjes langs straat: de Butterboxes hebben ons een King gegeven.

They sing derisive songs along the street: ‘the Butterboxes (a term of abuse for the Dutch) have given us a King’. 268 CHAPTER 5

Precisely what was being sung on the street is not clear. William’s Scottish- born chaplain, Gilbert Burnet, is quoted indirectly by Witsen in Dutch (Witsen 1823: 139). He is known to have spoken Dutch. He had spent time in the United Provinces in his youth and removed there once more during James ii’s reign. But whether in the instance quoted he actually spoke Dutch is another matter (Burke 2005: 14; Van Alphen 1938: 2). In truth, not much research has been done into this subject and the question of William’s own language use, together with that of the language use at court in The Hague, offers an interesting opportunity for further study. One of William’s favourites at court was Hans Willem Bentinck (1649–1709), a diplomat who worked for the House of Orange and whom William ennobled as the 1st Earl of Portland. His native tongue was Dutch. In early 1689 he wrote letters in Dutch from London to Michiel ten Hove, mentioned above, who at this time was serving as the temporary Raadpensionaris (Japikse 1927–37: ii, iii, 97; 100; Onnekink 2007: 120). He could certainly write in English and probably spoke it to his wife, who was English (Onnekink 2007: 104). We see evidence of his written English in a number of letters in the published correspondence between himself and others, primarily King William. For example he wrote two letters in English to James Vernon in September 1698 (Japikse 1927–37: I, ii, 94–5). When he took notes whilst questioning suspects in the Jacobite Assassination Plot in 1696, he did so in English, but his notes reveal that he was Dutch. We see this in the spelling of ‘once’ and ‘country’ in the sentence: ‘that Blair was but ones in his house in the countrij in march two years ago’ (Onnekink 2007: 104–5, esp. n. 131). Sometimes he would code switch between Dutch and English as in a draft document from 1690 (Japikse 1927–37: I, ii, 720):33

Deed of my sheare in the debts of the Portugal Marchants, April 1690. Renversal Smith, trustee tot het passeeren van een grant voor mynen Ld. Falkenberg. Acte van naturalisatie voor mijn en mijn kinderen.34

Given that Dutch was the first language of both Bentinck and William, it is perhaps surprising that their correspondence from 1668–1700 was predominantly in French. One letter from William to Bentinck that David Onnekink discusses was in French and English, but this is an exception (Onnekink 2007: 182).

33 See also Nottingham University Library, the Portland Manuscripts, PwA 2242 (part of PwA 1–2870). 34 Translation of the Dutch: ‘(Trustee) for the payment of a (grant) for my Lord Falkenberg. Certificate of naturalization for myself and my children’. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 269

Whilst in England Bentinck received many letters in Dutch from Dutch people, such as Job de Wildt, Rutger van Haersolte and Jacob Boreel (Japikse 1927–37: I, i 366 ff.). However, he often replied in French.35 He also wrote to another of William’s favourites, Godard van Reede-Ginckel (the Earl of Athlone), in French. Ginckel wrote to Bentinck in Dutch (Japikse 1927–37: iii, 225ff.).36 The presence of Dutchmen so close to the King caused resentment amongst some of the English. After the death of the Duke of Newcastle in 1691, in the Jacobite Pamphlet ‘The Dear Bargain’ it was declared, ‘Mynheer Bentinck now rules over us’ (Onnekink 2007: 122). ‘Great Portland’ one pamphleteer wrote, ‘at the time of the Revolution was plain Mijn Heer Bentinck’, even though Bentinck came from amongst the top rank of Dutch nobility (Onnekink 2007: 98). In each case the Dutch title Mynheer/Mijn Heer is being used dismissively. When Bentinck died, he made two wills, one for his English possessions, the other for his Dutch ones. The latter was drawn up in Dutch by the notary, Gijsbert de Cretser, in The Hague on 30 August 1708 (N.S.).37 A couple of years after Bentinck’s death, on 2 January 1711, a notary, Philips de Gols, wrote a document in Dutch in London to confirm that another document was:38

een waere woordelycke copie [] van de origineele huwelyckse voorwaerde int frans geschreven tusschen den Ho. Ed. Heer Willem Bentink en de Ho. Ed. vrouwe Anne Villiers . . . in den jaere 1678.

a true verbatim copy of the original marriage contract written in French between the most noble Gentleman Willem Bentink and the most noble woman Anne Villiers . . . in the year 1678.

The fact that a contract for the marriage between a Dutchman and an Englishwoman was written in French gives some indication of that language’s place in the higher echelons of both Dutch and English society at this time

35 Marion Grew’s comment that early on Bentinck acquired the use of an incisive and work- manlike French does an injustice to Bentinck (Grew 1924: 4). 36 Onnekink (2007: 263) states that the correspondence between Bentinck and Ginckel was in Dutch. Ginckel wrote to Bentinck in Dutch (e.g., Japikse 1927–37: iii, 238), but Bentinck often wrote to Ginckel in French. 37 bl, Egerton Mss. 1708, fols. 133–40. This is a copy of Bentinck’s original Dutch will. See also Onnekink (2007: 256–7). 38 bl, Egerton Mss. 1708, fol. 2r. 270 CHAPTER 5

(Anne was the daughter of Sir Edward Villiers), although it may also have been a common language between the two at least in the first instance. Other papers provide further evidence of Bentinck himself using Dutch in England. A document entitled Memorie van mijn Gelt in Holland en elders op ontr[en]t Kensington den 29 April 1694 (‘Memorandum of my Money in Holland and elsewhere, Kensington on about 29 April 1694’) indicates that Bentinck owned assets worth some 605,000 guilders at this time.39 On 18 February 1701 he wrote from Whitehall to the Griffier (‘clerk’) of William’s Council in Holland, Willem van Schuylenburgh. It seems that he was looking after Bentinck’s financial affairs in Holland.40 Bentinck writes:

ick versoeck de . . . UWE voor reeck[ening] van de onkosten van mijn huijs nogh gelieve te geeven ses duijsent guldens, ick verblijve . . . Portland.

I ask you please to send (lit. give) [me], to pay for the costs of my house, 6,000 guilders, I remain . . . Portland.

Bentinck addressed a bill of exchange (wisselbrief ) to Van Schuylenburgh written in London den 8/19 October 1700 voor 57000 guldens banco gelt (‘London the 8/19 October 1700 for 57,000 guilders in the bank’) for the credit of a beneficiary in Amsterdam.41 One could argue that documents such as these more properly belong in the domestic domain or even in the work domain, for they are commercial letters concerning personal financial matters. I have some sympathy with this position and these examples reflect once more the fact that some of the sources discussed here belong to more than one domain. Another member of William’s court who wrote in Dutch was Constantijn Huygens jr. mentioned above. He was something of a multilingual, as I discuss in more detail elsewhere (Joby 2014f: Chapter 7). As William’s secretary in Holland, letters that passed his desk were written not only in Dutch but also French, English, Spanish, Italian and Latin. The same may well have been true in England (Dekker 2013: 10). He kept a diary in Dutch, cited above, from 21 October 1688, shortly before William’s invasion of England, until 2 September 1696. This gives us a detailed account of life at the English court during the first half of William’s reign. Other Dutchmen at William’s court include Willem Henry van Nassau van Zuylesteyn and Arnold Joost van Keppel. Van Zuylesteyn was ennobled as Earl of Rochford, and was for a time Master of the Robes to

39 bl, Egerton Mss. 1708, fol. 11r. 40 bl, Egerton Mss. 1708, fol. 37. 41 bl, Egerton Mss. 1708, fol. 51. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 271

William iii (Knight 2003: 281). Keppel replaced Bentinck as William’s favourite in the second half of his reign and was ennobled as 1st Earl of Albemarle. A royal visitor to England during William’s reign who spoke some Dutch was Tsar Peter the Great (Phillips 1995: 33). He had spent time in Holland learning the art of shipbuilding and was invited to visit England by William in 1698. William’s chaplain, Gilbert Burnet, who as we have seen could speak Dutch, was deputed to explain the English religion and constitution to the Russian Tsar (Osselton 1973: 11). Finally, mention should be made of some of the lower-ranking Dutch people who worked for William in England. A large staff of gardeners, many of them Dutch, were employed to tend the gardens at the royal palaces including Kensington House (later Palace) and Hampton Court. At Hampton Court, Hendrik Quellenberg, Samuel van Staden, Caspar Gamperle and Tilleman Bobart were in charge of various parts of the gardens. There were also many Dutch minor Household officials who served William’s court. Precise numbers are difficult to come by, but Catherine Wright records that they helped to take the congregation of the Dutch Chapel Royal to about 1000 (Wright 2007: 627). Robert Kotgen and Katrina de Moucheron, whom we met in Chapter 2, were but two of these. They married in the Dutch Chapel Royal in 1695 and their address was recorded as being in ‘Westm[inster] in the Pallace Yard’. The marriage of many other couples, who in all likelihood worked at court, also took place at the Dutch Chapel Royal. So, in concluding this section, we can state that William wrote in Dutch at court in England. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that he spoke the language at court, although as is so often the case in a study of this nature, definitive evidence is hard to come by. William’s written Dutch was heavily influenced by French, and indeed French seems to have competed with Dutch as his first language. Others such as Bentinck and Bidloo also wrote in Dutch, although Bentinck’s correspondence with William was largely in French. So, perhaps we can conclude that although Dutch was an important language at court, like many other languages at courts around Europe, it faced competition from French. Given William’s own reticence to speak the language, English perhaps took third place in his inner circle in London. Let us now consider the use of Dutch in the military domain, one in which William himself was heavily involved.

5.4 The Military Domain

The armies of early modern Europe have been described as ‘melting pots’. They were international organizations which were polyglot and those in England 272 CHAPTER 5 were no different from others on the Continent (Burke 2004: 129). There were many Dutch and Flemish soldiers on English soil during the period in question. However, evidence for their use of Dutch is limited and one is left to evaluate the likelihood of it, rather than make any definitive statements on the matter. Picking up from the discussion of William iii’s court, Dutch soldiers remained in England during the entirety of his reign. The most notable Dutch troops were the elite Blauwe Garde. They formed part of William’s invasion party, which landed at Torbay on 5 November 1688. At this time armies were often billeted on civilians. This was the case with William’s invasion party as it made its way through Devon and Somerset. In his detailed diary discussed above, William’s secretary, Constantijn Huygens jr. made the following entry on Tuesday 16 November, a couple of weeks after the landing at Torbay (Constantijn Huygens jr. 1876: 14):

Most voormiddaghs brieven in Engelsch uyt doen schrijven . . . aende Bisschop van Exeter ende die van Bath, om logement in haer steden te versoecken, met bijgevoeghde dreygementen . . .

Before noon (I) had to write out letters in English . . . to the Bishops of Exeter and of Bath, to seek quarters in their towns, with threats attached . . .

Could the guttural tones of Dutch be heard in the homes of unsuspecting English people as they unexpectedly played host to the invaders? In December 1688 William ordered what remained of the royal army to march out of London. He replaced them with the six English and Scottish regiments in Dutch service, which had been stationed in the United Provinces (Schöffer 1988: 23). William also replaced the royal army with the Dutch Blauwe Garde infantry, under the command of his cousin, the Count of Solms-Braunfels, which, as we have noted, remained in the British Isles until William’s death in 1702, acting as his personal guard (Baxter 1966: 245–6).42 One could state that if, as in this case, we have a group of Dutch soldiers under Dutch command it is likely that they spoke Dutch, but we can say nothing more concrete about their use of Dutch in England. It takes us a little away from our central theme, the use of Dutch in early modern Britain, but we should remember that a number of the leading officers

42 There were also two hundred black men from Suriname in William’s invasion party. One wonders what language they spoke and how they received orders (Bachrach 1988: 151). If, as is likely, they were slaves, they probably spoke Sranan Tongo, an English-based Creole (Willemyns 2013: 184). The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 273 in William’s expeditionary force to Ireland in 1690 were Dutch. These included Major General Adam van der Duyn, Heer van Scravenmoer, quartermaster- general of the expeditionary force for Ireland; Lieutenant General Hendrik Trajectinus, the Count of Solms-Braunfels, mentioned above; and General Godard van Reede-Ginckel, later the Earl of Athlone (Childs 2007: esp. 130).43 At the Battle of the Boyne William’s army was divided along ethno-linguistic lines. Three infantry crossings of the river were made, including one by Huguenots in the centre, and another by William’s three battalions of the Blauwe Garde, commanded by Solms-Braunfels, which led the assault on the right (Childs 2007: 218).44 Subsequently, the Blauwe Garde also took part in the first siege of Limerick (Childs 2007: 255; fig. 18). Another high-ranking Dutchman in William’s military machine was Willem Meesters. He was Controller-General of the Dutch Artillery and of the English as well, though the English hated him. In 1691 Meesters was made Commandant of the Tower of London (Baxter 1966: 283). The great majority of the soldiers and officers, who fought on both sides of the English Civil War, came from neighbouring countries in Western Europe including the United Provinces and the Spanish Netherlands (Stoyle 2005: 92; 137; 201). Bartholomew Vermuyden, the nephew of the Dutch drainage engineer, Sir Cornelis Vermuyden, was a colonel in the Parliamentary army of 1644, and may well have come to England with his uncle (Stoyle 2005: 93). Two of the cavalry regiments on Parliament’s side contained a good number of Dutchmen. The troops of one, led by the German, Hans Behr, were said by one witness to be ‘all Dutchmen’, although such a description may include Germans. At least one Dutch woman is known to have ridden alongside Behr’s men. The second cavalry regiment, under the Dutch officer, John Dalbier, included both Dutch and Walloon troopers (Stoyle 2005: 95).45 On the royalist side Jan van Hasedonck was a Flemish gun-runner and military entrepreneur, who was commissioned as a captain in 1642. He was also involved in drainage projects in eastern England before the war (see section 3.2.3). Bernard de Gomme was a Flemish engineer who served the Royalist

43 Childs does not discuss which language(s) the officers spoke. Childs also refers to Count Nassau, who led the Enniskilleners along with Zachariah Tiffin (p. 219). See also Sapherson (1987: 1–2) for a description of the Blauwe Garde. 44 Sapherson (1987: 3–4) lists the Dutch foot and mounted troops under William’s command in Ireland. 45 The comment about Behr’s troops is corroborated by a Royalist officer who told a friend that the six hundred cavalrymen under Behr’s command were ‘most of them Dutch’. Stoyle (2005: 246, n. 38). 274 CHAPTER 5

figure 18 Etching of the Siege of Limerick 1690, Adriaen Schoonbeek 1691. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam cause well, having landed at Newcastle with Charles I’s half-German nephews, Prince Rupert and Prince Maurice, in July 1642 (Stoyle 2005: 93; 94). One document by de Gomme that survives is a coloured plan of the fortifications and castle of Liverpool dated 1644, which is now preserved in the British Library.46 It is a plan, we are told, ‘which was beginning buth not finitz’, suggesting de Gomme had not yet mastered English. After the Restoration, de Gomme was appointed Surveyor-General of Fortifications in England. The Royalist commander, Colonel Johan van Bynissy, who served in the Welsh marches, was probably of Dutch origin. John van Gerrish, an officer on the Parliamentary side, who went over to the king’s side at Edgehill, was of Dutch extraction (Stoyle 2005: 101; 117). Other so-called Dutch ‘Outlanders’ active in the English Civil War between 1642 and 1646 were Isaac Dorislaus, born in Alkmaar, who served as Advocate General in the Earl of Essex’s army; Matthias Froom, who served as a Parliamentarian captain in 1643; Jacob Kulenberg, who was Essex’s chief mili-

46 bl, shelfmark, Cartographic Items, Add. ms. 5027.a.art.63. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 275 tary engineer; Pieter Manteau van Dalem, who served as Engineer General of Cromwell’s New Model Army; Cornelius Vanderhorst, who served as a captain for Parliament between 1642 and 1645; Jonas van Druske, who commanded a cavalry regiment for Parliament; and Abraham, Antonio and Sir Philibert Vernatti, who were Dutchmen of Italian ancestry and who fought on the Royalist side during the war. Mark Stoyle lists some 30 men in positions of authority on both sides during the Civil War, who were of either Dutch or Flemish extraction (Stoyle 2005: 213–21). Dutch exiles also mustered in England to return to fight the Spanish in the Dutch Revolt. In 1572 Captain Middeler and some 125 soldiers left Norwich to sail to Vlissingen in order to support the Dutch Revolt (H 87: iii, i, 166). In the same year some 30 members of the Dutch church in Colchester sailed to Vlissingen for the same reason (H 87: ii, 405–7). On 2 September 1585 Captain Guillaume Suderman wrote from Ostend that he had gone to Colchester to recruit men for the Revolt and that some 34 members of the Dutch church had joined him there (H 87: iii, i, 809). The Dutch established militias in a number of the towns and cities in which they had set up communities. A list from 1595/6 indicates that there were 409 Dutchmen in the Norwich militia.47 There are about a dozen further lists, the last compiled in 1628 (Meeres 2014). The list for 1620 includes the names of a couple of women, notably ‘the widdow Cruso’.48 This is the mother of Aquila and Jan Cruso. Her name is listed again in 1621, possessing a corselet. Having recently returned from London, Jan’s name also appears in this list entitled ‘the companie of the Dutch Congregation of Norwich’, along with the names of 94 other Dutch. He is listed as ‘John Cruso’ and possessed a musket (Moens 1887–8: 225–6). As well as writing Dutch poetry, which is discussed in the next chapter, Cruso also translated and wrote a number of works on military matters in English. He dedicated a work on castrametation (the art of laying out a camp) published in 1642 to his ‘ever honoured Friend Philip Skippon’. Skippon had served in the Palatinate and the Netherlands, returning to England in 1638, when together with his Dutch wife from Frankenthal in the Palatinate, Maria Comes, he had settled at Foulsham, near Dereham in Norfolk (Grell 1996: 65).49 One wonders whether he and Cruso might have exchanged words in Dutch. In Colchester the Dutch also formed militias. We have the list of General Muster for Colchester in 1590, in which the Dutch are separately identified. They numbered over 200 and are mainly described as weavers (Moens 1905:

47 nro ncr 13a/7. 48 nro col 5/5. 49 Skippon later became a general on the Parliament side in the English Civil War. 276 CHAPTER 5

105–7). One captain, John Langley, was an alderman and later mayor of the town. Jan Langele, possibly the same man, or his son, was a deacon and elder of the Dutch church in Colchester between 1621 and 1627. In 1640 there are reports that resident Dutchmen armed themselves and trained regularly in London, Ipswich, Yarmouth and Norwich, as the momentum built towards Civil War. In the First Civil War, Langele led his company to the defence of London against Royalist forces in November 1642 (Grell 1996: 64–5). Some might argue that this is a poor return for time and effort invested, although we have at least established that many thousands of people who knew Dutch were active in the military domain in early modern England. In truth, this is a fascinating topic, which invites further research. To what extent did those who knew Dutch use it in the military domain? Did a pidgin emerge which allowed those who had different mother tongues to communicate, as happened in other multilingual armies in early modern Europe? For example, a German pidgin-Italian was used in the sixteenth century by German Landsknechten fighting in the Italian peninsula (Burke 2004: 129, n. 82). Finally, several loanwords from Dutch relating to military matters entered English at this time. These include ‘blunderbuss’ (from the Dutch donder (‘thunder’) and bus (a type of gun)) and ‘drill’, in the sense of doing military exercises, from the Dutch drillen. One Dutch phrase that entered English was verloren hoop, literally a lost troop or company, i.e., one exposed to grave danger. This became Anglicized as ‘forlorn hope’, first attested in English in the middle of the sixteenth century (oed).

5.5 Dutch in the Navy

Before concluding, let us consider the knowledge and use of Dutch in the navies in and around early modern England. Here, we also face the problem of a relative dearth of sources found in the previous section. Nevertheless, some metalinguistic comment and documentary sources do allow us to draw more positive conclusions about the use of Dutch in this context. In the first engagement of the First Anglo-Dutch War, the Battle of Dover, fought on 19 May 1652, Captain William Brandley engaged with Dutch ships off Dover under the command of Admiral Maarten Tromp. Brandley himself does not seem to have spoken Dutch, but a report of the engagement says that ‘his own men who were abroad with him that understood Dutch did interpret to him’ (Gardiner 1899: 209–10). As in the case of English soldiers in Dutch service discussed above, English sailors served in the navy of the States General and it may be that this is how Brandley’s men picked up some Dutch. A recent study The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 277 on British personnel in the Dutch navy from 1642–1697 may throw more light on this subject (Little 2008). A memorandum of a meeting in 1659 in ‘The Reminiscences of Richard Gibson’ records that Gibson met a skipper named Foster in Plymouth. In 1654, during the First Anglo-Dutch War, Foster, Gibson tells us, said that he had taken ‘a Dutch ship richly laden with all sorts of drapery, linen . . . going from Amsterdam to Stockholm’. In Gibson’s account, Foster continues (Gardiner 1899: 31):50

I haveing bin at the East Indies in the Dutch service, spoak the Dutch tongue well; but there was no need of that, for the Dutch skipper spoak very good English, and was an understanding man.

One is left to wonder what sort of Dutch the English skipper, Foster, picked up during his time in the service of the voc.51 Letters were written in Dutch by Dutch naval officers sailing or moored off the English coast. On 4 March 1652 Vice-Admiral John (Jan) Evertson, who was in onsen schepe Hollandia voor Porsmuyden (‘in our ship, the Hollandia, off Portsmouth’), wrote a letter in Dutch to the Dutch delegation to London, led by Jacob Cats, mentioned above.52 Evertson’s rendering of Portsmouth as Porsmuyden was by no means unique. On 11 August 1692 Vice-Admiral Almonde wrote to the Raadpensionaris, Anthonie Heinsius, referring to Portsmouth as Portsmuyden (Van der Heim 1867–80: ii, 58–60). Other similar renderings by the Dutch are Pleymuyden for Plymouth, as in a letter dated 1 February 1599 from Noël de Caron to Johann van Oldenbarnevelt (Van Oldenbarnevelt 1934: 504–7, letter 244), and Jermuyden/Jermuijde for Yarmouth, which we see in a letter from Norwich in the Hessels collection dated 29 May 1572 (H 87: iii, i, 167). The toponymic suffix -muyden means ‘river mouth’ and we find it in place names in the west of the Dutch language area, such as ‘IJmuiden’ (Holland) and ‘Diksmuide’ (Flanders) (cf. Willemyns 2013: 74). One possible reason for the use

50 bl, Add. Ms. 11684, fol. 30. 51 The vast majority of the non-Dutch in the employ of the voc were Germans and Scandinavians. Englishmen are not mentioned in Femme Gaastra’s 1991 history of the voc (Gaastra 1991: 88). By contrast C.R. Boxer (1965: 80) does mention Englishmen. He notes that in 1622 more than half of the garrison in Batavia consisted of Germans, Swiss, English, Scots, Irish, Danes, Poles and other nationalities. On the ships, though, there may have been fewer Englishmen. The non-Dutch there were principally Germans and Scandinavians (Boxer 1965: 71–2). 52 bl, Add. Ms. 17677, U, fols. 131–2. 278 CHAPTER 5 of this suffix by the Dutch may have been the lack of voiceless dental fricative, /θ/, in their native tongue.53 Sometimes we see renderings such as Jermuyen, which we find in a letter dated 4 March 1575, written by the consistory of the Dutch church in Great Yarmouth to its counterpart in Norwich (H 87: iii, i, 289). This owes something to the fact that in spoken Dutch, an intervocalic ‘d’ sometimes lost (and still does lose) its value as a consonant, or it is realized as a phonetic zero (Weijnen 1965: 36–7). Evertson also makes reference to Lezart, which, one assumes, is Lizard Point in Cornwall. A number of English sea captains are said to have known Dutch. Admiral Robert Blake is reported to have spoken Dutch fluently. This claim is based on the report of an anonymous Dutch writer in the Hollandische Mercurius (1652), who stated that Blake had lived in Schiedam ‘for five or six years’ in his youth (Muller 1939: 92–3; Encyclopaedia Britannica: Blake, Robert).54 In 1658, having suffered a defeat to Michiel de Ruyter in the Battle of Plymouth in the First Anglo-Dutch War, Vice-Admiral Sir George Ayscue went into the service of the Swedish king, Charles X Gustave. Muller states that Ayscue wrote reports for the king in a ‘by no means unserviceable’ (gansch niet onverdienstelijk) Dutch. Ayscue returned to action in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, but here he fared no better. He might have had a chance to practise his Dutch in the prison at Loewestein, having been captured by Cornelis Tromp at the Battle of Lowestoft in 1665. Peter the Great’s knowledge of Dutch was referred to above. The Tsar asked William iii to second Vice Admiral David Mitchell to him, as he knew Dutch (Muller 1939: 92; 98). These two examples further illustrate the importance of Dutch as an intermediary language between the English and the Baltic nations in the early modern period, a point touched on above. Beyond these examples one is left to discuss cases which involve people who knew Dutch and which on further investigation may throw up instances of the use of Dutch in early modern England. The so-called ‘Sea Beggars’ were a group of privateers including Dutch and Flemish, famous for their songs, who raided ships in the English Channel and landed their booty in England during the late 1560s and early 1570s at ports such as Dover (Overend 1888–9: 98–9). That they landed at English ports is underlined by the fact that at the insistence of the

53 For more on the history of the toponymy of Yarmouth, see Watts (2004: 709). 54 The odnb is, though, rather more equivocal saying ‘there is a story that [Blake] lived in Schiedam, so he could be the Robert Blake who was admitted to the Company of Freemen at Dorchester in 1629 and who was trading in masts . . . and other timber with Schiedam’s neighbouring (sic.) port of Middelburg’. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 279

Spanish, Queen Elizabeth refused to admit them any longer in 1572, which had the unintended consequence of precipitating the attack on Den Briel, a key moment in the Dutch Revolt. Many Dutch prisoners were taken during the First Anglo-Dutch War. An order of the council of state dated 8 September 1652 refers to some 300 Dutch prisoners at Dover, who were to be sent to Canterbury. It also refers to 2000 in London, 500 at Hull, and 200 at Portsmouth (Gardiner 1900: 169). The prisoners at Hull are likely to be the same ones about whom M.P. Groenvelt wrote a letter in Dutch from the city to Cesare Calandrini on 3 October 1652, mentioned in Chapter 1, apologizing for any inconvenience their incarceration might have caused (H 87: iii, ii, 2214). Further north, according to a letter in English dated 11 August 1652, Dutch ships were laid up in Sunderland harbour and a Dutch man-of-war was lying ‘before the bar’ intercepting English coal ships (Gardiner 1900: 92–3). In the Second Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch famously launched a raid up the Medway. There were reports of some 8000 Dutch soldiers landing at Queenborough near Chatham. Landings at nearby Sheerness were also reported and the Dutch were rumoured to be at Dover and along the coast as far as Dartmouth in Devon. The diarist Samuel Pepys observed ‘By God, I think the Devil shits Dutchmen’ (Wilson 1946: 201). In June 1667 Lieutenant-Admiral Willem Josef van Gent had to anchor his fleet at Hole Haven off Canvey Island in the Thames Estuary due to a drop in the wind. During this enforced stop, some Dutchmen went ashore onto Canvey, where they burnt barns and houses and killed some sheep to take back to their ships as provisions (Rogers 1970: 74). As we have learnt, there was a Dutch community in Canvey and during this period there were suspicions amongst the local English population about the attitude of the Dutch community to the war with the Dutch. An investigation carried out after the end of the war found that John Gentbridge, alias John of Gaunte of Canvey Island, a carpenter, had rowed out to a Dutch ship anchored off the island, brought back about fifteen of the men on board and plundered the house of Joseph Cole, a yeoman of Canvey (Hallman 2006: 13).55 The extent to which Dutch could be heard in and around English ports would have been affected by the prevailing political situation. For example in 1569 there was a stoppage of trade and the Navigation Acts of 1651 and

55 See also ero D/DEb 95/20. 280 CHAPTER 5

1660 prohibited Dutch ships from landing in English ports (Williams 1988).56 However, after three naval wars, the Glorious Revolution led to co-operation rather than confrontation between the Dutch and English navies. How the officers and indeed sailors in both navies communicated is an important question, but alas one which, in the present state of our knowledge, remains very difficult to answer. Finally, in Chapter 3, we saw that the general nautical term ‘avast!’ entered English from Dutch during this period (see section 3.2.7.1). One specifically naval term that entered English in the mid-seventeenth century was ‘keelhaul’ from the Dutch kielhalen (oed).

5.6 Conclusion

What we have seen in this chapter is that away from the Dutch communities that were the focus of the preceding three chapters, Dutch was used in the spheres of diplomacy, the court, and the military and navy. One notable linguistic feature of diplomatic correspondence written in Dutch is the extent to which variations of the forms of address derived from u edele or uwe edelheid were used. We may contrast this with the use of the form ghij(lieden), which dominated the Norwich Ieper corpus of personal letters, and variants on ul., ulieden etc. in the Norwich Dutch church corpus, discussed in Chapter 4. Dutch was also used at court, notably, but not exclusively, that of William iii. His own Dutch was particularly heavily inflected with verbs ending in -eren derived from French, and French loan words, and indeed Dutch faced competition from French as well as English at his court.57 Correspondence and metalinguistic comment point to the use of Dutch amongst naval seamen. In the military domain, whilst there were clearly many people who knew Dutch, the case for the use of the language in this domain has yet to be made. It is to be hoped that others will follow up on some of the opportunities for further

56 Gauci (1996: 123–5) notes that in June 1672, despite the outbreak of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, special immunities were offered to Dutchmen willing to settle in England. He also observes that a warrant issued in January 1673 ordered that all Dutch passengers arriving on the east coast should be arrested unless they intended to settle. How this could be determined definitively is another matter! 57 Historically, including during the early modern period, Dutch has been what socio- linguists refer to as a ‘diffuse language’, i.e., one whose boundaries in relation to other languages are weak. The Court, Diplomacy And The Military 281 research offered in this regard. This in some sense brings us to the end of the sociolinguistic study of the use of Dutch in early modern England, for in the next chapter we consider the use of Dutch in literature, although sociolinguistic aspects of this will be drawn out where necessary, and in Chapter 7, our focus shifts to Scotland and Wales. Here again, though, there is ample evidence to help us answer one of the central questions being examined in this book; the extent to which Dutch was used in early modern Britain. CHAPTER 6 Dutch Literature

6.1 Introduction

One of the striking features of the use of Dutch in early modern England is the extent to which works of prose and verse were written in the language. On closer inspection this should perhaps not surprise us so much for a number of members of the Dutch communities in England were highly educated and cultured individuals. Furthermore, people whose mother tongue was Dutch visited England and penned verses or wrote prose during their visit. Amongst those who wrote Dutch poetry during periods in England we can mention Jan Six van Chandelier and Constantijn Huygens. Indeed, Huygens wrote some of his early important Dutch verse whilst accompanying diplomatic missions to England. Amongst those who wrote prose during visits to England are Huygens’ son, Lodewijck, who compiled a journal in Dutch and French on a diplomatic mission in 1651–1652, and Johannes Vollenhove, who accompanied a subsequent diplomatic mission to England in 1674 as a preacher, and who also compiled a journal in Dutch, as well as composing some epistolary poems. Some might ask what a survey of the work of these Dutchmen such as Huygens and Vollenhove in England adds to our knowledge of early modern Dutch language and literature, for in most cases these works have previously received academic attention. In response, I would begin by re-iterating that one of the principal aims of this book is to illustrate the extent to which Dutch was used in early modern England by the three groups of people described in Chapter 1; members of Dutch communities; temporary visitors to England; and native English people who learnt the language. Secondly, I shall explore how the people and places these Dutchmen encountered in England inspired and influenced their work. Thirdly, in the case of Constantijn Huygens in particular, I shall consider whether it was the very fact that he was in England that led him to write in Dutch, given that he wrote most of his early poetry in Latin and French.1

1 This approach, although developed independently of it, has something in common with New Historicism, in that it recognizes the part played by late modern political boundaries in determining what falls within the category of early modern Dutch literature. For more on New Historicism, see Fry (2012: 246–59).

Another area of cultural activity in which Dutch was used was the theatre. Although I have come across no play written entirely in the language in early modern England, several plays contain Dutch words and phrases. Most notable amongst these are plays by Thomas Dekker, whom we met in the last chapter (section 5.3.2). Before concluding I provide details of translations into and out of Dutch made in early modern England. Let us begin, though, by examining the use of Dutch in verse written in England in this period.2

6.2 Dutch Verse in Early Modern England

The migration of thousands of Dutch from the Low Countries to England coin- cided with an interesting time in the development of Dutch poetry. Up to the middle of the sixteenth century, the dominant form of verse was the refereyn. This form was popular with the Rederijkers (‘Rhetoricians’). It consisted of a stokregel, or repeated line, often having a proverbial quality, at the end of each verse. However, at about this time Renaissance forms of verse began to emerge in Dutch, most notably the sonnet and the alexandrine verse consisting of six iambic feet. In the Dutch communities in early modern England a number of refereyns were written. However, many verses were also written in the newer forms and indeed, as I shall argue, London played an important role in the development of the Dutch sonnet. Let us begin, though, by considering the evidence for the writing of refereyns in early modern England.

6.2.1 The Refereyn There are two reports of Dutch poems being written in Norfolk in the sixteenth century. One is from Thetford in 1583; an unnamed (church) brother was accused of ‘composing a useless scandalous little song and placing it secretly in various houses and sending it to other communities, distributing it amongst many people in Norwich’ (een onnut schaldelick liedeken te dichten ende in diversche huyzen hemelic te legghen ende in ander ghemeenten ghezoonden ende onder veele verbreet tot Noordwichs) (H 87: iii, i, 699). The other verse is a ‘satirical and libellous’ poem (een spottisch ende schimpisch refereyn) that circulated in Norwich in 1598 about the wives of two elders of the Dutch church. This was reported in a letter written by the father of the poet, Jan Cruso, also called Jan, who was himself an elder of this church (H 87: iii, i, 1023). He writes that it was a refereyn; the person accused of circulating the

2 I am particularly grateful to Karel Bostoen and Ad Leerintveld for reading earlier versions of this chapter and for providing valuable comments on it. 284 CHAPTER 6 poem said that he had found the refereyn on the street one evening (dat hy t’refereyn t’savonts op strate gevonden heeft), and it is likely that this was the style in which both of these poems were written (Forster 1967: 35). In 1576 the colloquy of the Dutch churches in England had decided that any boecken, refer- eynen of liedekens (‘books, refrains or songs’) that members wanted to publish should be submitted to their consistory (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 23).3 It was doubtless for cases such as these that the church leaders made this decision, although it clearly had not stopped these verses from being distributed. Some time after 1588, one of the ministers of the Dutch church in London, Jacobus Regius, wrote a 48-line poem on the Spanish Armada. It appears in the manuscript of Simeon Ruytinck’s history of the Dutch in England, Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen (‘Events and Deeds’) discussed in more detail below.4 In his history, Ruytinck refers to Regius’ poem as a refereyn even though it lacks certain standard features of a refereyn such as a stokregel (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 146). Nevertheless, it is clearly closer in form to the older type of Dutch poetry than to Renaissance forms such as the sonnet. Finally, let us consider another couple of examples of the older type of Dutch poetry written in England. In 1576 the minister of the Dutch church in London, Gotfried Wingius, wrote an elegy to a colleague, Joris Wybo. This was published in the 1596 edition of Wybo’s Gheestelijcke Liedekens (‘Spiritual Songs’). In 1581, shortly before his departure for Antwerp to become a minister there, Assuerus van Regenmortel (Regemorterus) wrote a 70-line Liedeken to the Dutch community in London in which he encouraged its members to be at peace with one another.5 The poem is to be found in Ruytinck’s Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 138–9).6 It begins:

Hoe schoon end goed is ’t boven alle deughden, Als Broeders soet eendrachtich sijn met vreughden . . .

How beautiful and good it is above all virtues, When brothers are sweetly united with joy . . .

There are other poems written in the older style in Ruytinck’s history, including some by Ruytinck himself, which deserve more attention from scholars who

3 For a brief introduction to refereyns in English, see Pleij (2009: 108). 4 lma clc/180/MS09621. 5 In November 1585 Van Regenmortel returned to London, where he remained until his death from the plague in 1603 (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 141). 6 In the margin at the start of the poem Ruytinck refers to Psalm 79. Dutch Literature 285 study such verse. However, whilst Ruytinck and the other poets mentioned persisted with older forms of Dutch verse, others in London were experiment- ing with Renaissance forms of verse and it is to these that we now turn.

6.2.2 Dutch Sonnets in Sixteenth-Century England The first Dutch sonnet ever published was written by Lucas d’Heere (1534– 1584) in Ghent in 1558 (Grootes and Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen 2009: 177). However, d’Heere’s efforts at writing sonnets have not been well received, and it is generally agreed that another author from the Southern Netherlands, Jan van der Noot (1539/40–1595), was the first poet to write Dutch sonnets with success. He was born in Brecht near Antwerp but was forced to go into exile to England in 1567 after joining the Calvinist cause. He lived in London for a couple of years before returning to the Low Countries via Cologne in 1577 or 1578. During his time in London he wrote a number of Dutch sonnets (Forster 1967: 6–7; 49–51). He also published two collections of Dutch poetry, Het Theatre oft Toon-neel (‘The Theatre’) (1568) and Het Bosken (‘The Grove’) (1570/1) (Forster 1984: 25–6). Het Theatre contains many poems that Van der Noot wrote in London. It is likely that he also wrote the versified psalms in Het Bosken during this period (Van der Noot 1953: 32–4; 131–81; Forster 1967: 51).7 Although Van der Noot had clearly written Dutch poetry before arriving in London, he had not previously published it. It is difficult to judge whether his decision to do so for the first time in London was just a coincidence, or whether he felt that the circumstances in London at that time, with a large Dutch community, were particularly favourable (also Antwerp was not short of printing presses). But the fact that he did do so should at least be noted. An English version of Het Theatre containing translations, which are often attributed to a young Edmund Spenser, was also published (Forster 1967: 55–6). Van der Noot himself also wrote French and Latin verse, which, one might say, were more established literary languages at this time. The fact that he chose to write Dutch poetry, and moreover, chose to do so in London should again not pass without comment, although any statement concerning the reasons for it, such as a desire to identify with the London Dutch community, would be speculative at the present time (Forster 1967: 49, n. 2). Van der Noot was not alone in writing Dutch sonnets in London in the second half of the sixteenth century. After a short stay in the city in 1576 Marnix van St.-Aldegonde (1540–1598) gave two of his Dutch sonnets on his departure on

7 The metrical psalms appear under the heading Sommighe Psalmen van David, by den Poet in Duytsche gheset, te singhen nae de Fransoyse Wyse (‘Some Psalms of David, translated into Dutch by the Poet, to be sung in the French manner’). 286 CHAPTER 6

28 March 1576 to Lucas d’Heere, who himself had been living in London since April 1567, and indeed served as an elder of the Dutch church in London (Van Dam 2014: 28). These are the only two surviving sonnets by Marnix (Bostoen 1988). An important point to make in this regard is that some commentators categorize this verse as ‘Exile Literature’. For example, Karel Porteman and Mieke Smits-Veldt include Marnix’s sonnets in this category. This is despite the fact that Marnix did not write his poems in exile, but rather on a diplomatic mission to seek help for the Dutch Revolt, as Porteman and Smits-Veldt themselves note (Porteman and Smits-Veldt 2008: 45). Similarly, Porteman and Smits-Veldt place Johannes Radermacher’s early Dutch grammar, dated 1568, in this category, as do Nicoline van der Sijs and Roland Willemyns (2009: 215–6). However, Radermacher was a merchant and businessman, and, although he mixed with exiles in London, he himself went to the city in order to work for his employer, Gillis Hooftman, rather than as an exile (cf. Joby 2014a: 11). One way of understanding this type of categorization is that these scholars are merely applying a looser definition of ‘exile’ and ‘Exile Literature’ than one might expect, perhaps focussing on the fact that Marnix and Radermacher were separated from their place of origin, which is certainly true, albeit for a short period of time in the case of Marnix (cf. Edwards 1988: 15–16).8 However, perhaps it also reflects a tendency within Dutch literary studies to make a sharp distinction between what happens in the Dutch-language area and what happens outside it, with the latter susceptible to being treated as ‘Exile Literature’. It is such an approach that contributes to a Dutch linguistic and literary canon, which in cases such as these seems to be determined more by (late-modern) geographical boundaries than by the boundaries that the language and literature themselves draw. Other authors of Dutch sonnets in London at this time were Joris Hoefnagel, the uncle of Constantijn Huygens on his mother’s side (Bachrach 1962: 62), and the mercator sapiens, Emanuel van Meteren, who was related to Hoefnagel by marriage (Forster 1967: 59; 112–3).9 In passing we should mention a series of drawings produced by Hoefnagel whilst he was in London in 1568–1569, entitled Patientia.10 One of these was of some merchants in conversation at

8 There are also more psychological definitions of ‘exile’ in recent literary criticism such as ‘one alone into one’, but these do not seem particularly appropriate in the case of Marnix or Radermacher (Bartolini 2008: 80). 9 Van Meteren’s Album Amicorum is kept at the Bodleian Library, Oxford (ms Douce 68). 10 The manuscript is in Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. Leber 2616. See the edition published by Robert van Roosbroeck (1935). During his time in London, Hoefnagel also Dutch Literature 287

Sir Thomas Gresham’s London Exchange (Van Dorsten 1973: 52–3). Under the drawing is an eight-line Dutch verse.11 Leonard Forster provides an excellent survey of Dutch poems influenced by Renaissance trends written in London in the second half of the sixteenth century. These include poems by Lucas d’Heere to Johannes Radermacher and Van Meteren, and an elegy by d’Heere to Joris Wybo; a poem by Johannes Cubus, which is a translation of a Latin poem on Wybo’s death by Jacobus Regius; and several other Dutch poems by Cubus, which are also translations from Latin (Forster 1967: 114–24). Above, it was noted that Jan van der Noot also wrote poetry in French. The examples just discussed indicate that Dutch also faced competition from Latin as a language in which to write verse for those whose vernacular was Dutch. One question we must ask in this regard is what influence if any the Dutch sonnets written and published in London, particularly those of Van der Noot, had on later poets in the United Provinces, such as P.C. Hooft, Gerbrand Bredero and Constantijn Huygens. One difficulty in attempting to establish precisely what influence Van der Noot’s work had on later Dutch sonnets is that many other early Dutch sonnets are lost. It is possible for example that Van der Noot’s sonnets influenced those of another early exponent of the form, Jan van Hout (1542–1609) of Leiden, and indeed similarities have been observed between the verse of Van der Noot and that of Van Hout.12 However, only a few of Van Hout’s sonnets have survived, so it is difficult to explore further the question of whether his sonnets were influenced by those of Van der Noot (Grootes and Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen 2009: 185–7). In this regard, Eddy Grootes and Riet Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen write (Grootes and Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen 2009: 183),

When Renaissance verse began to flourish in the Northern Netherlands in the early seventeenth century, Van der Noot’s name was not entirely forgotten, but there was no real continuity. If sonnets by Hooft and Bredero build upon the pioneering work of Van der Noot at all, they do so indirectly.

painted a festive scene in Bermondsey near London, and drew views of Windsor Castle and Nonsuch Palace. 11 Franciscus Hogenberg executed a set of engravings of Gresham’s Exchange with legends in Dutch as well as Latin, English and French. It is not clear, though, whether he made these during a visit to London or in Antwerp (Van Dorsten 1973: 53). 12 In a recent article, Yevgeny Kazartsev (2010) notes the similarities between the rhythms of Van der Noot’s poetry and those in Van Hout’s work. 288 CHAPTER 6

In response I would agree that any influence of Van der Noot’s sonnets on those of Hooft and Bredero would most probably have been indirect, for example through the verse of Van Hout, but on the other hand it is premature to argue that there was ‘no real continuity’. Based on current knowledge, we just do not know. Janus Gruterus (1560–1627), who was born in Antwerp and whose family settled in Norwich in 1567, was another early exponent of the Dutch sonnet. He may well have been practising the form at Cambridge University, where he studied for seven years. He then moved on to Leiden, where he is reported to have written some 500 sonnets, although only a handful of these survive (Forster 1967: 6–14).13 Leonard Forster offers a number of possible avenues, by which Van der Noot’s sonnets could have reached Gruterus, and notes in particular that the rhythm of Gruterus’ alexandrines is close to that found in those of Van der Noot (Forster 1967: 18–20; 55–57; 103). However, firm evidence for a link between Van der Noot and Gruterus is lacking. So, again, it is impossible to gauge precisely what influence Van der Noot and the other writers of Dutch sonnets in London may have had on subsequent writers of sonnets such as Van Hout and Gruterus. It may be that this is the reason why some writers of general histories of Dutch literature pay little or no attention to Van der Noot’s work in London. But regardless of the extent of this influence, the mere fact that Van der Noot did write and publish Dutch sonnets in London is to my mind something that should be recorded in these histories (cf. Joby 2014a: 12–13). In Chapter 3 it was stated that one of the books printed in Norwich by the Brabant exile, Anthonie de Solempne, was the first edition of the anti-clerical satire, De Historie van B. Cornelis Adriaensen van Dordrecht. On the last page of the book is a Dutch sonnet. It is probable that this was composed in Brugge, where the book was written, but would have been published in Norwich in 1569 (Bostoen 2014). This is a very early Dutch sonnet and deserves further attention from literary scholars.14 As it is most unlikely to have been composed in England I shall not quote it in its entirety here, but just the last three lines,

13 Forster (1967: 6–7; 104–8) states that there are 7 surviving sonnets by Gruterus and reproduces all of these. Porteman and Smits-Veldt (2008: 121–2) state that there are nine. They include one not found in Forster’s book, which Gruterus sent to Janus Dousa in a letter he wrote in 1586. The ‘ninth’ sonnet is probably the one in the Album amicorum Bonaventurae Vulcanii (Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium, Ms. ii, 1166, fol. 71). It begins Die daer meynt dat de Son met haer lamp niet belicht (‘He who thinks that the sun with her lamp does not light up’). I thank Karel Bostoen for this reference. 14 In fact, Karel Bostoen is currently researching the authorship of this sonnet. Dutch Literature 289 which give a taste of the satirical bile (caveat lector!) that fills the rest of the poem and indeed the entire book:

Die gheeren van stront preecte, ende van teven heet: Die de Vroukens geesselde, ooc elc beschimpte en beet En sulck een fijn man was, daer af datter noch veel is.

[Brother Cornelis], who liked to preach about shit, and about hot bitches: Who whipped the wanton girls, and scolded and bit each one And was such a hypocrite, about whom there’s much more to be told.15

As the sixteenth century turned into the seventeenth, Dutch verse in the new style continued to be written both by members of the Dutch communities in England, notably Jacobus Colius in London, Jan Cruso in Norwich and Jan Proost in Colchester, and by temporary visitors from the United Provinces such as Constantijn Huygens, Jan Six van Chandelier and Johannes Vollenhove. Let us now consider the Dutch verse that they wrote in England.

6.2.3 Jacobus Colius We met Jacob Colius Ortelianus (1563–1628) in Chapter 4 in a letter written in 1592 by Emanuel van Meteren to Colius’ uncle, the great Antwerp cartographer, Abraham Ortelius, in which Colius’ recent arrival in London was announced. Like other learned members of the London Dutch community, Colius also wrote in Latin. For example, he wrote a work in Latin on Roman triumphs, which remained unpublished.16 However, much of his work in London, including an extensive oeuvre of verse, was in Dutch. Indeed, Colius, a silk-merchant by trade, can be considered to belong to a group of poets who combined their work in buying and selling with writing poetry in the vernacular; a group that I refer to as mercatores poetantes.17

15 In this context, een fijn man is a hypocritical, religious person, well exemplified by Molière’s character Tartuffe. I thank Ton Harmsen for this information. 16 Fasti Triumphorum et Magistratuum Romanorum Ab V.C. ad August. Obitum. Additis num- morum descriptionibus Ex Hub. Golzio, opera I.C.O. conflati, anno 1588, Antuerpiae 1589 (Cool 1962: 5). 17 Colius worked with Johannes Radermacher on Historia de la vita e della morte dell’illustriss. Signora Giovanna Graia (‘The History of the Life and Death of the most illustrious Lady Jane Grey’), also published by Richard Schilders in Middelburg, in 1607. It seems that the scholar and doctor, Arnold Boot, who worked in England and Ireland, borrowed from this work for his account of Lady Jane Grey’s life and death: Het leven en sterven 290 CHAPTER 6

In 1604–1605 Colius wrote his most notable Dutch verse, the narrative poem Den Staet van London in hare groote Peste (‘The State of London during her great Plague’), on the London plague of 1603. It was first published in 1606 by Richard Schilders, whom we met in Chapter 5 as the publisher of Conraet Jansen’s Dutch pamphlet on the triumphal arch for James I, in Middelburg in Zeeland.18 Despite this, there is little doubt that Colius wrote most or all of the poem in London (Van Dorsten 1988: 18). It consists of 900 lines of alternating masculine and feminine rhyming alexandrines. Although the alexandrine was still a relatively new introduction into Dutch verse, Colius clearly achieved some level of success in his venture, for Franciscus Raphelengius the Younger wrote to him in 1606 from Leiden praising his use of the mensura Aldegondina (Forster 1967: 60). This is a reference to Marnix van St.-Aldegonde, mentioned above, one of the first poets to write Dutch alexandrines. More specifically this phrase refers to Marnix’s use of the iambic metre. He was probably the first and arguably the most accomplished Dutch poet to write in this metre. Apart from the plague Colius’ poem makes reference to a number of contemporary events. It begins (Cool 1962: 23):

Den seer benauden staet, daer dese stadt in stont Doen ’thaestich vier der Pest, hier out en jonck verslont . . .

The very straightened state, in which this city stood When the rapid fire of the Plague here young and old devoured . . .

The poem continues by recalling the illness and death of Queen Elizabeth (den staet der siecker Coninghinnen . . . der Coninghinnen doot) at the beginning of 1603 (Cool 1962: 24). Schools and theatres were closed (Cool 1962: 38):

Men hiel gheen school’ in stadt, Wt-roepen was verboden, Comedianten oock, die waren al ghevloden.

There was no school in the city; proclamations were forbidden; Actors, too, had all fled.

van de Christelĳckste Princes Johanna Gray, Koningin van Enghelandt; in den jare 1554 (Amsterdam: 1649). 18 Schilders had previously been a member of the London Dutch community under the name Painter. Dutch Literature 291

Above all, the poem is a record of the (assumed) causes and consequent losses from the plague. Colius records that the London Dutch church lost 668 members, a number to which one of its ministers, Assuerus van Regenmortel, would be added (Cool 1962: 50):

Der Nederlanders Kerck, die intghetal oock comt Ses hondert tsestich acht, al hare dooden somt. Dit schreef Assuerus op, die Godes woort hun leerde, Tot dat hy met zijn doot, zijns zelfs ghetal vermeerde.

The Church of the Dutch, which counts six hundred And sixty-eight dead in total. This was recorded by Assuerus, who taught them God’s word, Until he, by his death, increased his own number.

The poem is preceded by an introduction, De Epistel, consisting of 166-lines of Dutch prose written by another minister of the London Dutch church, Johannis Regius, in London and dated 16 December 1605 (Cool 1962: 10, 15–19). This is accompanied by a short tribute by Colius to Regius in Latin prose. The 1606 edition of Colius’ poem also includes three other Dutch poems. Before Den Staet van London there is a 19-line verse in alexandrines entitled Aen hem die dit schrift in handen vallen mach (‘To him in whose hands this writing may fall’), probably by Colius as well, and a 24-line poem, also in alexandrines, entitled Lof ende nutticheyt des Boecx (‘Praise and usefulness of the Book’), which is signed ihe, an as yet unidentified author. After Den Staet van London there is a 12-line poem in alexandrines Op dese Beschrijvinghe der Peste (‘On this Description of the Plague’) by Pieter Cool(s), Jacobus’ brother, mentioned in Chapter 4. In 1618 Colius published a verse paraphrase of Psalm 104 (Paraphrasis . . . van den ciiii psalm Davids), which he wrote at the end of 1617 in London (Van Dorsten 1988: 19). A second edition was published in 1626 (Cool 1962: 4–5). In 1621 Colius wrote a 68-line verse in alexandrines on the death of his friend, the Norwich-born minister of the London Dutch church from 1601 until his death in 1621, Simeon Ruytinck. Colius was clearly an important member of the church, being listed as an elder in 1624.19 He did not sign the poem with his name, but rather with the Latin words Ponebat amicus amico (‘A friend made [this gravestone] for a friend’). The final three letters, ico, are Colius’ initials (Iacobus Colius Ortelianus), which he also used for his Latin work mentioned

19 lma clc/180/MS10055, fol. 120r. 292 CHAPTER 6 above. The Dutch poem was published in a collection of Latin and Dutch verse, Epicedia in Obitum . . ., on Ruytinck’s death published by the Elzeviers in Leiden in 1622 (Epicedia 1622).20 Colius also wrote Dutch verses for his tract Van de dood, een ware beschrijvinge (‘Of death, a true description’), discussed in more detail in the section on Dutch prose in this chapter (section 6.4.2) (Cool 1962: 3). To these poems we can add occasional verses that Colius wrote for the alba amicorum of his friends. For example, he wrote a 22-line Dutch poem in alexandrines entitled Vera Cupidinis Descriptio (‘A True Description of Desire’), which is preserved in manuscript in the British Library.21 In 1604 Colius also contributed a Latin verse to the triumphal arch created by the London Dutch community for the coronation of James I (see section 5.3.2). He subsequently translated this into Dutch (Cool 1962: 8–10). Someone whom Colius is likely to have encountered at the Dutch church in London is Jan Cruso, who worked in London for his family’s cloth business for several years before 1621 (Joby 2014c). Cruso was also a Dutch poet of some merit and we now consider details of his life and verse.

6.2.4 Jan Cruso Jan Cruso was born in Norwich on 6 February 1592.22 His parents had left the village of Hondschoote, near Dunkirk, in the modern day French Départment du Nord, as a result of the religious and economic turmoil in the area in the middle of the sixteenth century. At some point during the 1570s or 1580s Cruso’s parents arrived in Norwich. His father, also called Jan, was a cloth merchant, who was later described as being of moderate wealth (mediocris fortunae) (odnb; Venn 1901: 209). One of Jan’s brothers, Aquila, whom we met in Chapter 4, attended the local grammar school, Norwich School, and then studied at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, after which he became a lecturer in Greek at Cambridge. We have no record of Jan’s education. However, he is

20 Not Epicedia in Orbitum as Grell has (Grell 1996: 109). 21 bl Sloane ms. 2764, fol. 13r. This collection of manuscripts contains other poems in Dutch. These include translations of sonnets by Petrarch into Dutch by Justus Raphelengius (fol. 56v.); and an epigram in Dutch by Jan de Laet jr. (fol. 41r.). 22 nro ncr 16a, The Mayor’s Court Books (1595–1603), p. 583. The court was held on 16 May 1601. The entry that refers to Jan’s birth states that he was baptized in Ecclesia Belgica sub ministerio Samuelis Ascher (‘in the Dutch Church by the minister, Samuel Ascher (also van Assche)’) and refers to him as Jo[hann]es maior natu in p[ar]ochia Georgii at Colgate Ao 1592 . . . sexta die mensis ffebr, i.e., he was the eldest son and was born in the parish of St. George, Colgate on 6 February 1592. Dutch Literature 293 likely to have attended Norwich School. He did not go to university as he was the eldest son and was required to run the family cloth business (Joby 2014c). Like Colius, he can be considered a mercator poetans. The first poem we have by him was an elegy (Klacht-Ghedicht) for Simeon Ruytinck, which was published in the same collection as the 68-line verse by Jacobus Colius mentioned above. Cruso’s poem was entitled Op Het Overlyden van den Eerweerdighen, Gheleerden, Godtsalighen D. Simeon Ruytingius Ad defunctum (‘On the Death of the Reverend, Learned, Pious Revd. Simeon Ruytinck. To the deceased’) (see Appendix 1), and consists of eighteen lines of rhyming octosyllabic couplets. It was published together with a number of Latin poems, including one by his brother, Aquila, and one by Constantijn Huygens.23 Other Dutch elegies on Ruytinck’s death in the collection include one by the great Dutch poet and politician, Jacob Cats (1577–1660), another by Jonas Proost (1572–1668), as well as that of Colius. It would be some twenty years before Cruso published further Dutch poetry, although he did write English poetry in the intervening period and published a number of books in English on military matters, including translations from French. Cruso was a Captain in the Dutch Militia Company in Norwich (Moens 1887–8: 225–6). In 1642 Marten Jansz Brandt of Amsterdam published two Dutch poems by Cruso, both of which have religious themes. The first poem was an extensive reflection on Psalm 8 entitled Uytbreydinge Over den Achtsten Psalm Davids (‘Amplification of the Eighth Psalm of David’), which shows the influence of the work of the French poet, Guillaume de Salluste Sieur Du Bartas. It runs to some 1200 lines of alternating masculine and feminine rhyming alexandrine couplets with a caesura after the third iamb and demonstrates that Cruso had full mastery of the Dutch alexandrine. In the entire poem, there is only one explicit reference to Norwich, and that concerns the River Yare, which runs a little to the south of the city (Cruso 1642: 42):

Ja d’wijl ick dit beschrijv’, en in de groene dalen Langst Yeri koele stroom ick gae een lochtjen halen En keere na de Stadt de dichte Bosschen door, Hoe word’ ick daer onthaelt van ’t Nachtegalen Choor . . .

23 Huygens’ poem was entitled Epitaphium Rutingii, Ecclesiae Belgicae quae est Londini Quondam Pastoris (‘An Epitaph to Ruytinck, who was Formerly Pastor of the Dutch Church, which is in London’) (Huygens 1892–9: I, 206–7). 294 CHAPTER 6

And whilst I write this, and in the green valleys By the Yare’s cool stream, I get a breath of air And return to the City through the thick Woods, I am entertained by the Choir of Nightingales . . .

The second was a shorter poem, Treur-dicht op het ontijdigh overlijden van den Hooghgeleerden ende Godvruchtigen D. IOANNES ELISONIUS, Getrou Bedienaer der Neder-Duytsche Gemeynte CHRISTI in NORWITS (‘Elegy on the untimely death of the most learned and pious Revd. Johannes Elison, Faithful Servant of the Dutch Community of Christ in Norwich’). It consists of 144 lines of alternating masculine and feminine alexandrines with the caesura after the third iamb and is a much bolder poetic enterprise than his earlier elegy, demonstrating his development as a Dutch poet (see Appendix 1). In 1655 Cruso published a collection of 221 Dutch epigrams entitled EPIGRAMMATA Ofte Winter-Avondts Tyt-korting (‘EPIGRAMS or Pastimes for a Winter’s Evening’) (Cruso 1655). I discuss these in detail elsewhere (Joby 2014c), but make a couple of points about them here. First, there are several references in the collection to people whom Cruso knew; one being the late minister of the Dutch church in Norwich, Johannes Elison, whom we have already met, and the other being the minister of the Dutch church in Colchester, Jan/ Jonas Proost, some of whose own poetry is discussed below. Cruso also refers to Norwich in another epigram, calling it Noorde-Wijck, a common rendering in English Dutch sources, possibly influenced by the lack of the phoneme /ʧ/ in Early New Dutch (Goossens 1974: 87).24 Cruso’s Dutch epigrams draw on many classical sources such as Martial, Horace and the Greek Anthology and Neo-Latin sources such as Erasmus, Théodore Beza and John Owen (see Appendix 1). In a couple of cases, he takes his inspiration from the same sources that Dutch poets, such as Huygens and Jeremias de Decker, use for their epigrams. A comparative study between Cruso’s use of these sources and that of (other) Dutch poets could produce some interesting results. Finally, on a linguistic note, Cruso indulged in frequent tag switching, giving many of his Dutch epigrams Latin titles.25 We hear nothing more of Cruso after the publication of these epigrams and it may well be that he died shortly after 1655.

24 Although Goossens does not list this phoneme, it may be that it was pronounced for diminutives ending in -tje, e.g., maatje. However, we can perhaps say at least that /ʧ/ was absent in Early New Dutch in the word-(final) position. 25 For more on tag switching and other forms of code switching, see Adams (2003: 21–4). Dutch Literature 295

6.2.5 Jan Proost Jan Proost knew Jan Cruso well and indeed, as we have just seen, was the subject of one of Cruso’s epigrams. He was baptized at the Dutch church in London on June 22 1572, matriculated as a student of theology at Leiden University on August 14 1592, and was minister of the Dutch church in Colchester from c. 1601–1644. Towards the end of 1644, he was called to the London church to become a minister there. He died in 1668 and was buried on 4 August at St. Nicholas’ Church, Colchester (Moens 1905: 89). Proost wrote a number of Dutch sonnets. One of these appears in Simeon Ruytinck’s history of the Dutch in England, Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen. It marks the death in 1603 of Assuerus van Regenmortel, which, as we have seen, was also referred to by Jacob Cool in his poem on the London plague of that year. The sonnet is written in pentameters, with the rhyme scheme abba, cddc, ee, fggf (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 178). Proost was clearly close to Ruytinck, for three other poems by him, which are discussed here, all have some relation to him. In 1612 Ruytinck published a book, which set out to reject certain aspects of Roman Catholic practice and tradition, in particular the stories contained in the Golden Legend (see section 3.2.2.1) (Ruytinck 1612). The work contains a number of poems in Dutch including some by Ambrosius van Regenmortel (c.1583–1639), a minister of the Dutch church in London, and son of the abovementioned Assuerus. The first of Proost’s poems in the book is entitled Op de Gulden Legende, aen de Waerheyd beproeft, door den Eerweirdighen ende zeer gheleerden Symeon Ruytinck (‘On the Golden Legend, tested for the Truth, by the Reverend and very learned Simeon Ruytinck’). The poem is in fact composed of six numbered sonnets, so could be seen as six poems rather than one. Each poem is written in pentameters, with the same rhyme scheme, abba, cddc, ee, fggf, that Proost used in his sonnet on the death of Assuerus van Regenmortel. The anti-Catholic sentiment expressed by Proost in his sonnets echoes that of Ruytinck’s text. Immediately after these six sonnets in Ruytinck’s book, there is another poem by Proost, simply entitled De selve opt selve (‘The same on the same’). This poem consists of 28 lines of octosyllabic rhyming couplets. It draws parallels between Catholic practice and alchemy and contains examples of wordplay of which Constantijn Huygens might have been proud. For example, he writes that for the Alcumist (‘Alchemist’) everything goes Al-ghemist (‘completely wrong’) (lines 1 and 5) (see Appendix 1). In the 1622 collection of elegies to mark Ruytinck’s death, mentioned above, there is a poem by Proost. He casts himself and Ruytinck’s London congregation as orphans who have lost their father as a result of Ruytinck’s death. 296 CHAPTER 6

The verse is 48 lines long and is written in alternating masculine and feminine rhyming alexandrine couplets (see Appendix 1). Proost was a competent Dutch poet, who wrote sonnets with a relative ease. His work would perhaps never join that of the great poets of the Golden Age, but nevertheless deserves more attention than it has hitherto received. Cruso and Proost are perhaps the last representatives of a poetic lineage in the Dutch communities in England stretching back to the early days of their existence in the second half of the sixteenth century. No further Dutch poetry by people born in England in this period has come to light. The verse of Colius, Cruso and Proost has a number of common features. Much of it has religious subject matter. This should not surprise us as Colius and Cruso were church elders, and Proost was a minister in Dutch Reformed churches in England. Both Colius and Cruso wrote verse inspired by the Psalms, whilst Proost’s religious poetry was more polemical. Each of them contributed a Dutch elegy to mark the passing of Simeon Ruytinck, with whom they were all well acquainted. All three poets adopted newer forms of verse; Colius and Cruso writing alexandrines and Proost sonnets. Some of their verse, such as Cruso’s collection of epigrams, stands apart from the work of the other two poets, but taken as a whole, the Dutch verses they wrote in England have much in common. Poets from the United Provinces visited England in the seventeenth century and wrote a number of Dutch poems there. Of these we shall consider the work of five authors: Constantijn Huygens, Abraham Booth, Jan Six van Chandelier, Franciscus Junius and Johannes Vollenhove. In the introduction to this chapter I considered a possible objection to a discussion of the work of Huygens and Vollenhove in this context as their work has already been dealt with elsewhere. Some might even ask what a discussion of the works of Dutch poets has to do with a study of the Dutch language in Britain. After all, it might be argued, Huygens and Vollenhove were not members of Dutch communities there. In response I would repeat a point made earlier that this book offers a history of a language, not a people, in a particular geographical context. In each chapter consideration is given to the various ways in which Dutch was used in early modern Britain and in this chapter we consider how it was used in literature.

6.2.6 Constantijn Huygens Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) was one of the leading Dutch poets of the seventeenth century. He worked as secretary to two stadholders between 1625 and 1650. Before taking on this role he visited England four times on diplomatic missions, learning how to be an administrator for the Dutch Republic and also making valuable cultural and political contacts in England, amongst whom were John Donne and Ben Jonson. He visited the country three more Dutch Literature 297 times after 1650 in the service of the House of Orange, on the last occasion in 1670–1671 accompanying William, Prince of Orange, who would later become King of England, Scotland and Ireland. We have Dutch poems from all but one of Huygens’ visits to England. Huygens made his first visit to England in 1618 accompanying Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador to The Hague. Prior to this most of the poetry we have by Huygens was in Latin. As with other poets in this period, for Huygens there was clearly competition between Latin and vernacular languages. He also wrote a small amount of poetry in French before 1618 and a handful of poems in Dutch.26 However, what is striking is that all the Dutch poems that he wrote before 1618 were either translations or self-translations. Of the surviving verse, the first poem that he composed in Dutch was one that he wrote in England. This was Doris oft Herder-clachte (‘Doris, or Pastoral Lament’), which is 204 lines long, written in heptasyllables arranged into sestains. The poem alludes to his relationship with his sweetheart from The Hague, Dorothée van Dorp, referred to here as ‘Doris’ (Huygens 2001: 107–9).27 To my mind the question must at least be asked as to why it was that the first surviving original Dutch verse written by Huygens was composed not in the United Provinces, but in England. There may be a couple of reasons for this. First, it may simply be the case that it was whilst he was in England that Huygens felt ready to write Dutch verse. It was clearly not easy to do this, or at least not easy to write good Dutch verse. In 1616 the classical scholar Daniel Heinsius published a collection of Dutch poetry, Nederduytsche Poemata, of which Huygens himself was later somewhat critical.28 Huygens also tells us that Janus Dousa, a successful Latin poet, found it difficult to write poetry in Dutch (Huygens 1987: 122–3). Huygens himself had begun with translations and self-translations into Dutch verse, and from an early translation, of two passages from Du Bartas’ La sepmaine ou Creation du monde, we can see that he initially had trouble in mastering the Dutch alexandrine (Huygens 2001: 93). It may be that he then began to practise composing his own Dutch verse, which no longer survives. Despite his criticism of Heinsius’ Dutch verse, Huygens was certainly inspired by it as it showed him that it was possible to compose verse in his native tongue. By 1618, on his first visit to London, it may be that he was

26 One important reason why he wrote much of his early poetry in Latin and French was that he received an extensive private education in both languages and this poetry was a fruit of that education (Joby 2014f: Chapter 2). 27 Unless otherwise stated, all references to this work are to Part 2 (Deel 2). 28 Heinsius’ collection would provide a model for the father of German poetry, Martin Opitz, who published his Buch von der Deutschen Poeterey in 1624. 298 CHAPTER 6 ready to write more ambitious Dutch verse, such as Doris oft Herder-clachte. It may also be the case that he had time on his hands in London, which afforded him the opportunity to attend seriously to composing Dutch verse. However, I also want to suggest that something else may have been going on for Huygens during his first visit to London. We know that he attended the Dutch church in London and probably associated with members of the Dutch community in London. One person he may have met was Jacobus Colius, who, as we have seen, had already been composing Dutch verse successfully for many years. Did Colius, or other colleagues writing Dutch verse in London, provide inspiration to Huygens? We shall probably never know, but it is certainly worth noting that he wrote the first Dutch verse that we have not in the United Provinces, but in London. Huygens wrote poems in Latin during his first and subsequent visits to England. However, he continued to write Dutch verse there, too. On his second visit to England in 1621 he wrote a Dutch sonnet in alexandrines to his fellow poet, P.C. Hooft (Huygens 2001: 222–7). In the poem Huygens praises the Dutch lyric by saying that it is easier for a Dutch song, or more specifically a song from Holland (een Hollandts liedt), to dampen north-west showers and stir a south-east wind than it is for a Greek lute. This can be seen as part of an ongoing debate at this time about the relative merits of the vernacular and classical languages. In some cases Huygens wrote poetry in dialects of Dutch, adding to the range of ‘Dutches’ used in early modern England, an important theme in this book. On 8 April 1621 he wrote a 176-line poem in the Haags Delflands sub-dialect of Hollands, used in and around his hometown of The Hague (Hermkens 2011: 120).29 Huygens addressed the poem to a friend of his, Maeyke de Bye, and in it he makes reference to England as follows (lines 13–16; Huygens 2001: 227–35):

Troosje, laetje niet mishande Dat ick uijtte vreemde Landen, Daerme rontom water siet, Daerme mannen Engels hiet . . .

Dear girl, don’t be troubled, That I [write to you] from strange Lands, Where you can see water all around, Where they call men Angels . . .

29 Hermkens argues that although a burgerdialect, Haags, can be identified, it differed little from that of the surrounding countryside of Delfland. Dutch Literature 299

The Dutch morpheme, Engel, which forms part of the Dutch words for ‘England’ (Engeland), ‘English’ (Engels) etc., is a homonym of the Dutch word for ‘angel’, something which was a source of some amusement to Huygens, a great lover of puns, and a coincidence that he exploits here as well as elsewhere in a couple of poems he wrote on subsequent visits to England. The poem is replete with the diminutive forms -(t)ge(n) and -(t)gie(n), particularly common in the Hollands dialect (Weijnen 1965: 24–5; 54, Willemyns 2013: 75).30 We see this in the first four lines, where he uses these forms three times, notably in line three, in which Huygens plays on the addressee’s name, calling her Heunich-bietge (‘Little honey bee’):

Roose mongkie, krale lipgies, Venus aes, Cupidoos knipgies, Heunich-bietge, suycker-tong, Zoo vernuftich en soo jong.

Rose-coloured mouth, coral lips Venus’ bait, Cupid’s tongs, Little honey bee, sugar tongue, So clever and so young.

Huygens returned to England for a third time in December 1621 as the secretary to a group of envoys from the United Provinces, who were going to London in order to seek James I’s support for the Dutch Republic. Huygens would remain in England for over a year and during this period made significant progress as a poet. Arguably Huygens’ most significant literary achievement during his third visit to London was the production of the Dutch poem, ’Tcostelijck Mall (‘Costly Folly’), which he dedicated to the poet and statesman, Jacob Cats, whom we met in Chapter 5 (Huygens 2001: 299–385). The poem, which runs to some 496 lines of rhyming alexandrine couplets, is a satire on the aping of foreign fashions by the young people of The Hague, who wear slashed breeches (Een opgesnoeijde broeck line 1) and Spanish collars (Een opgekrulde strop line 4). The poem was inspired by a sermon given in English by John Williams. The

30 Opinion differs as to whether these suffixes were merely orthographical variants or markers of phonological difference. Hermkens (2011: 126) calls them ‘orthographical relics’, whilst Judith Nobels (2013: 203) comments that the spelling -ge ‘suggest[s] a stage in the transition from velar -ke to palatal -je’. Whether the suffix -kie in mongkie belongs to the –gie(n) group of suffixes would require further investigation (cf. Nobels 2013: 200). 300 CHAPTER 6 sermon itself was delivered on 22 February 1619, and so Huygens would not have been able to hear it when Williams first gave it. However, it was published in London in 1620, and it is clear that Huygens had access to a copy of the published work. In the sermon, Williams used the biblical text, Matthew 11:8, as his starting point. Huygens records this in manuscript as ‘What went you out to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that beare soft clothing are in Kings houses’. He in turn uses this as the starting point for his satire on fashion (Huygens 2001: 300).31 Once again Huygens exploits the homophony between the Dutch morpheme Engel (‘Angel’) and the Dutch word for England (Engeland). We see this in lines 179–180 of ’Tcostelijck Mall,

’Tonschuldich wolle-vee van ’t machtigh Engel-Eijlandt Besuert ons’ hoofvaerdij . . .

The innocent wool-flock of the mighty Angel-Island Bemoans our haughtiness . . .

Huygens adds to the list of languages he used in England by writing the first two words of the title to this poem in Greek: Kερκυραία μάστιξ. The rest of the title is in Dutch, a further example of tag switching. The Greek phrase translates literally as ‘Corcyraean scourge’, an extremely elaborate scourge described in detail by the Ancient Greek geographer, Strabo (Geography, vii, Fragments, iv) (fig. 19). On 15 May 1622 (N.S.) Huygens wrote a 116-line Dutch poem in rhyming alexandrine couplets, which he addressed to P.C. Hooft, mentioned above, and two sisters, Anna and Tessel-schade Vischer.32 In the poem Huygens a lifelong Calvinist, praises the rejection of transubstantiation by the English church (Huygens 2001: 386–95). In late May or early June 1622 Huygens wrote a 28-line Dutch verse in alexandrines, which is based on the first seven verses of the first chapter of Lamentations. Above it was noted that Huygens knew John Donne well and it may well be that this work was inspired by Donne’s ‘Lamentations’ (Huygens 2001: 397–8; Streekstra 1994).

31 The sermon by Williams was published as A Sermon of Apparell, Preached before the Kings Maiestie and the Prince his Highnesse at Theobalds, the 22. of February, 1619 (London, Printed by John Bill, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie M.D.C.xx). This can be consulted online at the eebo website, although the wording of the online edition differs on occasion from the wording used in Huygens’ quotations. 32 The dates that Huygens gives for his poems, even in England, are typically in the New Style. Dutch Literature 301 a, 1622, fol. 8r , ka xl a, 1622, The final manuscript page of ’Tcostelijck Mall. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek kw Bibliotheek The Hague, Koninklijke Mall. of page The final manuscript ’Tcostelijck figure 19 302 CHAPTER 6

Towards the end of this third diplomatic mission to England Huygens became homesick and longed to return to his native country. He sought conso- lation in the Psalms, and they provided the inspiration for his next significant poetic enterprise in Dutch, De Uytlandighe Herder (‘The Shepherd in Exile’). Here Huygens casts himself as a young Dutch shepherd boy stranded on the coast of Southern England, who tells the tide to carry news of his situation back to the shores of his homeland. It begins (Huygens 2001: 401 ff., ll. 1–4 and 15–16):

Aende blancke Britter stranden, Daer de Son ten Zuijden blaeckt, Daer de vlacke Vlaender-landen, Eertijds laghen aengehaeckt ...... Lagh een hollandtsch herder-jonghen Droeffelick ter neer gevelt.

On the white British shores, Where the Sun blazes in the South, To which the flat lands of Flanders, Were once attached ...... Lay a shepherd boy from Holland Struck down with sadness.

Returning briefly to a subject discussed earlier in this chapter, the sense of longing for his homeland that Huygens expresses in this poem suggests that it could be included within the looser definition of ‘Exile Literature’, with which some Dutch scholars work (cf. Huygens 2001: 401–3). The diplomatic mission, for which Huygens had acted as secretary, finally returned home on 13 February 1623. He wrote further Dutch poems in London before his departure, including a 120-line poem, in which each line consists of one or at most two words (Huygens 2001: 429–33); and a 16-line verse in alexandrines to a former mayor of Rotterdam, Hendrik Nobel (Huygens 2001: 433–4). Huygens also wrote poems in Dutch on his later visits to England. During a visit in 1663 he wrote a Dutch ode in rhyming alexandrine couplets to an English spinning-wheel (Op een Engelsch Spinnewieltje) (Huygens 1892–9: vii, 62–3). On his final visit to England, in 1670–1671, Huygens wrote many short Dutch poems. A selection of these is discussed here. On 8 January 1671 Huygens wrote a Dutch couplet on Oliver Cromwell. He had found Cromwell’s involvement in the execution of Charles I in 1649 despicable. In 1660 Cromwell’s corpse had been exhumed and was hanged Dutch Literature 303 at Tyburn. His head was then placed on a spike, which was raised above the tower of Westminster Hall, where it remained until 1685. In this couplet, as in a number of other short poems, which Huygens had written about Cromwell, he plays a word game with his name (Huygens 1892–9: vii, 317):

Hoe siet het hoofd soo suer dat hier staet op den Toren? Als ’t Olivier ontviel was hij niet wel geschoren.

Why does the head that stands here on the Tower look so disagreeable? When Oliver passed away, he was not well shaven.

The Dutch Olivier means ‘oil fire’ and this alludes to the fact that for Huygens, (Oliver) Cromwell poured oil on the fire of England’s troubles, a point he made explicit in a satirical epitaph for ‘Protector Olivier’ that he wrote in 1660 (Huygens 1892–9: vi, 272). Huygens was fluent in English and it is surprising that he did not write more verse in English (only 200 lines of his English verse survive). On 8 January he also wrote one of the few surviving lines of English poetry from his time in England. In fact, it is a half-line, another example of Huygens’ frequent code switching, which forms part of a short nonsense poem otherwise written in Dutch (Huygens 1892–9: vii, 317):

Trijn biechten onder meest haer’ sonden, dat s’ in ’t Hoij Geraeckt was onverhoeds with a fine English Boij. (Lines 1–2).

Trijn confessed amongst her many sins that she had unexpectedly Ended up in the hay with a fine English Boy.

On 15 January, (5 January O.S.), Huygens wrote a poem with an English title ‘English Christmas’. Although one might expect the poem to be in English, Huygens, in another case of code switching, wrote it in Dutch. This allows him to play one of his favourite word games, with the morpheme mis, which can mean ‘wrong/amiss’ as well as ‘mass’ as in the Catholic sacrament and the suffix of a number of Christian festivals (Joby 2010: 183). In this poem Huygens berates the English for their irreligious celebration of Christmas. He concludes with the lines,

Wel hoe, Gemannen is dat Christmas? Mij dunckt het is de heele Christ mis. 304 CHAPTER 6

This could be translated as follows:

Well then, ladies and gentlemen, is that Christmas? I think it’s completely Christ-miss (i.e., lacking in Christ).

On the same day Huygens wrote a couple of Dutch quatrains inspired by the fact that he was in England. The first of these is entitled Engelsche Wet (‘English Law’). It begins:

De Mans in Engeland zijn Meesters van de Wijven Haer erffelicke goed, maer sij, schijnt, van haer’ lijven . . .

The men in England are Masters of their Wives’ Property, but the wives, it seems, [are Masters] of their bodies . . .

In the second Dutch quatrain Huygens makes reference to the consequences for London of the Great Fire of 1666. It is entitled Beslyckt Londen (‘Muddy London’) (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 1):

Oud Londen is door ’t Vier geloutert als metael, En ’tscheelt van dat het was niet anders als fijn Stael Van afgesleten Lood: maer, als wij ’tseggen moeten, Wat is een’ schoone Vrouw met stincken-vuijle voeten?

Old London has been purified like metal by the Fire, And it differs from what it was to no less extent than fine Steel From worn-out Lead: but, if we must say it, What is a beautiful Woman with stinking, dirty feet?

I wonder if this reflects the reputed Dutch concern for cleanliness! On 27 January Huygens wrote a Dutch couplet entitled Vinnigh Schouw-spel te Londen (‘A Biting Play in London’). He did not record which play he saw, but from the couplet, it is clear that there was a good deal of dramatic action in it (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 5):

Ick schroom voor d’Engelschen haer spel met stael of stock; Het volck slaet en verscheurt malkanderen om ’tjock.

I fear the English from their playing with steel or stick; The people beat and tear each other apart for a joke. Dutch Literature 305

A short time later Huygens wrote a poem commemorating the execution of Charles I in 1649, an event, which, as noted above, he abhorred. The lines, which tell us most about Huygens’ attitude to the execution, are three and four, in which he also makes reference to the fact that Charles had been King of England, Scotland and Ireland (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 8):

Was ’t heden dats’ een Bijl drij Croonen in een’ slagh Met een geheilight Hoofd onmenschlick vellen sagh?

Was it today that she (i.e., the Sun) saw an Axe, with one blow, Inhumanely fell three Crowns and a holy Head?

On 21 March Huygens wrote a poem that makes further reference to the Great Fire of 1666. Here, he plays on the fact that foreigners were often accused of starting the fire. It is entitled ‘London’s Fire’ (Londens Vyer), and as often is the case, we should not take Huygens’ conclusion too seriously (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 12):

Heel Londen heeft gebrandt en nu noch brandt heel Londen. Beschuldight Frans noch Duijtsch; ick heb het ondervonden Wie dat men ’t wijten kan: Half Venus, half haer Man.

All of London has burnt and all of London still burns. Blame neither French nor German; I have uncovered Who can be blamed: Half Venus, and half her Husband.33

On 3 August Huygens wrote a Dutch couplet, in which he reflects once more on Cromwell’s disinterred head. It is entitled ‘Cromwell’s Head on the Tower of Westminster Hall’ (Cromwels Hoofd op Westmunster Sael-Toren):

Dit hoofd wouw ’topperhoofd van alle hoofden leven. Hier is het half geluckt, daer schort niet aen als ’tLeven.

This head wanted to live as the head above all heads. Here, it has half succeeded, it lacks nothing but Life.

33 Duijtsch (l. 2) is translated as ‘German’, although it could also refer to those who spoke Neder-duijtsch, i.e., the Dutch. 306 CHAPTER 6

Two days later, in an eight-line Dutch poem, Huygens returns to the morpheme Engel, although on this occasion he also exploits the fact that in Dutch the first syllable, Eng, means ‘narrow’ (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 35):

Men kan ’t met recht geen Eng land heeten: ’t Volck isser wijd en ruijm geseten. Veel fraeyer noemtmen ’t Engel land. Maer ’twoord is dobbel van verstand’. Daer zijn twee soorten van die Geesten. Daer zijnder diemen niet en vreest, en Daer zijn der diemen noode siet. Ick denck wel wat, maer segg het niet.

It cannot rightly be called a Narrow land: The people there are spread wide and far. It is more apt to call it Angel land. But the word has a double meaning. There are two kinds of those Spirits. There are those one does not fear, and There are those one does not gladly meet. I am in fact thinking something, but will not say what.

On 5 September Huygens wrote a Dutch quatrain on the fashion in London of aping the French, entitled Fransche Mode te Londen (‘French Fashion in London’). He writes that the French are called dogs in London, and then wonders aloud why Londoners are happy to ape the French and thus behave like dogs (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 50). On 8 September Huygens wrote an eighteen- line Dutch poem, entitled Engelsche Wandeling (‘English Walk’), again possibly playing on the morpheme Engel, in which he describes a walk to his residence in London. He had been to visit Gilbert Sheldon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he had struck up a good friendship. In the poem he makes reference to a number of features of London’s landscape. His journey starts at Canterberghs hoog Hof (‘Canterbury’s high Court’ (another variation in Dutch on the toponym ‘Canterbury’)), which one assumes to be a reference to Lambeth Palace. He walks along Londens schoone Teems (‘London’s beautiful Thames’), across groote Londen-brugg (‘big London Bridge’), through lange Londens Bosch (‘London’s long Wood’) and finally reaches Charing Cross, near to where he was staying (Huygens 1892–9: viii, 52).34

34 When the poem was published, this was changed to Whitehall. Dutch Literature 307

In concluding this discussion, we can say that Constantijn Huygens wrote over 3,000 lines of Dutch verse in England. This represents more than 7% of the verse he wrote in the language.35 Most of those that have been discussed here were inspired by some aspect of life in England, and, arguably, would not have been written if he had not visited the country. We also see the use of dialect, in this case the Haags Delflands sub-dialect of Hollands in the poem addressed to Maeyke de Bye.

6.2.7 Abraham Booth Abraham Booth of Utrecht (1606–1636) was the secretary of a voc delegation to London during protracted negotiations, which started in 1629, the main aim of which was to normalize relations between the English and Dutch East India Companies in the wake of the Amboyna massacre in 1623. Booth also wrote verse. In London on 14 May 1629 he penned a 126-line Rijm-Dicht (‘Rhyming poem’) in alternating masculine and feminine alexandrines, with the caesura after the third iamb.36 The verse celebrated the wedding of his brother, Cornelis, which his voc duties had clearly caused him to miss (Merens 1942: 262–4). The poem begins:

Des leevens graege lust, die welvernoechde sinnen Van Damon voor een wijl had doen de boecken minnen, En als nu lang sijn wensch, en als nu lang sijn geest In ’t Leytse Helicon beslooten was geweest . . .

The happy lust for life; Damon’s contented senses Had loved to study books for a while, But when his pleasure in his mind had Been locked up in the Leiden Helicon for a long time . . .

Booth continues by telling us that his brother, referred to here as Damon, then went to France (de Fransche cust). A little later he praises the bride, Amelia van Oord, here referred to as ‘Doris’:

35 He wrote over 48,000 lines of poetry in Dutch, of which some 3400 were written in England (Van Seggelen 1987: 72). 36 Rijm-Dicht. Vervatende onder den naem van Damon en Doris de vrijage ende ’t geluckelijck gevolchde Huwelijck vanden welgeleerden, voorsienigen ende discreten Heer Cornelis Boot, Doctor in de Medicijnen met De Veel Eerbare ende Deuchtrijcke Juffrouwe Amelia van Oort, Jonge Dochter in echte vergadert binnen Utrecht den xxvi May Anno mdcxxix. 308 CHAPTER 6

’t Is niet gemeens, gy siet, ’t is Doris ’t waerde pant Een wonder van ons eeuw een peerel van ons lant.

It is nothing common, you see, it is Doris the true pledge A miracle of our age, a pearl of our land.

He concludes by apologizing for his absence and wishing his brother all the best in his new married life:

Gaet dan Damon, gaet heen, de nieuwe vreucht vermeeren, En maeckt doch, als ick mach, tot Uwaerts wederkeeren, Dat ick, iae yeder een, uuyt Doris aensien leest, Dat gy in mijn affsijn, niet ledich sijt geweest.

Go then Damon, go hither, to multiply the new joy, and make it so that when I return to you, I and everyone can read from Doris’ appearance, that you have not been idle in my absence.

Clearly, Booth expected Amelia (Doris) to be pregnant on his return. The coda is in Latin with a concluding couplet in Dutch octosyllabic lines, both examples of code switching:

Vivite felices animis concudibus (sic.) optat F[rater] V[ester] A[braham] E[verhardsz.] B[ooth]37 ’k Wensch U beyde dat U leyt Tot vreucht en tot zalicheyt.

Your brother Abraham Everhardsz. Booth wishes you to live happily with harmonious minds I wish you both that which leads you To joy and to happiness.

Booth died prematurely in 1636, so we are deprived of more of his Dutch verse. We return to him below in the section on Dutch prose.

37 Concudibus given in the transcription should read concordibus, from concors, ‘harmonious’. Dutch Literature 309

6.2.8 Franciscus Junius Another Dutchman who wrote Dutch verse in England was the scholar, Franciscus Junius, some of whose personal letters in Dutch were discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.1.4). He spent much of his adult life in England, where from 1620 onwards he was employed by Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, as a tutor to his son, and later as his librarian. He remained in England until 1642, when, on the deposition of Charles I, he departed for the Low Countries with Howard and his wife. In 1639, when he was in London, Junius wrote a Dutch verse, which was a dedicatory poem to the stadholder, Prince Frederik Hendrik. He prefixed it to his work on art history, De Schilder-Konst der oude begrepen in drie boeken (‘Fine art of the ancients in three books’), which was a self-translation of his De Pictura Veterum published in Middelburg in 1641 (Van Romburgh 2004: 1066–9). The poem begins with Junius addressing his book, a conceit we find in the verse of classical poets such as Martial, with which Junius would have been familiar (Epigrams I.iii):

Iunius aen sijn Boek Gaet mijn Boeck, gaet met der yl, Wacht niet nae de laetste vijl . . .

Junius to his book: Go, my book, go quickly, Do not wait until the last file . . .

The poem concludes with a laudatory, perhaps even obsequious, address to Frederik Hendrik:

Groote Prins soo ghy vertoeft Yemand die u eert als ’t hoeft, Ghy vertoeft een (voor ghewis) Die noch niet ghebooren is.

Great Prince, if you wait for someone Who honours you as is appropriate, You (truly) wait for one Who has not yet been born.

6.2.9 Jan Six van Chandelier Jan Six van Chandelier (1620–1695) was, like Jan Cruso and Jacobus Colius, a mercator poetans. He owned a business in dried spices and went on business trips to Spain, Italy and England (Schenkeveld-van der Dussen 1991: 21). He 310 CHAPTER 6 made two visits to England in 1654 and 1655, writing a number of Dutch poems. On the second visit in the autumn of 1655 he arrived at the port of Colchester and stayed in the town for a short while before travelling on to London and Northamptonshire. Colchester is famous for its oysters and Six van Chandelier celebrated a fine meal of them in the town with his poem Oesters te Kolchester (‘Oysters in Colchester’), consisting of 38 octosyllabic lines (see Appendix 1 and Schenkeveld-van der Dussen 1991: 45; 168–9). In London he wrote several Dutch poems. One of these was Mildicheit aan Tomas Alein, Sjerif Van Londen (‘Generosity. To Thomas Alleyn, Sheriff of London’). As the title suggests, the poem celebrates the warm reception Six van Chandelier received when he visited the English capital (Six van Chandelier 1991: 746). He also wrote an epistolary poem to his mother, Brief, aan myne Moeder, from London (Six van Chandelier 1991: 770). Beede, aan Karel Gabry, om syn geselschap ter middaghmaal (‘Supplication. To Karel (Charles) Gabry for his company at lunch’) is a poetic invitation to a meal in Six van Chandelier’s temporary lodgings on either his first or second visit to London (Six van Chandelier 1991: 768). Little is known about the circumstances in which Six van Chandelier wrote Afbeeldinge van Eduward Gournei, door Vincentius Malo (‘Likeness of Edward Gurney by Vincentius Malo’). However, the subject was probably related to John Gurney, whom the poet visited in Northamptonshire during his second period in England (Six van Chandelier 1991: 764). Afscheid van Engeland (‘Departure from England’), which celebrates the country’s status as a leading producer of textiles at this time, was written on the poet’s departure after his first or second visit to England (Six van Chandelier 1991: 773). He wrote Onweer, op weerom- reis, uit Engeland, aan matroos (‘Storm, on the return journey from England. To a sailor’) on his journey back to the United Provinces after his first visit to England in 1654 drawing a parallel between his predicament and the storm on the Sea of Galilee (t meeir van Galile) that Jesus and his disciples encountered in the Gospel of Matthew (8:23–27) (Six van Chandelier 1991: 774).

6.2.10 Johannes Vollenhove Johannes Vollenhove (1631–1708) was a minister in The Hague, who accompanied a diplomatic mission to England in 1674 as a preacher. During his time in England he wrote a journal, which is considered below, and some epistolary poems (rijmbrieven) to his fellow preacher in The Hague, Simon Simonides (Porteman and Smits-Veldt 2009: 760–1). For example, on 16 August he responded to a letter from Simonides with Brief aan den Heer Simon Simonides, Predikant in ’s-Gravenhage (‘Letter to Mr. Simon Simonides, Preacher in The Hague’), which was 90 lines long (Vollenhove 2001: 64). On 28 August he wrote another rijmbrief to Simonides. It consisted of 40 lines of alexandrine couplets and makes reference to a number of well-known sights in southern England: Dutch Literature 311

Zo schoon alom te zien? Of Karel prachtig hof, Waar voor de moortbyl zelf den eersten Karel trof? Of Londen met zyn brug, paleizen, kerkgewelven, Veel trotster na dien brant, een werelt op zich zelven? Of langs den Teemskant hier den kristalynen vliet . . . (Lines 3–7)

Is it so beautiful to look at all around? Whether Charles’ splendid court, In front of which the deadly axe itself met the first Charles? Or London with its bridge, palaces, church domes, Much more proud after that fire, a world in itself? Or along the banks of the Thames here, the crystalline river . . .

Further references to Windsor and Eton College suggest that Vollenhove was particularly taken by the English countryside along the Thames west of London. He published both these poems in his 1686 collection, Poëzy (Dibbets 2007: 175–7). Whilst in England Vollenhove also wrote a poem on the installation of Arnold Moonen as minister of the church at Hardenberg. He gave it the title Groete van den Teems aan de Vecht, over d’inwydinge van den here Arnold Monen tot leraar der kerke van den Hardenberg (‘Greetings from the Thames to the Vecht on the installation of Mr. Arnold Monen as preacher of the church at Hardenberg’) (Dibbets 2007: 187). He also wrote a rijmbrief on 16 October to celebrate the birthday of Kornelia Pauw van Achtienhoven, the godmother of his daughter, Cornelia. The lyricism of this poet, who has been likened to arguably the greatest Dutch Golden Age poet, Joost van den Vondel, can be seen in the opening couplets (Dibbets 2007: 216–7):

O milt bedaude roos van ’t vruchtbaar ACHTIENHOVEN, Gelyk een fenixbloem in Hollants tuin te loven38 Verrykt met geur en glans van allerhande goet, Dat zelden zich so veel in enen mensche ontmoet . . .

O generously dewed rose of fecund ACHTIENHOVEN, To be praised like a Phoenix flower in Holland’s garden Enriched with scent and sheen from all sorts of goods, That rarely meet each other so much in one person . . .

This poem was also published in 1686. Finally, Vollenhove clearly had much time on his hands during his stay in England, for he exchanged many letters

38 Dibbets glosses Fenixbloem as uitzonderlijke bloem; an exceptional flower. 312 CHAPTER 6 with relatives and friends, such as Vondel’s biographer, Geeraerdt Brandt (Dibbets 2007: 174).

6.2.11 John Lagniel: Author of Two Dutch Songs Dutch verse of a quite different order was written by John Lagniel in Sandwich in 1656 (H 87: iii, ii, 2322). He composed two songs in response to an ongoing dispute at Sandwich and sent these to the Dutch church in London. The first song consists of fifteen rhyming couplets. The second song consists of 28 couplets containing answers or echoes to the first. The first song (Liediken) was to be sung in the manner of Ter eeren van alle vrowkens fijn (‘In honour of all fine little women’), presumably a well-known ballad. We get a flavour of it and of the second song with the opening couplets:

Waer toe alle desen woorden strijt Diemen nu gebruuckt tot deser tijt Laet ons doen naer Godes vermaen Ghelijck wij geeren selfs werden ghedaen.

Why all these words of discord Which are used at this time Let’s do as God has exhorted As we desire to be done to ourselves.

Lagniel clearly ended up on the wrong side of the argument, for he was forced to confess his fault in writing the second song before he could receive the Lord’s Supper again (H 87: iii, ii, 2347).

6.2.12 English Poets Writing Dutch Finally, although English people wrote poetry in languages other than English, for example Latin, French and Italian, there is very little Dutch verse by English poets from this period. George Gascoigne was an English poet who knew at least some Dutch. Like his fellow English poet, Ben Jonson, he went to the Low Countries to fight for the Dutch Revolt. At the end of March 1572 Gascoigne boarded a ship with a Dutch captain and crew at Queenborough in Kent to sail to Den Briel. The ship ran aground off Den Briel and more than 20 of the crew perished, though not Gascoigne. He wrote a poem on this episode entitled ‘Gascoignes voyage into Hollande. An. 1572. Written to the right honourable the Lorde Grey of Wilton’, which includes the lines (Huizinga 1948–53: 352–3), Dutch Literature 313

At last the Dutche with butterbitten jawes, (For so he was a Dutche, a Devill, a swadde, A foole, a drunkarde, or a traytour tone) Gan aunswere thus: Ghij zijt te vroegh here come, Tis niet goet tijt . . .

Strictly speaking, of course, Gascoigne penned this verse in the United Provinces and not in Britain, and so it lies beyond the scope of this book. However, his use of the Dutch phrases Ghij zijt te vroegh (here come) (‘You have (come here) too early’) and Tis niet goet tijt . . . (‘It is not a good time’) suggest that Gascoigne had picked up at least a rudimentary knowledge of the language. He also inserted a couple of phrases in a poem he wrote sometime later in Delft. Andrew Marvell visited the United Provinces on at least two occasions, and he learnt Dutch on his early travels there in the mid-1640s (Neave 1988: 27). In one of his poems he refers to the Dutch as ‘half-anders, half wet and half dry’. We may assume that the term ‘anders’ owes something to the Dutch anders (‘other’). In the previous chapter, I noted that there is uncertainty over the extent to which Marvell’s fellow Latin secretary to the Commonwealth, John Milton, knew Dutch (Burke 1991: 34). J.W. Muller (1939: 92–3) writes that Milton learnt Dutch from Roger Williams, the founder of the American State of Rhode Island, although he provides no further evidence to support this claim. The fact that some commentators hold that Milton did know Dutch has often been used to argue that Joost van den Vondel’s play Lucifer (1654) was one of his sources for ‘Paradise Lost’. However, here too, no conclusive evidence has been found to support this idea. One wonders if Ben Jonson ever wrote any verse in Dutch. As noted above, he spent time in the Low Countries. Furthermore, he probably met Constantijn Huygens during the latter’s early visits to England (Bachrach 1951). He was also involved in the creation of a ceremonial arch for the coronation of Charles I along with members of the Dutch community in London including the architect, Bernard Jansen (see section 5.3.3). Sadly, no Dutch verse by Jonson has come to light. In truth, we have to admit that a very small amount of Dutch verse was written by English people particularly in England during the period under review, although Marvell clearly knew Dutch, and other poets, notably Milton, may have done so. Shortly, we consider the use of Dutch by English playwrights in early modern drama, but first a couple of concluding remarks are in order. 314 CHAPTER 6

6.2.13 Concluding Remarks What I have not attempted to provide here is a comprehensive literary study of Dutch verse in early modern England. Nevertheless, I have examined certain literary features of this verse and suggest that such a study could usefully be carried out based on what has been discussed. My primary objective has been to provide further examples of the extent and manner of the use of Dutch in England in the period under investigation. To this end, I have provided where appropriate comment on linguistic aspects of the verse. Huygens’ use of Haags Delflands in one of his poems adds to the notion that we might more appropriately speak of the use of ‘Dutches’ rather than simply ‘Dutch’ in early modern England. Furthermore, we have seen how Dutch interacted with other languages, notably Latin and English, in verse written in England. Typically accounts of Dutch literature from this period only consider the work of authors writing in Dutch who were born in the Low Countries, or, as in the case of Joost van den Vondel, who were born outside the Low Countries (Cologne in his case), but who subsequently spent the rest of their life there. I have done this, but have also discussed the work of poets, who were born and lived in England, and in one case (Junius), a poet who was born in Germany and subsequently spent much of his career in England.39 The two criteria I have used are that the poetry is written in Dutch and that it was composed in early modern Britain. This has allowed me to discuss epigrams by Jan Cruso (see also Appendix 1) and by Constantijn Huygens. They draw from similar sources and are written in the same form and language. We might reasonably ask why those of Huygens receive detailed academic attention, whilst those of Cruso have received almost none (Joby 2014c). The fate of Cruso’s work and that of Michiel de Swaen is also instructive. De Swaen (1654–1707) lived and worked in Dunkirk. For his entire literary career, this was in French territory. Cruso’s parents came from Hondschoote, which is close to Dunkirk. Like de Swaen he spent most of his life outside the United Provinces and the Spanish Netherlands, yet wrote in Dutch. However, whilst Cruso, as I have noted, receives almost no academic attention, the work of de Swaen has received a good deal. An important edition of de Swaen’s work was published in 1928 by Camille Huysmans, Vital Celen en Maurits Sabbe (Antwerp: De Sikkel). The first of these was a Flemish politician, the latter two well-established Flemish authors. All three men supported the Flemish movement. Did they have an ulterior motive in championing the work of de Swaen, as the cause of Flemish identity was promoted in the twentieth century? Perhaps what Cruso has lacked is someone with a similar profile who could likewise champion his work. Finally, both Jan Six van Chandelier

39 Junius was born in Heidelberg. Dutch Literature 315 and Jan Proost wrote Dutch verse in Colchester. That of Six van Chandelier receives scholarly attention (e.g., Schenkeveld-van der Dussen 1991), whilst that of Proost does not. One inevitably has to ask the question as to whether (late modern) geographical, and indeed political and linguistic, boundaries have played a role in this. Finally, although I have strayed once or twice, I have endeavoured to illustrate how England in some sense acted as a Muse for early modern Dutch poets. Notably, we have seen how Huygens was inspired by various aspects of English life; a sermon by John Williams, the execution of Charles I, the disinterment of Cromwell, the Great Fire, and the banks of the Thames in London, amongst others, to write verse in his vernacular. Likewise, although to a much more limited extent, Jan Cruso, Jan Six van Chandelier and Johannes Vollenhove, all drew inspiration from their surroundings in England to write Dutch verse. In one sense the poetry they wrote in Dutch is clearly Dutch literature, but in another sense the fact that it was written in England and draws inspiration from England means that it has something in common with contemporary English literature; these facts again lead us to challenge the boundaries that have been drawn in literary studies. Let us now consider the use of Dutch in early modern English theatre, and here again we encounter another type of ‘Dutch’ in the mixing of Dutch and English in the work of English playwrights, notably Thomas Dekker.

6.3 Dutch in Plays

As far as I have been able to ascertain, no-one, English or Dutch, wrote a play entirely in Dutch in early modern England. However, several plays contain Dutch words and phrases. In ‘All’s Well that Ends Well’ Shakespeare includes the line ‘Lustique as the Dutchman saies’ (ii, 3), with ‘lustique’ corresponding to the modern Dutch lustig (‘merry/happy’). A Dutch word that was first used in English in the sixteenth century was ‘cannikin’, meaning ‘little beer can’ (oed). Shakespeare uses it in a song sung by Iago in Othello: ‘And let me the cannikin clinke, clinke, clinke . . .’ (ii, 3). Iago says that he learnt the song in England, so by Shakespeare’s time the word may have become fully integrated into English. In John Marston’s ‘The Dutch Courtesan’, entered in the Stationers’ Register in 1605 (Marston 1965: xxv), the title character, Franceschina, drawn from the commedia dell’arte, uses a composite language derived from a number of sources, which Marston employs primarily to indicate that Franceschina is not English. He inserts a few Dutch words including froe (lnd: vrouw ‘woman’) (I, i), 316 CHAPTER 6 ick (‘I’) (V, i), and the form of address, mynheer (‘Sir’) (passim), in Franceschina’s speech. It is reasonable to ask why, given her Italian name and the limited use of Dutch in her speech, Marston calls her ‘The Dutch Courtesan’. One possibility is that licentiousness was often associated with the Dutch. In passing we should add that Franceschina is one of the few female characters given any Dutch by the playwrights under discussion. The poet Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock described German as manly (männlich), and it may be that its close neighbour, Dutch, was seen in a similar light (Burke 2004: 28). In Walter Mountfort’s ‘The Lanchinge of the Mary’ (1632) on the Amboyna Massacre of 1623 we find the line ‘o that Harman van Speult is een schellam in Zijn Hart’ (‘a rogue in his heart’) spoken by the shipyard workman, Sheathing- Nail (l. 100). In Aphra Behn’s ‘The Dutch Lover’ (1673) Haunce van Ezel is referred to in the dramatis personae as ‘A Dutch Fop’ (ezel means ‘ass/donkey’ in Dutch, which is suggestive of a fool, though one wonders how many of the audience members would have picked up this allusion). In Act iv, Scene I, he calls himself Myn heer Haunce and in the same scene a servant refers to him as Myn heer Haunce van Ezel. Later in the scene Haunce summons some Dutch men and women to dance in order to show ‘the brisk gaiety of the Dutch’. Haunce is given a stage direction ‘Sings a Dutch Song’ but we are not told which song he should sing.

6.3.1 Thomas Dekker However, the English playwright who used Dutch most extensively in his works was Thomas Dekker, whose name suggests that he may have had Dutch ancestry (cf. Huizinga 1924). Few details are known for certain about Dekker’s life. Nothing is known of his parents, although it may be that his father was the Thomas Dekker who was buried in St. Saviour’s Southwark, south of the Thames, in 1594, and his mother the widow of this Thomas Dekker, who was living in Southwark in 1596. One notable feature concerning the playwright’s name is that he was always spelt the same way, i.e., with a double ‘kk’ (Hunt 1911: 13). Although Dekker always professed himself to be an Englishman, and above all a Londoner, this spelling is one of the pieces of evidence, which may suggest that his ancestors came from the Low Countries, although one has to contend with the fact that there was great variety in spelling at this time (Hunt 1911: 11). The name Thomas Dekker, father or son, does not appear in the Registers of Members for the Dutch church in London.40 However, a couple of pieces of evidence suggest that Dekker was most probably in contact with members of

40 See, for example, lma clc/180/MS07404, General Register of Members of the London- Dutch Church 1550–1754: entries for ‘Thomas’ as a first name, fols. 141v.–142r. Dutch Literature 317 the Dutch community in London. For example, he made English translations of Latin inscriptions, written by members of the Dutch community in London on the Triumphal Arch prepared for welcoming James I. A more indirect connection is that the plague literature of Dekker was a likely influence on Jacobus Colius’ plague poem, Den Staet van London in hare groote Peste, discussed above (Cool 1962: 8–10). But regardless of Dekker’s precise relationship to the Dutch, there is no question about his use of the Dutch language in some of his plays. In ‘The Roaring Girl’, we meet a character whose speech includes words from a number of languages, including Dutch. At the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern period as vernaculars began to take over functions previously performed by Latin, a practice referred to as ‘macaronics’ emerged, which can be defined as the playful mixing of languages (Burke 2004: 133). We see examples of this in the speech of the character Teare-Cat, who is introduced as a ‘butter-box’, a standard term of derision for Dutchmen in Dekker’s plays. An example of the influence of Dutch in his dialogue comes in the line Ick mine Here. Ick bin den ruffling Teare-Cat (‘I my Lord. I am the ruffling Teare-Cat’) (V, i). However, Teare-Cat’s dialogue also seems to owe something to German, and it may be that Dekker was trying to effect a ‘general Duits’ for the character. We see this in the phrase Ick bin dorick all Dutchlant gueresen (‘I have travelled all through ‘Dutchland’ (Duitsland?)’). Dorick (‘through’) seems closer to the (High) German durch than the Dutch door. In fact, Teare- Cat was probably a mercenary, referring to himself as a ‘brave soldado’ (note the Spanish). He also uses a corruption of the Italian coraggio (‘courage’), cor- ago. As noted in Chapter 5 the armies of early modern Europe were polyglot, and Teare-Cat’s mixing of languages may reflect this (Burke 2004: 129). Above, we met Aphra Behn’s Dutch fop, Haunce van Ezel. Several of the characters that speak Dutch in Dekker’s plays are also called ‘Hans’. Although in the late modern period, this is seen as a German name, an abbreviation of Johann, at this time it was used indiscriminately for Dutch and Germans.41 This is illustrated well by the character Hans van Belch in Dekker’s play, ‘Northward Ho!’ (1607). Hans is a Fleming whose family comes from Augsburg. The probable reason for this is simply so that Dekker can engage in bawdy humour by exploiting the homophony of the famous Augsburg banking family, the Fuggers, with the f-word: viz. Mine vader bin de groetest fooker of all in Augsburg. Earlier in the play, which Dekker wrote together with John Webster, Hans says to some Englishmen (ii, i):

41 Cf. oed. See also Bor (1679–84: iii, 205–6), where reference is made to some derisive names for the Dutch: Hans Schijtpeper, Hans Meersdrager, Hans Brouwer, Hans Keeskoper, Hans Meulder. 318 CHAPTER 6

Dar is vor you, and vor you; een, twea, drie, vier, and vive skilling, drinke skel- lum upsie freese; nempt, dats u drinkgelt.

That is for you and for you; one, two, three, four, and five shillings, drink, rogue, in the Frisian manner; take this, it’s your tip.

Despite Hans’ alleged origins, these passages clearly owe much more to Dutch than to German. In both cases we see a mixing of English and Dutch, although the Dutch is somewhat distorted. For example, upsie freese is a re-working, perhaps even a corruption, of op zijn Fries (‘in the Frisian manner’), similar to upsee (Dutch) used by Ben Jonson in ‘The Alchemist’ (see section 5.3.2). In the sixteenth century multilingual plays had been quite popular. In the seventeenth century plays moved towards being monolingual, although they often displayed varieties of the spoken language associated with different social groups. Dekker’s plays, in which we see frequent mixing of English and Dutch (as well as other languages in the case of Teare-Cat discussed above), come towards the end of the period of multilingual plays (cf. Burke 2004: 140). In ‘Westward Ho!’ Dekker introduces another Hans, who says at one point Yaw, yaw, you sall hebben it mester. Old vine or new vine? Once more Dekker is not attempting to write pure Dutch, but merely providing enough in the lexis and phonology of the dialogue to convince us that the character is a Dutchman speaking a mixture of Dutch and English. It is, however, in ‘The Shoemaker’s Holiday’ (1599), a play that had great success, and which, as noted in the previous chapter (section 5.3.1), was performed before Queen Elizabeth in 1600, that Dekker uses Dutch words and phrases to the greatest extent. The plot is simple. An aristocratic Englishman, Lacy, falls for a middle-class girl, Rose Oatley. Their fathers do not want them to marry and Lacy’s father wants him to go to fight in France. Lacy, of course, does not want to go there and so sends someone else to France in his place. He disguises himself as a Dutch cobbler, yet another Hans, in order to get a job and then find and marry Rose.42 As one would expect in this comedy, Lacy’s plan is successful and he eventually marries Rose. As in the other cases discussed here, Lacy disguised as Hans does not speak pure Dutch but a mixture of (cod) Dutch and English. When he appears as Hans for the first time (I, iv, 39–44), he sings the following song:

42 In Thomas Deloney’s version of this tale, in a series of stories entitled The Gentle Craft, which is a source for Dekker’s own version, Lacy is an English-speaking Dutchman. One commentator suggests that this may tell us something about Dekker’s own background (Dekker 1975: ix; xix). However, there is no other evidence to support this view. Dutch Literature 319

Der was een bore van Gelderland, Frolick si byen, He was als dronck he cold nyet stand, Upsolce se byen. Tap eens de canneken, Drincke scheve mannekin.

There was a peasant from Gelderland; Happy they be. He was so drunk that he could not stand, On his legs. Just get a jug of beer from the cask, Drink drunken little man.

The reference to Gelderland helps to place Hans as a Dutchman. When we next hear from Lacy in his disguise as the Dutch shoemaker, Hans, he addresses another character, Firk, whose name has clear sexual overtones, thus: Goeden dach, meester, ende u vro oak (‘Good day, master, and to your wife, too’). This line needs little translation, but it seems that Firk misinterprets the word oak (lnd: ook (‘also’)) as the Dutchman’s name, for he then asks Lacy, ‘And you, friend Oak, are you of the Gentle Craft?’ Lacy’s answer to Firk’s question is Yaw, yaw, ik bin den skomawker (‘Yes, yes, I am a shoemaker’). Firk replies with some further code switching, mimicking Lacy’s response:

Den skomawker, quoth a! And hark you, skomawker, have you all your tools?

Firk then lists all the tools that Lacy should have, which leads Lacy to respond as follows:

Yaw, yaw, be niet vorveard: ik hab all de dingen voour mack skoes groot and cleane.

Yes, yes, do not fear: I have all the things to make shoes, big and small.

The fact that Lacy’s language is intended to generate laughter in the audience is confirmed by Firk’s response, when he encourages his master to hire Lacy:

Ha, ha. Good master, hire him: he’ll make me laugh so much that I shall work more in mirth than I can in earnest. 320 CHAPTER 6

Lacy’s alter ego, Hans, is not the only character in this play who speaks dialogue inflected with Dutch. In Act 2, Scene 3, Dekker introduces a skipper who speaks a mixture of Dutch and English similar to that of Hans. He says,

Ick sal yow wat seggen Hans, dis skip dat comen from Candy is al wol, by gots sacrament, van sugar, civet, almonds, cambrick, end all dingen, towsand, towsand ding, nempt it Hans, nempt it vor u meester, daer be de bils van laden . . . wat seggen yow, Hans?

I’ll tell you something, Hans, this ship that comes from Candy (in Ceylon) is completely full, by God’s sacrament, of sugar, civet, almonds, cambric, and all things, a thousand, thousand things, take it, Hans, take it for your master. Here are the bills of lading . . . what do you say, Hans?

A number of questions come to mind on reading Dekker’s idiosyncratic mixture of English and Dutch. One of these is how Dekker came to gain his knowledge of Dutch. For although the Dutch is often modified or corrupted, it is clear that a good knowledge of the language lies behind it. He goes far beyond interjec- tions or basic Dutch forms of address such as mynheer. Reference has already been made to the possibility of his Dutch provenance, although he always considered himself an Englishman. Did he pick up some of the language of Hans van Belch in London taverns, where he might have found Dutchmen drinking? Did he perhaps pick up the dialogue of the skipper in ‘The Shoemaker’s Holiday’ by listening to Dutch sailors working along the Thames? This raises a further question. Was the dialogue that Dekker used for these characters in some sense authentic? In other words, were there Dutchmen in London who were speaking a mixture of English and Dutch as they tried to make themselves understood in a foreign land? Peter Burke comments that when playwrights used a second language in their work they had to make it recognizable to the members of the audience in order for them to respond to the dialogue in laughter or sympathy (Burke 2005: 10). This takes us in two directions. First, a playwright such as Dekker would have to make their dialogue ‘believable’ so that the audience would be convinced, as far as is possible on a stage, and allowing for a certain amount of stylization, that they were watching a Dutch cobbler or skipper trying to communicate with local English people. If this is so, then it might point to the makings of a pidgin that Dutch people in London used to try to communicate with the English (Burke 2004: 111). Secondly, the language that Dekker used would have to be sufficiently familiar to the audience so they that could recognize it and would not simply ‘switch off’ as the actors spoke in an alien tongue. This means that the playwright would have Dutch Literature 321 to be skilful in choosing words that were ‘foreign’ but at the same time recognizable to an English audience. One word that crops up quite often in the work of Dekker and other playwrights mentioned above is schelm (‘rascal’). Hans van Belch uses it in ‘Northward Ho!’, as does Teare-Cat in ‘The Roaring Girl’ (shellum), and we also find it in Walter Mountfort’s ‘The Lanchinge of the Mary’ (schellam). The word is thought to have entered English at about this time from Dutch and it may be that it was already familiar to London theatre audiences as a term of abuse. The form of address mynheer/mine heer (Teare- Cat again) was probably familiar to London audiences and frollick (used by Hans the shoemaker and Teare-Cat) is close to the English ‘frolic’, which suggests happiness. The question remains as to why Dekker used this type of language in his dialogue. One possibility is that his use of Dutch, modified to help the audience understand it, may be an example of the topos of how language could reveal the nature of the speaker. Ben Jonson, who often exploited linguistic diversity for comic effect, wrote, ‘Language most shows a man; speak that I may see’.43 In this regard, German was said to reveal the coarseness of its native speakers (Burke 2004: 27). Could something similar be said of the ‘butterboxes’, whose tongue was full of harsh, guttural sounds? It was common for playwrights at this time to mock provincial forms of languages; Shakespeare’s mocking of the English spoken by the Welshman, Captain Fluellen, in Henry V is a case in point (Burke 2004: 36). Dekker’s hybrid of Dutch and English does not really belong in the same category, but he clearly wants to make the audience laugh by placing Dutchmen on stage who grope around with their attempts at speaking a language that is removed from the everyday English of London. In using a mixed language in this way, for comic effect, Dekker stands in the tradition of macaronics, discussed above. But this is not the whole story. Another view is that Dekker wanted to arouse the sympathy of the English audience for their fellow-Protestants against the background of a war against the Catholic French (Dekker 1975: xix). Perhaps Dekker managed to elicit both emotions, laughter and sympathy, in some sense the elixir sought by all playwrights. One question we shall probably not be able to answer is how the actors actually spoke the Dutch words in Dekker’s dialogue. Did they try to get close to authentic Dutch pronunciation (did someone help them with this?) or did they ‘Anglicize’ these words to make them as comprehensible as possible to the audience? Perhaps different strategies were adopted by different actors. Let me make a couple of final points regarding the Dutch language and theatre. First, none of the Dutch communities in England established a

43 From Jonson’s Timber or Discoveries, quoted in Burke (2004: 26). 322 CHAPTER 6

Rhetoricians’ Chamber (Rederijkerskamer). This is surprising given that these chambers, of which poets such as P.C. Hooft and Joost van den Vondel were members, continued to flourish in the Low Countries well into the seventeenth and indeed into the eighteenth century. One Chamber that did function outside the Low Countries was in Batavia in the Dutch East Indies (Bostoen 1992). One can only speculate as to the reason why there was no Chamber in England, but had there been one, there would be many more plays in Dutch to discuss in this section.44 Secondly, many English theatrical groups toured the Low Countries during this period. They often used gesture to communicate with the audience. Further research may reveal whether members of these troupes picked up any Dutch (Riewald 1960). In concluding this section, it is clearly the work of Thomas Dekker that dominates. One cannot help but think that it is no coincidence that he should incorporate so much Dutch into his plays, and that his own background, about which we know so little, played a part in this. Although one must be cautious about making any definitive statements on the matter, Dekker may give us another rare glimpse into the language spoken in England, albeit one no doubt stylized for dramatic purpose and one which takes us to the edge of both English and Dutch. Let us now consider the use of Dutch in works of prose in early modern England. Here, again we shall find further examples of the different types of Dutch used in this period.

6.4 Dutch in Works of Prose

In the early days of the Dutch migration to England in the second half of the sixteenth century, educated members of the Dutch communities often wrote in Latin, sometimes giving indications of their humanist learning. For example Daniel Rogersius wrote to Abraham Ortelius from Norwich on 19 August 1578 in Latin on various matters including a book on Suetonius by Laevinus Torrentius printed by Christoffel Plantijn in Antwerp in 1578.45 He concluded the letter

44 One possibility is that the Rederijkers’ discourse seemed increasingly old-fashioned to the Dutch elite in London, who were typically classical humanists. However, there were humanists amongst the Rederijkers in the Low Countries, such as P.C. Hooft. Another, possibly related reason, is that the Dutch joined societies with similar aims in England. More mundane factors such as cost and the ability to obtain a licence may also have played a role. Finally, it is stretching a point, but between 1658 and 1662, Dunkirk was under English control. The Rhetoricians’ Chamber, De Carsouwe (‘The Daisy’), of which Michiel de Swaen would later become a member, was active during this period. 45 Laevini Torrentii in C. Suetonii Tranquilli xii Caesares Commentarii. Dutch Literature 323 with a Latin coda: Nortwico, Ventâ Icenorum. Raptim xix Augustj 1578 (H 87: I, 178–9), demonstrating that he knew of the late Roman settlement four miles to the south of Norwich, Venta Icenorum. A later example is the dedication that Emanuel van Meteren (Demetrius, to give him his Latin moniker) wrote to Jacobus Colius, both members of the London Dutch community mentioned earlier in this chapter, in his history of the Dutch Revolt, Commentarien ofte Memorien van den Nederlandschen Staet, Handel, Oorloghen, first published in 1608 (see section 1.3). Latin was also used in less formal circumstances. Petrus Heuriblock gave Latin lessons to children of the Dutch community in London. In 1576 he invited another member of the community, Johannes Radermacher, to two theatre performances in Latin (Grell 1996: 147–9).46 Whether Heuriblock and Radermacher spoke Latin to each other is not recorded, but we do know that it was not unusual for such intellectuals to speak in Latin at this time. Nevertheless, despite the competition that Dutch faced from Latin and indeed other languages, a number of prose works were written in Dutch in early modern England. Let us now consider the most notable examples of these.

6.4.1 Johannes Radermacher’s Grammar The first of these to mention is the manuscript which is in effect the first Dutch grammar. In 1985 Karel Bostoen published a book in which he discusses in detail the authorship and provenance of the manuscript, discovered in a country house in Zeeland in 1975. The manuscript, entitled Voorreden vanden Noodich ende Nutticheit der Nederduytscher Taelkunste (‘Argument for the Necessity and Usefulness of Dutch Grammar’), is dated 1568, but has no attribution.47 With painstaking and meticulous analysis, Bostoen comes to the conclusion that it is most likely that it was Johannes Radermacher the Elder, just mentioned, who wrote this manuscript, and that he did so in London (Bostoen: 1985; 1998).48 Radermacher (1538–1617) was born in Aachen to a German (not a Dutch) patrician family. At the age of 16, after the death of his father, he moved to Antwerp, where, in 1554, he entered the service of the merchant, Gillis

46 The Album Amicorum of Johannes Radermacher: Ghent University Library (ms. 2485, part 8). The invitation consists of a six-line poem, the details of the two plays (Tragedia Saulis Regis and Tragedia Sacerdotis Heli) and the address, all written in Latin. It may be that these two plays were performed by Heuriblock’s Latin students. 47 The manuscript is preserved in the Special Collections of Leiden University Library, ms. ltk 2148. 48 Grell’s assertion that Johan Radermacher/Rotarius is likely to have befriended the minister of the Dutch Church in London, Cesare Calandrini, seems doubtful. Calandrini was born in 1595 in Stade and did not arrive in England until 1616. By this time, Radermacher had long since left London, dying in Zeeland in 1617 (Grell 1996: 110). 324 CHAPTER 6

Hooftman. He served Hooftman in London from 1559–1562, obtaining letters of denization on 11 February 1562 (Bostoen 2001: 122). Radermacher spent most of the next five years in Antwerp, but in 1567 he moved to London on a permanent basis to become Hooftman’s representative in the city. There he became involved in an intellectual circle centred on the Italian church in London, which included Jacob Hoefnagel and Emanuel van Meteren. In the following year, 1568, Radermacher wrote the first grammar in the Dutch language. He remained in London until 1580, when he returned to Antwerp. In 1586 he moved back to the town of his birth, Aachen. In 1599 he was forced to leave Aachen and settled in Middelburg in Zeeland, where he remained until his death in 1617 (Bostoen 1985: 10–11; 1998: 11–17). The grammar is clearly unfinished, and much of it consists of an introduction in which Radermacher sets out the reasons why he believes that such a grammar was necessary. We should remember that the first printed grammar of a vernacular in Europe was Antonio Nebrija’s Spanish grammar, Gramática de la lengua castellana, first published in 1495, some 70 years earlier, and that Radermacher was in some sense breaking new ground in the Dutch language. One reason he puts forward for writing the grammar is that Dutch is not so poor or ‘unfruitful’ (onvruchtbar) that it cannot express what can be expressed in Latin or Greek, the grammar of which had already been codi- fied. Radermacher makes a number of other points regarding the Dutch language, or onse Duitsche tale as he calls it. He notes that the French, Italian and Spanish, all speakers of Romance languages, cannot pronounce certain sounds in the Dutch language such as the Dutch ‘ch’ and ‘w’. He probably met speakers of each language in Antwerp and amongst the exile communities in London. He also notes sounds in English that are difficult for non-native speakers to pronounce. The fact that Radermacher was in London in 1568, the date of the manuscript, and thus surrounded by English speakers increases the likelihood that he was its author (Bostoen 1985: 9). Radermacher bemoans the fact that not many people read Dutch at this time, because, he argued, there was not much worth reading in the language. He also bemoans the fact that there was no good translation of the Bible into Dutch, something that the Germans, French and English all enjoyed. It is clearly his hope that the provision of a Dutch grammar will help to correct this situation (Bostoen 1985: 40–6). In the introduction Radermacher indicates that he planned to divide his grammar into three sections: grammar, dialectic (reasoning) and rhetoric. He uses Dutch names for each of these: woordtreghel, reden- reghel and kunste van uutsprake, but also gives Latin names (viz. Grammatica, Dialectica and R(h)etorica), perhaps sensing that despite his desire to champion the vernacular his readers might recognize these Latin terms more readily. Dutch Literature 325

However, after the introduction we only have the beginnings of the section on Grammatica. Here, Radermacher divides words into categories that we would recognize such as Namelijk (woord) (‘Noun’), Bijnamelijk (‘(Definite) article’), Voornamelijk (‘Pronoun’) and Wervich (‘Verb’). But what of Radermacher’s own language? It should not surprise us that as Radermacher was born in Aachen his Dutch contains features associated with Eastern dialects of the language, such as Limburgs. His use of geschickder and merkden instead of geschickter and merkten are two examples of this (Bostoen 1985: 9). However this is not the whole story. The form vermueghen (instead of vermoghen) (fol. 1, 11r.) is a feature of the Flemish dialect (Willemyns 2013: 87). We also see the forms mueghe (fol. 1, 19r.) and mueghen (fol. 5, 21r.) instead of moghen. However, Radermacher is not always consistent for he also uses the form vermoghen (fol. 2, 10r.). We also see a couple of features associated with Brabants; the spelling in hoichduitsch (where the ‘i’ is a length marker) (fol. 3, 29v.) and the umlautization of a long vowel in peert (fol. 7, 31r.), although this feature is also found in Limburgs (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1992: 119). Perhaps Radermacher picked up the Brabants forms during his time in Antwerp, or in London, which was clearly a melting-pot of primarily southern forms of Dutch. Finally, there are aspects of Radermacher’s spelling which are influenced by English and which add to the notion that he wrote his grammar in London. These include the use of ‘ll’ at the end of words, e.g., brill (‘glasses’) and will (‘wants’); ‘ss’ at the end of words, e.g., kruyss (‘cross’); and ‘ow’ instead of the more usual ‘ouw’ e.g., vrow- elyk (‘female’) (Bostoen 1985: 9).49

6.4.2 The Prose of Emanuel van Meteren, Simeon Ruytinck and Jacobus Colius Another work to mention is here is Emanuel van Meteren’s Commentarien, introduced above. Van Meteren lived and worked in London from 1583 until his death in 1612. The work was first published in 1608.50 Although Van Meteren

49 We should, though, add that the doubling of letters in the auslaut is also a feature of the Limburg dialect, used close to Radermacher’s birthplace of Aachen. We find it for example in a text written in Cleves in 1540 (Willemyns 1979: 54, 158–9). 50 E. van Meteren, Commentarien ofte memorien van-den Nederlandtschen staet, handel, oorloghen ende gheschiedenissen van onsen tyden, etc. mede vervattende eenige haerder ghebueren handelinghen, beschreven door Emanuel van Meteren; ende by hem voor de tweede ende leste reyse over-sien, verbetert ende vermeerdert; oock soo verre ghebrocht totten af-standt van wapenen ende vrede, in’t jaer 1608. On the first page we read Ghedruckt op Schotlandt buyten Danswijck: By Hermes van Loven voor den autheur. Schotlandt buyten Danswijck (‘Scotland outside Danzig’) is possibly Amsterdam or it could be somewhere else. 326 CHAPTER 6 returned to the Low Countries on a number of occasions after 1583 it is highly likely that he wrote much of the book in England (Nevinson 1959). One of Van Meteren’s friends was Simeon Ruytinck, the minister of the Dutch church in London from 1601–1621. Ruytinck wrote a long history of the Dutch people in England, Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen, mentioned above, which was inspired by Van Meteren’s Commentarien. After Ruytinck’s death in 1621 two of his successors, Cesare Calandrini and Aemilius van Culemborg continued to write the history in Dutch, as Ruytinck himself had done (Ruytinck et al. 1873). In Chapter 2 mention was made of another work of prose by Ruytinck; a manuscript consisting of rules, guidelines and traditions of the Dutch church in London, which included a short treatise on the agape meal or Maeltyd der Liefde (Grell 1996: 191–200). In 1612 Ruytinck published the Gulden Legende, a book consisting of some 350 pages that sets out to reject certain aspects of Roman Catholic practice and tradition. It contained a number of Dutch poems, such as the one by Jan Proost, mentioned above, as well as Dutch prose (Ruytinck 1612). The prose passages include discussions on many saints and a dialogue on indulgences in the Catholic Church between two men named Philopatris and Philalethes. The use of these names, both derived from Greek, the former meaning ‘lover of the fatherland’, the latter ‘lover of the truth’, illustrates Ruytinck’s own classical learning, as do the marginal notes to the dialogue in Latin. One feature of Ruytinck’s Dutch is his tendency to use the spelling , also used by Radermacher, which is a feature of Brabants (Willemyns 2013: 75–6). We see this in several places in the book, including in the speech of the character Philopatris, who came from Antwerp in Brabant. Examples of this in the opening exchanges are behoird (‘ought’) and voir (te staen) (‘to stand up for’). We met Ruytinck’s father, Jan, who had been an advocate with the Raad van Vlaanderen in Ghent before fleeing to Norwich. His Dutch, too, contained a hint of the influence of Brabants. In 1624 Jacob Colius published a Dutch tract, Van de dood, een ware beschrijvinge (‘Of death, a true description’), in Middelburg (Cool 1962: 3; Grell 1996: 111). Apart from the poems written by Colius himself, mentioned above, the publication also included poems by Adriaan van de Venne and Dirck Hoste and an address tot den leser (‘to the reader’) by the publisher, Jan Pietersz. van de Venne. His brother, Adriaan, also wrote a ‘bibliographical poem’, which confirms that Colius wrote the tract in London: T’welck ons van over Zee, uyt ’t Groote-Britten-lant (‘Which (book was sent) to us from across the Sea, from the land of the Great Britons’) (line 3). Colius received a letter in Dutch from the influential preacher, Willem Teellinck of Middelburg, which indicates that he had sent a copy of Van de dood in manuscript to Teellinck before publica- Dutch Literature 327 tion. Hessels has tentatively dated the letter to 1629, but if the publication date of 1624 is correct, the letter must pre-date that (H 87: I, 872–4). In the letter Teellinck complements Colius’ work and encourages him to publish it:

Want ons daerin de gelegentheyt des Doots al van den beginne, meer lev- ende wort afgebeeldet ende voorgestelt, met een bevallige stijl, aerdige gel- yckenissen, ende bondige bescheedt, dan noch oyt in onse Duytsche tale, myns wetens geschiedt is.

For from the very beginning in [this text] the properties of Death are painted and presented so properly, and in such a pleasant style, with such beautiful parables and such a concise argument, than has ever been done as far as I know in our Dutch language.

6.4.3 Travelogues and Journals A further category of prose works written in Dutch in early modern England is the travelogue or journal. A Dutch book published in 1994 provides details of travel journals written by Dutch people (Noord-Nederlanders) from the sixteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century (Lindeman et al. 1994). Amongst those written in Dutch, which relate to England, are one by Constantijn Huygens in 1624; another by Abraham Booth from 1629–1630; one by Huygens’ son, Lodewijck, compiled in 1651–1652; and one by the minister, Joannes Vollenhove, compiled in 1674 (Lindeman et al. 1994: 24; 25; 33; 42). To these we can add a short account in Dutch of the visit to London in 1663 of the famous scientist, Christiaan Huygens, and a journal compiled by the artist Willem Schellinks during his travels through England in 1662. The fact that these journals were written in Dutch should not be taken for granted. Lodewijck Huygens wrote part of his journal, detailing his time outside London, in French. His father, Constantijn, wrote the journal on his visit to Venice in 1620 in French. Furthermore, Cornelis Booth (1605–1678), the elder brother of Abraham, who travelled to London in 1635–1636, was not the only Dutchman to write a journal in Latin (Lindeman et al. 1994: 27). We shall now consider some of the journals written in England in Dutch in more detail.

6.4.3.1 Abraham Booth The first of these to mention is that of Abraham Booth, whose poem cel- ebrating his brother’s wedding was discussed above. Abraham, the secretary of a voc delegation to London from 1629, wrote several types of document in Dutch in England (Merens 1942). One was a journal, which is preserved in manuscript in two parts; a journal proper and a ‘Description’ of various towns 328 CHAPTER 6 and notable buildings in England.51 The following extracts are taken from transcriptions of both manuscripts. Booth records that he and his colleagues set foot on English soil at Gravesend (Gravisende) on 28 January 1629, having sailed in poor weather for four days along the north Kent coast. He mentions Marygate (Margate), Roolcolvers (Reculver) and Quinborch (Queenborough), further examples of how Dutch authors reconfigured English toponyms. Booth reports his subsequent arrival in London and gives an account of the Ambassadeurs voor dit Hoff van wegen onse Republycke van Nederlant (‘Ambassadors to this Court on behalf of our Republic of the Netherlands’), who visited the voc delegation. They included Arnold van Randtwijck, Adriaen Pauw (Extraordinaris) and Albert Joachimi (Ordinaris), their Dutch Edelluyden (‘chamberlains/gentlemen-in-waiting’) and servants (Merens 1942: 69–71). He continues with a wonderfully detailed and engaging account of life at court and elsewhere in London in the late 1620s. He explored the Home Counties (Merens 1942: 123):

Een reysgen in Surrey om eenige Conincks-Casteelen ende het wel van Ipson te besien, gedaen den 16den en 18den Augusti 1629.

A little journey in Surrey to see some royal castles and the well at Epsom, made on 16 and 18 August 1629.

Here, the use of the diminutive reysgen catches the eye. The suffix -gen, which we met above in one of Constantijn Huygens’ poems, is a feature of the Hollands dialect (Weijnen 1965: 25). Booth also visited the Dutch church in London (Merens 1942: 129):

Den 27sten (September) is inde Nederlandtsche Kercke alhier een solemnele dancksegginge gedaen over ’t veroveren van den Bos.

On 27 (September) in the Dutch Church here, there was a solemn service of thanksgiving for the capture of Den Bosch.

The stadholder, Frederik Hendrik, had just taken Den Bosch in Brabant for the Dutch. The voc delegates clearly had plenty of time on their hands for one of the leading figures in the voc, Pieter de Carpentier, was able to visit Wales (Merens 1942: 129). Booth describes some of the towns and cities, which had Dutch communities or well-known Dutch residents. Of Norwich he wrote (Merens 1942: 183–4):

51 Utrecht, University Library (ubu), mss. 1196 and 1198. Dutch Literature 329

Alhier onthouden hun mede veele Nederlanders, die in ’t begin ende geduyrende onse oorlogen voornaemelijck uuyt Vlaenderen aldaer gevlucht sijn, hebbende hare bysondere kercke ende haren Godtsdienst in haer eygen taele.

Many Netherlanders live here, who in the beginning and during our wars came primarily from Flanders, and they have their own church and hold their services in their own tongue.

He makes a similar comment about Colchester (Merens 1942: 192):

derwaerts door onse Nederlanders tentijde vande troublen aldaer gevlucht, die haer Godtsdienst in haer eygen tale ende kercke exerceren.

our Netherlanders fled there at the time of the troubles, and they hold their services in their own tongue and church.

And of Yarmouth (Merens 1942: 194):

De Nederlanders . . . sijnde hier tamelijck sterck . . . hebben hier mede haer eygen kercke.

The Netherlanders . . . are quite strong here . . . having their own church, too.

This gives a slightly different impression of the state of the church in Yarmouth than the one suggested by the statistics discussed earlier in this book (see section 2.2.2). Of Sandwich Booth writes (Merens 1942: 211):

Waer dat veel Nederlanders ende van deselve affcomstige woonen . . . Alhier is mede voorde Nederlandtsche een Duytsche Kercke vergunt.

Where many Netherlanders and their descendants live . . . Here, too, a Dutch Church has been granted to the Netherlanders.

In his description of Stratford in Essex he writes that it is (Merens 1942: 196):

waer men vint den overall de werelt beroemde Cornelis Drebber . . . een hollander . . . ende by den tegenwoordigen Coninck om sijn wonderlijcke ende bynaest ongelooffelijcke inventies gegageert. 330 CHAPTER 6

where one finds Cornelis Drebbel, famous throughout the world . . . a Hollander . . . employed by the present King for his wonderful and almost unbelievable inventions.

Drebbel had set up his dye works at Stratford. Did Booth meet Drebbel there and exchange words in Dutch? He does not tell us. Apart from the diminutive discussed above, there is nothing particularly striking about Booth’s Dutch, which perhaps illustrates that moves towards the standardization of the language were well underway in the United Provinces. Booth also produced drawings in England including a coloured drawing of the Isle of Man, which has the legend: Beschrivinge vant Eylandt en Coninckrijck van Man (‘Description of the Island and Kingdom of Man’), and which also has references to Engellandt, Schotlant and Yerlandt; and a drawing of Deal (Dela) in Kent indicating places such as the Casteel van Dela (‘Deal Castle’) and Een lange drooge banck (‘A long dry (sand)bank’) (Merens 1942: 216; 212). During his time in England, Booth wrote other documents in Dutch. He wrote letters in Dutch from London. As well as writing letters for the voc delegation, he wrote private letters. For example, he wrote one to his brother, Cornelis, dated 8 March 1629 in which he sent news of his journey to England and wished his relatives in Holland well. He starts the letter in French, Monsieur mon frere, before switching to Dutch for the rest of the letter, an example of tag switching (Merens 1942: 50). Secondly he wrote the minutes of meetings of the voc representatives in London in Dutch. He was back in London in 1631 and took minutes in Dutch for a meeting in March 1631. The opening words illustrate that the voc representatives had made little progress in negotiations with the English (Merens 1942: 247):

Alzoo de Gecommitteerdens van deze Compagnie nu al over de twee jaeren in Engelandt zijn geweest tot zeer groote costen sonder als noch yets te hebben verricht . . .

As the Representatives of this Company have been in England now for over two years at very great cost, without having achieved anything yet . . .

For architectural historians Booth’s ‘Description’ provides a rare eye-witness account of the many new buildings that were being built at this time, such as Audley End in Essex (Louw 1984). As noted above, his early death in 1636 possibly deprived Dutch literature of more of his lively verse and prose. Dutch Literature 331

6.4.3.2 Lodewijck Huygens In 1651–1652, Lodewijck Huygens, the third son of Constantijn Huygens, visited England as a member of a diplomatic mission from the United Provinces led by the elder statesman and poet, Jacob Cats. Lodewijck’s father, Constantijn, advised his son to keep a journal; something he himself had done assiduously on his travels (LH 82: 5). Lodewijck followed his father’s advice and kept a journal during his time in London and throughout a visit to other parts of southern England (and Wales) in 1651–1652. In London he wrote it in Dutch and then when he left for the country and West England and Wales he switched to French, continuing in French on his return to London. Bachrach suggests this may have been for a linguistic exercise in French or because he did not want to make people think he was a Dutch spy in the English countryside, but the truth is we do not know why he made this switch (LH 82: 22). The delegation reached London on Wednesday 27 December 1651 (N.S.). It was greeted on its arrival by leaders of the London Dutch church. They requested the delegates to attend a service at Austin Friars on Sunday 7 January, which they duly did. Lodewijck recorded that some 500 people were taking communion at the service, which, he writes, was a little less than a half of the church’s membership (LH 82: 28; 135–6). The preacher was his father’s old friend from his time at Leiden University, Cesare Calandrini. As noted in Chapter 2, Dutch sermons were also regularly preached at Lodewijck’s lodgings (LH 82: 24; 48; 97). On 25 January Lodewijck was required to intervene on behalf of a Dutch skipper who was in danger of having his ship and cargo sold (LH 82: 63). On 12 February Lodewijck and a couple of others from the delegation visited the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who had been exiled from France on account of the contents of his work, ‘Leviathan’. Regarding the language Hobbes spoke, Lodewijck wrote somewhat petulantly (LH 82: 74–5; 218):

Hij sprack niet als Engelsch, en als wij hem eens in Latijn wilden interrom- preren, bad ons dat wij doch weder Engelsch souden sprecken, want dat hij het Latijn heel ontwent was.

He spoke nothing but English. Whenever we wanted to interrupt him in Latin, he begged us to speak English again as he had lost the habit of speaking Latin.

On 11 April Lodewijck, together with a servant and another member of the party, Mr. van Leeuwen, rode west through the villages of Hammersmith and Brentford to go on a tour of West England. The diary now switches to French. 332 CHAPTER 6

On Saturday 20 April Lodewijck remarks that he spoke Dutch ( flamen) to a doctor in Bath, and also that he spoke Latin and French to him (LH 82: 120; 260). We pick up again with Lodewijck in Chapter 7, where his brief visit to Wales is described.

6.4.3.3 Willem Schellinks In 1662 the Dutch artist Willem Schellinks toured England, making drawings of some of the sights he came across and keeping an extensive travelogue in Dutch. Let us consider the section of his journal, which records his experiences of Norfolk, where there were two Dutch communities at this time; in Norwich and Yarmouth. On his visit to Norwich, Schellinks described the city in the following manner:

Norwich—gelegen in Nortfolk is een zeer oude vermaarde stadt zeer plai- jsant gelegen aan de daalende zijde van een bergh langs de revier die het aan laagde zijde beschermt is anders in zoude met stercke walle, tooren ende poorte versien. Is de stadt 3 mijll int rondt, is zeer volkrijk, neering- hachtigh. Heeft treffelijke kerke, huijsen en straaten, 32 parochies, voorder 52 capelle en kerke.

Norwich, situated in Norfolk, is a very old, celebrated city, situated very pleasantly on the slope of a hill along the river, which protects it on the lower side, and elsewhere it is protected with strong walls, towers and gates. The city is 3 miles in circumference, and is a settlement with a very large population. It has excellent churches, houses and streets, 32 parishes served by 52 chapels and churches.

Although Schellinks arrived in Norwich nearly one hundred years after the major influx of people from the Low Countries had begun, there was still a distinct Dutch community in the city. This is illustrated by a couple of entries in his journal:

Naar ons middaghmaal gingen spreeken een Sr. Vink, een oudt van 80 jaare de welkwel van vlaamse afkomste doch daar geboore was hadde een zeer groote kouse winkel . . .

After our midday meal we went to speak with a Mr Vink, an 80-year-old man who is of Flemish descent, but who was born [in Norwich] and had a very large hosiery shop . . . Dutch Literature 333

. . . In Norwich leven veel Duijtze werklieden de welke de Engelsche geleert hebben het maken van alderleij stoffen. is daar voor vermaart dat daar de beste en meeste geweven werde.

. . . In Norwich, many Dutch workers live, who have taught the English how to make all sorts of materials. It is renowned for making the best quality and quantity of woven products.

Is Mr. Vink the same man as Abraham Vervinke, listed as a ‘hosyer’ in the 1622 Norwich Return of Strangers, or perhaps a descendant (Moens 1887–8: 189)? Another entry in Schellinks’ travelogue refers to the Dutch church in Norwich. He writes De Duitze kerk is St Peter Hongate de minister heet Dr Elizon (‘The Dutch church is St Peter Hongate, the minister is called Dr Elizon’).52 This ‘Dr Elizon’ was Theophilus, the son of Johannes Elison (1581–1639), who succeeded his father as minister of the Dutch church in Norwich. Schellinks also visited Yarmouth and King’s Lynn. He records in his diary that in Yarmouth he attended the Dutch church twice on Sunday 15 October, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. He notes that there were many Dutch fishermen present, although he does not give a number. He also praised Revd. (Johannes) Ubelman’s sermons (Schellinks 1993: 161). Ubelman certainly wrote Dutch verse, but whether he did so during the six years he was minister in Yarmouth (1664–1670) is not known (bwn).53 When Schellinks visited Lynn he met a Mr. de Jongh, a Dutch merchant from Rotterdam living in Lynn, and Mr. Kruyt also from Rotterdam. Outside Lynn he recorded that there were a couple of Dutch sawmills where some Dutchmen lived, one of which he visited (Schellinks 1993: 154–7).

6.4.3.4 Christiaan Huygens In June 1663 Christiaan Huygens visited London from Paris. He kept a short record of his experiences in his journal. His visit was primarily in relation

52 Schellinks appears to have made an error here. There is a church of St Peter Hungate in the centre of Norwich, but this was not the ‘Dutch church’, which was situated in Blackfriars’ Hall. The two buildings, both of which still exist, are very close, and it may well have been the case that at least part of Blackfriars’ Hall was in the parish of St. Peter Hungate. They are nevertheless not the same building. 53 He would later use his knowledge of English to translate a book by Edward Stillingfleet into Dutch. It was published in Utrecht in 1694 as Origines sacrae, of heilige oorsprongke- lykheden (‘Sacred Origins’). 334 CHAPTER 6 to his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society on 17 June.54 In fact he began this section of the journal in French: Arrivé à Londres le 10 juin 1663 (‘Arrived in London on 10 June 1663’). He had kept his diary in France in French. He then switches to Dutch and describes some of his experiences on visiting the Society. He records seeing drawings of insects by Robert Hooke: Verscheyde insecten door enn (sic.) vergrootglas geteeckent door Mr. Hook (‘Different insects drawn through a magnifying glass by Mr. Hook(e)’). A little later he refers to one of his own experiments which was observed by another famous member of the Society, Robert Boyle:

Mijn experiment van’t gepurgeert water in ’t vacuum heb daer 2 à 3 mael sien wel gelucken in een pijp van 7 voet hoogh blijvende het water staen sonder verder dalen . . . Mr. Boile en vele andere present sijnde . . .

Two or three times I have seen succeed my experiment of purified water in a vacuum in a tube that is seven foot high, in which the water level remains the same without falling. Mr. Boyle and many others were present . . .

We learn that Christiaan’s father was also in London, and he continues, Gegeten met P. bij Mil. Chamberlain (‘Ate with Father at milord Chamberlain’s’). Christiaan also records dining with Utricia Swann (née Ogle), his father’s music partner, and the daughter of a Dutch mother and English father; and her husband, Captain Swann (Te Rohamton met M. Swan en sijn wijf ) (Huygens 1911–17: 6, 5899). Other Dutch people whom Christiaan met in London were a Mrs. Ferijn and Boreel 2 mael, a probable reference to the Dutch ambassador, Johan (Jan) Boreel (twice). Huygens also met Mr. Lelij de schilder, i.e., Peter Lely the artist. He later records making a copy of a painting of Jane Myddleton by Lely (now at Hampton Court) at the artist’s residence.55 In this passage he also throws in a few random Hebrew letters, which he may be using as an attempt to spell ‘September’ in Hebrew script. He had a couple of further encounters with Boreel including in a coffeehouse in London: In een Coffihous geweest met Boreel. Finally, Huygens notes that he conversed with renowned Englishmen, such as the diarist, John Evelyn (Brugmans 1935: 172–7).

54 Another source gives the date as 22 June (Brugmans 1935: 174, n. 5). 55 In the Oeuvres complètes (Christiaan Huygens 1888–1950: xxii, 600) of Christiaan Huygens’ work, there is reference to ‘Miss Middleton’. However, the letters ‘Mis’ are an abbreviation of ‘Mistress’. Myddleton was the married name of Jane Needham. Dutch Literature 335

6.4.3.5 Johannes Vollenhove In 1674 the Third Anglo-Dutch War was concluded with the Treaty of Westminster. A diplomatic mission was sent to London accompanied by the preacher, Johannes Vollenhove (1631–1708). As well as writing a number of epistolary poems, which are discussed above, he kept a diary in Dutch of his experiences in London. One entry runs (Vollenhove 2001: 189):

Na het passeren van verscheide dorpen en lanthuisen aen den oever der Riviere gelegen, te Moadelak uitgetreden. Na eenige ververschinge, aldaer genomen bij een vrou, die Duitsch sprak, waer bij wij onze mantels lieten . . .

After passing various villages and country houses on the banks of the River (Thames), we disembarked at Mortlake. After some refreshments, which we had there at the house of a woman, who spoke Dutch (most probably Dutch, not German), with whom we left our coats . . .

One wonders whether the woman in question was part of the Dutch/Flemish community that had lived in Mortlake since about 1620. Vollenhove also records meeting ‘a certain polite person’ (een zeker beleeft persoon) near Whitehall in London, whom he describes as eenighzins Duitsch sprekende (‘[someone] who spoke a little (probably) Dutch’) (Vollenhove 2001: 81). In his extensive introduction to the journal, Dibbets writes at length about Vollenhove’s engagement with the English language, which he attempted to learn whilst in England. One feature of this engagement is that Vollenhove coins, as it were, his own Dutch term for the English ‘farthings’ (vaerdingen). As with other Dutchmen discussed in this book, he also produces his own renderings of English toponyms. Those beginning with ‘Sh’ clearly caused him problems, as he rendered Sheppey Schapay and Shepperton Chipperton. The lack of the phoneme /θ/ in Dutch has already been mentioned. When he first arrived in England, Vollenhove tended to produce Dutch versions of toponyms containing the phoneme, for example he wrote Hammersmith as Hamersmit. However, over time, he wrote such words with ‘th’ perhaps reflecting an increasing confidence in and knowledge of the language. Finally, it is worth briefly mentioning that one of the books Vollenhove is likely to have used in learning English is François Hillenius’ Den Engelschen ende Ne’erduitschen Onderrichter (Vollenhove 2001: 38–48). This book illustrates well what one might call the ‘linguistic traffic’ between England and the Low Countries at this time. Hillenius was born in Great Yarmouth but had left there for religious reasons and established a school in Rotterdam. Later, this Englishman would 336 CHAPTER 6 write a learner that would be used by a Dutchman, Vollenhove, to learn English on a visit to England. One notable feature of a number of the journals discussed here is that the authors who encounter members of Dutch communities in England do not comment on the nature of the Dutch that these people spoke. Perhaps there was nothing peculiar about their Dutch, despite the fact that they had not lived in the Netherlands, or perhaps the authors did not feel it appropriate to pass comment. Finally, we should recall that Constantijn Huygens jr., the secretary to William iii kept a detailed journal of his time in England from William’s invasion in 1688 onwards. Extracts from this journal are provided in section 5.3.6.

6.4.4 The Prose of Lucas d’Heere Two prose works in Dutch of a slightly different nature were written by Lucas d’Heere, mentioned above in relation to his poetry. D’Heere lived in England for ten years between 1567 and 1577. In about 1573–1574 he wrote a Corte Beschryvinghe van England, Scotland en Irland (‘Short Description of England, Scotland and Ireland’) and a Corte beschryvinghe van d’Enghelandsche gheschiedenissen vergadert uut de beste Chronijcschrijvers (‘Short description of English history, collected from the best Chroniclers’) (De Heere 1937). As the titles suggest, the former is a chorography of the British Isles, whilst the latter deals with English history. They are intended as a guide for people from the Low Countries visiting the British Isles and give the impression of being quite erudite, drawing on a range of sources from Ptolemy and Pliny to the sixteenth- century Welsh cartographer and writer, Humphrey Lhuyd (1527–1568). Indeed, Lhuyd is an important source for the use of Flemish in Wales and we return to him in the next chapter. However, some of the ‘facts’ that d’Heere presents should be treated with caution, and it seems that as a historian he is sometimes closer to Herodotus than Thucydides. For example, he begins the first work as follows (De Heere 1937: 5–7):

Het Eijland van Britanien heeft alder eerst Albis ghenaemt gheweest van Neptunus zone die zoo ghenaemt was ofte (als sommighe meynen) van het Grieckx woort λευκὸς.

The Island of Britain was first named Albis from Neptune’s son who was so called, or (as some think), from the Greek word λευκὸς (white).

He is perhaps on safer ground when he writes a little later, Dutch Literature 337

Britanien is gheseyt het grootste ende schoonste Eyland van Europa . . . Het is by naer dry hoect . . . Engheland is wonderbaerlic vruchtbaer in kooren ende alle graen . . .

Britain is said to be the biggest and most beautiful Island in Europe. It is almost triangular . . . England is wonderfully productive in wheat and all grains . . .

The works were never published and it is suggested that d’Heere lost interest in them after 1574, when the political prospects in the Netherlands were improv- ing (De Heere 1937: 143). They comprise a total of 2864 lines, which offer much interesting material for students of the internal features of early modern Dutch. One example to mention here is of the hypercorrection of adding an initial ‘h’ associated with the Flemish dialect (prothesis). We see this in the word hoef- fenynghe (lnd: oefening (‘exercise’)) (De Heere 1937: 11; Willemyns 2013: 73).

6.4.5 Dutch Learners and Dictionaries Finally, under the heading of prose we can also mention books published for those in England who wanted to learn Dutch. Two such books are ‘The Dutch School-Master’, published in London by Marten le Mayre in 1606 and ‘The Dutch-Tutor: or, a new-book of Dutch and English. Containing plain and easie Rules for the ready Pronouncing, Writing, Speaking and understanding the Dutch-Tongue . . . ’ written by an anonymous author and published in London in 1659. To these we can add John Minsheu’s dictionary, first published in 1617. This includes Dutch words, and amongst those listed as helping Minsheu com- pile his dictionary, is Simeon Ruytinck, mentioned above. Finally, in 1637 an English edition was published in London of de Berlaimont’s Vocabulare, which includes Dutch phrases (see section 4.2.5).

6.5 Translations Into and Out of Dutch

As Latin gradually receded as the dominant written language in early modern Europe, and vernaculars took its place, the need for translations increased. One particularly frequent language combination was English and Dutch. Indeed, of all the translations before 1700 from English into other European languages, about 50% were made into Dutch. One writer lists 641 such translations published between 1600 and 1700 (Burke 2005/6: 17; Schoneveld 1983). Many of these translations will have been made in the United Provinces by such 338 CHAPTER 6

prodigious translators as Johannes Grindal (1616–1696), who translated some 26 works from English to Dutch (Schoneveld 1983: 134–40), and Jan Hendrik Glazemaker (1619–1682), who translated nearly seventy different works into Dutch (Burke 2005/6: 11). A range of material was also translated into and out of Dutch in early modern England. In most cases, English was the target or source language, but occasionally this was another language, such as Latin. In Chapter 3 we met the Ipswich printer, Anthony Skoloker, who translated a number of works into English, possibly from Dutch, or German. A Dutchman, Christopher Vittel, who was active in Colchester from as early as 1555, translated some of the Familist, Hendrick Niclaes’, works into English (Van Dorsten 1973: 30; see section 3.2.2.3). We also learnt that the textile workers’ book of orders had to be translated from Dutch to English in 1570 to be checked by the civic authorities in Norwich (section 3.2.1). In 1573 a letter from the Privy Council in Latin addressed to the Dutch church in London was translated into Dutch. It exhorted the Dutch not to meddle in the affairs of the Anglican Church (H 87: ii, 460). In Chapter 5 mention was made of George Gilpin’s translation of Marnix’s De Roomsche Byen-korf (‘The Roman Bee-hive’) into English, published in London in 1579. In 1588, at the request of the Privy Council, Anthony Ashley produced an English translation of Lucas Jansz. Wagenaer’s De Spieghel der Zeevaerdt, first published in 1585. This contained engravings of sea-charts of the waters around England and the Atlantic coast of Europe. It was published between 1588–1590 as the ‘Mariners Mirrour’ (Hind 1952: 151). In 1596 a declaration by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, was translated from English to Dutch and published in London by Christopher Barker.56 In the same year, 1596, William Phillip translated a Dutch book on mathematics and bookkeeping, Practicque om te leeren rekenen, cijpheren ende boeckhouwen by Nicholas Petri, into English. He published his translation in London, giving it the title, ‘The pathway to knowledge. Conteyning certaine briefe tables of English waights and measures’.57 In 1598 in London J. Windet printed a translation of a Dutch work by Jan van Doetecam giving it the title ‘A most strange and wonderfull herring’. In the following year Windet would print an English

56 The title of the translation was Declaratie van de Cansen moverende hare Coninglicke Majesteit van Englandt, een Vlote van Schepen ter Zee te afverdigen tot defensie van hare Landschappen, tegen gewelt des Conings van Spaignen. 57 A longer title is The pathway to knowledge. Conteyning certaine briefe tables of English waights and measures . . . With the rules of cossicke, surd, binomicall, & residuall numbers, and the rule of equation, or of algebere . . . Whereunto is annexed a most excellent inuention of Iulius Cæsar Patauinus, for the buying and selling of all kinde of marchandise. And lastly the order of keeping of a marchants booke, after the Italian manner. Dutch Literature 339 translation of a Dutch work by Harmon Allerson, giving it the title ‘A briefe discourse of the cruell dealings of the Spanyards, in the Dukedomes of Gulick and Cleve’. In the same year, 1599, the mathematician Edward Wright translated Simon Stevin’s book De Havenvinding into English. He published it in London as ‘The Haven-finding Art, or the way to find any haven or place at sea, by the latitude and variation’. Also in 1599, an English translation of the Dutch work, the Walvisch van Berkhey (‘Whale of Berkhey’), was printed in London by Edward Allde for John Wolfe. In fact over twenty translations from Dutch to English were printed in London between the final years of the sixteenth century and 1620. Some of these were printed by Windet and Allde, whilst others were printed by other London printers such as Thomas Purfoot and Thomas Snodham. Copies of these translations are held in Glasgow University Library, which has a particularly rich collection of Dutch-English translations and early modern Dutch works.58 A number of books to mention in this regard are an English translation of Rembert Dodoens’ herbal (via French), printed in London in 1619; an English translation of a Dutch translation of the first volume of Sebastiano Serlio’s Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura, printed in 1611 by Snodham and Simon Stafford for Robert Peake; and ‘A true declaration of the arrivall of Cornelius Haga (with others that accompanied him) ambassadour for the gen- erall states of the united Netherlands, at the great citie of Constantinople . . .’, again printed by Snodham in 1613. The Amboyna massacre (of 1623) would rear its head again in 1624. A pamphlet entitled Een waer verhael vande onlancksche ongerechte, wreede, ende onmenschelycke procedure teghen de Engelsche tot Amboyna . . . was printed shortly afterwards and a translation of this with the title ‘True relation of the unjust, cruell, and barbarous proceedings against the English at Amboyna in the East-Indies, by the Neatherlandish governour and councel there’ was published in London in the same year by Sir John Skinner. In 1629 Dirck Hoste, who was appointed as an elder at Austin Friars in 1628, published an English translation of Jacob Colius’ 1624 poem Van de Dood, een ware beschrijving (‘Of Death, a true description’) referred to above (Grell 1996: 24).59 Hoste also translated an Epicedium on the death of Simeon Ruytinck by Raphael Thorius from Latin into Dutch in 1621–1622 (Ruytinck et al. 1873: 395–6). On the subject of poetry translation, Leonard Forster has collected together a number of poems written

58 Use the url . Accessed 10 August 2014. 59 Van Dorsten writes that the tract was translated into English by Augustine Matthewes in 1629 (Cool 1962: 3–4). 340 CHAPTER 6 in Latin, which were then translated or self-translated into Dutch in the second half of the sixteenth century, notably by Johannes Cubus. This illustrates that Dutch was a target as well as a source language in translation in England at this time (Forster 1967: 114–24). A translation of a quite different sort is ascribed to the multi-talented Cornelis Drebbel, who has popped up in several places in this book. Drebbel was interested in alchemy. It seems that when a cipher on this subject was de- coded by Sir Samuel Backhouse it turned out to be written in Dutch. This was, we are told, then translated into English by Drebbel. We have Elias Ashmole, who had himself learnt cipher, to thank for our knowledge of this example (Burns 2008).60 In 1637 the dramatist Thomas Heywood translated into English verse a dialogue from Jacob Cats’ Maechden-plicht (‘The Duty of Virgins’) (Huizinga 1948–53: 229). This was published as ‘An Emblematicall Dialogue, interpreted from . . . I. Catzius; which sheweth how Virgins in their chaste loves ought to beare themselves’. Also in 1637 Franciscus Junius published De Pictura Veterum, a theoreti- cal discussion of classical art and one of the cornerstones of the Neoclassical movement. He published it first in Latin, and then translated it himself into English (1638) and then Dutch (1641), whilst he was still in England. The Dutch version, published as Schilder-konst, was prefaced with a dedicatory letter by Jan de Brune to the stadholder, Frederik Hendrik, in which de Brune praises Junius’ style of Dutch and he states that the book demonstrates the prestige of the Dutch language; an example of the ‘topos of pride’ (cf. Burke 2004: 18; Van Romburgh 2004: 23). In 1645 the Dutch churches had their Corpus Disciplinae translated into English. It was printed in early 1646 (Grell 1996: 68).61 The French community had already translated its Discipline into English and these two translations were part of an attempt to develop a common Discipline by the two London Stranger churches, although this attempt ultimately failed (Grell 1996: 85–6). The translation into English was also made so that the Corpus could be shown to the English authorities if they wanted to inspect it (Van Toorenenbergen 1872: 318–9). In 1645 the London community paid for the translation and printing of a caution against religious radicalism by the Middelburg minister, Willem Appolonius (Grell 1996: 68; 85). In 1657, again in London, Henry Hills

60 Visit also http://www.jwmt.org/v2n15/garland.html. Accessed on 15 April 2014. 61 lma clc/180/MS07397/008, fol. 108v. Dutch Literature 341 published an English translation of the Dutch annotations to the States Bible by Theodore Haak (see section 5.3.5).62 In 1673 ‘Two Letters The One from a Dutchman to his Correspondent in England; the other answer from the said correspondent’ were published, most probably in London. The letters concern, amongst other things, the Third Anglo-Dutch War. However, as well as providing a further example of translation from Dutch into English, they also touch on questions of language and provide a little window onto how Dutch was viewed as a language at this time. The first letter was written from Hamburg (by a Dutchman). In relation to language he writes,

I must beg pardon, if for my ease . . . I write in Dutch, which wants, I confess, the comprehensive harmony of your smooth and gentle Language (i.e., English).

The anonymous publisher of the letters adds as a footnote:

Reader, I hope you’l pardon this Translation, though it comes short of the Dutch Original; I put it in the nearest English I could . . .

The second letter was written in London, simply signed J.G., who seems to have been an Englishman. He writes amongst other things:

You must pardon me if I express my mind freely in every thing and com- plain, even in the beginning, of your writing in Dutch, which (though I understand it) shews in you methinks that aversion to us, you ever pro- test against; nor can you have any pretence for this our unusual way of corresponding unless resolving altogether to be critical, you prefer your Mother-tongue before one which you have acquired half by Art. This excuse is sufficient to me, who so well know your gentle disposition, and cannot but rejoyce at the profession you make that you have not yet lost all your English blood . . .

62 The Dutch Annotations upon the whole Bible: or, all the Holy Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, together with, and according to, their own Translation of all the Text: As both the one and the other were ordered and appointed by the Synod of Dort, 1618, and published by Authority, 1637. Now faithfully communicated to the use of Great Britain, in English. Whereunto is prefixed an exact Narrative touching the whole work, and the translation. By Theodore Haak, Esq. 342 CHAPTER 6

Had the first correspondent lived in England for a while before removing to Hamburg? It seems likely (Two Letters 1673). 1676 saw the publication in London of The right, pleasant, and variable tragical history of Fortunatus . . . First penned in the Dutch tongue: there-hence abstracted, and now first of all published in English, by T.C. In the British Library catalogue T.C. is tentatively identified as Thomas Churchyard, but his dates of 1520–1604 make this unlikely. Sometimes, what seems at first sight to be a translation made in England may, on closer inspection, turn out not to be so. In the British Library there is a folio in a collection of loose sheets, which is entitled ‘A Form of Prayer, &c. translated from the Dutch’. On the verso we learn that it was printed by ‘J.B. in Excester in 1688’.63 It is a prayer, which was said for William and Mary. From a reference to the dangers of the sea it was probably written and said before William left for England in 1688. Ostensibly, a translation was then made, printed in Exeter and then distributed to gain support for William in south-west England. However, in his journal Constantijn Huygens jr., who was accompanying William, complains that there was no printer in Exeter and that in England only Cambridge, Oxford and London had printing presses (Constantijn Huygens jr. 1876: 19). Does this suggest that the English version of the prayer was in fact printed in Holland and false printing details given to allay fears of a ‘foreign’ invasion? In 1691 an English translation of William’s speech to the States General on 7 February (N.S.) was printed by Richard Baldwin in London. In 1693 an English translation was printed in London of letters patent from the States General ‘granted to William Walcot, esq; upon their seeing the demonstrations of his art of making sea-water fresh’. Finally, pamphlets were often written in Dutch and translated into English (or vice versa) in the early modern period. Details are not usually given of where the translation was made but it is certainly possible that some of them were made in England (Braekman 1972).64

6.6 Conclusion

This then concludes our survey of the use of Dutch in the literature of early modern England. Again, I should stress that this has not been primarily a literary study, but rather an opportunity to explore further the extent and variety

63 bl, shelfmark C. 117. g. 1. 64 For more on pamphlets printed and distributed in relation to the Glorious Revolution, see Velthuizen (2011). Dutch Literature 343 of the use of the Dutch language. There is no doubt that we have covered a vast body of work and have had to be selective in order to fit the subject into the boundaries of a chapter in a book. We have added to our knowledge of Dutches used in early modern England, notably the Haags Delflands subdia- lect of Hollands of Constantijn Huygens in his poem to Maeyke de Bye, and the macaronic mixing of Dutch and English (and occasionally other languages) of the dramatic dialogue of Thomas Dekker. We have also met further examples of dialectal forms in the Dutch written in England, and in the case of Johannes Vollenhove encountered a Dutch neologism, vaerdingen. Dutch clearly faced competition from other languages, notably Latin and English, but despite this it continued to function as a literary language in England well into the seventeenth century. In the case of members of Dutch communities, such as Jan Cruso and Jonas Proost, although they could perfectly well write English, writing poetry in Dutch was one way of affirming their Dutch heritage. Something similar may possibly have been at work for Constantijn Huygens, who wrote his first extensive Dutch poem not in the United Provinces, but in England. But I have also tried to do something more than present the various ways in which Dutch was used in literature in early modern Britain. I have challenged the way in which the category of ‘Exile Literature’ is used, and indicated that in at least two cases, those of Marnix and Johannes Radermacher, this categorization is at best rather loose. Furthermore, I have suggested that at least one of the many poems that Constantijn Huygens wrote in England, De Uytlandighe Herder, might usefully be placed in this category. Finally, I have also placed literary works side-by-side, which have not previously been treated in this way. By focussing on language, rather than other aspects such as nationality or place of birth (by no means co-terminous), I have been able to draw in a range of authors; Cruso, Proost and Simeon Ruytinck (born in England); Huygens, Vollenhove and Jan Six van Chandelier (born in the United Provinces); and Radermacher and Franciscus Junius (born in Germany), who have at least one thing in common: they wrote verse or prose in Dutch in early modern England. In the final chapter, we move away from England to the two other countries with which it shares the island of (Great) Britain, Scotland and Wales, to consider the evidence for the use of Dutch there. CHAPTER 7 Dutch in Scotland and Wales

7.1 Introduction

So far in this book the focus has been on the use of Dutch in early modern England. Dutch was also used in Scotland during the same period and, to a far lesser extent, Wales. The case of Wales is quite different from that of Scotland and England. There was no immigration into the principality from the Low Countries during the early modern period and, apart from the very occasional Dutch visitor, those who knew Dutch were descendants of Flemish settlers in the period after the Norman Conquest. As for Scotland, although there are certain similarities with the situation in England, there are also some important differences, and therefore I have considered it better to treat Scotland separately. Perhaps the most important difference is that as far as I have been able to discover, there was only one Dutch (Flemish) community of any size and duration in Scotland: a relatively small community of merchants and craftsmen in the capital, Edinburgh (Murison 1971: 173).1 There were attempts to establish a Dutch church by this community but it is not clear whether these were successful. As a consequence, we are denied a sizable cache of letters and other documents similar to those written by the leaders of the Dutch churches in England. Nevertheless, material from a number of archives allows us to build a reasonably good picture of the knowledge and use of Dutch in Scotland. We begin with a survey of the Dutch who went to Scotland in the early modern period, detailing where in Scotland they were situated and the activities, in which they were involved. Amongst these we can mention sailors in the annual herring fleet; merchant sailors who sailed into ports such as Aberdeen and Leith; and skilled artisans who worked on Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh and other important buildings in Scotland, using skills that the local population may have lacked. We then consider Scots who spent time in the Low Countries, some of whom at least picked up a knowledge of Dutch. These include the many Scottish soldiers in the service of the United Provinces during this period, helping their fellow Protestants to secure independence from Spain; Scottish students attending Dutch universities such as Leiden and Utrecht; and specific individuals such as the exiled noble, Robert Kerr. We then examine the evidence for the use of Dutch in a range of social domains in Scotland. These include the commercial domain; the domestic domain; and

1 Murison refers to ‘a Flemish colony in Edinburgh’.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_009 Scotland and Wales 345 the church and military domains. In relation to the military domain, one interesting correspondence in Dutch between two Scottish officers in the Highlands in 1689–1690 may suggest that they knew the language. We conclude the section on Scotland with a survey of words in Scots that owe something to contact with the Dutch language in this period. Finally, consideration will be given to the use of Dutch in Wales.

7.2 The Dutch in Early Modern Scotland

Let us begin with a survey of the Dutch in early modern Scotland. I shall provide an account by geographical location, beginning in the Western Isles and working clockwise around the Scottish mainland and islands to Edinburgh and its port, Leith. Where appropriate mention will be made of Scottish people who came into contact with the Dutch.

7.2.1 The Western Isles The Dutch began to appear in the waters around Lewis in 1594. They were restricted by licence to fish outside a 28-mile limit of the shore, but gradually encroached on this limit (Taylor 1942: xxxix). King James vi of Scotland had granted fishing rights to the Dutch around and beyond the Hebrides. In 1628 Colin Mackenzie, 1st Earl of Seaforth, and the owner of Lewis, brought in members of a Dutch trading house (some contemporary records say they were from South Holland, other sources describe them as Flemings) to assist in the commercial development of the rich herring fisheries in the Minch between Lewis and mainland Scotland (Wood 1936: 263–6). A Dutch factor or agent and six other Dutchmen were resident in Stornoway all year round to manage their stores and look after their interests (Shaw 1980: 124–5). Indeed a house was built for the agent, which, it is believed, stood on the site of the present day Town Hall in Stornoway. In 1630 the matter of the Dutch at Stornoway came before the Town Council in Edinburgh. The entry for 20 February refers to ‘the plantatioun of Dutchemen thair intendit be the Erle of Seaforth’. The members gave their support to this enterprise (Wood 1936: 66).2 The Dutch appear to have traded other goods from Lewis as well. When the Earl of Seaforth built a new church on the North Beach at Stornoway in about 1630, he ordered a bell from the Dutch, which has the Latin inscription Deo

2 The National Archives of Scotland holds a copy of Articles proposed by Bernard Mackenzie relating to the formation of a company to trade and settle in Lewis. The articles were written in Dutch at Middelburg and dated 12 January 1631 (GD46/18/141). 346 CHAPTER 7

Laudamus on it.3 As well as Lewis, the Dutch are said to have built a curing house at Lochmaddy in North Uist, and had a presence on Skye. However, neither the Scottish nor the English government was happy with Seaforth’s use of Dutch traders and they were forced to leave, possibly as early as 1632. Soon afterwards English companies were brought in but they too had to leave when the Civil War broke out. After the Restoration in 1660, experienced Dutch fishermen were brought to Stornoway to supervise the Dutch fishing activities off the islands. This was brought to a halt with the outbreak of the Second Anglo- Dutch war in 1665 and the Dutch departed for a second and final time.4

7.2.2 The Shetland and Orkney Islands Except in times of war 500–600 Dutch herring busses and a smaller number of doggers for catching cod would visit the waters around Shetland each year. As noted in Chapter 3 one estimate puts the number of men in the herring fleet at over 30,000. The fishermen would put ashore to buy locally-made products such as stockings. One commentator writes that this trade with the Dutch was a primary reason for the growth of Lerwick, the present-day capital of the Shetland Islands. The fine anchorage of Bressay Sound in which Lerwick is situated was the annual rendezvous of the Dutch fishing fleet before it began its activities towards the end of June (Shaw 1980: 124–5). Other places in the Shetland Islands where the locals gathered to sell to the Dutch were Levenwick Bay, Grutness near Sumburgh Head and the Bay of Quendale. The opportunity to trade with the Dutch brought Scottish merchants from as far away as Dundee. In 1711 the physician and antiquary, Sir Robert Sibbald (1641–1722), published a journal of his travels through the Shetland and Orkney Islands. He observes that on the island of ‘Qualsey’ (Whalsay) ‘Dutch merchants resort on the South- west side of the Isle . . . [which] is safe only in the summer’ (Sibbald 1845: 29). We need to be careful here though as Sibbald typically uses the word ‘Hollanders’ to refer to the Dutch, and he may be referring to German merchants here, from ports such as Hamburg and Lübeck, as well as or instead of merchants from the United Provinces.5 The same may be true of a reference to ‘Dutch merchants’

3 This bell still exists and is hanging at St Peter’s Episcopal Church, although the church it was built for (known as St Lennan’s) was demolished in around 1790. 4 I am grateful to Willie Foulger, Secretary of Stornoway Historical Society, for providing this information. 5 As Kathrin Zickermann has recently shown (2013), Hamburg was particularly important for the Dutch herring trade. Many Dutch became residents of Hamburg, so it may have been difficult to distinguish between the Dutch and Germans who came from the city. Scotland and Wales 347 on the island of Stenness in an ‘Instrument’ dated 19 May 1698 in the Bruce of Symbister Papers in the Shetland Archives, which states that:

John Mouat of Hoggaland compeared at Stainhous in Ashinnes, and pro- tested that he had right to the lands of Stainhous [Stenness], with the booth sometime possessed by the Dutch merchants.6

Nevertheless, some of the records do seem clear that at least some of the merchants came to the Shetland Islands from the United Provinces (Shaw 1980: 175; 177; Low 1879: 187). The Dutch invented their own toponyms for geographical features of the Shetlands. They referred to Lerwick as ‘buss haven’, as this was where they gathered in their herring busses (Beenhakker 1973: 2). Sibbald records that the Dutch gave the name Hang-clip (‘Hanging cliff’) to the high promontory at Nosse Head, where birds would build their nests in the cliff face (Sibbald 1845: 62). Further evidence for this name comes from the voc database. It records that in 1673 the Grundel was lost on Kaap Hanglip and, likewise, that the Tobias Leidsman was wrecked on Hanglip in 1688.7 On leaving the seas around the Shetlands, the Dutch fleet followed the herring down the coast of Orkney. They were still doing this in the 1680s, though by then their numbers had reduced from earlier in the century (Shaw 1980: 123). The Court Books of Orkney and Shetland 1614–1615 mention a case involving a Dutch merchant, Henry Luce, at Buravo (Barclay 1967: 72):

Decreit Murchesone contra Bruce-Decernes Lusk Strosburgh to content and pay to Walter Richie the soume of nyne dollouris as partiner with Henrie Luce (or Lute) Dutche merchand at Buravo, and for the price of ane gun.

Between the Shetland and Orkney Islands lies Fair Isle, now famous for its bird- life. In the early modern period, like Stenness, it had a ‘Dutch booth’. Despite its name, this is likely to have had more to do with German sailors and merchants than with the Dutch (Sibbald 1845: 50–1). Ships also came from Flanders. For several years in the late 1650s Charles ii was in exile in Brugge.8 Charles did not forget Brugge when he returned to

6 Shetland Archives, gd144/113/26. 7 http://www.vocsite.nl/schepen/detail.html?id=10392 and . . . id=11885. Accessed 14 April 2014. 8 According to one source he resided at the house of Lord Thomas de Preston. 348 CHAPTER 7

England: in 1666 he gave the burgers privileges for fifteen of their boats to sail along the British coast each year catching herring, which they did from 1667– 1672 and in 1674 (Marechal 1985: 33). There were frequent naval encounters between Dutch and English ships off the coast of the Northern Isles during the three Anglo-Dutch wars. In August 1652 Maarten Harpertsz. Tromp with 102 warships and 10 fireships in his fleet met an English squadron of 62 ships under Robert Blake between Foula and Fair Isle. A storm blew up and only 40 Dutch ships returned to Scheveningen, the others being smashed against the Burra Isles. Dutch vessels often sailed around the north coast of Scotland on long-distance voyages in order to avoid the English Channel. voc ships began to take this route in about 1627.9 In December 1664 the Kennemerland of Amsterdam, an East Indiaman bound for Batavia, was dramatically lost at Out Skerries.10 Three seamen on lookout in the rigging were the only crew members who survived. The ship’s drummer was washed ashore on Bruray and the place he was buried is still known as Drummer’s Grave. The wreck is remembered in the following verse (Schei 1988: 256–7):

The Carmelan frae Amsterdam Cam’ on a Maunsmas day On Stoura Stack, she broke her back, And the Skerry folk got a prey!

120,000 guilders in gold and silver coins were recovered at the time of the wreck. In 1665–1666, during the Second Anglo-Dutch War, a fort was built at Lerwick, which was later known as Fort Charlotte. In 1667, during the same war, Dutch prizes were captured in the Shetlands.11 In 1673, during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the Fort’s barracks were burnt by Dutch sailors (Gifford 1992: 491). In December 1673, the outward-bound East Indiaman Het Wapen van Rotterdam chose a voe (bay) in the Shetlands as an anchorage while waiting for a fair wind. The vessel was wind-bound for a whole month. On 11 February 1674, she was attacked by three British frigates and probably taken as a prize to England. At Hollanders’ Knowe on the southern shore of Ronas Voe is the

9 http://www.vocsite.nl/schepen/detail.html?id=10279. Accessed 14 April 2014. 10 The Kennemerland was the object of an archaeological survey in 1976, the results of which were detailed in a report published in the same year. Unfortunately it gives no details of Dutch language on the objects found although there were some lead marks on ingots found in the vessel (Price 1976). 11 Shetland Archives, sa4/3000/18/9/30: a short article concerning cargoes of Dutch ships captured in Shetland, from the Scottish Historical Review. Scotland and Wales 349 grave of the Dutch sailors who were killed in action during this encounter (Schei 1988: 206).12 In 1690 the voc boat Wapen van Alkmaar was wrecked on the Shetland Islands.13 In 1706 the Samaritan of Amsterdam was wrecked off Meikle Skerrie in the Shetlands. The Shetland Archives contain letters in Dutch and English sent by Floris Croon, free denizen of Amsterdam and factor for the owner of the ship, to John Bruce, a merchant in Edinburgh, requesting him to ‘uplift wrecked goods’ from the Samaritan.14 One linguistic feature of note is that Croon, in common with other Dutch people, refers to the Shetlands as Hitland. Dutch does have the phoneme /ʃ/, notably in diminutives such as haasje (‘little hare’). It does also occur in the initial position (e.g., sjaal ‘scarf’) though typically in loan words from after the period under discussion (wnt). This may help to explain why Dutch authors began this toponym with an ‘h’.15 On a stormy November night in 1711 the East Indiaman the Liefde hit the rocks on Mio Ness; only the lookout survived (Schei 1988: 223; 257).16 Reports reached Holland about this disaster in the form of letters sent by the skippers of two other boats, De Mossel and Kockenge, the latter being named after a village near Utrecht, which had left Holland with the Liefde. On 8 January 1712 the Resolution Book of the Amsterdam Chamber of the voc, also using Hitland for Shetland and giving Dutch forms for other Scottish toponyms, reports (Beenhakker 1973: 5):17

From letters from Laarwijk (Lerwick) in Hitland . . . it has become clear that the Company ships . . . were overtaken by a heavy storm near Hitland, whereby the ship De Liefde ran on the cliffs called Mioni (Mio Ness) or Uutscheren (Out Skerries) . . .

One assumes these letters were written in Dutch by the skippers having put into port at Lerwick. In all, the voc database lists a dozen ships that were lost

12 Schei gives dates in the eighteenth century. However, reference to the Third Anglo-Dutch War tells us these dates should be in the seventeenth century. He also states that the ship was called Het Wapen van Amsterdam. The voc database gives the name Het Wapen van Rotterdam. 13 Visit http://www.vocsite.nl/schepen/detail.html?id=10022. Accessed 14 April 2014. 14 Shetland Archives, gd150/2589/2 (in English) and gd150/2589/5 (in Dutch). 15 Goossens (1974: 87) does not include /ʃ/ in his schema of New Dutch phonemes. 16 See also http://www.vocsite.nl/schepen/detail.html?id=10614. Accessed 14 April 2014. 17 The quotation is taken from Beenhakker’s translation of the report. The Liefde was carrying 227,000 guilders. Some of these together with gold coins, and a cannon with a Dutch inscription, have been recovered and are now preserved in the collection of the Shetland Museum in Lerwick. 350 CHAPTER 7 in and around the Shetland Islands in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Before leaving the Northern Islands, we need to deal with the question of which languages were used on the Shetland Islands in the early modern period. Richard Bailey writes that in Shetland a multilingual community emerged involving Norn, English and Dutch (Bailey 2006: 338). This is probably true, but requires a little expansion. Norn, a West Scandinavian language along with Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese, was dying out by the seventeenth century. Robert Sibbald, writing in 1711 (1845: 16), does report the use of Norn, but says it is ‘now much worn out’. As for Dutch, several reports, discussed below, make reference to its use by Shetlanders who traded with Dutch fishermen. Previously another commentator noted that many Shetlanders, even servants, could speak good Dutch and some could converse in English, Dutch and Norn (Fenton 1978: 616). However, whether they used the language apart from talking to the Dutch fishermen is a difficult question to answer. Let us now move onto the Scottish mainland.

7.2.3 The Scottish Mainland Dutch boats, including those in the herring fleet, often called in at the port of Aberdeen. In theory, after 1609 foreigners needed a licence from Edinburgh to fish in Scottish waters, but in practice the city authorities in Aberdeen circum- vented this by giving the freedom of the burgh to certain Hollanders to whom they had entrusted their ‘bush’ (i.e., buss) fishing (Taylor 1942: xxxix). Other types of Dutch vessel docking in the harbour were galliots (a cargo vessel), doggers and pinks (Clark 1921: 47).18 Local records attest to the frequent arrival in Aberdeen of boats laden with fresh produce from the Low Counties (Taylor 1972: 336). One particularly frequent cargo was onions. The quickest boats got the highest price for their owners (Jackson 2002: 166). There were also reports of Dutch vessels calling in at Stonehaven, Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the North and South of Aberdeen on Scotland’s east coast (Taylor 1954: 94). An activity of quite a different kind carried out by a Dutchman in Aberdeen was card manufacture. In 1673 the Aberdonians invited Aaron de Hens to set up a business for this purpose in the city. This was however opposed by James Currie, an Edinburgh merchant who had the monopoly on card manufacture (Taylor 1957: 355). Dutch naval vessels also sailed in the seas off the coast of Aberdeen. On 9 October 1622 the Spanish Ambassador in London wrote a letter to the Edinburgh magistrates thanking them for their protection of Spanish ships

18 Clark also refers to the lighter ‘cabar’ or ‘crear’. I can find no reference to these in the wnt. Scotland and Wales 351 attacked in the port of Aberdeen by the Dutch.19 In 1658 two Dutch vessels were attacked by a Portuguese vessel; all three ships were driven into the harbours of Aberdeen and Stonehaven, ‘from whence the Dutch crews were despatched to their own country’ (Clark 1921: 62). Further down the coast in East Fife, Dutch students, mainly studying theology, attended the University of St. Andrews in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (Cameron 1991). In 1617 one Dutch theology student Godefried van der Hagen wrote that the Scots had a common dialect with the English, though their dialect was different (Rackwitz 2007: 112, n. 179). Elsewhere in East Fife there are reports of significant Dutch and Flemish involvement in local industries. During the reign of James vi of Scotland, there were Flemish (and Venetian) glassblowers at the Wemyss Glassworks. Flemish ‘salt-makers’ worked on the coast of Fife in the second half of the sixteenth century. The calendar of the State Papers for Scotland records a riot of salt-makers on the coast of Fife in support of the Protestant cause. Most of the troublemakers were Flemings (Hallen 1887: 170). The earliest mining schemes in Scotland owe not a little to Flemish mining engineers. Coalmining was initiated in Wemyss in this period. By the middle of the seventeenth century coal was by far the most important Scottish bulk product shipped to the Netherlands (Enthoven 2007: 52). Coal from Scotland was used in particular by the brewing industry in Rotterdam (Unger 2004: 139). This led to Scottish traders and brokers establishing themselves in Rotterdam, who added to the significant Scottish community in the city (Zickermann 2013: 111–12). As noted in the introduction, the one city in Scotland which had a Dutch/ Flemish community was Edinburgh. One member of this community was the artist, Adrian Vanson, probably from Breda, who was employed at the court of King James vi. His wife, Susanna de Colone, traded in Edinburgh on her own account. Their son, Adam, also a painter, was born in the city. Another Netherlandish artist employed at James vi’s court was Arnold Bronkhorst who arrived in Scotland from England in 1579 (Campbell 1996: 92–3). In 1599 Richard Doby was given a commission to go to Flanders to hire masons and workmen to repair the roof of the High Kirk (Wood 1927: 249). Clearly the fact that in 1603 the English and Scottish crowns were united and the monarch ruled from London reduced the knowledge and use of Dutch in court life in Scotland after this time. The Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland detail many payments to people described as Dutchmen or Flemings, primarily in Edinburgh and the surrounding area. For example, in 1549 a payment was made ‘to foure Duche men

19 Edinburgh City Archives (eca), Moses Bundles: Bundle 2, No. 60. 352 CHAPTER 7 quha with thair trumbis playit before Ladye Barbara in hir incumming fra the kirk’ (Balfour Paul 1911: 281) and in 1555 two payments were made ‘to Franschis, Ducheman’ for the purchase of cloth (Balfour Paul 1913: 284). Kinross House was built in 1686. The National Archive of Scotland (nas) holds an account for work at the house between 12 March and 12 June 1686 by two Dutch stone- carvers, Peter Paul Boyse and Cornelius van Nerven.20 Another Dutchman who worked on Kinross House was the wood-carver, Jan van Santvoort. He also carried out extensive work at Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh in the 1680s. Van Santvoort may well have been working at Holyrood at the same time as another Dutchman, the artist, Jacob de Wet, of whom more below. On 4 September 1586 the Scottish minister, Gualterus Balcanquellus, wrote a letter (in Latin) from Edinburgh to the London Dutch church. He stated that the bearer of the letter was coming to London to ask the Dutch church there to send some of its members to work in Scotland as weavers (H 87: iii, i, 841). Further efforts were made in 1601 to bring Flemish weavers from the Low Countries and towns in England where they had settled to Edinburgh to manufacture products from Scottish wool. The Burgh records indicate that these efforts met with some success for already in June of that year seven Flemings had arrived in the city, six to make says and the other to braid cloth (Wood 1927: 287). Twelve more Flemish textile workers arrived in the following month (Hallen 1887: 173). One Fleming already living in the city in 1601 was Paul de Corte, a dyer from Norwich, who petitioned the town council for proper accommodation.21 A contract between the commission- ers of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, represented by Gabriel Bischop, and two Flemings, Nicholas Wandebrok and Philip Wermont, made in Edinburgh on 10 October 1601 provides evidence of their presence in the city. It begins (Moens 1887–8: 265):

We, Nichollas Wandebrok, Phillipus Wermont, Fleymynges, baithe resident in Norwiche in England, and now arrivit in Edinburgh . . . acknowledge and confess to be fellow partners with Gabriele Bischop . . .

In the same year a petition was made to the Convention of Burghs for the establishment of a Dutch/Flemish church. In a letter dated 18 January 1606 from the consistory of the London Dutch church to its counterpart in Norwich, there is reference to ‘a certain freedom’ being granted to the aliens in Edinburgh (sekere vryheyt den vremdelingen vergunt tot Edinburch in Schotlant) (H 87: iii, i, 1177). Unfortunately no further details are provided to tell us pre-

20 National Archive of Scotland (nas), gd29/2195. 21 eca, bundle 209, no. 7542. Scotland and Wales 353 cisely what this freedom entailed. In 1601 a separate petition was made to bring ‘a brewer of their own nation’ to the city!22 The States General sent diplomatic missions to the court of King James in Scotland. In 1588–1589 Leonard de Voocht and Joachim Ortell, the Dutch agent in London, travelled to Scotland and gave a Verbaal (‘verbal report’) of their mission to the States General in February 1589. In 1590 De Voocht and Jan van de Warcke undertook another mission and a third, involving Walraven van Brederode and Jacob Valcke, took place in 1594.23 It was probably shortly after this that Hadrianus Damman became the permanent ambassador of the States General to the Scottish court. We return to Damman below. Here is perhaps the most appropriate place to note that in his memoirs the Scottish courtier and diplomat, Sir James Melville (1535–1617), claimed to speak ‘Dutch’. The question here though is whether he is referring to German or Dutch. He seems to use the word ‘Dutch’ somewhat indiscriminately and may have spoken both Dutch and German. Nevertheless, he does make a distinction when discussing the linguistic capabilities of his brother, Robert, Lord Tungland, who was also a diplomat. According to Melville, Robert could speak several languages ‘perfectly’ including ‘the High Dutch’ and ‘the Flemming languages’ (Melville 1683: 178). Finally, in 1567 a Dutchman, Cornelius de Vos was granted a licence to search for gold and silver, and in 1588 a Fleming, Eustachius Roche, was granted a patent by King James for making salt. There was clearly much commercial activity between the port of Leith and the Low Countries. Between 1561–1571 Leith sent 225 vessels to Zeeland alone. This may be compared to figures for other towns and cities in Scotland: Dundee 79; Aberdeen 45; and Montrose 13 (Jackson 2002: 167–8). Dutch sailors visited the port of Leith. In 1595 ‘a Dutche merchant and skipper of Holstar’ were allowed to leave the port with a cargo of rye (Wood 1927: 131). In 1620 a Dutch merchant, Jacob Broun, was fined for understating the quantity of onions on his ship at Leith and in 1621 two Dutch skippers ‘Cornelius Yansoun’ and Gilleis Dame were fined for selling their goods before entering them in the Town’s books (Wood 1931: 214). We also learn that much of the soap made at Leith was exported to the United Provinces (Taylor 1957: 120). Finally, moving towards the border with England, Dutch joiners and cabinet-makers were employed in the extensive work on Thirlestane Castle near Lauder from 1671–1672 (Dunbar 1974).

22 eca, 209, no. 7551; 7552. 23 The Verbalen are numbers 1.01.02/8302, /8303 and /8305 in the Inventaris van het archief van de Staten-Generaal, (1431) 1576–1796 at the Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague. 354 CHAPTER 7

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the activities in which Dutch people were involved in early modern Scotland. However, it gives a sense of the range of what they did and where they did it. It is likely that the mother tongue of most if not all of the people mentioned was Dutch. We can already state that the herring fishers and the crews of the voc boats would have spoken Dutch on and around the shores of Scotland. The extent to which the Dutch language was otherwise used in Scotland is considered in more detail shortly. However before this, it is also worth briefly mentioning Scots who spent time in the United Provinces. In most cases, there is no direct evidence that they acquired a knowledge of Dutch. However, a few of them did do so, and in one or two instances we have evidence for their use of the language in Scotland.

7.3 Scots in the Low Countries

Many Scottish Protestant soldiers went to the Netherlands to support the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain. From 1574 to 1782 the Scots Brigade acted, along with troops from other countries, as the standing army of the United Provinces. By 1603 there were about 3000 Scots soldiers in Dutch service in the Netherlands, and in 1629 there were four Scots regiments in Dutch service, which represented between 4–7% of the total fighting force of the United Provinces. Each regiment had its own chaplain, such as Andrew Hunter, described as ‘preacher to the Scots Regiments’ and his successors such as Henry Sibbald (Sprunger 1982: 262). Scottish soldiers who returned after serving in the Low Countries were important in the Covenanters’ forces, which went to war with King Charles I. By contrast Catholic Scots served in the Army of Flanders (Dunthorne 1996: 114; 106–7). Later, in 1689, William iii sent troops to Scotland to deal with Jacobite opposition to his rule. Amongst these troops was a Regiment of Scottish soldiers, which had served in the United Provinces under Major-General Mackay and which William had brought with him when he invaded England in 1688 (Sapherson 1987: 36). Letters written in the Highlands in Dutch exchanged between Mackay, and one of his officers, Sir Thomas Livingstone, are considered below. Many Scottish students studied theology, law and medicine at Leiden, founded in 1575. One commentator notes that Scotland owed a great debt to Dutch theology in the seventeenth century (Sprunger 1982: 357). A Scottish student of law from 1682–1688, John Burnett, reports hearing ‘much broad Scots spoken’ as he walked down the Bredestraat (now Breestraat) in Leiden (Feenstra 1989: 36, n. 43). The University of Utrecht, founded in 1636, was another Dutch university that attracted Scottish students (Wilson 1946: 165). The Scottish-born jurist and scholar, Alexander Cunningham of Block studied Scotland and Wales 355

Roman law in Utrecht with Johannes Voet, the grandson of the famous Utrecht theologian, Gisbertus Voetius. By 1678 Cunningham was acting for British col- lectors at book auctions in the Netherlands. He continued to visit the Low Countries regularly and eventually settled in The Hague, where he died in 1730 (Feenstra 1989: 41 ff.; odnb).24 For most of this period the Scots had a staple at Veere in Zeeland. The Edinburgh City Archive (eca) holds two copies of the staple contract with Veere written in Dutch and signed in 1675 in The Hague by the stadholder, William iii.25 The Cunningham family had a long association with Veere. In 1641, another member of the Cunningham family, Thomas, was appointed conservator of the Scottish Court at Veere. He married a Dutchwoman, Apollonia de Myster (Damsté 1966: 32–47; Enthoven 2007). The Scottish connection with Veere is emphasized by the fact that there was a Scottish church in the Zeeland town. Two Calvinists at Veere indicted by the Council of Troubles were Scotsmen. George Kincaid was alderman (schepen) in Veere and a member of the Calvinist church council in 1566. Alexander Sigait, an earlier conservator of the Scottish merchants, was also possibly a member of the consistory at Veere and took part in a deputation to the town hall to ask for religious freedom. Both were banished in 1568 and left for Scotland in March of that year (Rooze- Stouthamer 1996: 530; 531).26 As well as a Scottish church at Veere, there was also a Scottish congregation in Rotterdam, which met separately from the English from the early 1640s onwards (Sprunger 1982: 175). After the Restoration, Scottish Presbyterian ministers, as well as their English counterparts, took refuge in the United Provinces, with Rotterdam proving to be the most popular destination for them (Sprunger 1982: 427, 432, n. 28). Staying with the theme of religion, many Scots attended the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), where the main debates were conducted in Latin. They brought back books, theses and sermons explaining and enlarging on the decisions of the Synod. The first two of these were also typically in Latin (Wilson 1946: 180).27

24 One way of getting a sense of the extent to which Scots living in the Dutch Republic such as Cunningham could at least read Dutch is to study book sales catalogues. Databases containing details of such catalogues for sales between 1599–1800 in the Dutch Republic can be consulted online at http://bsc.idcpublishers.info/ and http://www.bibliopolis.nl/ veilingen. The details of the auction of Cunningham’s private library, made in 1730, are available at these sites. Accessed 15 April 2014. 25 eca, 209, no. 7629. 26 I thank Alastair Duke for bringing this reference to my attention. 27 Many of these were placed in the library at Glasgow University, whilst other Scottish university libraries hold similar collections of Dutch commentaries. 356 CHAPTER 7

The printer of the first Bible printed in Scotland, Thomas Bassendyne, worked in the Low Countries. Some sources mention Leiden, whilst one commentator notes that he worked as a printer in Antwerp and goes onto to suggest that although born in Scotland, Bassendyne may have had Flemish ancestry (Hallen 1887: 173). Robert Kerr, 1st Earl of Ancram (c. 1578–1654), lived the latter part of his life in exile in Amsterdam. His grandsons visited him in exile in 1652. In March 1652, M. Young, who was probably their chaperone, wrote that ‘they have enough Dutch to serve them’ and ‘so much Dutch wee have as would serve us in any part of the Low Countreys’.28 A daughter of one of the grandsons, Jean Ker(r), would write a letter to a cousin in Dutch in Scotland. This is discussed below. These examples do not of course prove anything about the use of Dutch in early modern Scotland, but they do illustrate the various reasons for which Scots visited the United Provinces in this period. Furthermore, these and other Scots brought back a knowledge of the language to Scotland, and we have evidence that in at least one or two cases they did use their knowledge of Dutch in Scotland.

7.4 The Use of Dutch in Scotland

This brings us onto the use of Dutch in early modern Scotland, evidence for which we shall now consider in detail. We shall do this on the basis of social domains, as we did for England in Chapters 2–5. We begin with the commercial domain.

7.4.1 The Commercial Domain In the commercial domain, we find evidence for the use of Dutch by textile workers, merchants and herring fishers.

7.4.1.1 Textile Workers in Edinburgh The eca holds documents in Dutch relating to workers in the textile industry in Edinburgh. In 1601 indentures were made in Dutch between Alexander Hunter, who was active in bringing textile workers to the city from the Low Countries, and Flemish dressers of cloth (fig. 20).29 Edinburgh tried to encourage weavers from Norwich and Colchester to remove to the Scottish capital. The eca holds a proclamation made in Dutch

28 nas, gd40/2/3/9. 29 eca, 209, no. 7558. Scotland and Wales 357 , 209, no. 7558 7558 no. eca , 209, workers. and Flemish textile Hunter Alexander made between An indenture City Archives of Edinburgh Courtesy figure 20 358 CHAPTER 7 at the Dutch church in Norwich for this purpose in 1601.30 In the same year a contract was made in Dutch between Hunter and a Flemish woolcomber, John Storman.31 On 10 May 1601 an offer made by the Flemish cardmakers in Dutch was presented to the Council in Edinburgh.32 This began:

In den Namen des Heeren Anno d[o]m[ini] 1601 stilo anglio . . . dat seker commissaris uut tconinckryck van Schotlandt met name Alexander Hunter bynnen die stadt van Noortwitz bynnen trycke van Ingelant ghexamineert is . . . dat hij commissaris [is] voor sayn bay . . . binnen . . . die stadt van Edinburch.

In the Name of the Lord A.D. 1601 O.S . . . that a certain official from the Kingdom of Scotland by the name of Alexander Hunter in the city of Norwich in the Kingdom of England has been examined . . . that he is the official for says and bays in the city of Edinburgh.

Hunter also received a letter from the burgomaster and the Council of Leiden in response to his request for clothworkers.33

7.4.1.2 Commercial Correspondence Letters written in the United Provinces in Dutch concerning business matters were received in Scotland. The Russell collection in the National Archive of Scotland (nas) includes some 50 letters written to Andrew Russell (c.1629– 1699), a merchant who divided his time between Rotterdam and Edinburgh.34 He served as the main factor for Scottish trade in Rotterdam between 1668 and 1697, during which time he also served as an elder in the Scots Kirk at Rotterdam.35 Most of the letters in the Russell collection were written by business associates in Amsterdam to Russell when he was in Rotterdam, although some were addressed to him in Edinburgh in 1673. For example, he received a letter in Dutch dated 20 April 1673 from Adriaen van Ringelenbergh in Leiden. It is addressed Aen Monsr. Andries Russell Coopman Tot Edinburgh in Schotlandt. He received another, short letter in Dutch dated 17 May 1673

30 eca, 209, no. 7546. 31 eca, 209, no. 7569. 32 eca, 209, no. 7560. 33 eca, 209, no. 7622. 34 nas, rh15/106/149. 35 For a short biography of Russell, visit http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item .php?id=143 & id2=143. Accessed 14 April 2014. See also Sprunger (1982: 434). Scotland and Wales 359 from Van Ringelenbergh in which he was asked to pay de somme van acht en vertigh pondt sterlingh, i.e., 48 pounds sterling, to Monsr. Gawen Laurie. Van Ringelenbergh addressed another letter in the collection dated April 1673 from Leiden in Dutch Aen Monsieur Davidt Cockburn Coopman tot Edinburgh. The letter concerns a bill of exchange (wisselbrief ) that Cockburn would not accept. Jacobus Petit wrote from the United Provinces to Russell in Edinburgh in January 1673, addressing his letter A Mynheer Rousel, Koopman Tot Edemburgh. Unfortunately, there are no letters in this collection written by Russell from Scotland, so we cannot demonstrate his active use of the language. However, he was clearly able to read these letters and so we can talk in terms of a passive use of the language. The same may also be true of ‘Davidt Cockburn’. The letters in the Russell collection would provide a good source for the study of seventeenth-century Dutch business and commercial letters.36 One final point in relation to Russell is that in 1686 Alexander Baird wrote to him when he was in Rotterdam asking him to oversee the education of his apprentice there. It was not uncommon for business apprentices to be sent to the United Provinces from Scotland at this time, in part to learn Dutch, which was seen as an important business language in this period (Smout 1963: 78). Other commercial correspondence would be written in English (Scots) and translated into Dutch in the United Provinces.37 One example of such a commercial letter in the nas collection is dated Leith den 20 augustij 1673 and is identified as a Copie Translaet uijtten Schootses (i.e., a translation from the Scots).38 It was translated into Dutch in Rotterdam by Johannes Crosse.

7.4.1.3 The Dutch Fisheries in the Northern Isles As noted above, many fishermen, whose native tongue was Dutch, sailed to the Shetland Islands each year. Local people used Dutch to trade with these sailors in order to help safeguard their commercial interests (Barnes 1998: 23). Most of our knowledge of this use of Dutch comes from metalinguistic comment in a number of contemporary independent accounts. One of these is provided by Robert Sibbald, whom we have already met. In 1711 he wrote of the people of the Shetland Islands, ‘because of their commerce with the Hollanders, they promptly speak Low Dutch’ (Sibbald 1845: 16). Sibbald had studied at Leiden

36 Another set of commercial documents in Dutch, relating to the East India Company, is held in the private collection of the Stewarts of Stewartfield (Payne et al. 1967: 41). 37 For the question of whether English and Scots should be treated as separate languages, or rather dialects of the same language, see Joby 2014f, Chapter 1. 38 nas, rh15/102/7 (The papers of Sir James Stansfield of Newmilns and the Newmilns Cloth Manufactory). 360 CHAPTER 7

University. He describes his journey to Holland and his time there in some detail in his autobiography. In 1660 he travelled to Holland aboard a Dutch frig- ate! He stayed in Leiden for eighteen months, studying various sciences under Professor van Horne and the famous botanist, Adolphus Vorstius. Although clearly most if not all of this learning would have been conducted in Latin, Sibbald also visited Utrecht and Amsterdam, ‘severall tymes’ and this might have afforded him the opportunity to hear and even use ‘Low Dutch’ (Sibbald 1833: 15–16). Sibbald was later appointed the first professor of medicine at Edinburgh University and was clearly an extremely learned individual, whose account we have no reason to doubt. In the record of his tour of the Orkney and Shetland Islands in 1774, admittedly a little late for the purposes of this book, the Revd. George Low writes (Low 1879: 67–8):

The country folks are very smart in their bargains with the Dutch; they are now paid in money for everything, no such things as formerly truck- ing one commodity for another; almost all of them speak as much Dutch, Danish and Norwegian as serves the purpose of buying and selling, nay some of them speak these languages, especially the low Dutch, fluently.

Low’s final reference to ‘low Dutch’ makes it clear there can be no confusion with German. Another commentator wrote a book published in 1750 on the Dutch fisheries in Shetland. He does not give his name, but states on the title page that he was ‘a gentleman who resided Five Years on the Island’ (i.e., Mainland of Shetland). He writes (Anon. 1750: 9):

. . . here the [Shetlander] comes with his Horse, enquiring, in Dutch, who will ride; immediately comes a clumsy Dutchman (this author was not enamoured of the Dutch) gives him a Dublekee (that is twopence) than up he mounts.

Reference to a Dublekee bespeaks Dutch rather than German. Indeed, coins provide an interesting example of written, or more accurately stamped, Dutch in early modern Scotland. In Aberdeen in the mid-seventeenth century there is a record of 12000 ‘guidlingis fleemes’ (‘Flemish guilders’) being exchanged in the city (Taylor 1952). Many Dutch coins were in circulation in the Shetland Islands into the eighteenth century. As late as 1806 it is reckoned that there were more Dutch coins in Lerwick than British ones. The purse of a man who died in a peatbog in Shetland in the seventeenth century was found in his Scotland and Wales 361 clothes. In it there was a Nijmegen 6-stuiver piece of 1690 and an Overijssel 2-stuiver piece of 1681 (Fenton 1978: 7).

7.4.2 The Domestic Domain Letters and other documents provide evidence of the use of Dutch in the domestic domain. We have two letters written by women, one Dutch, one Scottish from the nas. Helena de Wet (Witt) was the wife of the artist, Jacob de Wet/Witt the Elder (c.1610–c.1691). He decorated the Great Gallery of the Palace of Holyrood House in Edinburgh with portraits of more than 100 Scottish monarchs, from the legendary King Fergus to James vii (James ii of England) by order of James and his elder brother, Charles ii. On 12 August 1688 Helena wrote a letter in Dutch from Edinbourg 12 aug[us]ti 1688. It begins:39

Mijn heer, Hier nevens gaen volgens ue verzoek de verven ende de selven couleuren sijn later gereet geweest maer den man diese gewreven heeft, heeft vrij ter stadt geweest, gelijk hij noch is, soo dat mijn fout niet is dat ue de selve niet eer becomen hebt . . .

Dear Sir, hereby I send you in accordance with your request the paintings; the colours of the same have been finished later, but the man who rubbed them had leave in town, and he is still on leave, so it is not my fault that you did not receive them earlier . . .

No addressee appears in Helena’s letter. Despite the apparent formality of the salutation, Mijn heer, and the use of the formula uw dienst-willige dienaresse (‘your obedient servant’) at the end of the letter, the possibility that Helena is writing to her husband, Jacob, cannot be ruled out. We should also note Helena’s use of the form of address, ue. It was relatively rare for women to use this form of address in this period. Helena’s letter is a private autograph letter and in the Brieven als buit corpus, from the second half of the seventeenth century, only 17% of women used this form of address in such letters (Nobels 2013: 89). A letter in the nas in Dutch from Jean Ker to her cousin, Mistress Mary Montgomery, makes interesting reading.40 We are not told the year or the place where it was written. However, it seems to have been written in Scotland. It is dated maert 29 (29 March) and runs,

39 nas gd29/1999. 40 nas gd40/2/7/20. 362 CHAPTER 7

Mijn lieve nicht, ick en kan noch voor het toekomende week niet tot newbattle zijn, doch en hadt de patiencie niet om so lang te wachten sonder te hooren hoe dat mevrouw de gravin noch al vaert, daerom moet ick noch eens de goetheyt van Ued versoeke om my ’t selve te laten weten t’ welke sal een verder obligatie wesen aen Mejouffvrou, Ued ootmoedige dienaress, Jean Ker.41

My dear cousin, I cannot be at Newbattle before next week, and did not have the patience to wait so long without hearing how my lady the countess is. Therefore I must once more call on your benevolence once more to let me know about the same, which will be one more debt to my lady, your humble servant, Jean Ker.

There is an abbey at Newbattle in Midlothian that has historically belonged to the Ker(r) family. A Jean Ker, born in about 1671, is listed as a daughter of Robert Kerr, Marquess of Lothian.42 In the same hand the letter is addressed to Mary Montgomery at Newbattle. The question then arises as to how Jean, and indeed Mary, picked up their Dutch. One possibility is that they had spent time in the Netherlands. Another possibility is that they had learnt Dutch from the grandsons of Robert Kerr, 1st Earl of Ancram, probably their respective fathers, who visited him in exile in Amsterdam in 1652 and whose Dutch was said to be good. The Earl of Ancram was a subsidiary title of The Marquess of Lothian. Jean’s letter is not dated. In the nas archive it sits between papers dated 1681 and 1683, but this seems too early if she was born in about 1671. We might ask why Jean wrote in Dutch and not in English. One possibility is that it was simply to practice her Dutch, or it may be an example of what the Dutch call Spielerei, i.e., for her own and Mary’s entertainment. There is also a possibility that the letter is a fake, but there is no evidence for this. Finally, a few points about the author’s language are in order. First, is the use of het instead of de for week (‘week’), a slip of the pen or a reminder that Jean, if she is indeed the author, is not a native speaker? Does the fact that she spells dienaress with a double ‘s’ add to this notion (cf. the influence of English on Johannes Radermacher’s Dutch in his 1568 grammar (see section 6.4.1))? Thirdly, the author uses Ued as the form of address. This, in common with UE,

41 In the margin Jean writes mijn onderdaenige dienst aen mevrouw de marchioness, de freulin Lilias ende de freulin Anna: ‘my obedient service to my lady the Marchioness, Miss Lilias and Miss Anna’. 42 . Accessed 14 April 2014. Scotland and Wales 363 is an abbreviated form of u edele or uwe edelheid. In her account of forms of address in the Brieven als buit corpus, Judith Nobels does not treat this variant separately, but, as noted in the case of Helena de Wit, it was rare for women to use the related form UE at this time (Nobels 2013: 88–9). We find a different kind of document in the papers of the Bruce family of Kinross at the nas. On one page there is a list of plants dated 1 August 1675 with the names of plants in Latin, prices in Dutch and a small amount of Dutch text at the start:43

1675 den 1 Augustus hebbe ick (name) aen Mr. Jacob Gordon . . . (document torn) alle dese plante ende bloem bolle als volcht . . .

On 1 August 1675 I have [] . . . to Mr. Jacob Gordon . . . all these plants and flower bulbs as follows . . .

Another page provides Dutch descriptions of the Latin names for flowers. It begins De nummer die op de cant staet is het goet dat inden back staet . . . (‘The number on the side is the item that is in the box . . .’). The question that remains unanswered is whether this document was written in Scotland or the United Provinces. The same can be said for a volume preserved in the nas that contains 50 pages of Dutch arithmetical problems and calligraphic illustrations. It was kept by Johannes Weir and dated 1676. The nas catalogue refers to Grisel Weir, who was the widow of David Main, a writer in Edinburgh.44 Johannes and Grisel would appear to be related, though precisely how is not clear. Another document in Dutch in the nas, amongst the papers of the Cockburn family of Langton, constitutes the discharge of a tocher (dowry) payable by Cicillia Vander Staell, widow of John Nutton, on the marriage of her daughter. The papers are accompanied by a translation into English dated Edinburgh 8 January 1684.45 A letter dated 29 March 1665 from Colin Campbell, Edinburgh, to the laird of Glenurchy is written in English but contains a phrase which alludes to the Dutch Hoogh Mogende (Heeren) (‘High Mightinesses (My Lords)’), a form of address for the States General that we met in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.1). In a marginal note we read:

43 nas, gd29/2161. 44 nas, cs96/3268. 45 nas, gd1/160/5. 364 CHAPTER 7

The hollanders are come come (sic.) out 120 saill . . . So the hogan mogan are high on it.46

It seems here that the term hogan mogan is being used pejoratively as a metonym for the Dutch. A related phrase, Hogen mogens, would eventually become used as a term of abuse for anyone thought to be getting above himself (Downing and Rommelse 2011: 15). Turning to the question of whether Dutch was spoken in the domestic domain in Scotland, one commentator observes that on the Shetland Islands servants could speak good Dutch, although we are not given a sense of the extent to which this was the case (Fenton 1978: 616). Beyond this, members of the Flemish community in Edinburgh are likely to have spoken Dutch at home. In Chapter 4 (section 4.3.6.1) reference was made to modern studies conducted on Dutch immigrants in Australia. These concluded that there was little language attrition amongst the immigrants and that only around 60% of these immigrants shifted to English in the first generation. There is no reason to believe that language shift occurred any more quickly amongst Flemish immigrants in Edinburgh.

7.4.3 The Church Domain In 1581 a pamphlet was published, which included a translation into Dutch of a confession of faith by James vi, King of Scotland. We are told that the confession was made by James in 1581 at Holyrood House in Edinburgh, and that the translation itself was made Wt Schotscher Sprake, i.e., from the Scots (Belydenisse 1581). The pamphlet was produced by a London merchant, whose letter in Dutch, which acts as a foreword for the pamphlet, is discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.5). But what of a Dutch church in Edinburgh? In a letter dated 2 May 1586, addressed to the minister of the Walloon church in London, Robert de la Fontayne, Sir Francis Walsingham lists a number of actions that he believes the Stranger communities in England should take. One of these is to establish a church in Scotland (H 87: iii, i, 819). It does seem that a Stranger church was indeed established although it is difficult to ascertain whether services were conducted in French, Dutch, or perhaps both. In 1586, the Edinburgh City Records refer to a French church being set up with the city magistrates granting the use of University Hall. The name of the pastor, Pierre du Moulin, to whom it was agreed to pay a stipend, is suggestive of a Huguenot, although this cannot be the famous Huguenot divine of this name, who was born in 1568 (Hallen 1887: 170; Smiles 1889: 113–4). However, in 1587 an

46 nas, gd112/39/111/8. Scotland and Wales 365

Act of Parliament was passed in favour of ‘John Gardin, Philip Fermant, and John Banko, Flemings . . . to have a kirk and minister of their own’ (Hallen 1887: 168).47 Mention of Flemings seems to point to the use of the Dutch language in church services, but this is problematic for fifteen years later, in 1601, a petition was made to the Convention of Burghs for the establishment of a Dutch/ Flemish church. Were church services held in Dutch for a short while in the 1580s, then again at the beginning of the seventeenth century? Currently, we do not know. It is of course possible that Dutch/Flemish Strangers in Edinburgh met for worship in their homes. A letter, which fits no domain perfectly, but which has at least something to do with the church domain, was written in Dutch on 16 January 1605 to the leaders of the Dutch church in London by Hadrianus Damman, who was appointed as the Ambassador of the States General to King James vi in 1594 (H 87: iii, i, 1157; bwn, iv). From the letter to Austin Friars it transpires that he had recently visited London, ostensibly on diplomatic business, but was forced to leave because of the plague.48 His letter begins:

Erentfeste . . . broederen . . . Ick bedancke u.E. voor die vriendelicke onthal- dingen van my ende myner huysvrouwe binnen London . . . Ick en hadde van London niet vertrocken sonder u.E. in persoone te bedancken en hadde geweest die visitatie des Heeren over myn huus. Want zo ick een huus gehu- ert hadde in Kingslandt by London, zo ick meende, zeer gesondt, den goed- ighen God heeft my bewesen dat den mensche proponeert, maer dattet es hy die disponeert. Want aldaer ter stondt, dat die Heeren Ambassadeurs vertrocken, myn schoonsone ende myn nichte, die met my gyngen aldaer totter heylighe Communion zyn vander peste wechgenomen.

Honourable brothers, I thank you for your friendly reception of myself and my wife in London . . . I would not have left London without thanking you in person, if the Lord had not visited my house. For I hired a house in Kingsland, near London, which, I thought, would be very healthy, but kind God as shown me that whilst men propose, it is he who disposes. For at the very moment that the Ambassadors departed, my son-in-law and my niece, who went with me to Holy Communion, were snatched away by the plague.

47 There is an entry in the Edinburgh City Records of ‘two Fleming Webstars (i.e., female weavers)’ being removed from ‘the kirk’. Hallen (1887: 168) suggests they may have been Anabaptists. 48 For more on Damman’s time in Scotland see Irving (1839: 222–3). 366 CHAPTER 7

He later informs the addressees that his daughter will shortly be arriving in London and he expresses the hope that she will receive an equally warm welcome: ick bidde u.E. haer t’onfangen als my self. He signs the letter Uuyt Edinburgh den xvjen January 1604 (‘From Edinburgh the 16th January 1604/5’). A number of points regarding Damman’s Dutch are in order. First, he uses the form of address u.E. In Chapter 5 we saw that diplomats such as Johann van Oldenbarnevelt and Noël de Caron were using related forms towards the end of the sixteenth century. Derived from the chancery, u.E. and related forms were first used by the aristocracy and then adopted by the upper-middle classes in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. From this evidence at least, it was being used by diplomats at this time. Secondly, the use of es instead of is (‘is’) was particularly common in Vlaams, although it was also found in Brabants in this period (wnt; Willemyns 2013: 74; Jacobs 1927: 200). Damman was born in Limberg in Eastern Brabant, close to the present-day province of Limburg. Thirdly, having spent a number of years in Scotland and England, Damman’s Dutch was clearly being influenced by English. He refers to the Congregation der Kercke and heylighe Communion, where one would expect congregatie and communie, and signs himself as Hadr. van Damman, Rudder of Bistervelt end’ Faire-Hill (‘. . . Lord/Knight of Beijstervelde and Fair-Hill’). We also should note that Damman was considered a decent poet in Latin, but no Dutch verse by him has come to light.49 He wrote a collection of Latin poems (and one Greek poem), entitled Schediasmata, on the marriage of King James, printed in Edinburgh in 1590 by Robert Waldegrave (c. 1554– 1603/4).50 He also translated du Bartas’ La Sepmaine into Latin, again printed by Waldegrave in 1600 (nnwb, iii, 273–6).51 In Crail in Fifeshire there are traces of the Dutch and Flemish presence in the town, which date back to the Middle Ages. From the early modern period, it is said that the wives of the fishermen who called in at the port built part of the harbour wall; the town hall is of Dutch design, and the stepped-gables of other buildings bespeak the influence of Low Countries architecture (Crail 1935: 16). One linguistic remnant of the connections between Crail and the Low Countries is a Dutch inscription on the bell that hangs in the clocktower

49 An emblem book printed in Amsterdam in 1614, Lust tot Wysheid, contains Dutch texts, which may be based on Latin originals written by Damman. The nnwb also reports that Damman wrote a schimpdicht (‘satirical poem’) on Goltzius. Unfortunately it does not give the date or language of this poem. 50 This must have been shortly after Waldegrave’s arrival in Edinburgh (odnb). 51 Hallen (1887: 172–3) describes Waldegrave as a Huguenot. Scotland and Wales 367 of the church in Crail in Fifeshire. This was cast in Rotterdam.52 The inscription runs (Fleming 1930: 377):

PEETER VANDEN GHEIN HEFT MY GHEGOTEN INT IAER DCXIII.

Peter vanden Ghein cast me in the year 1613.

Much later, in March 1690, Fransois van Genth wrote a letter in Dutch from Edinburgh to the minister of the Dutch church in London, Samuel Bisschop, asking him to send his attestation to an address in Edinburgh, as he would shortly be departing for Holland (H 87: iii, ii, 2687). He writes the address as ‘Ser Willem Benin olde prevo tot Edenburgh’, an example of code switching between Dutch and English for the purpose of giving an English title (cf. Adams 2003: 369–76). ‘Willem Benin’ is probably Sir William Binning, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh from 1675–1677. Van Genth addresses the letter itself to Men heer Bisschop predikant van de Duijse Kerck in London (‘Mr. Bisschop, preacher of the Dutch Church in London’).

7.4.4 The Military Domain In relation to the use of Dutch in the military domain three letters in the nas make interesting reading.53 What is of particular note is that although they are written in Dutch neither the sender nor the recipient was Dutch. The letters are signed by Sir Thomas Livingstone (1652?–1711). He was born in the United Provinces to Scottish parents. He married a Dutch woman, Macktellina Walrave de Nimmeguen. He would enter Dutch military service, following in the footsteps of his father, and sailed to England with William of Orange’s invasion force in 1688 (dnb). He served in Scotland under Major-General Hugh Mackay, the addressee of these letters, who successfully defeated Jacobite forces in 1690. Mackay himself was born in Scotland. He initially served in the English army in the Low Countries. However, marriage to a Dutch woman and a religious conviction that brought him closer to the Dutch than the English caused him to enter the service of the States General. He was in charge of the

52 The bell in the parish church at Carnbee, 6 miles to the west of Crail bears the following inscription: Peter Van der Ghien Hat Mi Gegossen. From a linguistic perspective, this is interesting, as the wording seems to be closer to German than to Dutch. I thank Anthony Lodge for this information. In Edinburgh, the bell in the Magdalen Chapel was made by the Dutch bell-founder Michael Burgerhuys from Middleburg and dates from 1632. 53 nas, gd 26/9/255. gd26 are papers of the Leslie family, Earls of Leven and Melville, and gd26/9 are Military and Naval Papers 1581–1849. 368 CHAPTER 7

Scottish and English forces in the 1688 invasion. The question that will be considered shortly is whether Livingstone, the signatory of all three letters, was also their author. First, though, let us consider the Dutch in each of the letters. One of them, dated 26 June 1689, was sent from Inverness and was addressed to Mackay in Elgin (Sapherson 1987: 34–5). It provides details of some useful military intelligence:

Mijn Heer, Sedert gistere so ben geinformeert door verscijde die alle accordere dat morge synde donderdag de groten dag van randevous . . . dat al de mac- donalls en de . . . macklains . . . en haer vriende . . . te saeme sulle kome . . .

Sir, I have been informed since yesterday by various people who all agree that tomorrow, being Thursday the great day of the gathering . . . that all the MacDonalds and the Macleans and their friends will come together . . .

It is signed Mijn Heer Ued onderdanige dienaer T. Livingstone (‘My Lord, Your obedient servant . . .’) in the same slightly untidy handwriting in which the rest of the letter is written, and addressed in French to Monsieur le Major General Mackay a Elgin. Another letter signed by Livingstone, again from Inverness and addressed to Mackay, dated 4 April 1690, provides further useful intelligence:

Mijn Heer, Dese sal alleen diene om Ued. te versekeren dat de Hooglanders in de wapens sijn seer considerabel in getal sr. Donald sijn volck is gistere bij haer gekome men sijt dat sij van desijn sijn om in Morray te vallen alwaer coren en broij so scars [sijn]dat ick vrees haer niet veel sal konnen hindere . . .

Sir, This [letter] will only serve to confirm to you that the Highlanders have a large number of weapons . . . Lord Donald’s clan came together yesterday. They said that they are intending to attack Moray, where wheat and bread are so scarce that I fear that (the people of Moray) won’t be able to keep them at bay very well . . .

It is signed Mijn Heer Ued seer onderdanige dienaer T. Livingstone (‘Sir, Your very obedient servant T. Livingstone’). One word that deserves comment is broij. This means ‘bread’ (lnd: brood). It is possibly derived from a plural form, broijen, where ‘d’ has become semi-vocalized, as it sometimes does in Late New Dutch (e.g., rooie for rode (‘red’)). Scotland and Wales 369

In the third of the letters in the nas, dated 25 June 1689, the author uses a number of verbs ending in -e(e)ren, which are based on French verbs: pre- senteeren, presumeeren, correspondeeren, ravageren and aetaquere[n] [Dutch: attaqueren].54 Whereas the first two of these were well established in Dutch by this time, ravageren and aetaqueren are first attested in the wnt in the seventeenth century (1678 and 1626 respectively), whilst the earliest entry for corre- sponderen comes in 1771. As in the case of Dutch diplomatic language discussed in Chapter 5 (see section 5.2.1.1), these last three words could be described as Gallicisms, i.e., words from French, or more accurately in this case, words based on French verbs, which had not yet become fully incorporated in Dutch (Van der Wal and Van Bree 1991: 38). The over-reliance on French loan words and verbs ending in -eren was often satirized by writers such as Constantijn Huygens. Finally, the letter is signed in a manner similar to the previous one: Mijn Heer Ued onderdanige dienaer T. Livingstone. A couple of questions arise from this correspondence. First, was the Dutch- born Scot, Sir Thomas Livingstone, the author of these letters, i.e., did he write them? His biographical details suggest that he might very well have written them. He spent most of the first 36 years of his life, prior to William’s invasion, in the United Provinces, and had a Dutch wife (dnb). The signature seems to be in the same hand as the letters themselves, but I have to admit that I do have expertise in this field. The language itself may offer us clues. One commentator notes that the phrase de wapens sijn seer considerabel in getal in the letter dated 4 April 1690 sounds slightly strange to the Dutch ear. Another commentator notes that the Dutch is fine, but is suggestive of the spoken language, perhaps a function of the need to communicate quickly on campaign. A third view is that these letters were written by someone whose first language was not Dutch, i.e., they were composed by someone other than Livingstone.55 Although such a possibility cannot be excluded, and there would certainly have been ‘native’ Dutchmen amongst Livingstone’s troops, my view is that given his background it is certainly possible that he could compose such letters.56 A related question is why the letters were written in Dutch. One possibility is that Dutch was used as a cipher lest the letters should fall into the wrong hands. This would presup- pose that the enemy could not read Dutch. At this time Scottish Gaelic would still have been the first language of the Highland clans, so that is certainly a

54 The author also uses words, which are suggestive of the influence of French, such as pre- sentatie and confirmatie. 55 I have garnered these views from three Dutch academics on the basis that their comments are anonymized. 56 See also Glozier (2004: 219) on Livingstone. 370 CHAPTER 7 possibility. In truth, we do not as yet know, but these letters provide a further example of how Dutch was used in early modern Britain.

7.4.5 Other Domains Dutch was also used in several other domains in early modern Scotland, although in each case the evidence is somewhat limited.

7.4.5.1 Education One such domain was education. In 1630 a Dutch schoolmaster was appointed for the first time in the city of Edinburgh (Wood 1936: xlix). The entry in the Burgh records for 5 March of that year runs:

Ressavis David Phorbous, Dutche scoolemaister for teaching the Dutch language within this Burgh.

This is the only mention of education in the Dutch community that I have come across, although no further details are provided. One commentator expresses surprise that there was no provision for learning Dutch in Aberdeen, given the extensive contact between that city and the Netherlands (Vance 2002: 318). By contrast, there was provision for the learning of French in the city.

7.4.5.2 Printing The question of whether Dutch books were printed in Scotland at this time is a difficult one to answer. In 1598 in Edinburgh Robert Waldegrave, mentioned above, printed and published two works together,

A true Coppy of the Admonitions sent by the subdued Provinces to the States of Holland: and the Hollanders answere to the same. Together with the Articles of Peace concluded betweene . . . Phillip . . . King of Spaine, &c. and Henry the fourth . . . King of Fraunce, in the yeare 1598.

The former work was a translation of Copie van seker refereyn by de over- heerde Nederlantsche Provintien aen Hollant gheschreven, beroerende den vrede by David Mostaert, printed by Laurens Jacobsz. and Nicolaes Biestkens in Amsterdam in the same year, 1598. The latter was first translated out of French into Dutch and then into English by ‘H.W’ (a relation of Robert Waldegrave?). Both of these are of course translations. A number of imprints in Dutch are attributed to printers in Edinburgh. However, it is more likely that they were printed in the United Provinces. The Edinburgh brothers James and Robert Bryson were Presbyterian who Scotland and Wales 371 supported the revolution against King Charles I in 1638/9. They have been described as ‘the mainstays of Covenanter domestic printing’ in the years 1638 to 1643 and were also booksellers (Mann 2002: 281–2). In the British Library there is a book in Dutch entitled Een Cort Verhael van de Misdaden . . . die de Schotse Bisschoppen te laste gheleyt werden; om ’t welcke sy verworpen sijn uyt de Kercke van Schotland (‘A Short Account of the Crimes of which the Scottish Bishops have been accused; for which they have been driven out of the Church of Scotland’). This is ascribed to James Bryson in Edinburgh in 1639. However, the catalogue of Edinburgh University library states that it was in fact printed in Amsterdam.57 The same may also be true of a book entitled De wettigheydt van der Scotten tocht in Engelant (‘The lawfulness of the Scottish expedition to England’), printed according to the title page by Robert Bryson in Edinburgh in 1640. In 1643 a letter from the synod of Zeeland to the representatives of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was, according to the publishing details, printed in Edinburgh. They tell us that the letter was first written in Latin, then translated into English, and then, somewhat unexpectedly and finally, into Dutch.58 Another printer who lived and worked in Edinburgh at this time was the Englishman, Evan Tyler ( fl. 1639–1682) (Mann 2002: 281). Many works in English are attributed to Tyler’s press. One in Dutch is Proclamatie Gedaen tot Edenburg den 5. Febr. 1649 By dewelcke Charles Stuart . . . Verklaert . . . wort . . . Ko ninck van Schotlandt (‘Proclamation made in Edinburgh on 5 February 1649, by which Charles Stuart is declared King of Scotland’). The details of Tyler’s press, described by one author as a ‘brand’, are somewhat complicated (Spurlock

57 It is most probable that Een Cort Verhael was printed by John Canne’s ‘Richt Right’ press in Amsterdam with a fictitious title page. It was certainly printed to explain Scottish religious controversy so it may have been commissioned by James Bryson of Edinburgh. I thank Alastair Mann for this information. Another, similar example given in this catalogue is: Remonstrantie vande edelen, baronnen, staten, kercken-dienaers, ende gemeente in het coningrijck van Schotlandt: Verclarende dat sy onschuldigh sijn van de crimen daer mede sy in’t laetste Engelsche Placcaet (vanden 27 February) beswaert werden. It gives the following publishing details: ‘Publisher: Edinburgh: Gedruckt by Iames Bryson, Anno Domini, 1639 [i.e., Amsterdam, Richt Right Press, 1639]’. For a detailed account of the printing of Puritan books in the United Provinces in the first half of the seventeenth century, see Sprunger (1994). See also Sprunger (1982: 72, 75) for more on the Richt Right Press. 58 Een brief vande synode van Zeelant, aen de gecommitteerde van de generale vergaderinge der kercke in Schotlandt. / Eerst by hun den 18 July 1643. in ’t Latĳn beschreven, ende uyt het Latĳn in ’t Engelsch, ende nu uyt het Engelsch in ’t Nederlants getrouwelĳck vertaelt . . . Eerst ghedruckt tot Edinburgh. Anno 1643. 372 CHAPTER 7

2011). Although the original source of the content of this work may have been Tyler, it is again likely to have been printed in the United Provinces. A couple of imprints in Dutch from 1687–1688 are attributed to the press of James Warner in Edinburgh. These are also likely to have been printed in the Netherlands.59 Finally, going in the other direction, an extract from a letter from Edinburgh dated 7 January 1689 written in the wake of William’s invasion in the south was printed in Dutch in Amsterdam in 1689. It is likely that this is a translation.60

7.4.5.3 Inscriptions We have a couple of Dutch inscriptions to add to the one in Crail mentioned above. On his tour of the Orkney and Shetland Islands in 1774 the Revd. George Low came across a black marble grave in a burial yard on Bressay in the Shetlands, which had a Dutch inscription. It did, however, have no date, so it is not clear whether it was made during the period under discussion, but at least we have a terminus ante quem of 1774 (Low 1879: 190). In Glasgow, underneath an ornamental belt on the shoulder of the bell in the city’s Tolbooth, is the legend:

KATHALENA.BEN.IC.GHEGOTEN.VAN.JACOP.WAGHEVENS.INT.JAER. ONS.HEEREN.MCCCCCLIIII.

Kathleen, I have been cast by Jacob Waghaven, in the year of our lord 1554.

7.4.5.4 The Diplomatic Domain Above, mention was made of three diplomatic missions from the United Provinces to the court of King James vi. It is likely that the representatives of the States General on these missions spoke French with King James.61 According

59 One of these is Crimineel proces, in cas van hoogverraad, voor de vierschaar van een vry en wettig . . . (‘Criminal trial, in a case of High Treason, before the tribunal of a free and lawful parliament . . .’) The publishing details are James Warner in Edinburgh, described as Drukker van ’t Hoge Hof des Parlements (‘Printer of the High Court of Parliament’). A second imprint in Dutch ascribed to Warner in 1688 is a translation of a sermon by James Renwick, given the Dutch title Vertoog van het quaad der toelating, vergunt door den koning van Engeland (‘Exposition of the evil of indulgences, granted by the king of England’). See http://www.nls.uk/catalogues/scottish-book-trade-index/walker-watt. Accessed 14 April 2014. 60 Extracten uyt Engelse, Schotse en Ierse brieven, van verscheyde datums. ’tAmsterdam: by Aart Dirksz. Oossaan, 1689. Reference to Irish letters is incorrect as none of the letters printed originated from Ireland. Amsterdam, knaw, ab E 3068 s. 61 Official treaties between Scotland and the United Provinces from this period are in Latin. I thank Cynthia Fry for this and the observation about the use of French given above. Scotland and Wales 373 to the Resolutions of the States General, Hadrianus Damman, whom we have already met, was appointed as their permanent ambassador to the Scottish court on 24 December 1593 (Japikse et al. 1915–70: viii, 50). After his appointment he wrote letters from Edinburgh to the States General. These were typically in French, but he also wrote in Dutch.62 One letter in Dutch dated 10 June 1594 begins and ends:

Heden den xen Junij stilo Scotiae heeft syne con[incklijke] M[ajesteit] my ontboden en begeert . . . U.E. onderdanige dienaer, Damman.

Today, the 10th June Scottish Style (i.e., Old Style), his Royal Majesty requested and desired of me. . . . Your obedient servant, Damman.63

We also have two letters from Damman addressed to King James. These are in French (Irving 1839: 223).

7.4.5.5 Documents from the Orkney Archives The Traills were rich local landowners in the Orkneys. The Traill Dennison Papers include an arithmetic book in Dutch from 1660–1661.64 This was also used as a letter book. One letter is signed Jores Jacobsen Cock van Schotland Anno 1661 op het scheep de gijlyon (‘Joris (George) Jacobsen Cock of Scotland, in the year 1661, on the ship the Gijlyon’).

7.4.5.6 A Short Excursus: James Boswell Finally, I recognize that I am going far beyond a number of the boundaries that I have set myself for this book, but perhaps the reader will forgive me as it relates to James Boswell (1740–1795), one of the leading Scottish intellectuals of the eighteenth century, as well as being a member of the aristocracy. He studied law at Utrecht and fell in love with a Dutchwoman, Belle van Zuylen. Boswell took it upon himself to learn Dutch, and wrote letters and compositions in the language during his time in the United Provinces, some of which have been published (Boswell 1994).

62 For examples of letters that Damman wrote from Edinburgh to the States General in French, see those written on 29 March and 1 May 1594 in Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Archiefnummer 1.01.02, inventarisnummer 5882. 63 Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Archiefnummer 1.01.02, inventarisnummer 5882, date written, 10 June, dated received, 6 July 1594. See also (Japikse et al. 1915–70: viii, 221). 64 Orkney Archives, D14/3/5. The Traill Dennison Papers also include a further document in Dutch dated 24 September 1659 (D14/8/8). 374 CHAPTER 7

7.4.6 Concluding Remarks on the Use of Dutch in Scotland This then brings us to the end of our survey of sources, which provide evidence of the use of Dutch in early modern Scotland. In truth, we must admit that the harvest is less than one might have hoped for, particularly given the extent of the traffic between Scotland and the Low Countries in the early modern period. There are certainly other documents in Dutch in Scottish archives, but many of these were written in the Low Countries, or it is not possible to say with any certainty where they were written. In contrast to England what we do not have in Scotland is a large cache of documents such as that preserved at Austin Friars in London, many of which have been published. Nevertheless some interesting examples have been adduced. The letters sent by Sir Thomas Livingstone to Major-General Hugh Mackay provide perhaps the most notable example of the use of Dutch in Scotland. In common with the letter written by Jean Ker, it illustrates how the language turns up in circumstances, which in the first instance seem hard to explain. More predictably Helena de Wit wrote her letter in Dutch. The same could be said of Hadrianus Damman’s letter to the Dutch church in London, although he could have written in Latin. Damman’s use of Dutch in a letter to the States General mirrors the use of this language by Dutch diplomats in England, although he wrote other letters in French. We have also seen that letters in Dutch were sent to correspondents in Scotland. The letters addressed to the merchants, Andrew Russell and John Bruce, in Edinburgh are a good example of this, and we should not forget that the recipi- ents of the Highlands letters and the letter written by Jean Ker were also Scots. Here, the passive use of the language, rather than the active use of it, comes to the fore. As for the speaking of Dutch we can assume that the Dutch fishermen and other sailors who landed at ports in the East of Scotland and the Northern and Western Isles spoke Dutch. We can say something similar for the members of the Flemish community in Edinburgh, at least at home. The metalinguistic comment on the people of the Shetland Islands from reliable sources such as Robert Sibbald makes it likely that some of them spoke Dutch and their case demonstrates the value of learning to speak Dutch for use in a specific context, in common with English merchants south of the border. The comment that the Livingstone letters are suggestive of the spoken language may possibly give us a small window into the Dutch spoken in the Highlands, either by Livingstone, or a Dutch assistant. One can only hope that further such letters come to light. Before providing a short account of the use of Dutch in Wales, with which this chapter concludes, a word is in order about the influence of Dutch on contact dialects in Scotland. Scotland and Wales 375

7.5 The Influence of Dutch on Contact Dialects in Scotland

The word ‘leppel’ can be found in the Shetland dialect, coming from the Dutch lepel (‘spoon’) (Edmonston 1866: 65). Murison (1971: 175) describes this as a ‘horn spoon’. Edmonston suggests that the Shetland dialectal word ‘Laar’ for a fishing boat comes from ‘belg. Laars boats’ i.e., ‘Belgium (Flemish (?)) Laars, boats’ (Edmonston 1866: 63). If this was so it may be related to the use of Laars to mean ‘boot’. However, the wnt gives one use for laars as a schepnet, i.e., a net used to catch fish, so it may be that the Shetland word is derived from this usage. The word ‘krank’ (‘ill’) is also found in the Shetland dialect. This may come from contact with Dutch or with German seamen (Edmonston 1866: 60). Murison (1971: 175) notes a number of other words found in Shetland, which are not found in the rest of Scotland, e.g., ‘dulhoit’ ‘stupor, lethargy’ (cf. lnd: dulheid), and ‘pram’ ‘press, squeeze, stuff’ (cf. lnd: pramen). Other words of Dutch/Flemish origin have been used in various domains in Scots. In agricul- ture in the sixteenth century we find ‘cavie’, a chicken-coop (cf. lnd kevie); ‘roddiken’, the fourth stomach of a ruminant (a diminutive form of the Flemish roode; and in the seventeenth century ‘kesart’, a cheese-vat (cf. lnd: kaas- horde) (Murison 1971: 165). In trade in the sixteenth century we find ‘calland’, customer (Middle Dutch calant; lnd: klant), and in the seventeenth century ‘lastgilt’ (Middle Dutch: lastgelt), a toll on cargo specifically in reference to staple ports. In cloth making in the sixteenth century a ‘brabanar’ was a weaver, from Brabander ‘a native of Brabant’, and ‘lapkin’ was a remnant of cloth, found only in reference to cambric from the Middle Dutch lappekyn, a piece of material. In coinage a doit (Middle Dutch: duit) was a Dutch coin of very small value that had wide unofficial currency in Scotland. Seafaring words from Dutch that entered Scots usage in the sixteenth century include ‘fanikin’, a pennant or banner (Middle Dutch: vaenken); and in the seventeenth century ‘caper’, a privateer (cf. lnd: kaper), much in use during the Anglo-Dutch wars. There were also plenty of words relating to war and weapons: in the sixteenth century ‘lunt’ was used for a match for a gun (cf. lnd: lont) and in the seventeenth century ‘ratt’ for a file of soldiers (lnd: rot). This survived into the early nineteenth century in the term Toun Rats, a nickname for the rather unpopular town guard of Edinburgh (Murison 1971: 166–71). A number of terms entered the Scottish dialects as a result of the arrival of Flemings in the early modern period. Dolls were known then as ‘Flanders Babies’; curtains as ‘pendens’; a type of chest as ‘the Flanders kist’; and mirrors as ‘keeking glasses’ (cf. lnd: kijken) (Hardie- Stoffelen 2013). 376 CHAPTER 7

One place, which takes its name from the Dutch presence in Britain, is Fort William. Originally established by General Monk during the Commonwealth, it was briefly called Maryburgh, after Queen Mary, before it was rebuilt and named after the king in 1690. Interestingly the Gaelic name given to the town, An Gearasdan (‘The Garrison’), lacks any reference to the Dutch king of England, Scotland and Ireland, perhaps a reflection of a residual antipathy in the Highlands to the Dutch-born king.

7.6 Wales

Let us now turn our attention to the knowledge and use of Dutch in Wales. Of the three countries on the island of Great Britain, the smallest amount of evidence for the knowledge and use of Dutch in the early modern period relates to Wales. Two groups of people who knew, and possibly used, Dutch in this context are Flemings in Pembrokeshire in West Wales, and the occasional Dutch visitor to the principality, such as Lodewijck Huygens.

7.6.1 Flemish in Pembrokeshire There are a number of reports of Flemings living in the Welsh county of Pembrokeshire in the Middle Ages. In 1586 William Camden published a book on the British Isles giving a short account of each county. In the entry for Pembrokeshire (Penbrokshire), he writes that it was King Henry I (1100–1135) who gave Flemings permission to settle there (Camden 1586: 373; Toorians 2000: 184). It is likely that at least some of these belonged to the families of Flemish mercenaries who had fought alongside William I in 1066, although others came to Britain as a result of the damage caused to areas of Flanders by the sea. One commentator is more specific and writes that the Flemings settled in the cantref (‘hundred’) of Rhos in south-west Pembrokeshire in 1108 (Austin 2005: 37; 38). There is one report of someone being addressed in Haverfordwest in Flemish in the period after this settlement (Toorians 1990: 112). However, the question for us is whether the descendents of the first Flemish settlers in Pembrokeshire were still speaking Flemish in the early modern period. Here, the evidence is sketchy at best. Returning to Camden’s account, he wrote:

Flandri e Belgio hanc incolunt . . . Lingua & moribus etiamnum a Wallis dignoseuntur, & ita eiusdem linguae societate cum Anglis coniuncti sunt, qui ad Belgicam linguam proxime accedunt, ut haec eorum regiuncula a Britannis Anglia Transwallina nuncupetur. Scotland and Wales 377

Flemings from the Low Countries inhabited this area . . . They were still known distinctly from the Welsh, both by their language and customs, and so they are so nearly joined in society of the same language with the English, who come close to the Flemish language that this little region of theirs is called ‘Little England beyond Wales’ by the Britons.

Some commentators interpret this as saying that those of Flemish descent now spoke English. I understand it somewhat differently, saying that they spoke something like English, i.e., Flemish/Dutch, and certainly not Welsh (cf. Toorians 1990: 116). One other person who records hearing Flemish in Pembrokeshire was the artist and poet, Lucas d’Heere, originally from Ghent, who travelled through Britain between 1567 and 1577. As we learnt in the last chapter (section 6.4.4) he wrote a history and description of the British Isles in Dutch. In the history he tells the story of the Flemish in Pembrokeshire following the account of the sixteenth-century Welsh cartographer and writer, Humphrey Lhuyd (Toorians 1990: 115; De Heere 1937: 48):

haer gheslachte tot noch aen de sprake . . . is ghelyc Humphrij Lhuijd seyt . . .

their descendants still speak the language . . . as Humphrey Lhuyd says . . .

He then goes on to indicate that he had actually spoken Flemish in Pembrokeshire (Burke 2004: 119):

. . . ende ick hebbe ooc med eenighe ghesproken die noch goed vlaemsch spraken tzelfde aen haer ouders ende als van vader tot kinde gheleert hebbende.

. . . and I also spoke with some people who still spoke good Flemish, having learned it from their parents from father to son (lit. child).

Apart from perhaps wanting to add some local colour, there would be no reason for d’Heere to concoct such a story and so it may well be true that he found descendants of the Flemish settlers from the twelfth century who still spoke Flemish.65 However, we must add that independent evidence is lacking

65 Despite d’Heere’s assertion that these Flemings spoke ‘good Flemish’ (goed vlaemsch), there will have been differences between his Flemish and that of the settlers in Pembrokeshire. He does, though, unfortunately give no further details of the Flemish they spoke. 378 CHAPTER 7 and until any further evidence comes to light we must treat this report with a certain amount of caution. Toorians points to family names and place names which suggest the presence of the Flemish and their language in the Middle Ages in Pembrokeshire but of course do not prove that the language was still spoken there in the sixteenth century (Toorians 1990: 114). Mark Stoyle (2005: 13) tells us that by 1642 (he writes about the English Civil War, hence this date) there were only English speakers living in Pembrokeshire. However, he seems to be basing this assertion on Camden’s 1586 account, which, as noted above, is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, we have no further reports of the use of Flemish in Pembrokeshire and if it was used this would have been in a very limited manner.

7.6.2 Dutch Visitors to Wales No Dutch or Flemish communities were established in Wales as they were in England and in Edinburgh in the early modern period. Beyond the Flemings of Pembrokeshire, the only people who knew Dutch in Wales were occasional visitors from the Low Countries. One of these was one of the leading figures in the voc, Pieter de Carpentier. In the diary he kept during his visit to England from 1629 (see section 6.4.3.1), Abraham Booth, the secretary to the voc delegation writes (Merens 1942: 129):

Den 3den [Oct.] is d’Heer Carpentier wedergecomen van Cardiff in Wellis.

On 3 October Mr. Carpentier returned from Cardiff in Wales.

Unfortunately, we are not told why Carpentier had visited Wales. Booth himself did not visit the principality, though came close to it on his way through West England. One other Dutch visitor to Wales was Lodewijck Huygens. He visited it briefly in 1652 in the company of a fellow Dutchman, Mr. van Leeuwen, and a servant. Like his father, the statesman and poet Constantijn Huygens, Lodewijck was a multilingual, and again like his father, he kept a journal when he went abroad. He recorded his visit to Wales in French, and commented on the French of a minister he met in Newport. He also noted that the minister gave his sermon half in English and half in leur Gaulois, i.e., Welsh. Lodewijck does not record whether he spoke any Dutch to Mr. van Leeuwen or the servant during his visit to Wales (lh 82: 123–9). Scotland and Wales 379

7.7 Conclusion

In concluding, let us return to the revised version of Joshua Fishman’s formula presented in the prologue to this book and ask who spoke or wrote which varieties of Dutch to whom, when, about what and with what intention, to which we can add the question ‘where?’ In the case of Scotland the two principal areas where Dutch was used were the Shetland Islands and Edinburgh. We also find it elsewhere in pockets such as the Highlands. For other places, such as Stornoway and Aberdeen, there was clearly a knowledge of Dutch, and the language was most probably also used there. In the Shetland Islands, both natives and Dutch fishermen used the language during the early modern period for the purpose of trading. In Edinburgh a more complex picture emerges. The language was used in a variety of domains, including the home, work and in learning Dutch. Dutch was used in the early part of the period under investigation by members of lower social classes, such as Flemish weavers, as well as by members of higher classes, such as the diplomat, Hadrianus Damman. Other questions remain unanswered for the moment. Was there, for example, a church in Edinburgh that used the Dutch language, and if so, when precisely did it function? The reasons for using Dutch in Scotland were various. Here, we may contrast Jean Ker’s use of the language with that of the use of Dutch in the Highlands letters. Whereas Jean’s letter may be an example of how an aristocrat would learn and use a language ‘for fun’, the use of Dutch in the letters signed by Thomas Livingstone may have had an extremely practical purpose. The fact that the Highlands letters are replete with words derived from French verbs, some of which could be seen as Gallicisms, illustrates once more that in some sense we must talk of ‘Dutches’ rather than ‘Dutch’ when considering not only the language history of the Low Countries, but also that of early modern Britain. These letters also raise questions about the place of ‘community’ within the discourse of sociolinguistics. Which community/communities did Jean Ker belong to? Was it one that merely consisted of herself and her cousin, Mary, or might she have belonged to a larger community of Dutch users in the upper echelons of early modern Scottish society? Which community did the writer of the Highland letters belong to? Did he (most probably he) belong to a larger community of those using Dutch in the Highlands at this time, or did the community consist merely of the sender and receiver of the letters? Dutch faced competition from other languages, notably English and Latin. The fact that so many Scottish students attended university in the United Provinces might have led us to expect that they would produce a lot of Dutch 380 CHAPTER 7 in their homeland. But of course most of their learning was in Latin and the books they brought back from the Low Countries would also typically have been in Latin (Mijers 2011).66 Hadrianus Damman composed poetry in Latin, not Dutch, and translated Du Bartas’ La Sepmaine not into his own vernacular, but into the classical language. If we apply Fishman’s formula to Wales, then we can say where and when Dutch was used and presume that it was the Flemish variety of Dutch, but almost nothing else. Our survey of both Scotland and Wales has allowed us to complete the picture of the use of Dutch in early modern Britain. In the next chapter we consider what conclusions we can draw from this study both about the Dutch language in Britain in particular and about the writing of the history of the Dutch language in general.

66 However, Glasgow University library has a good range of early seventeenth-century Dutch literature. Further research may reveal when these books were first brought to Scotland. Epilogue

In this epilogue there are three objectives: first, to provide a summary of what we have learnt about the knowledge and use of Dutch in early modern Britain; secondly, to consider what this study tells us about the writing of the history of the Dutch language, and the writing of the language history of Britain; and thirdly, to offer suggestions for future research, for which this book provides a good basis. Let us now consider each of these in turn.

The Knowledge and Use of Dutch in Early Modern Britain

First, what have we learnt about the knowledge and use of Dutch in early modern Britain? The word that comes to mind here is diversity. A constant theme throughout this book has been that it may be more appropriate to talk of ‘Dutches’ rather than one homogeneous linguistic block called ‘Dutch’. We have seen how the Dutch of different authors has been inflected by influences from other languages. In the case of the Dutch of King William iii (section 5.3.6) and the Highland letters signed by Sir Thomas Livingstone (section 7.4.4), to name but two examples, there was a tendency to use verbs ending in -eren, derived from French verbs, and French loan words, some of which could be described as Gallicisms. In early membership records of Austin Friars (Appendix 2) and the baptismal records from Norwich at the start of the seventeenth century (section 2.3.3), we found a hybrid of Dutch and Latin. The plays of Thomas Dekker use a (doubtless stylised) Dutch, which was in fact a clever mixture of Dutch and English, and which fulfilled several useful functions for the playwright (section 6.3.1). These three examples also reflect well the fact that the three languages from which Dutch faced the greatest competition were English, French and Latin. In the work of Johannes Utenhove, discussed in Chapter 2, we saw a tendency to create a Dutch incorporating words and phrases from further afield in the Germanic language area, which was ‘designed to be understood from Dunkirk to the Baltic’ (Willemyns 2013: 82). Another aspect of the ‘Dutches’ that we have encountered is the range of dialectal forms used in Britain. In the correspondence of Gotfried Wingius we found dialectal forms associated with the east of the Dutch language area (section 2.3.1.1). Numerous examples have also been provided of forms found in Brabants and Vlaams, notably the tendency to add a prothetic hypercorrective ‘h’ to words beginning with vowels in the latter. We also came across Northern dialectal forms, such as the Hollands diminutive forms -(t)ge(n) and -(t)gie(n)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_010 382 epilogue in the journal of Abraham Booth and the poetry of Constantijn Huygens (sections 6.4.3.1 and 6.2.6). Many of the examples of dialectal forms from the south of the Dutch language area come from the second half of the sixteenth century. Examples from the north of the language area have typically come from the seventeenth century. This reflects well the fact that many of those who went to Britain in early part of the period under review came from the Southern Netherlands, whilst those who travelled to Britain in the seventeenth century came from the north. Finally, variety in forms of address has also been a regular feature of this book. To the ‘standard’ forms, UE, UL and ghij (and their variants), we can add the object form ju and the hypercorrective form hu, which often do not to receive attention in either late modern or seventeenth- century grammars, or in histories of the language. Beyond features of the language itself, we have also encountered diversity in the range of social domains in which Dutch was used; the geographical spread of its use; and the variety of sources available for this book. Dutch was used in the church; in a range of activities within the work domain; in the government of Dutch communities; learning; the home; diplomacy; the court and in the military and naval domains. Concerning the geographical extent to which Dutch was used, clearly the focus of this has above all been south-east England, the area of Britain closest to the Continent. However, we have also seen evidence for its use in Plymouth in Devon, Coventry in the Midlands, and in Yorkshire in the North of England. In the last chapter we saw that the language was used in places along the east coast of Scotland from the Shetland Islands to Edinburgh, and the presence of Dutch people in Stornoway tells us that the knowledge of it at least, if not its use, spread onto the West coast. The case of a Flemish community in West Wales increases the geographical reach of the language, although as noted in Chapter 7 we have to treat reports of its use in the early modern period with caution. A final expression of diversity is to be found in the range of sources that have been consulted for this book. Correspondence, meeting minutes, church membership records, working regulations, wills, inventories, books for use in church services, verse, grammars and learners, histories, journals, travelogues and metalinguistic comment are some of the sources used in this study. But despite this diversity we must admit that crucial questions have remained unanswered. Our picture of the extent to which Dutch was spoken and the nature of this Dutch is incomplete. Nevertheless, we have found plenty of metalinguistic comment on the spoken use of the language and can use other data to draw conclusions about it. Despite methodological concerns, the 32 private letters written from Norwich to friends and relatives in Ieper in the late 1560s offer a window onto the spoken language of the Dutch community in Epilogue 383

Norwich (section 4.3.1.1). The plays of Thomas Dekker may, again with certain reservations, offer a glimpse of the language spoken by low-ranking Dutchmen as they tried to engage with local English people. The reporting of William iii’s speech by his secretary, Constantijn Huygens jr., and his physician, Govert Bidloo, suggests that the king spoke Dutch to them, although we cannot be completely certain of this. The reports of locals on the Shetland Islands speaking ‘Low Dutch’ seem reliable, notably the contemporary accounts provided by Robert Sibbald. We must also admit that most of the sources adduced were written by men. This is to be expected given social conditions in the early modern period, but of course this leaves a gap in our knowledge about the language of women. The letters of Rachel Jansdochter and a few of the Norwich Ieper letters offer us a rare insight into the use of Dutch by women in early modern England. Other letters were written in Dutch by women in Scotland, notably Jean Ker and Helena de Wet, but there is little here on which to construct a larger picture. Perhaps we can conclude this review by saying that we have made much progress in answering the central question concerning the extent to which Dutch was used in early modern Britain, but there is still work to be done, a subject I return to shortly.

Histories of the Dutch Language and Histories of Language in Britain

The second theme to be discussed in this epilogue is what this book tells us about the writing of the history of the Dutch language, and also about the writing of histories of language in Britain. Here, we can repeat the point made in the prologue that histories of the Dutch language typically ignore or treat summarily the use of the language in Britain.1 In a recent article (Joby 2014a), I ascribed this to a ‘tunnel view’ of language, whereby ‘those features of a language’s history which do not contribute to the story of the standard language are marginalized or even ignored’.2 In truth, those who write histories of the language have more recently moved away from this view by considering

1 One other reason that the history of Dutch in early modern Britain may not have been studied previously in any detail is that, from the evidence we have, no contact variety emerged (cf. Afrikaans). However, in this book I have given details of the variety of ‘Dutches’ that were used in early modern Britain and suggest that further research may reveal both similarities and differences in comparison with the development of the language on the Continent. 2 I borrow the phrase ‘tunnel view’ from Richard Watts. 384 epilogue

‘non-standard’ varieties of the language, or to use a recent phrase, they have been concerned with building a ‘language history from below’. This impulse lies behind recent enterprises such as the Brieven als buit project. However, now the challenge is to go in search of other histories of the language, such as the one told in this book, which falls outside the standard view that histories of the language should be concerned with the Dutch language area and the colonies and former colonies of the Dutch Empire (cf. Burke 2004: 22). However, in writing this book I have begun to question whether the fault lies with those who write histories of the Dutch language. After all, it is only natural that they should focus on the history of Dutch in the Low Countries. They could argue that it is responsibility of those who write the language history of Britain to research and report on the use of Dutch there. They may point to the lack of case studies on the use of Dutch in Britain and to the fact that language histories of Britain do not refer to Dutch in early modern Britain. For example, in his collection of essays on languages used in Britain, Glanville Price includes a chapter on the use of Flemish in Wales (Toorians 2000), but omits any reference to the use of Dutch in early modern England or Scotland. However, at least Price includes a range of other languages in his book and does not just focus on the history of English.3 Those who write histories of ‘standard English’ in Britain are, like their Dutch counterparts, sometimes guilty of focussing on the dominant variety of the language in a defined geographical area, too.4 The priority given to standard forms used in a certain area may be a result of the close association in Europe between nation and language, one which, as Eric Hobsbawm notes, has only really emerged in the last 200 years (Hobsbawm 1990).5 Notions such as ‘speech community’ may also play a role here as linguists’ attention is directed towards ‘consensus and shared interpretations within a bounded social unit’ rather than towards processes such as conflict, exclusion and differentiation (Gal and Woolard 2001: 2). The present book is a response to such marginalizing and standardizing tendencies. One can hope to see similar works in the future, such as a history of English in the Low Countries (Willem Frijhoff (2010) has made a start on this subject), or Italian, Spanish and French in early modern England.

3 Another book that examines the linguistic diversity of Britain (Trotter 2000) focuses on the late medieval period. As far as I can establish, no similar book has yet been written on the early modern period. 4 One exception to this is Watts and Trudgill (2002), which goes in search of ‘alternative histories of English’ both in Britain and elsewhere in the world. 5 Quoted in Gal (1998: 113–4). Furthermore, Hobsbawm argues, monolingualism is ‘a cultural configuration created largely by elite theorizing’. Peter Burke (2004: 2) makes a similar point. Epilogue 385

Future Research Opportunities

This brings us on to the question of future research opportunities, for which the present book offers a good basis. On the subject of ‘non-standard’ varieties of language, the development of pidgins in contact situations involving Dutch speakers, notably in London, could be studied; and, picking up the theme of linguistic diversity, a book could be written on multilingualism in Tudor and Stuart London.6 Another subject, for which material in this book provides a good basis, is the use of Dutch in the military and navy in early modern Britain. On a different note, the material adduced in this book about Norwich has allowed me to engage with an important question in sociolinguistics: whether the emergence of the third-person singular zero in the Norfolk dialect (‘he go’ instead of ‘he goes’) was a result of language contact between speakers of Dutch (and French) and local English-speakers in the city in the early modern period, as Peter Trudgill has posited (Trudgill 2013; Joby 2014e). One book that is clearly waiting to be written by Dutch linguists is an account of the internal features of the Dutch language in early modern Britain. I have offered a few insights into this such as the use of forms of address and dialectal features, but perhaps what is now required is a diachronic view of the language, which considers these and other linguistic features. Probably the best source for this is Hessels’ collection of church letters and other documents. Unfortunately he often only provides translations of the letters, and so such a study would require spending an extensive period studying and transcrib- ing the manuscripts held in the London Metropolitan Archives. However, it is such a useful collection of documents that a detailed study of it would surely add to our knowledge of the Dutch language in this period. Furthermore, this and other sources adduced in this book would allow for a comparison between the use of Dutch in Britain and in the Dutch language area in the early modern period. This would help to answer the question of whether migration influenced the course of the language in Britain. If it is a ‘language history from below’ that others want to write, then the Norwich Ieper corpus provides a useful starting point, although given the limitations already discussed this would need to be on a largely descriptive rather than an analytical basis. Apart from forms of address, other parts of the language that could be studied in these letters include epistolary formulae, in particular salutations and valedictions; negation, notably the use of ‘bipartite negation’ (i.e., en/ne . . . niet) (cf. Nobels 2013: 131); and the use of schwa-apocope

6 Peter Burke (2004: 2) notes a recent move towards the study of ‘non-standard’ forms such as pidgins, creoles and mixed languages. 386 epilogue

(e.g., ik bid rather than ik bidde). Here, again, one would have to be careful about the claims one could make based on such research, but this should not prevent us from engaging with such a rare and valuable set of private letters which tell us something about the Dutch that was written and spoken by the common people in early modern England. In Chapter 6 I provided plenty of evidence for the writing of Dutch poetry and prose in early modern England. This was not primarily a literary study, as my concerns lie elsewhere, namely with language. However, to my mind there is sufficient material for a history of Dutch literature in early modern England to be written. There may still be some who would question the value of considering the poetry of Constantijn Huygens or Jan Six van Chandelier in such a study, just because it ‘happened’ to be written in England and not in the United Provinces. In response I would argue that in Chapter 6 numerous examples are provided to illustrate that it was the very fact that these poets were in England that gave them the subject matter for their Dutch verse. Moreover, at least in Huygens’ case it may have been because he was in England that he chose to write in Dutch rather than in one of his other languages. Finally, more research also needs to be done on the influence of early Dutch sonnets written in London on the subsequent composition of sonnets in the United Provinces. When setting the boundaries for this book, I thought long and hard about whether to include a study of the use of Dutch in Ireland. For various reasons, notably the desire to limit the size of the book, I decided against this. However, a study of the use of Dutch on the island would also be of value. The use of the language in William’s army on the campaign in Ireland in 1690–1691 would be a good starting point for such a study.

Concluding Remarks

This brings us back to the subject of boundaries, with which I started this book and it is perhaps appropriate to end on this subject as well. One of the reasons that this book needed to be written was that the authors of histories of the Dutch language choose parameters for their books, which have typically excluded Britain. I, too, have necessarily set boundaries, which are not altogether ideal. Clearly, the use of Dutch in Britain did not suddenly begin in 1550 or suddenly end in 1702. More work could usefully be done on the use of the language in Britain before and after these dates. Likewise, the use of Dutch did not suddenly start or end on the coast of Britain. By setting a geographical boundary I have not been able to follow up on what happened to those who knew and used Dutch in Britain when they left the country. Occasionally, Epilogue 387

I have transgressed my own boundaries, following Janus Gruterus to Leiden, where he is said to have written 500 Dutch sonnets; and Wilhelmus Baudartius to the United Provinces, where he contributed to the translation of the States Bible. But, I have not followed others in order to adhere as much as possible to my own self-imposed limits. As already noted, this geographical boundary acts as a corrective, which allows for the focus of the study to be on a geographical area, which has previously received little attention. In conclusion, I hope that in future those who write language histories of Britain will give due consideration to the use of Dutch, and furthermore that those who write histories of the Dutch language will give an account of its use in Britain, so that it will no longer be necessary to draw what, in some sense, is an artificial geographical boundary, which the Dutch language itself frequently ignored in the early modern period.

Appendices

∵

Appendix 1 A Selection of Dutch Poetry Written in Early Modern England

Jan Six van Chandelier (1620–1695)

A selection of lines from Oesters te Kolchester by Jan Six van Chandelier (1655):

Hoe meenighmaal, getrouw Kolchester Verkracht, door ’t kooninghslachtigh heir, Ten roem van uw kasteel, en vester, Haakte ik, om oover Noordens meir, Na hier, myn leeven te betrouwen. . . . (1–5)

How many times, faithful Colchester, Sacked by regicidal troops, Did I, to the honour of your keep and ramparts, Long to cross the North Sea And trust my life to this place . . .

O! oestertjen, met groene baardjes, O! blanke bolle, en volle beet, Betaal myn snoeplust vry, met schaartjes, Aan ’t mes, ter schulpknops breuk, gesmeedt . . . (18–21)

Oh! Green-bearded little oyster, Oh! Pale ball and full bite, Freely repay my craving, with notches On my knife, forged to break your shell . . .

. . . Dat Kent, ons Vlieland, dat oud Baaijen, En zoo der eedler oester is, Bereidt, of raauw, om ’t lekkerst kraaijen, Ik keur Kolchesters raauwen visch. (25–28)

. . . Let Kent, our Vlieland, old Baayen Or wherever nobler oysters be, Crow that their oysters, cooked or raw, are the tastiest, For I prefer Colchester’s raw fish.

Jan Proost (1572–1668)

A sonnet on the death of Assuerus van Regenmortel:

Een grooten geest, en ooc een lichaem t’eere Hadden in Assuero grooten strijd: Den geest en gaf het lichaem geen respijt Tot rust, in arbeyd besich t’elcken keere. Het Lichaem cloegh dat de siel hem deed dragen Een last, gedurigh boven sijne macht, De siele cloegh dat s’ heel qualick volbracht Haer heyligh werck door ’s lichaems swack vertragen.

Ten laetsten om te stillen dit geclagh, Sand God de wreede dood sonder verdragh Om hem van ’s levens droefheyd te bevrijden. Het lichaem light in soeten slaep en rust, Op dat de siel magh wagen t’haren lust Om haer met Christo eeuwigh te verblijden.

A great mind, and also a body worthy of honour Had a great struggle in Assuerus: The mind gave the body no respite To rest, always busy working at every moment. The Body lamented that the soul made him carry A burden, always beyond his strength, The soul lamented that the whole could scarcely Do its holy work because of the body’s weak slackening.

Finally, to silence this lament, God sent cruel death without a pact To liberate him from life’s sadness. The body lies in sweet sleep and rest, So that the soul may dare, to her delight, To rejoice eternally with Christ. Appendix 1 393

Two sonnets from Op de Gulden Legende, aen de Waerheyd beproeft, door den Eerweirdighen ende zeer gheleerden Symeon Ruytinck:

Wie can doch langher met ghedult aenschouwen, Sulck onbeschaemt bedroch van t’Roomsche Ryck: Daermen verwerpt het Woird GODS Autentyck, T’Welc alleen can s’menschen gemoet opbouwen? End’ in die plaets den volcke leght voor ooghen Der Heylighen Legenden Beusel-boeck: Een Meersmans-Craem, vervult in elcken hoeck Met leughens; daermen Sacken by magh drooghen. Alles versiert, Of, om der Beelden eere, Of, om des Vagheuiers verdichte leere; Of, om de Clooster-heyligheyd te styuen: Of, om de vremde Transubstantiatie, Of, om t’versoecken van der Santen gratie Credyt te doen. Dit zijn meest haer motyuen.

Who can patiently watch anymore Such unashamed deceipt of the Roman Empire: Where they reject the authentic Word of God, Which alone can build up people’s hearts? And in its place lay before the people’s eyes The book of twaddle of the Legends of the Saints: A pedlar’s penny-bazaar, filled in every corner With lies; to which one may add bagfuls. Everything embellished, either to the honour of Images, Or because of the invented doctrine of Purgatory; Or to strengthen Cloister-Sanctity: Or, because of strange Transubstantiation, Or, to try to obtain grace from the Saints. These are usually their motives.

Men brenght u voort, vele versierde Santen, Sinte Christoffel, Ioris, end’ Catryn: Met and’re meer, die onder desen schyn Of noynt en zijn gheweest, Of boose quanten. Hier worden eenen Monick aen geprent Des Heylan’s Iesu Christi diere wonden: Daer comt de Maghet Mary t elcken stonden, 394 appendix 1

End’ eenen Cappaert aen haer Borst ghewent. De Voghels die verstaen des Leeraers reden: Het Sacrament word oock wel aenghebeden Van een devotich Lam: Hier, van de Swynen, Daer, van een Peert. Hier wort oock een Capelle Ghesticht van Bien. alwaer elck in zijn Celle Mis-singht, na d’Orden van Cloosters termynen.

They bring you out, many decorated Saints, Saint Christopher, George, and Catherine: With many others, who in this guise Either never existed, or were evil sorts. Here, a Monk is embossed on to the dear wounds Of the Saviour Jesus Christ: There comes the Virgin Mary at every moment, With a Monk on her Breast. The Birds who understand the Teacher’s speech: The Sacrament is also worshipped By a devoted Lamb: Here by the Pigs, There by a Horse. Here a Chapel is built by Bees. Where each in its cell sings Mass,1 According to the Rules of the Cloister’s offices.

A selection of lines from De selve opt selve:

Den bleecken, magh’ren Alcumist, Die Colen, Hout en gelt verquist, Met yd’len waen gantsch opgheblasen, Belooft sijn Goudt, (den Godt der dwasen), Nochtans so wort het Al-ghemist Nae dat veel viers is wt-ghepist: Het Coper toch geen Goudt en baert, Maer blyft behouden zijnen aert . . . (1–8)

1 This is a reference to a story from the Dialogus miraculorum by Cesarius van Heisterbach (c. 1180–c. 1240) of how some bees built a wax church around a consecrated host, which had been lost by a priest, who was, we are told, taking it to the sick. Joost van den Vondel refers to it in Book ii of his didactic poem, Altaer-geheimenissen (Mysteries of the Altar) (lines 1031– 1046). For more on this, see Joby (2011: 207). Mis-singht is a play on words, which could be translated as ‘sings Mass’ or ‘sings awry’. This was a common play on words in anti-Catholic propaganda and is also used in Calvinist poetry. See, for example, Joby (2010: 183). Appendix 1 395

The pale, skinny Alchemist, Who squanders Coal, Wood and money, Completely puffed up with vain madness, Pledges his Gold, (the God of the foolish), Henceforth it will go totally wrong, After much fire has been pissed out: Copper does not bring forth any Gold, But remains beholden to its nature . . .

Den Cop’ren Duyt wort gheen Ducaet, Door al der valsche-munters raet: Al-sulcx den Toet-steen hier ontdeckt, End geeft een onderscheyt perfeckt, Tusschen het schuym, end’ t’sijne Goudt, Twelck altoos zijnen prys behoudt. Men can wel aen een hoexken sien Wat al de rest’ heeft te bedien. (21–28)

The Copper penny does not become a Ducat, By all the arguments of false-coiners: All such things does the Touchstone here uncover, And it shows a perfect difference Between dross and its Gold, Which always keeps its price. You can easily see in a little corner What all the rest must mean.2

A selection of lines from Der Weesen Vader ofte de Hope der Weesen des Eerweerdighen Mr. Symeon Ruyting. Zal. Ghedachtenis:

Ons Vader is nu Doot: nochtans ons Vader leeft, Ons Gheestes-Vader blijft, die nieuwe Zielen gheeft. Die onses Vaders Ziel verberghet in syn handen, End’ ons oock brenghen sal tot die Ziel rijcke landen, Terwijl’ wy aen den Strandt hier drijven ons gheklach, Tot dat de Veer-schuyt eens ons mede voeren mach. (1–6)

Our Father is now Dead: our Father still lives, Our Spiritual Father remains, who gives new Souls.

2 This is an allusion to Horace’s Ars Poetica, 32–35. 396 appendix 1

Who shelters our Father’s Soul in his hands, And who will also take us to those Soul-rich lands, Whilst we continue our Lament here on the Shore, Until the Ferry-boat can take us with it too.

Doch voor u Arme Kudd’ een Vader wilt verwecken, Die ’t Ed’le Zielen-werck met kloeckheyt mach voltrecken: Die met een wijs beleydt, het Licht van Godes-Boeck, Om suyv’ren s‘menschen hert van elcken vuylen hoeck Wel dicht toe-passen mach: end’ door syns yvers machten Voortaen tot dijne Liefd’ ons aertsch gemoet verkrachten. (43–48)

But awaken a Father for your Poor Herd, Who can fulfil the Noble Soul-work with skill: Who, with wise government, can explain in detail The Light of God’s Book, to cleanse man’s heart In every dirty corner, and by the power of his zeal Can henceforth excite our earthly hearts to love you.

Jan Cruso (1592–fl. 1655)

Op Het Overlyden van den Eerweerdighen, Gheleerden, Godtsalighen D. Simeon Ruytingius Ad defunctum

Den Eeren-Krans die ons ghemoet Hier vlechtet uyt dees’ Bloemkens soet, End’ die men dus vercieren tracht Door veler arbeyt, ‘tsaem ghebracht, (O saligh Man!) bereydtmen niet Dijn ziel ter eeren; (Sy gheniet Alreed’ een Kroon der heerlijckheyt Vergoddet met onsterf’lijckheyt:) Maer om dijn lichaem: dat het sy Door sulck soet-geurich salven vry Van onderganck, end’ wel bevrijdt Voor’tlastrich bijten van de Nijdt. End’ dat dijn Naems verdienden Lof Appendix 1 397

Niet liggh’ begraven in het stof, Maer ons gheslacht gheduerich mach Van dijn voor-treffen doen ghewagh, End’ segghen (t’komstich eeuw’ te pass’) Wat voor een Man dat Ruyting was.

On the Death of the Reverend, Learned, Pious Revd. Simeon Ruytinck: to the deceased

We do not prepare the wreath of honour, Which our hearts weave together, using these sweet flowers here, And which we thus try to decorate With much work, braided together, (O blessed man!) to honour your soul; (She already enjoys a Crown of glory Made divine with immortality:) But [to honour] your body: so that it, By such sweet-scented salves, is freed From decay, and truly liberated From the slanderous bites of Malice; And so that the deserved praise of your Name Does not lie buried in the dust, But our people may perpetually Mention your excellence And say (for the benefit of future ages) What a [great] man that Ruytinck was.

A Selection of lines from Uytbreydinge Over den Achtsten Psalm DAVIDS

Een heyligh Lof-gesang (niet van geringe dingen Maer) van hoogh-weerde stof bestaet mijn geest te singen: Een Psalm, een Danck-ghedicht, een eer-geschalligh Liedt, Gelijck ons Jesse Soon tot less’ en voor-schrift liet. Dien Herder onvertsaeght, die Beir-en-Leewen-dwinger, Die d’onbesneden Reus versloegh met sijnen slinger, Die on-verwonnen Heldt was konstigh evenwel In heyl’ge Poësy, Gesang, en Snaren-spel. (1–8) 398 appendix 1

A holy Song of Praise (not of trifling things But) of most worthy matter, my spirit undertakes to sing: A Psalm, a Poem of Thanks, a Song, which rings with honour, As Jesse’s Son taught and prescribed to us. That inexhaustible Shepherd, that Bear and Lion tamer, Who vanquished the uncircumcised Giant with his sling, That unconquered Hero was just as artful In holy Poetry, Song, and Playing strings.

Te Sestos woond’ een Maeght die gingh een Aerent queecken Van dat hy was gekipt: De vogel (tot een teecken Van ware danckbaerheyt) haer daeghlicks voetsel bracht, Van allerhande slach, gevangen op de jacht; In ’t lest de vrijster sterft. Men gaet haer lichaem branden, (Na ’t Heydensch oudt gebruyck, en wijse van die landen) ’t Verlies van dese Maeght de vogel soo verdroot, Dat hy sich werpt in ’t vier, en volght haer in de doodt.

In Sestos, there lived a Maiden who reared an Eagle From when it was hatched: The bird (as a sign of True gratitude) brought her daily food, Of all kinds and sorts, caught by hunting; Finally, she dies an old maid. They burn her body, (According to the ancient Pagan custom, and manner of those lands) The loss of this Maiden so saddened the bird, That it throws itself in the fire, and follows her to death.

Ja d’wijl ick dit beschrijv’, en in de groene dalen Langst Yeri koele stroom ick gae een lochtjen halen, En keere na de Stadt de dichte Bosschen door, Hoe word’ ick daer onthaelt van ’t Nachtegalen Choor . . .

The opening lines from: Treur-dicht op het ontijdigh overlijden van den Hooghgeleerden ende Godvruchtigen D. IOANNES ELISONIUS, Getrou Bedienaer der Neder-Duytsche Gemeynte CHRISTI in NORWITS

Daer droefheydt perst het hert, en over-swaren druck Be-angst mijn bange ziel door schielick ongeluck, Als schrick bedwelmt den geest, en praemt ’tgemoedt van binnen, En stadigh treur-geclagh ontstelt verstant en sinnen, (Na eyndeloos gekarm en menigh duysent traen) Wat wil mijn sware geest (soo onbequaem) bestaen Soo hoogh so groot een werck, als (met geringe Dichten) Te willen een Coloß’ van Eer en Heugh’nis stichten, (Den Tijdt en Nijdt te spijt) daer door de snelle Faem In dés’ en d’ander Eeuw verbreyden sou den Naem Van weerden Elison? Philippi groote Soon wou niet geschildert wesen Dan van Apelles self, want niemandt kon sijn wesen Soo konst’lick drucken uyt: wat wil dan mijn vernuft (Van selfs so heel geringh, en nu door druck versuft) Soo groot een stuck bestaen?

Elegy on the untimely death of the most learned and pious Revd. Johannes Elison, Faithful Servant of the Dutch Community of Christ in Norwich

Since sadness oppresses the heart, and a most heavy burden Fills my fearful soul with sudden unhappiness, As fear stupefies my mind and cajoles my heart inside, And ceaseless lamentation disconcerts mind and senses, (After endless railing and many thousand tears) How can my heavy mind (so unsuited) try to undertake So high, so great a work, as (with trifling Poems) To want to create a Colossus of Honour and Memory, (To the regret of Time and Envy) with which swift Fame In this and the following Age would spread the Name Of worthy Elison? Philip’s great Son, did not want to be painted By anyone but Apelles himself, for no-one could express His being in such an artful manner: Why does my mind then (By itself so very small, and now dulled by oppression) Want to undertake such a great work? 400 appendix 1

Epigrams by Jan Cruso

Epigram 2

Ad Zoilum

’K mocht besich syn (’t is waar) mit beters jet, Maar kond’ ick beter léech syn! k’ mynen niet: Houdt dan u snappen, want (ter trouw geseyt) Dees syn de Vruchten van myn ledicheyt.

To Zoilus

I should be busy (it’s true) with something better, But I would rather be passing idle hours! I don’t think so. Stop your snapping, for (in truth) These are the fruits of my idle hours.

Epigram 4

So Droomer (om ’t ontgaan de kost van kinder-voen) ’T Pyreensch gebercht’ beklimt, om syn gebedt te doen Aan Iacobs beelt! van daar (de steylten overkomen Van d’Alpen witt-besneeuwt) voor Petro knielt te Romen ...... Maar vraagt gy wat hy doch met al dit woelen wint; ’T huys komend’, hy aldaar drij frissche Soontjens vindt.

When Dreamer (in order to escape paying the cost of feeding children) Climbs the Pyrenees, to perform his prayers to Jacob’s picture! From there (overcoming the steep mountains Of the Alps, snow-white) he kneels before Peter in Rome ...... But you ask what did he gain from all this restless wandering? When he came home, he found three new little sons there.

Epigram 16

In Astrologum

Ghy roemt dat yder een van ’s hemels heldre lichten U Van een yders Ramp oft welstant onderrichten; Maar dat u Wijf haar eer aan yder veylich stelt, Schoon yder ster het siet, niet een het u vertelt. Appendix 1 401

On an astrologer

You boast that every one of heaven’s bright lights Teaches you of everyone’s disaster or well-being; But that your wife gives her honour easily to everyone Although every star sees it, none tells you of it.

Epigram 18

Mulieri ne credas, ne mortuae quidem

Ey helpt doch de Vrouw’, sy valt in onmacht siet. Ach arm, haar was ter werelt lievers niet Dan was haar Man: wiens leven was haar leven, En met syn Doot wil sy den geest oock geven.

Never trust a woman, even when she’s dead.

Oh help the woman, see, she has fainted. Oh poor lady, there was nothing in the world dearer to her Than her husband: whose life was her life, And with his death, she wants to give up her spirit.

Epigram 33

In Vehementer Nasutum.

Vergeefs ghy (Lare) poocht u nues te snuyten, want U Over-dicken Nues, te groot is voor u hant: En als g’ op ’t luydtste Niest ghy kondt het doch niet hooren Om dat u lange Nues so verr’ is van u Ooren.

On the possessor of an extremely large nose.

You, Larus, try to blow your nose in vain For your over-sized nose is too big for your hand: And if you sneeze as loudly as you can, you still can’t hear it Because the end of your nose is so far from your ears. 402 appendix 1

Epigram 37

Op den Blinden Bedelaar die den Cruepelen Draacht.

Daar is ter werelt niet meer aangenaam te vinden Dan ’t onderlingh behulp van ongeveynsde Vrinden, Den Cruepelen Bedelaar den Blinden leent ’t Gesicht, Die hem syn Beenen gunt, en druckt syn Last maar licht. Der armen trouwe min gaat (waarlickx) veel te boven Den loosen Vrient-schap schyn in grootste Princen Hoven.

On the Blind Beggar who carries the Cripple.

There is nothing in the world which is more pleasant Than the mutual help of true friends, The lame beggar lends the blind man his sight, And he gives him his legs, and makes his burden light. The loyalty of the poor at least (truly) goes far beyond The appearance of casual friendship in the courts of the greatest Princes.

Epigram 40

Omne tulit punctum &

So die haar selven hooghsten lof toe-brengen Die konnen met Genoecht Gewin vermengen? Veel lofts komt Laura toe; want dat sy stelt Haar eer te koop, brenght haar Genoecht en Gelt.

He has won every point etc.

If indeed those who bring upon themselves the highest praise Can blend pleasure and profit, Much praise comes to Laura; because by putting Her honour on sale, she brings herself pleasure and money.

Epigram 53

Twee Buyren reysden ’t saam van d’Hooft-Stadt London af Tot daar de Noorde-Wijck de Stadt benaminch gaf: Ian Packt syn Mantel op, en sentse by den Waaghen Maar Klaas (uyt regens vrees) wil selfs den synen draagen. Appendix 1 403

Sy Wand’len vrolick heen: maar haast wiert Klaas gewaar Dat hem zijn opper-kleet was veel te heet en swaar. Ian (seydt hy) ben ick geck? ’k ben nu een Mijl gekomen En hebb’ niet half genoech tot Reys-gelt mé genomen, So doet my (lieve Ian) een Pont (of so) ter handt En neemt (in Borges Sté) myn Mantel tot een pandt. Geseyt, gedaan. De Cap (op synen s’af gehangen) Draacht Ian (onnosel) heén. Doe (met vermoeyde gangen En op den Vier-den-dach) sy komen by de Stadt, Klaas geeft ’t geleende gelt, en ’t opperkleet hervat.

Two Neighbours travelled together from the Capital City, London, To the City to which the name of Norwich was given: Jan picks up his Coat, and sends it by the coach But Klaas (fearing rain) wants to carry his own. They set off walking happily: but Klaas quickly became aware That his outer garment was far too hot and heavy. Jan (he said) am I mad? I have now walked a Mile And have not brought half enough travel money with me, So lend me (dear Jan) a Pound (or so) And take (in place of a guarantee) my Coat as a deposit. No sooner said than done. Jan carries the Cape innocently With him (hanging from his side). Then (with tired steps And on the fourth day) they come to the City; Klaas gives back the money he had borrowed and takes back his outer garment.

Epigram 94

In Nasutissimum.

Vergeefs ghy voor u Huys een Sonne-wijser stelt; Want gaapt maar, en men stracx aan uwe Tanden telt De Uyren van den Dach. De Son dat wijst gewis End uwen langen Neus den besten Gnomon is.

Someone with an extremely large nose.

In vain, you place a sundial in front of your house; For just open your mouth and people will be able to Count the hours of the day by your teeth. And the sun shows That for sure your long nose is the best style (gnomon) for the sundial. 404 appendix 1

Epigram 104

Nitimur in vetitum & C.

So langh als Swart-gat hadt haar vry verkeer Daar sy selfs wouw, men vergd’ haar noyt oneer Doch nu men merckt haar Man haar so Mis-Trouwt Dat hy (Ialoersch) haar opgesloten houdt: Nu krijcht hy boelen; elck om ’s eerst haar vryt; Maar seker ’t is uyt minn’ niet, maar uyt spyt.

We try to get what has been forbidden etc.

As long as Black-hole had her free relationships As she wanted, they never demanded dishonorable things from her. But now they notice that her husband mistrusts her so That he (jealous) keeps her locked up: Now he’s got rivals; everyone is trying very hard to make love to her; But it’s certainly not out of love, but spite.

Epigram 105

In Nasutum

Waar Snuytaars Lichaam groot, naa synen Neus, Hy waar een byster groot waanschaapen Reus.

On someone with a big nose

If Snotnose’s body were big in proportion to his nose, He would be a very monstrous giant.

Epigram 110

Dulce bellum inexpertis

’T helpt geen verbidden, daarom best men swijgh. Joncker (’t en helpt doch niet) wil naa den Krijgh. Hem ducht dat daar syn kloucke daaden sullen Met synen Roem een yders Ooren vullen. Appendix 1 405

Eylaas, haast wort gekoelt syn weeld’rich bloet; Den on-ervaar’nen (slechs) is d’oorlogh soet.

War is sweet to those who have never experienced it.

No pleading will help, so it’s best to keep quiet. Squire (it does not help) wants to go to war. He thought that his brave deeds there will Fill everyone’s ears with his glory. Alas, his lavish blood will be quickly cooled: War is sweet (only) to those who have not experienced it.

Epigram 113

Die (synd’ een Weduwnaar) sich aan een Vrouw gaat Paaren, Vertrouwt sich wederom (naa Schip-Breuck) aan de Baaren.

Whoever (being a widower) seeks to marry a woman, Entrusts himself once more (after a shipwreck) to the waves.

Epigram 120

So Slechtaart vande Vloon wort Jammerlick gebeten, Hy doet syn keersien uit. Nu sullen sy niet weten (Secht Slechtaart) waar ick ben. Sy konnen my niet sien; Nu sal ick syn verlast van so een swerm van Byen.

When Baddie is bitten terribly by the fleas, He snuffs his little candle out. Now they will not know (Says Baddie) where I am. They cannot see me: Now I shall be saved from such a swarm of bees.

Epigram 136

Spectatiss: tum Pietatis tum Doctrinae Viro, D. Ionae Proostio Ao. 1610

Na dien ghy (weerde Proost) my so veel eer bewijst Dat ghy myn Veersjes leest, dat ghy myn Kluchjes Prijst Wat schaadt oft Momus knort? Wie wort so onbesint Te haaten (nu voortaan) wat grooten Proost bemint. 406 appendix 1

To the most excellent man: both of piety and of doctrine, Revd. Jan Proost Ao. 1610.

After you (worthy Proost) have shown me so much honour That you read my little verses, and praise my little jokes What does it matter if Momus grumbles? Who would be so mad As to hate (henceforth) what great Proost loves?

Epigram 145

In D: Ioannem Elisonium, Virum Doctiss: Pastorem Fideliss. Amicum singularem, cingulo tenus depictum

Van grooten Elison, (voor t’groote Rondt beroemt) Dit stuck de helft vertoont: maar vraagtmen hoe dat komt, Dat hy niet int’geheel hier aan te schouwen staat? Hoe kond’ hy, wien (geheel) de werelt niet omvaat.

On Revd. Johannes Elison, A Very Learned Man, a Very Faithful Pastor, an exceptional Friend, depicted as far as his belt

Of great Elison, (famed throughout the great Sphere) This picture gives a half: but if they ask how it happens, That he cannot be seen here completely, How could he be, whom (complete) the world cannot contain?

Epigram 153

Ad Marcum

Gelooft my (Marce Vriendt) ter Weerelt is geen Mensch Met wien ick (daagen lanck) te wesen liever wensch: Ghy woont te Wester-Kerck van ons twee Mijlen veer; En dat vier Mijlen maackt wanneer ick wederkeer. Ick vind’ u selden t Huys te met u groot beslach Van ’t Hof u so belet, ick u niet sien en mach. Twee Mijlen gaa ick geern op dat ick u geniet; Maar om u niet te sien, vier Mijlen ’t my verdriet. Appendix 1 407

To Marcus

Believe me (Marcus, my friend), there is no one in the world With whom I prefer to be (for days on end): You live at Wester-Kerck, which is two miles away from us; And that makes four miles when I go and come back. I don’t find you often at home, and I cannot see you Because your business at Court occupies you so much, I’m happy to go two miles in order to enjoy your company, But to go four miles and not see you, that makes me sad.

Epigram 159

Neque me ut miretur turba laboro, contentus paucis lectoribus.

Ghy (Marce) Prijst myn Dicht; maar wijst met eenen aan ’T niet veel gelesen wordt, en min sal syn verstaan: Ick schryv’ voor Narren niet, (den grootsten hoop der Menschen) Een noyt so kleyn getal van Lesers is mijn wenschen.

And I must not strive to amaze the crowd, but be content with a few readers.

You, Marcus, prize my verse; but indicate at once that It is not much read, and will be understood even less: I do not write for Fools, (the largest group of People); [To have] the smallest number of Readers possible is my wish.

Epigram 168

Ad Marcum

Dat Cloekaart so versouckt in Echt te syn gepaart Met Swartjen (die oft rijck is leelic en bejaart) Ghy (Marce) denckt yet vreemts hem daer toe porren moest; ’G hebt recht; en dit ’s ’t geheym, sy heeft de Longer-hoest.

To Marcus

Because Cloekaart tries so hard to be paired in Marriage With Swartjen (who is rich and ugly and old) You (Marcus) think that something strange had to be goading him to do this; You’re right; and this is the secret; she’s coughing from her lungs. 408 appendix 1

Epigram 185

Op een Dwergh

So Hansken eens berijdt een Mier’, En valt (als van een Kemel-dier) Sy op syn lijf een voet noch sett, En tot den Doot hem schier verplett. Op ’t lest hy roert, en om hem siet En segt, belacht ghy myn verdriet? Ick viel soo hoogh als Phaeton Van uyt de Wagen van de Sonn’.

Concerning a Dwarf

If Hansken were once to ride an ant And should fall (as if from a camel) And if it treads on his body, And nearly crushes him to Death. Then finally he will move and look around And says, are you laughing at my distress? I fell as far as Phaeton did, Out of the chariot of the sun.

Epigram 199

Democrytus beloech syns Eeuw’s verdorventheyt; En Herachlyt de sond dier tyden heeft beschreyt: De menschen voort en voort een sondich leven leyen So geven ’s altijt stoff van lachen en van schreyen.

Democritus laughed at his age’s depravity; And Heraclitus wept at the sin of those times: People keep on living a sinful life And so always give us stuff to laugh and cry about. Appendix 1 409

Epigram 214

Loy is daaglicx tweemaal satt, Suyper eens. Wie dunckt u dat Wel den grootsten Dronckaart is? Suyper ick voorseker giss: Loy is droncken ’t elcker poos; Suypers eens geduyrt altoos.

Loy is drunk twice-a-day, Suyper once. Who do you think Is the greatest drunkard? Suyper is of course: Loy is drunk every so often; Suyper’s once lasts forever.

Epigram 221

Marce ’tis genoech gemalt: D wijl myn Rymen U bevalt, Slaat doch inde beste Vouw Wat een ander laacken souw. Cato selfs de stemmicheyt (Onderwijl) heeft afgeleyt, Om met geve-vruechdschen Wijn Vry en bly van Geest te syn. Hier mé ick myn Cluchten sluyt: Hier mé is myn mallen UYT.

Marcus, this is enough foolishness, Whilst my rhyming pleases you, Please see in the best light What another would belittle. Even Cato has set aside Moderation (meanwhile) So that he became carefree and happy In spirit, with joy-giving wine. With this I bring my jokes to a close: And with this is my folly at an END. 410 appendix 1

Franc de Bruynne(?).

Elegies on the death of Johannes Elison.

Den waerden ELISON wiens heyl’ge leer en leven Soo quamen overeen en maeckten paden even, Leijdt hier in’t Stof ontzielt wiens Hemels-vloeyend stem Nu swijght en syns gelyck en komt’er geen na hem.

Book 1, No. 1 is a small book of narrow leaves, which consists of the names of members entered from time to time ‘by several hands’ (Kirk 1900: 201–11). The entries are mainly in Dutch, but titles and categories are typically given in Latin: one of a number of examples of code switching between Dutch and Latin in the early life of the Dutch church in London, and more specifically a further example of tag switching. The first list is of members of the church. Above the list are written the date, 1550, and the title, Nomina eorum qui Confessioni Fidei subscripserunt (‘The names of those who have subscribed to the Confession of Faith’). It gives the names of the leaders of the church, Johannes à Lasco, Wouter Delenus and Marten Micron, the elders (seniores) and the deacons (diaconi), and then the names of the members arranged according to the first letter of the Christian name. Next to many of the names are the occupation and other details such as the name of their spouse. Under the letter ‘A’ we find, Adam van Hassalt, mesmaker, wonende by Cheren Cross, met zyn huusfrauwe (‘Adam van Hassalt, knifemaker, living near Charing Cross with his wife’); and Arent Willemssoen, een scoemaker, met M. Antonj, int Tabert op S. Martyns (‘Arent Willemssoen, a shoemaker, with Master Antony, in the Tabberd (a street or pub?) in St. Martin’s’). Another list in this Book, dated 7 June 1551, is Catalogus puerorum, qui ad Catechismum in Ecclesia Germanica respondent (‘Catalogue of children who respond to the Catechism in the Dutch Church’). They are divided into girls and boys (Puellae [et] Pueri). There is, however, no Dutch on its own in this list. Some entries are a mixture of Dutch and Latin. For example on the outside leaf of the book, there is an entry, which displays intrasentential code switching, with the Dutch word glasemaker (‘glassmaker’) sitting in a sentence otherwise written in Latin:

Claes Eyselaer, nostrae olim et nunc ecclesiae frater, glasemaker, in Warwyckshre, ut opinor.

Claes Eyselaer, a former and present brother of our church, glassmaker, in Warwickshire, I think.

It may be that the clerk did not know the Latin word for ‘glassmaker’ (vitrarius/vitrifex). Book 1, no. 2 is another list of members, most probably from the year 1551 (Kirk 1900: 211–14). Some of the names from Book 1, no. 1 reappear, though some details have changed; for example, Adam van Hassalt is listed as mesmaker, te Wesmuenster, met zyn vrauwe (‘knifemaker, in Westminster, with his wife’). One entry in this list that catches

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004285217_012 412 appendix 2 the eye is that of one of the ministers of the church ‘Gualterus Deloinus’ (Wouter Delen(us)). He is listed as cum uxore (‘with his wife’). Book 1, no. 3 is another Register of members of the Dutch church in London (Kirk 1900: 269–72). It has no title or date but probably dates from the refounding of the church after the Marian exile in 1559.1 There are few details of the members, though occasionally the name of the wife of a male member is given. Two successive entries illustrate that here, too, there was switching between Dutch and Latin: Elsken Janssons, uxor Gerards; Elsken Thoesen, weduwe Jocob de Steensnyder. This is an example of a third type of code switching, intersentential switching, whereby the switching happens at sentence-boundaries (uxor (‘wife’) in the first entry is Latin, whereas weduwe (‘widow’) in the second entry is Dutch). Book 2 is a register of members begun in 1561 (Kirk 1900: 278–87). As in Book 1, no. 3, the entries are a mixture of Latin and Dutch. For example, under ‘A’ it gives: Adrianus Hamstedius Excommunicatus (‘Excommunicated’) (Hamstedius had been a minister at the church, but was excommunicated for heresy (H 87: ii, 201)); and Andries Jansen, mandemaecker (‘basketmaker’). Another list of members dates from 1561.2 Under ‘I’ we find Iohannes Utenhovius, the pre-exile elder who returned to London. We also have the membership list for 1567. This has a Latin title: Catalogus Ecclesiae Belgico- Germanicae Collectus xx Decembris 1567 (‘List of names of the Dutch-German Church Compiled on 20th December 1567’).3 The fact that this list, in common with the other lists mentioned, is indexed on first names means we usually find several pages of entries for ‘Jan’.

1 lma clc/180/MS07402/01. 2 lma clc/180/MS07402/02. 3 lma clc/180/MS07402/03. Bibliography

1 Archive Material

– Amsterdam, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (knaw) ab E 3068 s. Extracten uyt Engelse, Schotse en Ierse brieven . . . Amsterdam (1689). Const. Huygens-bundel xlvii. Letter from Cornelis Drebbel to Ysbrandt van Rietwijck.

– Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium Ms. ii, 1166. Album amicorum Bonaventurae Vulcanii with a Dutch sonnet by Janus Gruterus (fol. 71).

– Cambridge, Cambridgeshire Archives KP155/1/1. Licence granted to Stephan de Cursol to preach at Thorney (1640). P155/01/01. A register of baptisms for Thorney (1654–1727).

– Cambridge, Emmanuel College Library ms iii i 17. The play, Euribates, by Aquila Cruso.

– Cambridge, Gonville & Caius College Library ms 389/609. The order of the Dutch church in Norwich: Constitutiones Ecclesiae Belgii- Germaniae quae Nordowici est.

– Chelmsford, Essex Record Office (ero) D/abw 7/71. The will of Pieter Beke. D/abw 10/120. The will of Cladys Cleenwerck D/abw 12/376. The will of Christiaen de Hane. D/abw 13/81. The will of Jan Proost. D/abw 23/256. The will of Adrian Loy of Halstead. D/acw 3/166. The will of Theodore vanden Berghe. D/acw 4/281. The will of Rachel Dewele. D/B 5 R5. The Liber Ordinacionum for Colchester. D/B 5 R7. The Entry Book for Colchester. D/Dba A67/16. A receipted bill including ‘Goldmans Dutch’. D/Dba F29/2. An inventory for the Barrington Family of Hatfield Broad Oak. D/dc 18/28. An instruction to the Governors of the Colchester Bay Hall to pay rent (1709). D/DEb 95/20. Information concerning Joseph Cole of Canvey Island (1667). D/dht/F2/1. Copy of will of Sir Isaac Rebow (1726). 414 Bibliography

D/dp L38/8. Papers concerning a prize case in the Court of High Admiralty (1602). D/du 295/31. Title deeds for Little Laver, dated 1560. D/du 295/34. Title deeds for Little Laver, dated 1588. D/du 457/7. The letter book of the London merchant, Nicholas Corsellis (mid-1660s). D/dvz 6. The court roll of the Manor of Abells, Halstead (transcription). T/A 424/6/4. The Crisp Collection concerning Quakers in Colchester (1657–1691). T/P 121/1. A transcription of D/dvz 6.

– Copenhagen, Royal Library Ny Kgl. Saml. 370, I–iii. Manuscript of Willem Schellinks’ travelogue.

– Edinburgh, City Archives (eca) Bundle 2; no. 60. Letter from Spanish Ambassador in London to the Edinburgh magistrates. Bundle 209; nos. 7542; 7546; 7551; 7552; 7558; 7560; 7569; 7622; 7629. Documents relating to the Dutch/Flemish in Edinburgh (Chapter 7).

– Edinburgh, National Archive of Scotland (nas) CS96/3264. The letter book of John/Jan Swinton (1670s). CS96/3268. A book of Dutch arithmetical problems kept by Johannes Weir (1676). GD1/160/5. The discharge of a tocher (dowry) payable by Cicillia Vander Staell (1684). GD26/9/255. Three letters from Thomas Livingstone to Hugh Mackay (1689–1690). GD29/1999. A letter written by Helena de Wet (Witt) in Edinburgh (1688). GD29/2161. A list of plants in the papers of the Bruce family of Kinross (1675). GD29/2195. An account for two Dutch stone-carvers at Kinross House (1686). GD40/2/3/9. Report by M. Young on the Dutch of the grandsons of Robert Kerr (1652). GD40/2/7/20. A letter from Jean Ker to her cousin, Mary Montgomery. GD46/18/141. Articles proposed by Bernard Mackenzie relating to Lewis. Middelburg 1631. GD112/39/111/8. A letter from Colin Campbell to the laird of Glenurchy (1665). RH15/102/7. The papers of Sir James Stansfield of Newmilns. RH15/106/149. Letters written to the Edinburgh merchant, Andrew Russell.

– Ghent, University Library Ms. 2485. The Album Amicorum of Johannes Radermacher.

– Kirkwall, Orkney Archives D14/3/5. Arithmetic and letter book in Dutch (1660–1661). Traill Dennison Papers. D14/8/8. Document in Dutch dated 24 September 1659. Traill Dennison Papers. Bibliography 415

– Leiden, University Library Ms. ltk 2148. Voorreden vanden Noodich ende Nutticheit der Nederduytscher Taelkunste by Johannes Radermacher (1568).

– Lerwick, Shetland Archives sa4/3000/18/9/30. A short article concerning cargoes of Dutch ships captured in Shetland. gd144/113/26. An ‘Instrument’ in the Bruce of Symbister Papers dated 19 May 1698. gd150/2589/2. Letter from Floris Croon to John Bruce concerning the Samaritan (English). gd150/2589/5. Letter from Floris Croon to John Bruce concerning the Samaritan (Dutch).

– Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives bb/1/B/1. A licence to retain 40 households of Dutchmen in Boston (1573).

– London, British Library (bl) Add. Ms. 5027. A plan of Liverpool by Bernard de Gomme (1644). Add. Ms. 11684. ‘The Reminiscences of Richard Gibson’. Add. Ms. 17677, U. Copies of letters relating to Dutch diplomatic mission to London, 1651–2. Add. Ms. 43862. Records of the politicke mannen in Norwich 1605–1615. Egerton Mss. 1708. Papers relating to Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland. Sloane Ms. 2764. Vera Cupidinis Descriptio by Jacobus Colius (fol. 13r.)

– London, London Metropolitan Archives (lma) clc/180/MS07380. register of baptisms for the London Dutch Church (1563 to 1567). clc/180/MS07386. Attestation papers for the London Dutch church. clc/180/MS07397. Minute (acta) book of the consistory of the London Dutch church. clc/180/MS07402/01-03. Registers of members of the London Dutch church c. 1559–1567. clc/180/MS07404. General Register of Members of the London Dutch church, 1550–1754. clc/180/MS07412/001. Coetus Book for the London Stranger churches, 1648–1820. clc/180/MS07428. The Dutch church letters published by J.H. Hessels (H 87). clc/180/MS09621. Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen by Simeon Ruytinck et al. clc/180/MS10055. Kerckelicke oeffeningen en instellingen by Simeon Ruytinck et al. clc/197/MS07384. The baptismal records for the Colchester Dutch church (1645–1728). clc/197/MS07385. Register of the Dutch church in Norwich (1676–1912). 416 Bibliography

– London, Public Record Office, Kew (pro) State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, xii, Vols. 17; 43; 78; 82. rg 4/4574. A register of baptisms and marriages for the Dutch Chapel Royal (1689–1740).

– Maidstone, Kent History and Library Centre Fa/CPw9. A letter complaining of the treatment by the town of Faversham of the master of a Flemish ship (10 December 1563).

– Norwich, Norfolk Record Office (nro) col 5/5. The muster rolls for the Dutch and French militias in Norwich (1620). col 6/2. Letters patent of Elizabeth I, 8 June 1570, for Dutch to settle in Yarmouth. dn/inv 26/176B. Probate inventory of Elisabeth van de Sande (September 1613). mc 189/1. Records of the politicke mannen in Norwich (April 1583–July 1590). mc 1628/1. Transcription of Willem Schellinks’ travelogue (1662). ms 21490. Facsimile of the Register of the Dutch church in Norwich (1676–1912). ncc will register Moyse 9 (1580). The will of John Smallbone. ncc will register Green 194 (1639). The will of Johannes Elison. ncr 13a/7. The muster rolls for the Dutch and French militias in Norwich (1595/6). ncr 16a. The Mayor’s Court Books. ncr 17d. The Norwich Strangers Book and the Book of Orders (1582). ncr 20. Quarter Sessions Minute Books, incl. depositions before the Mayor at Norwich. T/C 1/1. Thetford Corporation Assembly Books. T/C 1/11. Poll tax on Aliens for Thetford (1586). Y/pp 1/2. Facsimile of letter to Vedastus Coornwinder, minister of Berkel en Rodenrijs.

– Nottingham, University Library Portland Manuscripts: PwA 2242 (part of PwA 1-2870). Letters written by Hans Willem Bentinck, Earl of Portland.

– Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Douce 68. The Album Amicorum of Emanuel van Meteren. D’Orville 558–60. Manuscript of Willem Schellinks’ travelogue.

– Rotterdam, Gemeentearchief 1306/538. (Berkel en Rodenrijs archive). Letters from Yarmouth to Vedastus Coornwinder. Bibliography 417

– Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale Ms. Leber 2616. Joris Hoefnagel’s Patientia (1568–1569).

– The Hague, Algemeen Rijksarchief (Nationaal Archief ) Collectie Ortell, inv. nr. 61. Letters from Humphrey Bradley to Elizabeth van Dalem. Verbalen 1.01.02/8302, /8303, /8305. Reports of Dutch Embassies to Scotland. 1.01.02/5882, /5883. Letters addressed to the States General (1591–1599), including those written by Hadrianus Damman, permanent ambassador to the Scottish court, and George Gilpin, Councillor on the Dutch Council of State.

– The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek kw, ka xla, 1622, ’Tcostelijck Mall by Constantijn Huygens (fols. 1r.–8r.).

– Utrecht, University Library (ubu) Mss. 1196 and 1198. The English journal and ‘Description’ of England by Abraham Booth.

– Zurich, Staatsarchiv Stazh E ii 360. A letter from Wolfgang Musculus to Heinrich Bullinger (12 March 1549).

2 Secondary Sources

Aalberse, S. (2009). Inflectional Economy and Politeness. Morphology-internal and Morphology-external Factors in the Loss of Second Person Marking in Dutch. Utrecht: lot. Adams, J.N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: cup. Alban, J. (2014). “Sources in the Norfolk Record Office which Relate to the History of Norfolk and the Low Countries,” Dutch Crossing, 38:2, pp. 101–15. “Aliens at Great Yarmouth in 1571,” (1896–98). Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 5, pp. 289–96. An Act for the Regulating of the Trade of Bay-Making in the Dutch Bay-Hall in Colchester (1660). London: John Bill. Anon. (1750). An Exact and Authentic Account of the Greatest White-Herring-Fishery in Scotland . . . London: Joseph Davidson. Ashbee, A. and Harley, J. (transcr. and ed.) (2000). The Cheque Books of the Chapel Royal, I. Aldershot: Ashgate. Austin, D. (2005). “Little England beyond Wales: re-defining the myth”. Landscapes 6:2, pp. 30–62. 418 Bibliography

Axer, J. (1998). “Latein als Sprache der Adelsnation in der polnisch-litauischen Kon- föderation (16. bis 18. Jahrhundert). Eine These” in Latein und Nationalsprachen in der Renaissance, ed. by B. Guthmüller. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 131–6. Bachrach, A.G.H. (1951). “Sir Constantyn Huygens and Ben Jonson”, Neophilologus 35, pp. 120–9. ——— (1962). Sir Constantine Huygens and Britain 1596–1687: A Pattern of Cultural Exchange, Vol. I 1596–1619. London: oup. ——— (1988). “De literaire dimensie. Een ander aspect”, in Willem iii: De Stadhouder- Koning en Zijn Tijd, ed. by A.G.H. Bachrach et al. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, pp. 141–55. Backhouse, M. (1981a). “De vlaamse vluchtelingkerk in Sandwich in 1563. Twee manu- scripten uit het British Museum”, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Geschiedenis, cxlvii, 75–113. ——— (1981b). “Flemish Protestant Refugees in Sandwich in the 16th century (1563)”, Dutch Crossing, 13, pp. 34–41. ——— (1995). The Flemish and Walloon Communities at Sandwich during the Reign of Elizabeth I (1561–1603). Brussels: kawlsk van België. Bailey, R.W. (2006). “English Among the Languages”, in The Oxford History of English, ed. by L. Mugglestone. Oxford: oup, pp. 334–59. Baldwin, D. (1990). The Chapel Royal: ancient and modern. London: Duckworth. Balfour Paul, J. (ed.) (1911). Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, Vol. ix 1546–1551. Edinburgh: hm General Register House. ——— (1913). Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, Vol. x 1551–1559. Edinburgh: hmso. Barber, C. (1997). Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Barbour, R. (2008). “Discipline and Praxis: Thomas Browne at Leiden”, in ‘A man very well studyed’ New Contexts for Thomas Browne, ed. by K. Murphy and R. Todd. Leiden: Brill, pp. 15–47. Barclay, R.S. (trans. and ed.) (1967). The Court Books of Orkney and Shetland 1614–1615. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable Ltd. Barnes, M.P. (1998). The Norn Language of Orkney and Shetland. Lerwick: The Shetland Times Ltd. Barnett, R.D. and Levy, A. (1970). The Bevis Marks Synagogue. London: The Society of Heshaim. Barnett, R.D. et al. (1991). The Circumcision Register of Isaac and Abraham de Paiba (1715–1775). London: The Jewish Historical Society of England. Bartolini, P. (2008). On the Cultures of Exile, Translation, and Writing. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press. Baxter, S. (1966). William iii. London: Longmans. Beeman, G.B. (1933–37). “The Early History of the Strangers’ Church 1550–1561”, Pro- ceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, xv, pp. 261–282. Bibliography 419

Beenakker, A.J.M. (1971). Breda in de eerste storm van de opstand. Tilburg: Stichting Zuidelijk Historisch Contact. Beenhakker, A.J. (1973). Hollanders in Shetland. Lerwick: Shetland Times. Belydenisse des Gheloofs vande Co. Majesteyt van Schotlandt . . . (1581). Bergeron, D.M. (1971). English Civic Pageantry 1558–1642. London: Edward Arnold. Bevis, T. (1983). The Strangers in the Fens. March, Cambs.: Westrydale Press. Bidloo, G. (1702). Verhaal der Laaste Ziekte en het Overlijden van Willem de iiide etc. Leiden: Jordaan Luchtmans. Bird, B. (19852). Guide to Colchester’s Dutch Quarter. s.l.: Essex Libraries. Blaxill, E.A. (1948). The Nonconformist Churches of Colchester, together with an account of the 17th Century Dutch Refugee Church. Colchester: Museum and Muniment Com- mittee of the Borough Council. Blyth, G.K. (1842). The Norwich Guide and Directory. London: R. Hastings. Boersma, O. (1994). Vluchtig Voorbeeld. De Nederlandse, Franse en Italiaanse vluchtelingenkerken in Londen, 1568–1585. Ph.D Thesis, Kampen. Boersma, O. and Jelsma, A.J. (eds.) (1997). Unity in Multiformity: The minutes of the Coetus of London, 1575 and The Consistory minutes of the Italian Church of London, 1570–1591. Amsterdam: Editions de la Bibliothèque Wallonne. Booij, G. (2005). The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bor, P. (1679–84). Oorsprongk, begin en vervolgh der Nederlandsche oorlogen, 4 vols. Amsterdam: s.n. Bostoen, K. (1985). Kaars en bril: de oudste Nederlandse grammatical. Middelburg: Het Koninklijk Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen. ——— (1988). “Marnix en D’Heere in Tegenspoed”, Literatuur, 5, pp. 11–19. ——— (1992). “Rederijkerij te Batavia”, De Zeventiende Eeuw, 8, pp. 115–20. ——— (1998). Bonis in bonum Johan Radermacher de Oude (1538–1617) humanist en koopman. Hilversum: Verloren. ——— (2001). “Editing, printing, publishing and selling the life and death of Lady Jane Grey in 1607”, in The Bookshop of the World: The role of the Low Countries in the book- trade 1473–1941, ed. by L. Hellinga et al. ’t Goy-Houten: hes & De Graaf, pp. 119–30. ——— (2014). “Waar kwam de Historie van B. Cornelis (1569) van de pers? Het spoor terug naar de plaats van uitgave, boekverkoper en boekdrukker”, Handelingen van het Genootschap voor Geschiedenis “Société d’Émulation” te Brugge, 151, pp. 65–111. Boswell, J. (1994). “Een beytie Hollandsche”: James Boswell’s Dutch compositions, ed. by C.C. Barfoot and K.J. Bostoen. Leiden: Academic Press. Boxer, C.R. (1965). The Dutch seaborne empire 1600–1800. London: Hutchinson & Co. Braekman, E.M. (1989). “Theological Training of Reformed Ministers of the Low Countries”, in Academic Relations between the Low Countries and the British Isles 1450–1700, ed. by H. de Ridder-Symoens and J.M. Fletcher. Ghent: University of Ghent, pp. 65–83. 420 Bibliography

Braekman, W.L. (1972). “Pamphlets in Dutch Public Libraries not listed in the Short- Title Catalogue”, Quaerendo, ii (4), pp. 272–7. Brett, J. (1706). A Catalogue of the Books in the Library of the City of Norwich. In the Year, 1706. Norwich: Eliz. Burges. Brief van Credentie van den Koningh van Groot Brittannien door desselfs Ambassadeur Sr. William Temple, aen Haer Ho. Mo. De Heeren Staten Generael der Vereenigde Ned- erlanden overgelevert. (1672). London (?): s.n. Broos, T. (2012). “Did Daniel Defoe do Dutch?” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies/ Revue Canadienne d’Etudes Néerlandaises, 33.1, pp. 1–13. Brugmans, H.L. (1935). Le Séjour de Christian Huygens à Paris et ses Relations avec les Milieux Scientifiques Français suivi de son Journal de Voyage à Paris et à Londres. Paris: E. Droz. Burke, P. (1991). “Heu Domine, Adsunt Turcae ”, in Language, Self, and Society: A Social History of Language, ed. by P. Burke and R. Porter. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 23–50. ——— (2004). Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: cup. ——— (2005). Towards a Social History of Early Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: aup. ——— (2005/6). Lost (and Found) in Translation: A Cultural History of Translators and Translating in Early Modern Europe. Wassenaar: nias. Burn, John Southerden (1846). The History of the French, Walloon, Dutch, and other foreign Protestant Refugees settled in England . . . London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. Burns, T. (2008). “Francis Garland, William Shakespeare, and John Dee’s Green Lan- guage”, Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition, 15(2). Visit: http://www.jwmt.org/ v2n15/garland.html. Accessed 16 April 2014. Camden, W. (1586) Britannia: sive Florentissimorum Regnorum, Angliae, Scotiae, Hiber- niae, et Insularum Adiacentium ex intima antiquitate Chronographica descriptio. London: Radulph Newbery. Cameron, J.K. (1991). “Some Students From the Netherlands at the University of St. Andrews in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries”, in Gericht Verleden, ed. by C.G.F. de Jong and J. van Sluis. Leiden: Groen, pp. 49–72. Campbell, L. (1996). “Scottish Patrons and Netherlandish Painters in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Scotland and the Low Countries 1124–1994, ed. by G.G. Simp- son. East Linton: Tuckwell Press, pp. 89–103. Carlyon Hughes, B. (1939). The History of Harwich Harbour. Dovercourt, Harwich: The Standard Printing & Publishing Company. Chamier, A.C. (transcr. and ed.) (1890). Les Actes des Colloques des Eglises Francaises et des Synodes des Eglises Etrangeres refugiées en Angleterre 1581–1654. Lymington: The Huguenot Society. Bibliography 421

Charnock, R.S. (1880). A Glossary of the Essex Dialect. London: Truebner & Co. Childs, J. (2007). The Williamite Wars in Ireland, 1688–91. London: Hambledon Continuum. Christie, V. (1981). “The Flemish Influence in East Anglia”, Dutch Crossing, 14, pp. 71–4. Clark, G.N. (1920). “The Dutch Missions to England in 1689”, The English Historical Review, 35, pp. 529–57. Clark, P. and Murfin, L. (1995). The History of Maidstone: The Making of a Modern County Town. Stroud: Alan Sutton. Clark, A. (ed.) (1887). Register of the University of Oxford Vol. ii (1571–1622). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clark, V.E. (1921). The Port of Aberdeen: A History of its Trade and Shipping from the 12th Century to the Present Day. Aberdeen: D. Wyllie & Son. Coldewey, J.C. and Copenhaver, B.P. (eds.) (1991). Pseudomagia William Mewe. Eurib- ates Pseudomagus Aquila Cruso. Susenbrotus, or Fortunia John Chappell (?). Zeloty- pus. Hildesheim: Olms. Colenbrander, H.T. (ed.) (1919). Bescheiden uit Vreemde Archieven omtrent de Groote Nederlandsche Zeeoorlogen 1652–1676, eerste deel (1652–1667). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. ——— Bescheiden uit Vreemde Archieven omtrent de Groote Nederlandsche Zeeoorlo- gen 1652–1676, tweede deel (1667–1676). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Collinson, P. (1983). “The Elizabethan Puritans and the Foreign Reformed churches in London,” in Godly People. Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism, ed. by P. Collinson. London: Hambledon Press. Colvin, H. (1978). A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600–1840. London: J. Murray. Cool (Colius), J. (1962). Den staet van London in hare groote peste, ed. by J.A. van Dorsten and K. Schaap. Leiden: Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden. Cooper, J. (ed.) (1994). A History of the County of Essex, vol. ix, The Borough of Colches- ter. Oxford: oup. Cowell, H.J. (1928). The French Walloon Church at Glastonbury, 1550–1553. London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Crail Fifeshire’s Bracing Seaside Resort: The Official Guide. (1935). Cheltenham: E.J. Burrows. Crosby, A. (1986). A History of Thetford. Chichester: Phillimore. Cross, F.W. (1898). History of the Walloon & Huguenot Church at Canterbury. London: Huguenot Society. Cruso, J. (1642). Uytbreydinge Over den Achtsten Psalm Davids . . . Amsterdam: Marten Jansz Brandt. ——— (1655). EPIGRAMMATA Ofte Winter-Avondts Tyt-korting. Delft: Arnold Bon. 422 Bibliography

Curd, Mary Bryan H. (2010). Flemish and Dutch Artists in Early Modern England: Col- laboration and Competition, 1460–1680. Farnham: Ashgate. Daan, J. (1982). “Solidariteit en distantie in de zeventiende eeuw. De aanspreekprono- mina in de brieven”, in Sociolinguïstiek en ideologie, ed. by P. van de Craen & R. Willemyns. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit. Damsté, P.H. (1966). Veere Vier Eeuwen Markiezaat. De Bilt: jwh Patist & Zoon. Davies, D.H.M. (1948). The Worship of the English Puritans. London: Dacre Press. Davies, D.W. (1964). Dutch Influences on English Culture 1558–1625. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. De Bot, K. (2010). “L1 and L2 as Merging Systems”, in Oxford Handbook of Applied Lin- guistics, ed. by R. Kaplan. Oxford: oup, pp. 287–300. De Bot, K. and Clyne, M. (1994). “A 16-Year Longitudinal Study of Language Attrition in Dutch immigrants in Australia,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop- ment, 15(1), pp. 17–28. De Bruin, C.C. (1937). De Statenbijbel en zijn Voorgangers. A.W. Sijthoff: Leiden. Decavele, J. (1975). De dageraad van de reformatie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565), 2 vols. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën. De Heere, L. (1937). Beschrijving der Britse Eilanden. ed. by Th. M. Chotzen and A.M.E. Draak. Antwerp: De Sikkel. De Jong, O. (1957). De Reformatie in Culemborg. Assen, PhD thesis. Dekker, R. (2013). Family, Culture and Society in the Diary of Constantijn Huygens Jr, Secretary to Stadholder-King William of Orange. Leiden: Brill. Dekker, T. (1953–61). The dramatic works, ed. by F. Bowers, 4 vols. Cambridge: cup. ——— (1975). The Shoemakers’ Holiday, ed. by D.J. Palmer. London: Ernest Benn. De Korne, A. and Rinkel, T. (1987). Cursus Zestiende- en Zeventiende-eeuws Nederlands. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. De la Fontaine Verwey, H. (1972). “The first private press in the Low Countries. Marcus Laurinus and the Officina Goltziana”, Quaerendo, ii (4), pp. 294–310. De Vooys, C.G.N. (1970). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Groningen: Wolters- Noordhoff. Dibbets, G.R.W. (ed.) (1985). Twe-spraack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst (1584). Assen: Van Gorcum. ——— (2003). Taal Kundig Geregeld: Een verzameling artikelen over Nederlandse grammatica’s en grammatici uit de zestiende, de zeventiende en de achttiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek vu. ——— (2007). Joannes Vollenhove (1631–1708) dominee-dichter: Een Biografie. Hilver- sum: Verloren. Diegerick, J. (1851–54). “Salomon Faber, poëte yprois. Lettre à monsieur l’abbé Carton”, Annales de la société d’émulation de Bruges, 13, pp. 10–19. Donaldson, B. (1983). A linguistic history of Holland and Belgium. Leiden: Nijhoff. Bibliography 423

Downing, R. and Rommelse, G. (2011). A Fearful Gentleman: Sir George Downing in The Hague, 1658–1672. Hilversum: Verloren. Duke, A. (2014). “Eavesdropping on the correspondence between the Strangers, chiefly in Norwich, and their Families in the Low Countries 1567–70,” Dutch Crossing, 38 (2), pp. 116–33. Dunbar, J. (1974). “Lowlanders in the Highlands: Dutch craftsmen in Restoration Scotland”, Country Life (August 18). Dunthorne, H. (2007). “Migration to and from the Low Countries as a Factor in the Religious History of Early Modern Britain,” Dutch Crossing 31 (2), pp. 253–70. Edmonston, T. (1866). An Etymological Glossary of the Shetland and Orkney Dialect. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black. Edwards, R. (1988). “Exile, Self, and Society”, in Exile in Literature, ed. by María-Inés Lagos-Pope. London: Associated University Press, pp. 15–31. Ekwall, E. (19604). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. Oxford: Clar- endon Press. Elspaß, S. (2007). “ ‘Everyday language’ in emigrant letters and its implications for language historiography—the German case,” Multilingua, 26, pp. 151–65. Enthoven, V. (2007). “Thomas Cunningham (1604–1669): Conservator of the Scottish Court at Veere,” in Irish and Scottish Mercantile Networks in Europe and Overseas in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. by D. Dickson et al. Ghent: Academia Press, pp. 39–66. Epicedia in Obitum Reverendi Clarissimi Doctissimiq[ue] Viri D. Simeonis Rutingi fidelis- simi verbi divini Dispensatoris in Ecclesia Londinensi Belgica, Diversorum; Klacht- Ghedichten over de Doodt van den Eerweerdighen, Hooch-gheleerden ende seer vroomen Mr. Symeon Ruyting, Ghetrouwen Dienaer des Godtlijcken Woordts, inde Nederlandtsche Ghemeente tot Londen (1622). Leiden: Elzevier. Eßer, R. (1990). Norwich Strangers Book 1583–1600. Norwich: Norfolk and Norwich Gene- alogical Society. ——— (1992). “Social Concern and Calvinistic Duty: the Norwich Strangers’ Commu- nity,” in Het beloofde land. Acht opstellen over werken, geloven en vluchten tijdens de xvie en xviie eeuw, ed. by M. Backhouse et al. Dikkebus: Westhoek uitgeverij, pp. 173–84. ——— (1996). Niederländische Exulanten im England des 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhun- derts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Feenstra, R. (1989). “Scottish-Dutch Legal Relations in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, in Academic Relations between the Low Countries and the British Isles 1450–1700, ed. by H. de Ridder-Symoens and J.M. Fletcher. Ghent: University of Ghent, pp. 25–45. Fenton, A. (1978). The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd. 424 Bibliography

Finch, J.S. (ed.) (1986). A Catalogue of the Libraries of Sir Thomas Browne and Dr. Edward Browne, his Son. Leiden: Brill. Fishman, J.A. (1997). “Language and Ethnicity: The View from Within,” in The Hand- book of Sociolinguistics, ed. by F. Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 327–43. Fleming, J.A. (1930). Flemish Influence in Britain, I. Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie & Co. Fletcher, J.M. and Upton, C.A. (1989). “John Drusius of Flanders, Thomas Bodley and the Development of Hebrew Studies at Merton College, Oxford”, in Academic Rela- tions between the Low Countries and the British Isles 1450–1700, H. de Ridder- Symoens and J.M. Fletcher (eds.). Ghent: University of Ghent, pp. 111–29. Fletcher, M. (2010). Cromwell’s settlers: seventeenth century Thorney. Thorney: The Thorney Society. Forster, L. (1967). Janus Gruter’s English Years. London: oup. ——— (1984). “Literary Relations between the Low Countries, England and Germany 1400–1624”, Dutch Crossing, 24, pp. 16–31. Frank-van Westrienen, A. (1983). De Groote Tour, Tekening van de educatiereis der Nederlanders in de zeventiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers- maatschappij. Franken, M. (1966). Coenraad van Beuningen’s Politieke en Diplomatieke Aktiviteiten in de Jaren 1667–1684. Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Frijhoff, W. (2010). Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw: Een Verkenning. Amsterdam: knaw Press. Fruin, R. and Japikse, N. (eds.) (1913). Brieven van Johan de Witt, vierde deel 1670–1672. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. ——— (eds.) (1919). Brieven aan Johan de Witt, eerste deel 1648–1660. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. Fry, P.H. (2012). Theory of Literature. London: Yale University Press. Gaastra, F. (1991). De geschiedenis van de voc. Zutphen: Walburg Pers. Gaches, L. (1897). “Strangers at Stamford,” Fenland Notes & Queries, iii, no. 633, pp. 284–6. Gal, S. (1979). Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Aus- tria. New York: Academic Press. ——— (1998). “Cultural bases of language-use among German-speakers in Hungary”, in The Sociolinguistics Reader, Vol. 1: Multilingualism and Variation, ed. by P. Trudgill and J. Cheshire. London: Arnold, pp. 113–121. Gal, S. and Woolard, K. (2001). ‘Constructing Languages and Publics: Authority and Representation’, in Languages and Publics: The Making of Authority, ed. by S. Gal and K. Woolard. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, pp. 1–12. Gardiner, D. (1954). Historic Haven: The Story of Sandwich. Derby: Pilgrim Press. Gardiner, S.R. (ed.) (1899). Letters and Papers Relating to the First Dutch War 1652–1654, I. London: Navy Records Society. Bibliography 425

——— (1900). Letters and Papers Relating to the First Dutch War 1652–1654, ii. London: Navy Records Society. Gauci, P. (1996). Politics and Society in Great Yarmouth 1660–1722. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gifford, J. (1992). The Buildings of Scotland, Highland and Islands. London: Penguin. Glozier, M. (2004). Scottish soldiers in France in the reign of the Sun King: nursery for men of honour. Leiden: Brill. Godfray, H.M. (1890). Registre des Baptesmes, Mariages & Morts et Jeusnes de l’Eglise Wallonne et des Isles de Jersey, Guernesey, Serq, Origny &c. Etablie a Southampton par Patente du Roy Edouard Sixe et de la Reine Elizabeth . . . Lymington: The Huguenot Society. Goose, N. (1982). “The ‘Dutch’ in Colchester. The Economic Influence of an Immigrant Community in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Immigrants and Minori- ties, 1(3), pp. 261–80. Goossens, J. (1974). Historische Phonologie des Niederländischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Grell, O. (1989). Dutch Calvinists in Early Stuart London: The Dutch Church in Austin Friars 1603–1642. Leiden: Brill. ——— (1996). Calvinist Exiles in Tudor and Stuart England. Aldershot: Scolar Press. ——— (2004). “Cruso, John ( fl. 1595–1655)”, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (odnb). Oxford: oup. Grell, O. et al. (eds.) (1991). From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grew, M.E. (1924). William Bentinck and William iii (Prince of Orange): The Life of Bentinck Earl of Portland From the Welbeck Correspondence. London: John Murray. Groen van Prinsterer, G. (ed.) (1861). Archives ou Correspondance Inédite de la Maison d’Orange-Nassau, 2nd series, Vol. 5 (1650–1688). Utrecht: Kemink et Fils. Grootes, E.K. and Schenkeveld-Van der Dussen, M.A. (2009). “The Dutch Revolt and the Golden Age, 1560–1700,” in A Literary History of the Low Countries, ed. by Th. Hermans. Rochester, ny: Camden House, pp. 153–252 Haley, K.H.D. (1988). “William iii,” in Willem iii: De Stadhouder-Koning en Zijn Tijd, ed. by A.G.H. Bachrach et al. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, pp. 31–50. Hallen, A.W.C. (1887). “Huguenots in Scotland,” Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 2, pp. 166–81. Hallman, R. (2006). Canvey Island: A History. Chichester: Phillimore. Hamilton, A. (1981). The Family of Love. Cambridge: James Clarke. Hanson-Smith, C. (2004). The Flemish Bond: East Anglia & The Netherlands-Close & Ancient Neighbours. Diss: Groundnut Publishing. Hardie-Stoffelen, A. (2013). The Flemish Influence in Scotland (http://clanyon.wordpress .com/2013/07/21/the-flemish-influence-in-scotland/). Posted 21 July 2013. Accessed 13 April 2014. 426 Bibliography

Hardy, W.J. (1887). ‘Foreign Refugees at Rye,’ Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 2, pp. 406–27, 567–87. Harris, L.E. (1953). Vermuyden and the Fens. London: Cleaver-Hume Press. ——— (1961). The Two Netherlanders: Humphrey Bradley and Cornelis Drebbel. Leiden: Brill. Hasenson, A. (1980). The History of Dover Harbour. London: Aurum Special Editions. Heard, N. (1970). Wool. East Anglia’s Golden Fleece. Lavenham: Dalton. Hearn, K. and Jones, R. (2003). Marcus Gheeraerts ii: Elizabethan Artist. London: Tate Gallery. Hefford, W. (2002). “Flemish Tapestry Weavers in England: 1550–1775,” in Flemish Tapes- try Weavers Abroad: Emigration and the Founding of Manufactories in Europe, ed. by G. Delmarcel. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 43–62. Heiting, W. (1989). De catechismi en confessies in de nederlandse reformatie tot 1585. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. Hermkens, H.M. (2011). ‘Spraeck van huijden, toon van straet’ opstellen over taal en Con- stantijn Huygens, ed. by A. Leerintveld. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek vu. Hessels, J.H. (ed.) (1887–97) (H 87). Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae archivum, 4 vols. Cam- bridge: Dutch Reformed Church. ——— (ed.). (1892). Register of the Attestations or Certificates of Membership, &c. Preserved in the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London, 1568 to 1872. London: Consistory of the London Dutch Church. Hillen, H.J. (1978). History of the Borough of King’s Lynn, 2 vols. Wakefield: ep Publishing. Hills, A. (1939). The Dutchmen at Halstead 1576–89 (reprinted, with an addition, from the Halstead Almanac). Hills, R.L. (1967). Machines, Mills and Uncountable Costly Necessities. A Short History of Drainage of the Fens. Norwich: Goose & Son. Hind, A.M. (1952). Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, I. Cambridge: cup. Historie van B. Cornelis Adriaensen van Dordrecht, Minrebroeder binnen die Stadt van Brugghe . . . (1569). Norwich: De Solempne. Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780. New York: cup. Hoftijzer, P.G. (1988). “Een Venster op Europa. Culturele Betrekkingen tussen Groot- Brittannië en de Nederlandse Republiek,” in Willem iii: De Stadhouder-Koning en Zijn Tijd, ed. by A.G.H. Bachrach et al. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, pp. 115–40. ——— (2013). “Henry Hexham (c. 1585–1650) English Soldier, Author, translator, lexicographer, and cultural mediator in the Low Countries,” in Renaissance Cultural Crossroads: translation, print and culture in Britain, 1473–1640, ed. by S.K. Barker and Brenda M. Hosington. Leiden: Brill, pp. 209–26. Bibliography 427

Hol, A.R. (1955). “Het meervoud van het praesens in onze oostelijke dialecten”, Taal en Tongval, 7, pp. 86–96, 160–175. Hood, G. (2003). “The Netherlandic community in London and patronage of painters and architects in early Stuart London” in Dutch and Flemish artists in Britain 1550– 1800, ed. by J. Roding et al. Leiden: Primavera Pers, pp. 43–56. Hooke, R. (1968). The Diary 1672–1680, ed. by H.W. Robinson and W. Adams. London: Wykeham Publications. Hovenden, R. (ed.) (1898). The Registers of the Wallon (sic.) or Strangers’ Church in Can- terbury, ii and iii. Lymington: The Huguenot Society of London. Huijs, P. (2005). De Alkmaarder Cornelis Drebbel Uitvinder, Hermetist, Alchemist. Haar- lem: Rozekruis Pers. Huizinga, J.H. (1948–53). “Engelschen en Nederlanders in Shakespeare’s tijd”, in Huiz- inga’s Verzamelde Werken, 9 vols. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, ii, pp. 350–81. Hulsen, M. (2000). Language Loss and Language Processing: Three Generations of Dutch Migrants in New Zealand. PhD thesis, ru Nijmegen. Hunt, M.L. (1911). Thomas Dekker: A Study. New York: Columbia University Press. Hunt Yungblut, L. (1996). Strangers settled here amongst us: Policies, perceptions and the presence of aliens in Elizabethan England. London: Routledge. Huygens, Christiaan (1888–1950). Oeuvres Complètes, 22 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Huygens, Constantijn (1892–9). De Gedichten, ed. by J.A. Worp, 9 vols. Groningen: J.B. Wolters. ——— (1911–17). De Briefwisseling (1608–1687), ed. by J.A. Worp, 6 vols. The Hague: Mar- tinus Nijhoff. ——— (1987). Mijn Jeugd, ed. by C.L. Heesakkers. Amsterdam: Querido. ——— (2001). Nederlandse gedichten 1614–1625, historical-critical edition, ed. by Ad Leerintveld, 2 Parts. The Hague: Constantijn Huygens Instituut. Huygens Jr., Constantijn (1876). Journaal van 21 October 1688 tot 2 Sept. 1696, deel I. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Huygens, Lodewijck (1982). The English Journal, 1651–1652. Trans. and eds. A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer. Leiden: Brill. Irving, D. (1839). Lives of Scotish Writers, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Black. Jackson, G. (2002). “The Economy: Aberdeen and the Sea”, in Aberdeen before 1800: A New History, ed. by E.P. Dennison et al. East Linton, East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, pp. 159–80. Jacobs, J. (1927). Het Westvlaamsch van de Oudste Tijden tot Heden. Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Janssen, H.Q. (1857a). “De Hervormde Vlugtelingen van Yperen in Engeland”, in Bijdra- gen tot de Oudheidkunde en Geschiedenis inzonderheid van Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen, ed. by H.Q. Janssen and J.H. van Dale, Tweede Deel. Middelburg: J.C. & W. Altorffer, pp. 211–304. 428 Bibliography

——— (1857b). “Eene bede aan de Nederlandsche hervormde gemeente te Thet- ford . . . tot ondersteuning van Prins Willem I in 1573”, in Bijdragen tot de Oudheid- kunde . . . , pp. 327–36. Japikse, N. et al. (ed.) (1915–70). Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal van 1576 tot 1609, 14 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Japikse, N. (ed.) (1927–37). Correspondentie van Willem iii en van Hans Willem Bentinck, eersten Graaf van Portland, 3 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Jardine, L. (2003). The Curious Life of Robert Hooke: The Man who Measured London. London: Harper Collins. Jarvis, S. (1987). Smuggling in East Anglia 1700–1840. Newbury: Countryside Books. Jelsma, A.J. and Boersma, O. (eds.) (1993). Acta van het consistorie van de Nederlandse gemeente te Londen 1569–1585. The Hague: Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis. Jewson, C.B. (1954). Transcript of three registers of passengers from Great Yarmouth to Holland and New England, 1637 to 1639. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. Joby, C. (2010). “Reflections on the Eucharistic Theology of Book I of Joost van den Vondel’s Didactic Poem, Mysteries of the Altar”, Questions Liturgiques, 91, pp. 180–200. ——— (2012). “Early Modern Records in Dutch at the Norfolk Record Office”, Dutch Crossing, 36:2, pp. 132–42. ——— (2013a). “A Dutchman abroad: poetry written by Constantijn Huygens (1596– 1687) in England”, The Seventeenth Century, 28, pp. 187–206. ——— (2013b). “Een inleiding tot de sociolinguïstische geschiedenis van het Neder- lands in vroegmodern Groot-Brittannië”, Taal & Tongval, 65 (1), pp. 23–55. ——— (2014a). “The role of London and other English cities in the development of early modern Dutch language and literature”, Dutch Crossing, 38:1, pp. 4–19. ——— (2014b). “The Dutch language in early modern Norfolk: a social history”, Dutch Crossing, 38:2, pp. 154–88. ——— (2014c). “Classical and Early Modern Sources of the Poetry of Jan Cruso of Nor- wich (1592–fl. 1655)”, International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 21:2, pp. 89–120. ——— (2014d). “Dutch poetry in early modern Norfolk”, Dutch Crossing, 38:2, pp. 189–203. ——— (2014e). “Third-Person Singular Zero in the Norfolk Dialect: a Re-assessment”, Folia Linguistica Historica, 35, pp. 135–171. ——— (2014f). The multilingualism of Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687). Amsterdam: aup. Jongejan, E. (1940). “Van Leeuwenhoek’s brieven en de Nederlandse schrijftaal in de zeventiende eeuw”, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 34, pp. 300–7. Kazartsev, Y. (2010). “Nederlands en Duits versrhythme in de vroegmoderne tijd”, Neer- landistiek.nl 10.01. Kenny, A. (2006). The Rise of Modern Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibliography 429

Ketton-Cremer, R.W. (1985). Norfolk in the Civil War: a Portrait of a Society in Conflict. Norwich: Gliddon Books. King, J.N. (1999). “The Book Trade under Edward vi and Mary I”, in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, Vol. iii 1400–1557, ed. by L. Hellinga and J.B. Trapp. Cambridge: cup, pp. 164–78. Kirk, R.E.G. and E.F. (eds.) (1900). Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London from the Reign of Henry viii to that of James I, Part I 1523–1571. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. ——— (1902). Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London from the Reign of Henry viii to that of James I, Part ii 1571–1597. Aberdeen: Aberdeen Univer- sity Press. ——— (1907). Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London from the Reign of Henry viii to that of James I, Part iii 1598–1625. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Knight, F. (1964). Up, Sea Beggars! London: MacDonald. Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). “Sprache der Nähe—Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprach- geschichte,” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36, pp. 15–43. Krämer, F. (ed.) (1907). Archives ou Correspondance Inédite de la Maison d’Orange- Nassau, 3rd series, Vol. 1 (1689–1697). Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff. Labov, W. (1982). “Building on empirical foundations”, in Perspectives on Historical Lin- guistics, ed. by W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lambley, K. (19201). The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England During Tudor and Stuart Times. London: Longmans, Green & Co. ——— (20136). The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England During Tudor and Stuart Times. s.l.: Emereo Classics. Landert, A. and Jucker, A. (2011). “Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries,” Journal of Pragmatics, 43, pp. 1422–34. Landwehr, J. (1973). Romeyn de Hooghe the etcher contemporary portrayal of Europe 1662–1707. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff. Leaver, R.A. (1991). Goostly psalmes and spirituall songes: English & Dutch metrical psalms from Coverdale to Utenhove 1535–1566. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leigh Hunt, A. (1870). The Capital of the Ancient Kingdom of East Anglia. London: A.G. Dennant. Le Mayre, Marten (1606). The dutch schoole master wherein is shewed the true and perfect way to learne the Dutch tongue, to the furtherance of all those which would gladlie learne it. Collected by Marten le Mayre, professor of the said tongue, dwelling in Abchurch lane. At London: printed by George Elde for Simon Waterson. 430 Bibliography

Lenselink, S.J. (1959). De Nederlandse psalmberijmingen in de 16de eeuw. Van de Souterlie- dekens tot Datheen met hun voorgangers in Duitsland en Frankrijk. Assen: Van Gorcum. Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: cup. Lindeboom, J. (1950). Austin Friars: Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Hervormde Gemeente te Londen 1550–1950. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Lindeman, R. et al. (eds.) (1994). Reisverslagen van Noord-Nederlanders uit de zestiende tot begin negentiende eeuw: Een chronologische lijst. Rotterdam: R.M. Dekker. Little, A. (2008). British personnel in the Dutch navy, 1642–1697. University of Exeter, PhD Thesis. Louw, H.J. (1984). “Some royal and other great houses in England: Extracts from the journal of Abram Booth”, Architectural History, 27, pp. 503–9. Low, G. (1879). A Tour Through the Islands of Orkney and Schetland. Kirkwall: William Peace & Son. Luth, J. (1997). Inleiding tot de 25 26 en 11 ander psalmen van Jan Utenhove. Brasschaat: Boekmakerij Gert-Jan Buitinck. Luu, L. (2005). Immigrants and the Industries of London, 1500–1700. Aldershot: Ashgate. Magen, B. (1973). Die Wallonengemeinde in Canterbury von ihrer Gründung bis zum Jahre 1635. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Mann, A.J. (2002). “The Press and Military Conflict”, in Fighting for Identity: Scottish Military Experience c. 1550–1900, ed. by S. Murdoch and A. MacKillop. Leiden: Brill. Marechal, J. (1985). Europese aanwezigheid te Brugge: De vreemde kolonies (XIVde–XIXde eeuw). Brugge: Genootschap voor Geschiedenis. Marnef, G. (1996). Antwerp in the Age of Reformation. Underground Protestantism in a Commercial Metropolis, 1550–1577. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Marston, J. (1965). The Dutch Courtesan, ed. by M. Wine. London: Edward Arnold. Martens, M. and Peeters, N. (2003). “ ‘A tale of two cities’: Antwerp artists and artisans in London in the sixteenth century”, in Dutch and Flemish artists in Britain 1550– 1800, ed. by J. Roding et al. Leiden: Primavera Pers, pp. 31–42. McNeile, R.F. (1948). Christianity in Southern Fenland. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes. Meeres, F. (2007). A History of Great Yarmouth. Chichester: Phillimore. ——— (2014). “Records Relating to the Strangers at the Norfolk Record Office”, Dutch Crossing, 38:2, pp. 132–53. Melville, J. (1683). The memoires of Sir James Melvil of Hal-hill . . . London: George Scott. ——— (1827). Memoirs of his own life, by Sir James Melville, of Halhill. 1549–93. From the original manuscript, ed. by T. Thomson. Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club. Merens, A. (ed.) (1942). Een Dienaer der Oost-Indische Compagnie te Londen in 1629. Journael van Abram Booth en zijn Descriptie van Engelandt. The Hague: A.A.M. Stols. Bibliography 431

Metcalf, G.J. (1953). “Abraham Mylius on Historical Linguistics”, pmla, 68(3), pp. 535–54. Metters, G.A. (ed.) (2009). The King’s Lynn Port Books 1610–1614. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. Mews, S. (1987). Religion and National Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Micro(e)n, M. (1554). De Christelicke Ordinancien der Nederlantscher Ghemeynten Christi die vanden Christelicken Prince Co. Edewaerdt den vi. in’t iaer 1550 te Londen inghestelt was. De welcke met de bewillinghe der Dienaren ende Ouderlinghen der selver, ten trooste ende nutte aller ghelooveghen, ghetrauwelick met alder nersticheit t’samen ghevoecht ende wt ghestelt sijn, Collinus Volckwinner, ‘Buyten Londen’. Micron, M. (1956). De Christelicke Ordinancien der Nederlantscher Gemeinten te Londen (1554), ed. by W.F. Dankbaar. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Mijers, E. (2011). “Intellectual exchanges and Scottish authors abroad: the Scottish— Dutch trade”, in The Edinburgh History of the Book in Scotland, Volume 2: Enlighten- ment and Expansion 1707–1800, ed. by S.W. Brown and W. McDougall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 203–9. Miller, L. (1992). John Milton’s Writings in the Anglo-Dutch Negotiations, 1651–1654. Pitts- burgh: Duquesne University Press. Moens, W.J.C. (1884). The Marriage, Baptismal and Burial Registers 1571 to 1874 and Monumental Inscriptions of the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London. Lymington: s.n. ——— (1887–8). The Walloons and their Church at Norwich: Their History and Registers 1565–1832, 2 Vols. Lymington: The Huguenot Society. ——— (1905). Register of Baptisms in the Dutch Church at Colchester from 1645 to 1728. Lymington: The Huguenot Society. Mooijaart, M. and Van der Wal, M. (2008). Nederlands van Middeleeuwen tot Gouden Eeuw: Cursus Middelnederlands en Vroegnieuwnederlands. Nijmegen: Vantilt. Moore, A. (1988). Dutch and Flemish Painting in Norfolk. London: hmso. Morant, P. (1970). The History and Antiquities of the most ancient Town and Borough of Colchester Book I, with a new introduction by J.S. Appleby. Chichester: Phillimore & Co. Originally printed by W. Bowyer, London, 1748. Morant, V. (1951). “The Settlement of Protestant Refugees in Maidstone during the Sixteenth Century”, The Economic History Review, 2nd series, iv:2, pp. 210–4. Morgan, V. (2003). “The Dutch and Flemish presence and the emergence of an Anglo Dutch provincial artistic tradition in Norwich, c. 1500–1700”, in Dutch and Flemish artists in Britain 1550–1800, ed. by J. Roding et al.Leiden: Primavera Pers, pp. 57–72. Morgan, V. et al. (eds.) (2010). The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, Vol. V 1603–1607. King’s Lynn: Norfolk Record Society. Muller, J.W. (1920). “Over ware en schijnbare gallicismen in het Middelnederlandsch”, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 14, pp. 1–19; 65–78. 432 Bibliography

——— (1921). “De uitbreiding van ons taalgebied in de zeventiende eeuw”, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 15, pp. 161–93; 245–60; 298–309. ——— (1926). “Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis onzer Nieuwnederlandsche aanspreekvormen”, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 20, pp. 81–105; 113–28; 161–76. ——— (1927). “Westvlaamsche dialectstudie”, De Nieuwe Taalgids, 21, pp. 182–98. ——— (1939). De Uitbreiding van het Nederlandsch Taalgebied vooral in de Zeventiende Eeuw. The Hague: Van Stockum. Murison, D. (1971). “The Dutch element in the vocabulary of Scots”, in Edinburgh Stud- ies in English and Scots, ed. by A.J. Aitken et al. London: Longman, pp. 159–76. Nall, J.G. (1866). Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Neave, D. (1988). The Dutch Connection: The Anglo-Dutch Heritage of Hull and Humber- side. Hull: Hull City Museums and Art Galleries. Nelson, B. (2008). “The Browne Family’s Culture of Curiosity”, in Sir Thomas Browne: The World Proposed, ed. by R. Barbour and C. Preston. Oxford: oup, pp. 80–99. Nevinson, J.L. (1959). “Emanuel van Meteren 1535–1612”, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 19(3), pp. 128–35. Nichols, R. (1994). The Diaries of Robert Hooke, The Leonardo of London, 1635–1703. Lewes: The Book Guild. Nobels, J. (2013). (Extra)Ordinary letters: A view from below on seventeenth-century Dutch. Utrecht: lot. Onnekink, D. (2005). “Dutch Counsels: The Foreign Entourage of William iii”, Dutch Crossing, 29 (1), pp. 5–20. ——— (2007). The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland (1649–1709). Aldershot: Ashgate. Osselton, N.E. (1973). The Dumb Linguists. A Study of the Earliest English and Dutch Dic- tionaries. London: Oxford University Press. Overell, A. (2008). Italian Reform and English Reformations, c. 1535–c. 1585. Aldershot: Ashgate. Overend, G.H. (1888–9). “Strangers at Dover: Part I 1558–1644”, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 3(1), pp. 91–171. Palmer, C.J. (1874). The Perlustration of Great Yarmouth with Gorleston and Southtown 3 vols., ii. Yarmouth: George Nall. Payne, P.L. et al. (1967). Studies in Scottish Business History. London: Cass. Peet, H. (ed.) (1903). Register of Baptisms of the French Protestant Refugees settled at Thorney, Cambridgeshire 1654–1727. Aberdeen: Huguenot Society. Peters, J. (1985). A Family from Flanders. London: Collins. Pettegree, A. (1986). Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibliography 433

Pettegree, A. and Walsby, M. (eds.) (2011). Netherlandish Books: Books published in the Low Countries and Dutch books printed abroad before 1601, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Phillips, E.J. (1995). The founding of Russia’s navy: Peter the Great and the Azov Fleet, 1688–1714. London: Greenwood Press. Pijper, F. (1883). Jan Utenhove. Zijn Leven en Zijne Werken. Leiden: A.H. Adriani. Pinkham, L. (1954). William iii and the Respectable Revolution: The Part Played by William of Orange in the Revolution of 1688. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pleij, H. (2009). “The Late Middle Ages and the Age of Rhetoricians, 1400–1560”, in A Literary History of the Low Countries, ed. by Th. Hermans. Rochester, ny: Camden House, pp. 63–152. Porteman, K. and Smits-Veldt, M.B. (2008). Een nieuw vaderland voor de Muzen: Geschie- denis van de Nederlandse Literatuur 1560–1700. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Postma, G. (2011). “Het verval van het pronomen du—Dialectgeografie en de historische syntaxis”, Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16 (1), pp. 56–87. Pound, J. (2004). “Government to 1660”, in Norwich since 1550, ed. by C. Rawcliffe et al. London: Hambledon, pp. 35–64. Price, R. (1976). The 1976 Archaeological Expedition to the Dutch Shipwrecks of Out Sker- ries, Shetland. S.l.: s.n. Rackwitz, M. (2007). Travels to terra incognita: the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides in early modern travellers’ accounts c. 1600 to 1800. Munster: Waxmann. Rawcliffe, C. and Wilson, R. (eds.) (2004). Medieval Norwich. London: Hambledon and London. Redstone, V.B. (1919–24). “The Dutch and Huguenot Settlements of Ipswich”, Proceed- ings of Huguenot Society of London, 12, pp. 183–204. Rhodes James, M. (ed.) (1904). The Western Manuscripts in the library of Emmanuel College: A descriptive catalogue. Cambridge: s.n. Riewald, J.G. (1960). “New Light on English Actors in the Netherlands c. 1590–c. 1660”, English Studies, 41, pp. 65–92. Rimbault, E.F. (ed.) (1872). The Old Cheque Book or Book of Remembrance, of The Chapel Royal, from 1561 to 1744. London: Camden Society. Robinson, H. (ed.) (1846). Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, Vol. I. Cambridge: cup. ——— (1847). Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, Vol. ii. Cambridge: cup. Rodrigues-Pereira, M. et al. (1997). The Burial Register (1733–1918) of the Novo (New) Cemetery of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation London. London: The Spanish & Portuguese Jews’ Congregation. Rogers, A. (1965). The Making of Stamford. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Rogers, P.G. (1970). The Dutch in the Medway. London: oup. 434 Bibliography

Roker, L.F. (1966). “The Flemish and Dutch Community in Colchester in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London (New Series) xxi (1), pp. 15–30. Romaine, S. (20002). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: oup. Rooze-Stouthamer, C. (1996). Hervorming in Zeeland (ca. 1520–1572). Goes: Koperen Tuin. Rubino, A. (2007). “Immigrant Minorities: Australia”, in Handbook of language and communication: diversity and change, ed. by M. Hellinger and A. Pauwels. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 87–122. Ruytinck, S. (1612). Gulden Legende van de Roomsche Kercke: Mitsgaders Hare Heyligh- dommen, Ende Aflaten, aenden Toet-steen der Waerheyd Beproeft. London: Thomas Snodham. Ruytinck, S. et al. (1873). Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen die voornemelick aengaen de Nederduytsche Natie ende Gemeynten, wonende in Engeland, ende in ’t bysonder tot Londen, ed. by J.J. van Toorenenbergen. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Rye, W. (ed.) (1877). The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, I. Norwich: Miller and Leavins. ——— (1887). The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, iii. Norwich: A.H. Goose & Co. Sapherson, C.A. (1987). William iii at War Scotland & Ireland 1689–1691. Leeds: Raider Books. Schei, L.K. (1988). The Shetland Story. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. Schellinks, W. (1993). The Journal of William Schellinks’ Travels in England 1661–1663, trans. and ed. by M. Exwood and H.L. Lehmann. London: Royal Historical Society. Schenkeveld-van der Dussen, M.A. (1991). Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt: Themes and Ideas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scheurweghs, G. (1960). “English grammars in Dutch and Dutch grammars in English in the Netherlands before 1800”, English Studies, 41, pp. 129–67. Schierbeek, A. (1959). Measuring the Invisible World: The Life and Works of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek frs. London: Abelard-Schuman. Schöffer, I. (1988). “Het grote waagstuk. De overtocht van Prins Willem iii naar Enge- land in 1688”, in Willem iii: De Stadhouder-Koning en Zijn Tijd, ed. by A.G.H. Bachrach et al. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, pp. 9–30. Schoneveld, C.W. (1983). Intertraffic of the Mind: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Anglo- Dutch Translation with a Checklist of Books Translated from English into Dutch 1600– 1700 (Proefschrift). Leiden: Brill. Scott, J. (2003). “ ‘Good Night Amsterdam’: Sir George Downing and Anglo-Dutch State- building”, The English Historical Review, Vol. cxviii, pp. 334–56. Scouloudi, I. (1985). Returns of strangers in the metropolis, 1593, 1627, 1635, 1639: a study of an active minority. London: Huguenot Society of London. Bibliography 435

Sellin, P.R. (1998). “Michel le Blon and England, 1632–1649”, Dutch Crossing, 22:1, pp. 102–25. Sessions, W.K. (1984). The First Printers at Ipswich in 1547–1548 and Worcester in 1549– 1553. York: W.K. Sessions. Sessions, W.K. and Stoker, D. (1987). The First Printers in Norwich from 1567—Anthony de Solempne, Albert, Christiaensz and Joannes Paetz. Norwich: W.K. Sessions. Shaw, F.J. (1980). The Northern and Western Islands of Scotland: Their Economy and Soci- ety in the Seventeenth Century. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd. Sibbald, R. (1833). The Autobiography of Sir Robert Sibbald Knt. M.D. Edinburgh: Thomas Stevenson. ——— (1845). Description of the Islands of Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh: Stevenson. Six van Chandelier, J. (1991) Gedichten, ed. by A.E. Jacobs, 2 vols. Assen: Van Gorcum. Slaughter, S. (1933). The Dutch Church in Norwich. London: Congregational History Society. Smiles, S. (1864). James Brindley and the Early Engineers. London: John Murray. ——— (1889). The Huguenots, their Settlements, Churches, and Industries, in England and Ireland. London: John Murray. Smit, H.J. (ed.) (1942–50). Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van den Handel met Engeland, Schotland en Ierland, Vol. ii, 2 Parts. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Smits, C. (1996). Disintegration of Inflection: The Case of Iowa Dutch. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Smout, T.C. (1963). Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union, 1660–1707. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Spicer, A. (1997). The French-speaking Reformed Community and their Church in South- ampton 1567–c. 1620. London: Huguenot Society. Spicer, A. (2012). “ ‘Of no church’. Immigrants, liefhebbers and Confessional Diversity in Elizabethan London, c. 1568–1581”, in Forgetting Faith? Negotiating Confessional Conflict in Early Modern Europe, ed. by I. Karremann et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 199–220. Sprunger, K.L. (1982). Dutch Puritanism: a history of English and Scottish churches of the Netherlands in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Leiden: Brill. ——— (1994). Trumpets from the Tower: English Puritan Printing in the Netherlands 1600–1640. Leiden: Brill. Spurlock, R.S. (2011). “Cromwell’s Edinburgh Press and the Development of Print Cul- ture in Scotland”, The Scottish Historical Review, xc, 2: No. 230, pp. 179–203. Statham, S.P.H. (1899). The History of the Castle, Town and Port of Dover. London: Long- mans, Green & Co. Statt, D. (1995). Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy over Immigration and Popu- lation, 1660–1760. London: Associated University Presses. 436 Bibliography

St. Clare Byrne, M. (1931). ‘ “My Lord’s Books”: The Library of Francis, Second Earl of Bedford, in 1584’, The Review of English Studies, 7, pp. 385–405. Stoyle, M. (2005). Soldiers and Strangers: An Ethnic History of the English Civil War. Lon- don: Yale University Press. Streekstra, N.F. (1994). Afbeeldingsrelaties. Een taal- en letterkundig essay over Huygens’ Donne-vertalingen (Dissertation). Groningen, pp. 199–249. Strype, J. (1711). The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker . . . Archbishop of Canterbury . . . To which is added an Appendix, containing various . . . records, letters, etc. 4 Vols. Lon- don: John Wyat. ——— (1821). The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker . . . Archbishop of Canterbury . . . To which is added an Appendix, containing various . . . records, letters, etc. 4 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Summers, D. (1976). The Great Level: A History of Drainage and Land Reclamation in the Fens. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Tabouret-Keller, A. (1997). “Language and Identity”, in The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. by F. Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 315–26. Tangye, R. (1905). The Cromwellian Collection of mss., Miniatures, Medals &c. in the possession of Sir Richard Tangye, etc. London, privately printed. Taylor, L.B. (trans. and ed.) (1942). Aberdeen Council Letters Vol. I (1552–1633). London: oup. ——— (1952). Aberdeen Council Letters Vol. iii (1645–1660). London: oup. ——— (1954). Aberdeen Council Letters Vol. iv (1660–1669). London: oup. ——— (1957). Aberdeen Council Letters Vol. V (1670–1675). London: oup. ——— (1972). Aberdeen Shore Work Accounts 1596–1670. Aberdeen: Aberdeen Univer- sity Press. Te Lintum, C. (1905). De Merchant Adventurers in de Nederlanden. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Temple, William (1972). Observations Upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands, ed. by G.N. Clark. Oxford: oup. The Abbey Church St. Mary the Virgin and St. Botolph, Thorney: An ancient community of prayer (2005). Thorney: Ancarig. www.thorneyabbey.info. Accessed 13 April 2014. The First and Second Prayer Book of King Edward vi (1927). London: Everyman’s Library. The History and Antiquities of Thorne, with some account of the drainage of Hatfield Chase (1829). (Reprint 1994). Thorne: S. Whaley. Tomlinson, J. (1985). The Level of Hatfield Chace. Goole: Pye Books (re-print of first edition, 1882). Tooke, C. (2007). The Rows and the Old Town of Great Yarmouth. Great Yarmouth: Tookes Books. Toorians, L. (1990). “Wizo Flandrensis and the Flemish Settlement in Pembrokeshire”, Cambridge Celtic Medieval Studies, 20, pp. 99–118. Bibliography 437

——— (2000). “Flemish in Wales”, in Languages in Britain and Ireland, ed. by G. Price. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 184–6. Trotter, D.A. (ed.) (2000). Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Trudgill, P. (2013). “The role of Dutch in the development of East Anglian English”, Taal & Tongval, 65 (1), pp. 11–22. Turner, H.L. (2002). “Finding the Sheldon Weavers: Richard Hyckes and the Barcheston Tapestry Works Reconsidered”, Textile History, 33 (2), pp. 137–61. Two Letters: The One from a Dutchman to his Correspondent in England; the other answer from the said correspondent . . . (1673). London(?), s.n. Unger, R.W. (2004). Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Philadelphia: Univer- sity of Pennsylvania Press. Utenhove, J. (1556). Het Nieuwe Testament . . . Na der Grieckscher waerheyt in Nederland- sche sprake grondlick end trauwlick overghezett. Emden: Gellius Ctemasius. Van Alphen, G. (1938). De Stemming van de Engelschen tegen de Hollanders in Engeland tijdens de Regeering van den Koning-Stadhouder Willem iii 1688–1702 Assen, PhD thesis. Vance, S. (2002). “Schooling the People”, in Aberdeen before 1800: A New History, ed. by E.P. Dennison et al. East Linton, East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, pp. 309–26. Van Dam, F. (2014). “ ‘Tableau Poétique’: A Recently Discovered Manuscript by the Flemish Painter-Poet Lucas d’Heere (1534–84)”, Dutch Crossing, 38(1), pp. 20–38. Van den Branden, L. (1956). Het Streven naar Verheerlijking, Zuivering en Opbouw van het Nederlands in de 16de Eeuw. Ghent: kvatl. Van der Heim, H.J. (ed.) (1867–80). Het Archief van den Raadpensionaris Antonie Hein- sius, 3 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Vandermeersch, P. (1989). “Some Aspects of the Intellectual Relationships between the Southern Netherlands and England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in Academic Relations between the Low Countries and the British Isles 1450–1700, ed. by H. de Ridder-Symoens and J.M. Fletcher. Ghent: University of Ghent, pp. 5–24. Van der Noot, J. (1953). Het Bosken en het Theatre, ed. by W.A.P. Smit and W. Vermeer. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek. Van der Sijs, N. (2004). Taal als mensenwerk. Het ontstaan van het abn. The Hague: sdu Uitgevers. ——— (2006). Calendarium van de Nederlandse Taal: De geschiedenis van het Neder- lands in jaartallen. The Hague: sdu Uitgevers. Van der Sijs, N. and Willemyns, R. (2009). Het verhaal van het Nederlands: Een geschiedenis van twaalf eeuwen. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Van der Wal, M. (2006). Onvoltooid verleden tijd. Witte vlekken in de taalgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: knaw. 438 Bibliography

Van der Wal, M. and Rutten, G. (2013). “Variatie, conventies en verandering: Zeven- tiende- en achttiende-eeuwse buitgemaakte brieven onder de loep”, Internationale Neerlandistiek, 51(2), pp. 122–139. Van der Wal, M. and Van Bree, C. (1992). Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Spectrum. Van Dorsten, J. (1959–60). ‘ “I.C.O.” Het Terugvinden van een Bescheiden Nederlander in Londen: Jacobus Colius Ortelianus (1563–1628), koopman-schrijver’, tntl, 77, pp. 17–32. ——— (19732). The Radical Arts: First Decade of an Elizabethan Renaissance. London: oup. ——— (1988). ‘ “I.C.O.”: The Rediscovery of a Modest Dutchman in London’, in The Anglo-Dutch Renaissance. Seven Essays, ed. by J. van den Berg et al. Leiden: Brill, pp. 8–20. Van Leuvensteijn, J.A. et al. (1997). “Vroegnieuwnederlands (circa 1550–1650)”, in Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, ed. by M.C. van den Toorn et al. Amsterdam: aup, pp. 227–72. Van Leuvensteijn, J.A. (2002). “Epistolaire aanspreekvormen in de correspondentie van Maria van Reigersberch”, in tntl, 118 (4), pp. 288–98. Van Meteren, E. (1608) Commentarien ofte memorien van-den Nederlandtschen staet, handel, oorloghen ende gheschiedenissen van onsen tyden, etc. mede vervattende eenige haerder ghebueren handelinghen, beschreven door Emanuel van Meteren; ende by hem voor de tweede ende leste reyse over-sien, verbetert ende vermeerdert; oock soo verre ghebrocht totten af-standt van wapenen ende vrede, in’t jaer 1608. Van Nierop, H. et al. (eds.) (2008). Romeyn de Hooghe: De verbeelding van de late Gouden Eeuw. Zwolle: Waanders. Van Nierop, H. (2011). “Romeyn de Hooghe and the imagination of Dutch foreign policy”, in Ideology and Foreign Policy in Early Modern Europe (1650–1750), ed. by D. Onnekink et al. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 197–214. Van Oldenbarnevelt, Johan (1934). Bescheiden Betreffende zijn Staatkundig Beleid en Zijn Familie, Eerste Deel: 1570–1601, ed. by S.P. Haak. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Van Romburgh, S.G. (2004). For my worthy friend Mr Franciscus Junius: an edition of the complete correspondence of Francis Junius F.F. (1591–1677). Leiden: Brill. Van Roosbroeck, R. (1935). Patientia. 24 politieke emblemata door Joris Hoefnaghel 1569. Antwerp: De Sikkel. Van Schelven, A.A. (1908). De Nederduitsche Vluchtelingenkerken der xvie Eeuw in Enge- land en Duitschland in hunne beteekenis voor de Reformatie in de Nederlanden . . . The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. ——— (ed.) (1921). Kerkeraads-Protocollen der Nederduitsche Vluchtelingen-kerk te Londen 1560–1563. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. Bibliography 439

——— (1951). Het Calvinisme gedurende zijn bloeitijd. Zijn uitbreiding en cultuurhisto- rische betekenis, dl. ii. Amsterdam: W. ten Have. Van Seggelen, A. (1987). “Huygens’ Franse Poëzie”, De Zeventiende Eeuw, 3(2), pp. 71–8. Van ’t Hoff, B. (1950). Het Archief van Anthonie Heinsius. The Hague: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen. Van Toorenenbergen, J.J. (ed.) (1872). Acten van de Colloquia 1575–1624 met Aanhangsel 1627–1706. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Van Vloten, J. (1873). Onderzoek van ’s konings wege ingesteld omtrent de Middelburg- sche beroerten van 1566 en 1567. Utrecht: Historisch Gezelschap. Velthuizen, R. (2011). “De verovering verslagen. Publieke reacties en propaganda in de Engelse en Hollandse pamfletliteratuur tijdens de Glorious Revolution 1688–1689”, in Jaarboek voor Nederlandse Boekgeschiedenis, 18, pp. 97–114. Venn, J. (1901). The Biographical History of Gonville & Caius College, I, Cambridge: cup. Venn, J. and J.A. (1922–7). Alumni Cantabrigiensis, 4 vols. Cambridge: cup. Verbaal van de Buitengewone Ambassade van Jacob van Wassenaar-Duivenvoorde, Arnout van Citters and Everard van Weede van Dijkveld naar Engeland in 1685 (1863). Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon. Verheyden, A.L.E. (1955). “Une correspondence inédite adressée par des familles protestantes des Pays-Bas à leurs coreligionnaires d’Angleterre (11 novembre 1569–25 février 1570)”, Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire, 120, pp. 95–257. Vermaas, J.A.M. (2002). Veranderingen in de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen van de der- tiende t/m de twintigste eeuw. Utrecht: lot. Vollenhove, J. (2001). Predikant en Toerist: Het dagboek, Engeland 17 mei–30 oktober 1674, ed. by G.W.R. Dibbets. Hilversum: Verloren. Waterschoot, W. (1992). “Jan van der Noot’s Het Bosken re-examined”, Quaerendo, 22, pp. 28–44. Watson, S.F. (1949). Some Materials for a History of Printing and Publishing in Ipswich. Ipswich: W.E. Harrison & Sons. Watts, R. and Trudgill, P. (eds.) (2002). Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge. Watts, V. (ed.) (2004). The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names. Cambridge: cup. Weaver, L. (1990). Harwich: gateway to the continent. Lavenham: Terence Dalton Ltd. Weijnen, A. (19654). Zeventiende-eeuwse Taal. Zutphen: W.J. Thieme. Wentworth-Day, J. (1954). History of the Fens. London: George Harrap. Whittaker, R. (1980). “The Dutch on Canvey Island”, Dutch Crossing, 11, pp. 21–30. Wilkins-Jones, C. (ed.) (2008). The Minutes, Donation Book and Catalogue of Norwich City Library Founded in 1608. Norwich: Norfolk Record Society. Willemyns, R. (1979). Het niet-literaire Middelnederlands. Assen: Van Gorcum. 440 Bibliography

——— (2003). Het Verhaal van het Vlaams: de Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden. Antwerp: Standaard Uitgeverij. ——— (2013). Dutch: Biography of a Language. Oxford: oup. Williams, N.J. (1988). The Maritime Trade of East Anglian Ports 1550–1590. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wilson, C. (1941). Anglo-Dutch Commerce & Finance in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: cup. ——— (1946). Holland and Britain. London: Collins. ——— (1968). The Dutch Republic. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ——— (1971). England’s Apprenticeship 1603–1763. London: Longman. Wilson, R. (2004). “The Textile Industry”, in Norwich since 1550, ed. by C. Rawcliffe et al. London: Hambledon and London, pp. 219–42. Witsen, N. (1823). “Verbaal”, in Geschied- en Letterkundig Mengelwerk, ed. by J. Schel- tema, iii, ii. Utrecht: J.G. van Terveen. Wood, M. (ed.) (1927). Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh A.D. 1589 to 1603. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. ——— (1931). Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh A.D. 1604 to 1626. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. ——— (1936). Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh A.D. 1626 to 1641. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Woods, W. (1981). “Annual Dutch Church Service, Norwich”, Dutch Crossing, 14, pp. 75–6. Wright, C. (2007). “The Consistory and Community of Austin Friars in the later Seven- teenth Century”, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, xxviii(5), pp. 626–39. Zickermann, K. (2013). Across the German sea: early modern Scottish connections with the wider Elbe-Weser region. Leiden: Brill. Zwaan, F.L. (ed.) (1939). Uit de Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Spraakkunst. Gronin- gen: J.B. Wolters. Index

Aachen 323–325 Balkius, Isbrandus 30, 41, 65, 69–70 Aberdeen 344, 350–351, 353, 360, 370 Baltic Sea 244, 278, 381 Act of Uniformity (1662) 82, 127 Baptists 85, 126 ‘Acts of identity’ 131 Barcheston, Warwickshire 42, 134n3 Alba, Duke of 23, 26, 39, 60, 157 Bassendyne, Thomas 356 Alexandrine metre 19, 20, 24, 103–104, 191, Batavia 277n51, 322, 348 283, 288, 290–302, 307, 310 Baudartius, Wilhelmus (Baudaert) 26, 183, Algoet, Anthonius 65, 138, 182 230, 387 Alkmaar 172, 191, 217, 274 Beauta(c)q, Joannes 127 Amboyna massacre 307, 316, 339 Behn, Aphra 316–317 Amsterdam 18, 20, 25, 54, 84, 85n52, 90, 150, Behr, Hans 273 157, 176, 193, 194, 198, 221, 247, 270, 325n50, Beke, Pieter 221 348, 349, 356, 358, 360, 362, 366n49, 370, Bentinck, Hans Willem (Earl of Portland) 11, 371n57, 372 151, 264, 268–271 Rijksmuseum 20, 158n35, 159, 246, 263, Berkel en Rodenrijs 216, 228 274 Bidloo, Govert 266–267, 271, 383 Anabaptists 23, 27, 83–84, 365n47 Bischop, Samuel 266 Anglican Church 32, 82, 85, 96, 126, 127, 131, Blake, Robert 278, 348 145, 174, 186, 200, 215, 338 Blakerby, Richard 190 Anglican Liturgy 57, 61n10, 77, 80, 124–125 Blauwe Garde (‘Blue Guard’) 52, 272–273 Anglo-Dutch War Blooteling, Abraham 49–50 First 53, 147, 156, 240, 242, 243, 276, Boeteman, Wulfaert 150 278–279, 348 Book of Common Prayer 114n99, 124 Second 53, 244, 278, 279, 346, 348 Booth, Abraham 19, 307–308, 327–330 Third 52, 128, 280n56, 335, 341, 348, Booth, Cornelis 19, 307, 327 349n12 Boreel, Johan (Jan) 247, 334 Antwerp 48, 49n61, 60, 71–72, 140, 151–153, Bostoen, Karel 142–143, 288n14, 323 154n29, 155, 176n6, 180, 182, 185, 187, 192, Boston, Lincolnshire 41, 56n1 195, 198, 200, 215, 239n5, 251, 255, 284–285, Boswell, James 373–374 288–289, 322, 323–324, 326, 356 Boyle, Robert 49n61, 210, 334 Appelboom, Harald 243, 244, 245 Boyne, Battle of the 129, 141, 273 Armentières 28 Bradley, Humphrey 28, 133, 144–145, 147, Asger, John 29 215–216, 239n5 Ashley, Anthony 338 Braems, Charles 62 Ashley, Robert 54 Brandley, William 53, 276 Attestations 18, 70, 72, 82, 98, 101–102, 137, Breda 67, 161n38, 180, 236n1, 256, 351 367 Bredero, Gerbrand 287–288 Aurelius, Joannes Baptista 124n114 Spaanschen Brabander 20 Australia 228–230, 364 Brent, Nathaniel 61n10 Ayscue, George 278 Brieven als buit project 91, 201, 204, 207n55, 208, 211n60, 219, 239n4, 262, 361, 363, 384 Backereel, Hermes 175, 177 Bronkhorst, Arnold 351 Bailleul (Belle) 65, 71 Brontemps, Peter 78 Bakhtin, Mikhail 99–101 Brouart, Johannes 103n85 Balcanquellus, Gualterus 352 Brown, Robert 83n48 442 Index

Browne, Edward 198 Cockburn family of Langton 363 Browne, Thomas 189, 198–200 Cocq, Henricus 66n18 Bruce, John 349, 374 Code switching 57, 76, 94–96, 154, 220, 228, Bruce family of Kinross 363 230, 237, 257, 267, 294n25, 303, 308, 319, Brugge (Bruges) 29, 48, 142, 255, 259, 288, 367, 411–412 347 Colchester 26, 35, 36–37, 42, 45, 46–47, 55, Bryson, James and Robert 370–371 65, 84, 91, 132–133, 137–139, 155–156, Bucerus, Jacobus (Jacob de Buyzere) 35, 61, 181–182, 213–214, 221–224, 231–232, 289, 310, 64, 117 338, 356, 391–392 Bullinger, Heinrich 58, 119, 120, 225, 256 Bay hall 36, 137–139 Burke, Peter 7n13, 15, 110–111, 115, 143, 320, Dutch church 19, 36, 56n2, 57, 63–64, 73, 384n5, 385n6 82, 83, 85, 94, 96, 99, 120, 122, 123–124, Burnet, Gilbert 268, 271 126, 129– 130, 139, 182, 188, 213–214, Bynneman, Henry 140 221–224, 275–276, 294, 295, 329 Colius Ortelianus, Jacobus 11, 24, 151, 215, Cabeliau, Jan 176 256, 258, 289–292, 293, 296, 298, 309, 317, Calandrini, Cesare 19, 53, 124n116, 141, 145, 323, 325–327, 339 177, 187, 188, 279, 323n48, 326, 331 Colloquys of the Dutch churches in England Calvinists 23, 64n13, 178, 256, 285, 355 46, 62, 66n18, 72, 73n35, 74, 76, 96–98, Cambridge 192, 342 122–124, 126–129, 149, 162n39, 173–174, University of 47, 48, 51, 165, 172, 178, 284 180–181, 184, 185–191, 220, 288, 293 ‘Communities of interpretation’ 115 Camden, William 376–378 Cool, Pieter 215, 291 Canterbury 28–29, 48, 71, 73, 85, 91, 108, Coornhert, Dirck Volckertsz. 249 121–122, 170, 182–183, 230, 238, 241, 279 Coornwinder, Vedastus 216, 228 Canvey Island 35, 37–39, 41–42, 57, 76, 82, Corsellis, Nicholas 17, 152–153, 158, 171 124, 127, 129, 145–147, 214, 279 Cosin, John 181 Carinaeus, Nicolaus 59 Coster, Samuel Carleton, Dudley 252, 297 Warenar 20 Caton, William 84 Courten, Willem 20, 157–158, 159 Cats, Jacob 52, 240, 241, 251, 277, 293, 299, Coventry 42, 56, 57, 70, 87 331, 340 Crail, Fife 366–367 Cauwera, Pieter 62n11 Crane, Francis 74, 140 Cecil, William (Lord Burleigh) 41, 43n50, 50, Cranmer, Archbishop Thomas 107 69 Crisp, Steven 84–85, 91 Celen, Vital 314 Cromwell, Oliver 126, 242, 260, 275, 302–303, Champernowne, Katherine 255 305, 315 Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Croon, Floris 349 Ireland 14, 48, 52, 76, 223, 240, 257–259, Croppenburgh, Joos 37–38 260, 274, 302, 304, 309, 313, 315, 354, 371 Cruso, Aquila 85, 185–186, 275 Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Cruso, Jan 19, 156, 181, 185, 224, 275, 283, Ireland 48, 49n61, 160, 197, 247, 248, 289, 292–294, 296, 309, 314–315, 343, 259–260, 264, 347, 361 396–409 Charles X Gustave, King of Sweden 278 Cubus, Johannes 287, 340 Charles the Bold 235 Cunningham of Block, Alexander 354–355 Christiaensz., Albert 141, 143 Cleenwerck, Cladys 222 Dafforne, Richard 54, 176, 184 Cleves (Kleef ) 51, 90n59, 90n62, 90n63, Dagenham 39, 42, 145, 146 325n49 Dalbier, John 273 Index 443

Damman, Hadrianus 353, 365–366, 373, 374, Des Reaux, Petrus 83 379 De Swaen, Michiel 314, 322n44 Dathenus, Petrus 112, 116–118, 142, 198, 224 Deux-Aes Bible 116n104, 122–123 Day, John 116, 140–141 Devereux, Robert (Earl of Essex) 338 Deal, Kent 330 De Vliegher, François 247 De Bac, Boudewijn 182 De Voocht, Leonard 353 De Berlaimont, Noel 195–196, 337 De Vriese, Abraham 213–214 De Brune, Jan 340 Dewele, Rachel 222 De Bruynne, Franc 104, 410 De Wet, Helena 361, 383 De Bye, Maeyke 294, 307, 343 De Wet, Jacob 352, 361 De Caron, Noël 10, 51, 234, 236–238, 277, 366 De Witt, Johann 242, 244–245 De Carpentier, Pieter 328, 378 De Wulf, Pieter 206, 208 De Cerf, Abraham 176 D’Heere, Lucas 24, 285–287, 336–337, 377 Decker, Matthew 157 dHoorne, Gelein Janszoon 66 De Coene, Pauwels 206, 208 Dodoens, Rembert 339 De Colone, Susanna 351 Donne, John 296, 300 De Cursol, Stephan 40, 81 Dorislaus, Isaac 274 De Drayton, Thomas 66 Dousa, Janus 288n13, 297 Dee, John 255 Dover 26, 27–28, 47, 52, 53, 147, 148, 183, 238, Defoe, Daniel 232 247, 257–258, 276, 278, 279 De Gomme, Bernard 273–274 Dutch church 57, 60, 61–63 De Hane, Christiaen 221–222 Downing, George 253–254 De Hens, Aaron 350 Drainage schemes in England 39, 40, 45, 74, De Jaghere, François 209 76, 77, 79, 144–148, 188, 215, 273 De Keijser, Cornelis 216n67 Drebbel, Cornelis 172, 191–192, 217, 227, 233, Dekker, Thomas 16, 20, 54, 255, 257, 258, 237, 330, 340 260, 283, 316–322, 343, 381, 383 Droeshout, Martin 50, 223, 256 De Koninck, Jacobus Du Bartas, Guillaume de Salluste, Sieur 191, See Regius, Jacobus 293, 297, 366, 380 De la Porte, Jacobus 78 Dundee 346, 353 De Leeuwe, Pieter 183 Du Reys, Pieter 76 Delenus, Petrus (Pieter) 35, 59, 61 Dutch language Delenus, Wouter 58, 108, 119, 411 Books for the learning of 54–55, 141, 157, Delft 34, 47n55, 48, 51, 67, 68n23, 84, 114, 194–197, 337 215–216, 219, 251, 257, 313 Brabantic dialect (Brabants) 14, 27, 90, De l’Obel, Matthias 257 325–326, 366, 381 Den Briel 27, 150, 183, 279, 312 Chancery 87, 91, 219, 227, 237, 239, 366 De Ram, Joos 165, 224 Coins inscribed with 225, 348–349, De Rijcke, Matthias 178, 180 360–361 Derogatory names for the Dutch Diminutive forms in 294n24, 299, 328, ‘Butterboxes’ 267, 317, 321 349, 375, 381–382 ‘Hogan Mogan’ 363–364 ‘Dutches’, Notion of 14–15, 118, 196, 227, ‘Hogen Mogens’ 240–241 233, 298, 314, 343, 379, 381, 383n1 De Roode, Jan 65–66 Early New Dutch (Vroegnieuwnederlands) De Ruyter, Michiel 245, 246, 278 15, 211, 294 De Smet, Salomon 211 Flemish dialect (Vlaams) 14–15, 27, 87, De Solempne, Anthonie 65n15, 117, 141–143, 88–90, 95, 110, 130, 143n14, 179, 201–212, 177, 198, 288 227, 230, 325, 336–337, 366, 375, De Springhere, Pieter 61 376–378, 380, 381, 384 444 Index

Forms of address in 85, 88–89, 91–93, Emden 59, 65, 110–116, 260 145, 203–211, 219, 227, 250, 280, 362–363, English Civil War 35, 49n61, 52, 75, 136, 234, 382 259, 273, 274–276, 346, 378 Holland dialect (Hollands) 14, 90, 110, English language 16, 20–21, 34n32, 45–46, 154n28, 217, 298–299, 307, 328, 343, 381 57, 62–63, 75–77, 83–84, 87, 91, 96–98, 102, Influence of French on 15, 145–146, 103n85, 106, 115, 118–119, 125–127, 129, 131, 237, 240, 246n12, 249–250, 262, 369, 134, 139, 148–150, 153–154, 158, 160, 166, 172, 379, 381 174, 179, 183–187, 190, 192–193, 196–197, 211, Limburg dialect (Limburgs) 90, 166, 325 220–225, 228–232, 238, 241, 253–254, Loanwords in English from 160, 232, 276, 257–260, 264–265, 267–268, 271, 275–276, 280 280, 293, 299, 303, 312–315, 318–322, Loanwords in Scottish dialects from 324–325, 331, 335–336, 337–343, 350–351, 375–376 359, 364, 366–367, 376–379 Nederduytsch 14, 15, 16, 129, 297, 323 Dialects 31, 160, 232, 351, 359n37, 385 Overijssel dialect 128 Eßer, Raingard 165 Purification of 143, 249 Evelyn, John 146, 334 Standard Dutch 87, 90, 115, 143, 216n68, Everaert, Franchoijs 139 227, 330, 383 Evertson, John (Jan) 277, 278 Zeelandic dialect (Zeeuws) 14 Exeter 155, 249, 272, 342 Dutch Blue Guard (Blauwe Garde) 52, 234, Exile Literature 286, 302, 343 272–273 Dutch Brazil 74, 151 Faukelius, Herman Dutch Chapel Royal Kort Ondersoeck ofte Begrip 126 See London Fen Drayton, Cambridgeshire 40 Dutch church at Austin Friars Fens, The 28, 34, 39–40, 53, 145–147, 192, 216 See London Fife 351, 366–367 Dutch East India Company (VOC) 19, 153, Fishman, Joshua 378, 380 251, 254, 277, 307, 327, 328, 330, 347, Flanders 15, 27–30, 33–34, 36, 40, 45n54, 49, 348–349, 354, 359n36, 378 89, 93, 106, 110, 139n7, 144, 150, 157, 178–179, Duyts, Cornelius 20, 106 183, 189, 201, 203, 206n54, 212, 224, 230, 329, 347, 351, 354, 376 Edgcumb, Peter (Sherriff of Devon) 43 Westkwartier 26, 61, 88 Edinburgh 30, 44–45, 344, 345, 349, 350, Fleming, Robert 183 351–352, 355, 356–359, 360, 361, 363, 364, Florio, Michelangelo 70 366, 367, 370–373, 374, 375, 378, 379, 382 Fort William 375–376 Dutch church 344, 352, 364–365 Frederick, Christopher 257 Edward VI, King of England and Ireland 21, Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange 236, 58–59, 65, 112, 119, 127n117, 144n17 309, 328, 340 Elgin 368 French language 14–15, 19, 21, 28, 40, 52, 54, Elison, Johannes 19, 20, 103–105, 120, 187, 57, 62, 70n28, 71, 77–79, 81–82, 87, 94, 97, 224, 294, 333, 399 101, 103n85, 116–117, 123, 125, 127, 131, 141n11, Elison, Theophilus 120, 187, 188, 333 145–146, 148, 151, 161, 163, 165–166, 169, Elizabeth I, Queen of England and 175–179, 182–183, 190, 191, 192, 197–198, 211, Ireland 29, 31, 33, 36, 48, 52, 65, 94, 116, 212, 223, 230, 232, 235–237, 240, 242, 147, 148, 169, 251, 255–256, 257, 260, 279, 246n12, 248–250, 252–253, 257, 259–260, 290, 318 262–265, 268–271, 280, 282, 285, 287, 293, Elspaß, Stephan 17 297, 312, 327, 330–332, 334, 364, 368–370, Elwill, John 54, 155 373, 378–379, 381, 384–385 Ely, Cambridgeshire 40n45 Gallicisms 240, 250, 262, 369, 379, 381 Index 445

Frisia (Friesland) 30, 65 Haak, Theodore 194n34, 260, 341 East Frisia 59, 107, 110 Halstead 35, 37, 91, 133–134, 139, 223 Dutch church 57, 64–65, 66, 121, 223 Gallicanus, Gerardus 34, 67–68 Politicke mannen 169 Gascoigne, George 312–313 Hamburg 44, 152, 341–342, 346 Gentbridge, John 279 Hampton Court 50n63, 261, 262, 271, 334 Gerbier, Balthazar 49n61, 107 Hamstedius, Adrianus 412 German 14n1, 16, 58, 59, 84, 87, 90, 102, Harwich 150–151, 232 115n103, 130, 144, 166n45, 197, 198, 240–241, Hasaert, Pieter 65 255n23, 276, 297n28, 316–318, 321, 353, 360, Hatfield Chase, Yorkshire 39, 41, 42, 77–79, 367n52 145–147 See also Low German Haveus, Theodore (de Have) 51, 67 Germanisms 14, 111 Hebrew 86, 103n85, 108, 189–190, 215, 334 Germanic language area 381 Heinsius, Anthonie 17, 247, 261–262, 277 Germanic philology 197, 221 Heinsius, Daniel 297 Gheeraerts the Younger, Marcus 48, 255 Hellevoetsluis 150 Ghent 34, 64n13, 67, 72, 89n57, 107–108, 110, Henry IV, King of France 237 115–116, 142–143, 144n17, 152, 169, 178–179, Henry VIII, King of England and Ireland 108 183–184, 189, 285, 326, 377 Herring fishing 32, 46, 73, 132, 148–149, 158, Pacification of 47, 60, 183 251, 344–350, 354, 356 Gibson, Richard 277 Hessels, J.H. 17, 57, 86 Gilpin, George 251–252, 338 Heuriblock, Petrus 176, 323 Glasgow 339, 355n27, 372, 379n66 Hexham, Henry 196 Glazemaker, Jan Hendrik 338 Heyns, Jooris 139 Gomarus, Franciscus 47, 187–189 Heywood, Thomas 340 Goole High German Dutch River 42, 145 See German Gouldman, Francis 196 ‘High German sound shift’ (‘the second Great Yarmouth 27n17, 31–33, 46, 53, 55, sound shift’) 166n45 91, 133, 147–150, 156, 158, 160–161, 180, Hillenius, François 335 216–217, 227–228, 276–278, 332–333, Historie van B. Cornelis Adriaensen van 335 Dordrecht 142–143, 288 Dutch church 32, 45n53, 46, 56n2, Hobbes, Thomas 331 57, 65–66, 73–74, 82, 96, 120–121, 127, Hobsbawm, Eric 384 130–132, 149–150, 278, 329, 333 Hoefnagel, Joris 19, 24, 255, 286, 324 Politicke mannen 169–170 Hoevenagel, Gilles 62 Greek 93, 94, 103n85, 108, 114, 118, 175, 185, Hogenberg, Franciscus 287n11 189, 190, 200, 292, 294, 300, 324, 326, 336, Hondschoote 185, 292, 314 366 Hooft, P.C. 90, 287–288, 298, 300, 322 Grindal, Johannes 338 Warenar 20 Groenvelt, M.P. 53, 279 Hooke, Robert 25, 54, 172, 193–194, 197, 201, Grotius, Hugo 149 233, 247, 334 Gruterus, Janus 155, 178, 180, 185, 187–188, Hop, Jacob 17, 51, 247 190, 288, 387 Hoste, Dirck 326, 339 Guicciardini, Lodovico 71 Household inventories 18, 225 Guidet, Anna 177, 184 Huizinga, J.H. 19, 244, 260 Gunnell, John 53, 73–74 Hull 53, 279 Gymnich, Jan 3 Huygens, Christiaan 192, 327, 333–334 446 Index

Huygens, Constantijn 13, 19, 51–52, 74, 101, Killigrew, Mary 74 128, 187, 190, 192, 194n33, 197, 236, 249, 255, King’s Lynn 33–34, 46, 54, 134, 151, 154, 158, 257, 259, 282, 286–287, 289, 293–295, 179–180, 227, 333 296–307, 313–315, 327–328, 331–332, 334, Dutch church 34, 51, 56, 57, 67–69, 343, 369, 378, 382, 386 179–180 Huygens jr., Constantijn 231, 265, 270, 272, Kiviet, John 146 282, 336, 342, 383 Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb 316 Huygens, Lodewijck 13, 19, 52, 128, 241, 327, Kortrijk 87, 201n46 376, 378 Kuyck van Mierop, Martin 157 Huysmans, Camille 314 Labov, William 16–17, 202 Iconoclastic Fury (Beeldenstorm) (1566) 23 Lagniel, John 312 Ieper (Ypres) 17, 20, 28, 33–34, 44, 61, 67, Lambrecht, Joos 3–4, 115, 143, 144n17 91, 106, 150, 172, 183, 201–214, 227, 280, Language history from below 17, 203, 211, 382–385 384–385 Inverness 368 ‘Language of distance’ (Sprache der Distanz); Iowa 229 ‘language of proximity’ (Sprache der Nähe) Ipswich 34–35, 68–69, 144, 156, 276, 338 (Koch and Oesterreicher) 89, 202 Dutch church 57, 68–69, 83 Lasco, Johannes à (Jan Łaski) 58–59, Ireland 24, 82, 189, 261n29, 273, 289n17, 336, 107–108, 110–112, 116–117, 119–120, 123–124, 372n60, 386 411 Isle of Wight 52, 147 Forma ac Ratio 114 Italian language 54, 70–71, 94, 123n114, 197, Latin 3, 4, 17, 19, 21, 28, 31n27, 40, 41, 43, 47, 256n24, 270, 276, 312, 317, 324, 384 57–58, 61, 67, 81, 93–95, 97–103, 106–108, 112–115, 117–120, 122–123, 163, 165–166, 173, Jagheduivel, Tristram 214 175–176, 180, 183–192, 194, 196–198, 200–201, James I (VI), King of England, Scotland and 209, 217, 220–221, 233, 235, 241, 249, Ireland 36, 48n58, 172, 191, 223, 233, 251, 256–258, 260, 285, 287, 289, 291–293, 256–257, 260, 290, 292, 299, 317, 345, 351, 297–298, 308, 313–314, 317, 322–324, 353, 364–365, 372–373 326–327, 331–332, 337–340, 345–346, 352, James II (VII), King of England, Scotland and 355, 363, 366, 373n61, 379, 411–412 Ireland 248, 268, 361 Neo-Latin 3, 294 Jansdochter, Rachel 91–93, 213, 383 Laud, Archbishop William 27, 61, 63, 81, 85, Jansen, Bernard 50, 258 97, 124–125, 174, 183 Jansen, Conraet 256, 260, 290 Le Blon, Michel 124, 240 Janssen, H.Q. (Hendrick) 17, 202–204 Leeghwater, Jan Adriaensz. 148 Jews in London 25, 83, 85–86 Leiden 34, 67, 142, 177, 218–219, 231, Johnson, Joas 147 266–267, 287–288, 290, 292, 356, 358–359 Jonson, Ben 48n58, 258, 296, 312, 313, 318, University of 47, 72, 120, 126, 155, 176, 321 185, 187–190, 231, 295, 307, 331, 354, Junius (the Younger), Franciscus 47–48, 359–360 217–221, 227, 233, 237, 259, 296, 309–310, Leith 344–345, 353, 359 314, 340, 343 Lely, Peter 48–50, 74, 259, 334 Junius, Justus 180 Le Mayre, Marten 54, 141, 157, 194–196, 337 Le Pipere, Paul 183, 230 Ker, Jean 356, 361–363, 374, 379, 383 Lerwick 346–349, 360 Kerr, Robert (Earl of Ancram) 344, 356, 362 Leupenius, Petrus 37, 231 Ketel, Cornelis 24 Leuven (Louvain) 108, 189, 255 Index 447

Lewis 345–346 Mary I, Queen of England and Ireland 23, Stornoway 345–346, 379, 382 59, 114, 116 Lhuyd, Humphrey 336, 377 Mary II, Queen of England, Scotland and Limerick, Siege of 273–274 Ireland 129, 141, 264, 375 Little Laver, Essex 225 Maurits, Prince of Orange 243 Livingstone, Thomas 354, 367–369, 374, 379, Meerman, Johan 51 381 Meesters, Willem 273 Loderus, Rudolphus 197 Meetkercke, Edwardus 85, 189, 190, 215 London 6–7, 16–20, 21–25, 28, 45n54, 48–52, Melville, James 255, 353 138, 140–141, 144, 147, 150, 151–154, 156–158, Menasseh ben Israel 85n52 169, 170, 175–177, 183–184, 191–198, 201–202, Mercator poetans 133, 289, 293, 309 215, 217–221, 231, 233, 237–241, 243–244, Merchant Adventurers 156–157, 251 248, 251, 253–260, 267–273, 276–277, 279, Merrick, John 7, 243, 250–251 285–293, 297–300, 302, 304–307, 309–311, Micron, Marten 58–59, 107–108, 112–117, 119, 313, 316–317, 320–330, 337–342, 364, 385 124, 411 Academy at Austin Friars 184 Small Catechism (Kleyne Catechismus) Coetus of Stranger Churches 78, 79, 94, 112 97, 123, 169 Christian Ordinances (De Christelicke Dutch Chapel Royal 25, 57, 80, 82, 99, Ordinancien) 112–114, 124, 175 129, 141, 271 Middelburg 24, 46–47, 66–67, 107, 126, 147, Dutch church at Austin Friars 2–6, 154, 156, 161n38, 177, 202, 218, 243, 256, 290, 16n3, 19–20, 23, 37, 43–44, 53, 56–60, 309, 324, 326, 340, 345n2 Chapter 2 passim, 145, 175–177, 186–188, Middleton, Thomas 60 209, 214, 216, 266, 284, 295, 328, 331, Mierdman, Steven 5, 111, 140 333–335, 338, 352, 365–367, 374, 411–412 Migrode, Jan 64n13 Dutch church following Anglican Milton, John 260, 313 liturgy 57, 80 Minet, Andries 177 Italian church 24, 70–71, 94, 123, 324 Minsheu, John 196, 337 Louis XIV, King of France 247 Mitchell, David 278 Low, George (Revd.) 360, 372 Modet, Hermannus 169 Low German 4, 93, 107, 110, 115, 166n45 Moens, W.J.C. 65, 106 Loy, Adrian 223 Monsij, Jan 183 Montrose 353 Mackay, Hugh 354, 367–368, 374 Moonen, Arnold 311 Mackenzie, Colin (Earl of Seaforth) 345 Morice, Peter 147 Maidstone 26–27, 42, 55, 91, 134, 140, 208, Mortlake 25–26, 57, 73, 74–76, 95, 119, 134, 210, 228 335 Dutch church 27, 57, 60, 61, 73, 82, Mountfort, Walter 316, 321 87–90, 121, 124, 126, 183 Mylius, Abraham 16 Politicke mannen 161–162 Mytens the Elder, Daniel 48, 223, 257–258 Manchester 42 March, Cambridgeshire 40n44 Navigation Acts 151, 279–280 Marot, Clément 111, 116 Nebrija, Antonio 324 Marquinus, Franciscus 176 Neck, Gerard and Joshua 81, 106, 157 Marston, John 315–316 Neo-Latin Martinson, Gerardus 68 See Latin Marvell, Andrew 313 New Bedford River 53, 147 Mary Henrietta Stuart 14, 48, 52, 264 New Historicism 282n1 448 Index

New Zealand 229–230 Plantijn, Christoffel 322 Niclaes, Hendrik 200 Plymouth 43–44, 47, 133, 151, 155, 277, 278, Nieuwkerke 65 382 Nieuwpoort 150 Poelenburg, Nicholaes 28, 63 Nobel, Hendrik 302 Politicke mannen 34, 64, 101, 132, 161–171, 207 Nordelph, Norfolk 34 Pontusson de la Gardie, Jacob 243 Norn 350 Portland Bill 53, 147 North Uist 346 Portsmouth 244–245, 277, 279 Norwich 17, 18, 19–20, 29–31, 32, 55, 91, 117, Portuguese language 86, 150 132–137, 141–144, 148, 150, 156, 158, 172, Poyntz, Sydenham 74 177–181, 184, 185–187, 191, 198–199, 201–214, Privy Council 30, 35n33, 36–37, 44, 56, 60, 217–218, 224–227, 229, 275–276, 283, 63n12, 93, 155, 338 292–294, 322–323, 329, 332–333, 352, 356, Procope 87–88, 179n9 382–383, 385 Proost, Jan 19, 36, 126, 182, 188, 190, 221, 223, City library 187, 199 246n12, 295–296, 315, 326, 392–396 Dutch church 19–20, 41, 57, 65–66, 69, Protestantism 21, 118 72, 73, 82, 83, 89, 99, 101–105, 117, Prothesis 87–88, 179, 337, 381 120–122, 125, 127n117, 129–130, 155, 224, Puritans 27, 56, 60, 85, 124, 126, 190 230, 275, 288, 294, 329, 333, 358, 381 Politicke mannen 18, 101, 161–171, 207 Quakers 83–85, 91, 126 St. Michael’s Coslany 104, 106 Queenborough, Kent 52, 279, 312, 328

Obrius, Adrianus 183 Raad van Vlaanderen 64n13, 169, 178, 326 Ochino, Bernard 4n8, 16, 58n5 Raam, Jan 184 Oldenburg, Henry 192–193 Radermacher, Johannes 5, 14, 24, 70–71, 94, Onnekink, David 264, 268 151–152, 197, 206, 286–287, 289n17, Orkney Islands 346–347, 360, 372, 373 323–326, 343, 362 Ortelius, Abraham 214, 239n5, 289, 322 Raphelengius the Younger, Franciscus 290, Ortell, Joachim 216, 239, 353 292n21 Oxford 246, 342 Rebow, Isaac 129–130, 231–232 University of 47, 48, 144, 155, 172, 180–181, Refereyn 67n19, 283–284 184–185, 187–191, 215 Regius, Jacobus (De Koninck) 70, 87, 95, 188, 209, 284, 287 Pacification of Ghent Regius, Johannis 291 See Ghent, Pacification of Regius, Tobias 188–189 Paetz, Jan Jacobsz. 141, 143 Rembrandt van Rijn 85n52, 194 Pamphlets 152, 236n1, 256, 269, 290, 339, Rhetoricians’ chambers (Rederijkerskamers) 342, 364 5, 67n19, 283, 322 Panneel, Michiel (Ephippius) 68–69 Richardes, John 180 Paris 39, 152, 333 Rogersius, Daniel 322–323 Passanten 56, 62–63, 73–74, 96, 123, 149 Roman Catholicism 18, 118, 141, 295, 326 Paston, Robert 150 Rotterdam 46–47, 50, 154, 156–157, 191, 196, Pembrokeshire 376–378 218, 245, 302, 333, 335, 351, 355, 358–359, Peter the Great, Tsar 55, 271, 278 367 Pettegree, Andrew 115, 143 Royal Society of London 172–173, 192–194, Philippa of Hainault 29 201, 233, 334 Pidgins 20, 150, 230, 276, 320, 385 Rubens, Peter Paul 48 Piels, Jan 208 Russell, Andrew 358–359, 374 Index 449

Russell, Francis (Earl of Bedford) 255 Skippon, Philip 275 Russell, William (Earl of Bedford) 145 Skoloker, Anthony 144, 338 Russia 7, 243 Skye, Isle of 346 Ruytinck, Jan (Johannes) (father of Simeon) Smallbone, John 224 169, 177–179, 184, 210 Smiles, Samuel 42–44, 77n39, 140 Ruytinck, Johannes (son of Simeon) 120 Smits, Caroline 229 Ruytinck, Simeon 19, 24, 33, 102–103, 141, Smuggling 151 186, 188, 190, 196, 200, 214, 256, 284–285, Snodham, Thomas 141, 339 291–293, 295–296, 325–326, 337, 339, 343 Societal multilingualism 7, 98, 120 Ryckwaert, Carolus (Karel) 65–66, 93n65, Soillot, Jan 64n14, 223 202, 204n50, 208n57 Sonnets, Dutch 19, 36–37, 185, 190, 283–288, Rye, East Sussex 44 295–296, 298, 386–387 Southampton 27n17, 43, 71–73 Sabbe, Maurits 314 Spanish language (Castilian) 8, 54, 86, 197, Salutations 84, 145, 195, 212, 236–237, 270, 317, 324, 384 240–241, 248, 250, 255, 361, 385 Speech communities 1 Sandtoft, Lincolnshire 42, 57, 77–79, 81, 147 Spenser, Edmund 285 Sandwich 26, 29, 33, 34n32, 35, 44, 47, 55, Spiegel, Hendrick 231, 249 121, 134, 140, 148, 156, 183, 2o2, 225, 230–231, Twe-Spraack 5, 205 312, 329 ‘Spontaneous palatalization’ Dutch church 26, 28–29, 57, 60–64, 68, See Vowel fronting 70, 73, 78, 82–83, 87–88, 90, 91, 96, Sranan Tongo 272n42 114n98, 117–118, 121–122, 129–130, St. Andrews, University of 351 182–183, 312, 329 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre 39, 42, 146 Politicke mannen 162, 170 Stamford 41, 43n50, 50, 57, 69–70 Saravia, Adrian 72 Politicke mannen 162 Schaets, Jaen Heindrickxsn 43–44, 151 Statenbijbel (States Bible) 4, 116, 195, 205 Schellinks, Willem 49, 137, 154, 327, 332–333 Staten-Generaal (States General) 236–237, Schilders, Richard 256, 289n17, 290 240–243, 245, 248, 252–254, 259, 276, 342, Schools 353, 363, 365, 367, 373 Dutch 87, 169, 172–184, 200, 233, 370 Stevin, Simon 5, 54, 193, 339 English Grammar 31n27, 72, 175, 177, 180, Stonehaven 350–351 182–183, 185, 186, 187, 292–293 Stornoway Schrevelius, Cornelius Pieter 129 See Lewis Scots Brigade 354 Stratford, Essex 215, 329–330 Sea Beggars Sumeren, Jacob 164, 225 See Watergeuzen Sunderland 279 Sebastianse, Adriaen 64 Suriname 272n42 Sermartens, Anna 215–216 Swammerdam, Jan 194 Shakespeare, William 50, 223, 256, 315, 321 Sweden 243–244 Sheldon, Gilbert 306 Swinton, John 153 Shetland Islands 46, 149, 346–350, 359–360, Symons, Lyven 140, 230 364, 372, 374–375, 379, 382–383 Synod of Dort 341n62, 355 Sibbald, Robert 346–347, 350, 359–360, 374, Synods of Dutch and French churches in 383 England 97, 126 Simonides, Simon 310 Six van Chandelier, Jan 47, 133, 155, 282, 289, T-V (Tu/Vos) distinction 210 296, 309–310, 314–315, 343, 386, 391–392 Teellinck, Willem 326–327 450 Index

Temple, William 252–253, 264 Valcke, Jacob 353 Tessemaker, Peter 75–76 Valedictions 104, 120, 212, 385 Test Act (1673) 10, 82, 85, 127 Valkenes, Mary 225 Textile industry 34, 133–140, 156, 171, 338, Van Achtienhoven, Kornelia Pauw 311 352, 356–358 Van Bartem, Abraham 218 The Hague 14, 49, 52, 67, 128, 236, 243, 247, Van Beuningen, Coenraad 247 252–254, 259, 264–265, 268–269, 297–299, Van Beverningk, Hieronymus 242–243 310, 355 Van Blyenberch, Abraham 48n58 Thetford 34, 91, 134, 137, 283 Van Brederode, Walraven 353 Dutch church 34, 57, 65–67, 83, 180, Van Culemborg, Aemilius 19, 82, 98, 129, 141, 202 214, 326 Politicke mannen 34, 169–170 Van Dalem, Elizabeth 216, 239 Thirlestane Castle, nr. Lauder 353 Van den Berghe, Nicolaes (Collinus Thorne, Yorkshire 77, 79 Volckwinner) 114 Thorney, Cambridgeshire 39–40, 79n42, Vanden Berghe, Samuel 182, 188 81, 145, 147 Vanden Berghe, Theodorus (Montanus) 182, Toponyms 26, 31, 160–161 188n23, 223 English toponyms rendered in Dutch 91, Vanden Bussche, Abraham 124n116 148, 238–239, 241, 244–245, 277–278, Vanden Bussche, Lieven 89 306, 328, 335, 347, 349 Van den Driesche, Johannes (Drusius) 47, Torbay 272 189–190 Trajectinus, Hendrik (Count of Solms- Vanden Eede, Lieven 88 Braunfels) 272–273 Van der Duyn, Adam (Heer van Scravenmoer) Translation 26, 48, 90n61, 108–112, 114–118, 273 120, 122–125, 129, 169, 195, 198, 205, 220, 221, Van der Hagen, Godefried 351 225, 241, 256, 265, 275, 287, 292, 297, 309, Van der Noot, Jan 19, 140, 285, 287–288 317, 324 Vander Schuere, Nicasius 88, 210 Dutch-English/English-Dutch 84, 134, Van der Sijs, Nicoline 93, 286 144, 152, 172, 192–193, 198, 241, 251, 253, Van der Wal, Marijke 115, 201 259, 260, 337–342, 359, 363–364, See also Brieven als buit project 370–372 Vanderwelt, Cornelius 146–148 Treaty of Dover 247 Van der Werve, Jan Triple Alliance 238, 247 Het Tresoor der Duytscher Talen 4, 249 Tromp, Cornelis 48–50, 259, 278 Van de Sande, Elisabeth 225–226 Tromp, Maarten Harpertsz. 53, 276, 348 Van de Velde the Younger, Willem 48, 259 Trudgill, Peter 31, 179, 232, 385 Van de Warcke, Jan 353 Truyen, Geraert 138–139 Van Dorp, Dorothée 297 Tungland, Robert, Lord 353 Van Dyck, Anthony 48, 192, 258–260 Tyler, Evan 371–372 Van Gent, Josef 279 Van Genth, Fransois 367 Ubelman, Johannes 333 Van Gogh, Michiel 245–247 Utenhove, Jan/Johannes 58–59, 93, 130, 381 Van Haemstede, Adriaen 59 De Catechismus oft Kinderleere 109–110 Van Hasedonck, Jan 146, 273 Dutch New Testament 14, 90n61, 114–116, Van Heule, Christiaen 205, 231 118, 122 Van Hout, Jan 287–288 Een cort begrip 108, 110, 124 Van Keppel, Arnold Joost (Earl of Albemarle) Metrical psalms 111, 116–118, 140 270–271 Utrecht 19, 67, 78, 307, 344, 349, 354–355, Van Leeuwenhoek, Anthoni 172, 192–194, 360, 373 201, 233 Index 451

Van Meteren, Emanuel 18–19, 24, 70–71, 151, Vosbergius, Caspar 41, 50, 69 214, 286–287, 289, 323–326 Vossius, Gerard (Gerardus) 48, 85, 197, 219, Van Nassau, Justinus 238 220 Van Nassau van Zuylesteyn, Willem Henry Vossius, Joannes 220 (Earl of Rochford) 270 Vowel fronting 88–89, 110 Van Oldenbarnevelt, Johann 51, 236–239, 277, 366 Wagenaer, Lucas Jansz. 338 Van Oord, Amelia 307–308 Waldegrave, Robert 366, 370 Van Reede-Ginckel, Godard (Earl of Athlone) Wales 44–45, 52, 328, 331, 336, 344, 376–380 269, 273 Walewein, Adriaan 207–208, 211 Van Regenmortel, Ambrosius 295 Wallis, John 54, 154, 158 Van Regenmortel, Assuerus (Regemorterus) Walloon communities in England 24, 28–31, 189, 284, 291, 295, 392 34, 40–41, 43, 57, 64–65, 69–73, 76–78, 81, Van Renselaer, Nicholas 80 83, 101, 108, 121–122, 124–127, 134, 146–147, Van Renterghen, Gerolfe 224 162, 164, 170, 174, 183, 189, 364 Van Rentzen, Anna Catherina 214 Walsingham, Francis 364 Van Rokegem, Lowysken 224 Watergeuzen (‘Sea Beggars’) 27, 52, 141n11, Van Santvoort, Jan 352 278 Van Schoonberg, Hendrick 65 Weaving Van Schuylenburgh, Willem 270 See Textile industry Vanson, Adrian 351 Weir, Grisel 363 Van St.-Aldegonde, Marnix 19, 197, 205, 251, Wemyss 351 285–286, 290, 338, 343 Westerdyke, Jan Barents 146 Van Stavele, Karel 68–69 Western Isles 345–346, 374 Van Vleteren, Timotheus 90 Weynoet, Pieter 163–169, 185, 191 Van Wervekin, Clais 203, 207–208, 233 Whittelsey, Cambridgeshire 39 Van Wingen, Gotfried (Wingius) 59, 84, Willemyns, Roland 3, 7n12, 8, 15, 86, 88, 90, 89–90, 117, 121–122, 130, 161, 284, 381 120, 130, 173, 235, 286 Van Zuylen, Belle 373 William II, Prince of Orange 14, 48, 52 Van Zuylen van Nyevelt, Willem 111 William III, Prince of Orange and King of Veere, Zeeland 46–47, 64n13, 154, 156, 355 England, Scotland and Ireland 5–6, 11, Verheyden, Alfons 212 14, 17, 19, 25, 52, 55, 80–81, 129, 141, 146, Verhouve, Joos 64n14 150–151, 157–158, 231–233, 234, 248, Vermuyden, Bartholomew 273 260–273, 278, 280, 297, 336, 342, 354–355, Vermuyden, Cornelis 35, 38–42, 53, 74, 367, 369, 375–376, 381, 383, 386 76–77, 90, 133, 145–146 Williams, John 299, 315 Vernatti, Abraham 146 Williams, Roger 313 Vernatti, Michael 146 Williamson, Joseph 247 Vernatti, Philibert 77, 188, 275 Wills 64, 172, 221–225, 227, 233, 269, 382 Verstegen, Richard 187 Witsen, Nicolaas 193, 197, 247–248, 251, 259, Vitel, Christopher 84 267–268 Vlissingen (Flushing) 44, 46, 66, 93, 149, 154, Wren, Matthew 39 275 Wybo, Joris 284, 287 Vollenhove, Johannes 19, 52, 128, 282, 289, 296, 310–311, 315, 327, 335–336, 343 Yarmouth Volmar, Jonas 231 See Great Yarmouth Vondel, Joost van den 198, 217, 311–314, 322, 394n1 Zins-Penninck, Judith 84