| Conference Reviews Dutch Republic History Site |
|
Symposium on the Amsterdam City Hall, June 27th, 2005 Werkgroep Internationale Verhoudingen 1350-1850 10 November 2000 The studygroup for international relations held its sixth meeting amidst the splendor of the Dutch parliament buildings in The Hague at the Binnenhof, in the former assemblyroom of the States of Holland. The theme was the relations between the Dutch Republic and the southern Netherlands, ca.1621- ca.1750. Lecture summaries R. Vermeir (University of Gent) gave a brief overview of the last phase of the conflict between Spain and the Netherlands. After the Twelve Years' Truce the fighting recommenced in 1621: the former duchy of Brabant became the main battleground. The loss of Den Bosch in 1629 resulted in an atmosphere of crisis in government circles in Brussels. The Council of State there had not been convened since 1606 but now the nobility began to stir. They had been sidelined from the government because Spain wanted more centralization. Spain had favoured its own men but they had systematically failed to improve the general situation: there now was real fear that Brussels could no longer hold on on that part of Brabant it still controled. As a result, an interim-government was set up promising more power to the nobility and clergy. With the further loss of Maastricht in 1632 open rebellion led by the nobility seemed to be on hand. The Dutch Republic encouraged the citizens down south to join them via a pamfletting war; at the same time France was trying to establish a catholic confederacy. With the arrest of the Duke of Aarschot in Madrid in 1633, the rebellion never materialised. Other leading members were arrested but overall Spain reacted mildly. The main result though was the final subjugation of the nobility in Brabant and Flanders: rulers until the 17th century, they now had become servants themselves. H. de Kok (archivist of the city of Turnhout) Turnhout had been a manor since 1356. It came into the much larger domains of the Orange-Nassau family in 1612; in 1648 it was relinquished to Amalia van Solms, the widow of the late stadholder Frederik Hendrik. From then on it developed into a catholic enclave, with 4 new monastic orders admitted. It seems Amalia used Turnhout as her private courtdwelling; it was conveniently situated close to Breda, where her main rival for aspirations of the Orange family in these stadholderless years, Mary Stuart, was in possession of all the manorial rights. Turnhout could, however, hardly be compared with Breda. Although waning since the removal of the royal household to The Hague since the onset of the troubles, this still remained the most important manor belonging to the princes of Orange. Turnhout instead mainly functioned as a hunting ground; the presence of Amalia did give Turnhout some small economic gains. W. Troost (teacher in Gouda) talked about Dutch policy-making concerning the southern Netherlands under William III. That part of Brabant which had been turned over to the Dutch Republic with the peace-treaty of 1648, was not given any priviliges: they were constituted as generalitylands, with no States of their own. It was merely looked upon as a barrier towards the new enemy in the south, France. This idea was given them by the French military strategist Vauban, who likewise saw that part of Brabant retained by Spain in 1648 as a possible barrier against the Dutch. Many of the towns along this imaginary line were heavily fortified, to which the Dutch had to respond. In both the Nine Years' War (1688-1697) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713) stalemate was reached and no gains were made on both sides. C. Denys (Rijssel) talked about life in these barrier towns. With their huge military garrisons this constituted problems all of its own. To avoid too much fraternization, the garrisons were replaced every three years. Still, many problems ocurred between the civilian population and the soldiers. Although violence and prostitution were probably more frequent than in other towns, the presence of officers also brought a certain cultural refinement among ordinary people, who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to take part in this. For too long society in these towns have been looked upon as problematic and new research in this area is needed. O. van Nimwegen (Utrecht University) talked about the shifting barrier in the southern Netherlands during the first half of the 18th century. French aggression in the last quarter of the 17th century had shown that the generalitylands in the south were no longer adequate as a defensive measure. The barrier was therefore extended in 1715, away from Brabant into Flanders. As a result of the several barrier treaties, a strange co-existence was established in the Austrian Netherlands which, because it served both parties, remained for the next thirty odd years. The Dutch Republic acquired a large number of towns, which now more or less had to be administered by them (for instance Tournai and Namur). Conclusion The relations between the Dutch Republic and the southern Netherlands, whether in Spanish or Austrian hands, were never easy. Religion was the first and most obvious barrier but in reality, in everyday life, this seems not to have stopped cordial relations and trade between the people themselves. Religion was foremost an artificial barrier, which suited the authorities. It could lead to longstanding lawsuits about property and jurisdiction but it did not lead to further conflict. Later on in the 17th century neither France nor the Dutch Republic regarded this area as essential for their own use because neither occupied it for their own use. It did, however, serve ideally as a barrier between the two countries, who thus were ensured a safe area like an early warning system against attackt on their territory. Brabant and Flanders were on the one hand left to their own devices, with no strong central government to adhere to, but on the other hand had to answer to several masters at the same time. Because of the later split of the area covering Brabant and Flanders between the Netherlands and Belgium, historians on both sides have struggled to get a comprehensive grip on this once shared heritage. The national archives in The Hague, for instance, still holds large quantities of material on life in these barrier towns during the first half of the 18th century. Especially in light of the more recent complaint about the emphasis in Dutch historiography on the role of Holland, it is time to engage in a more regional approach whereby the other provinces (but also the generalitylands) are given their due attention. C.O. van der Meij STUDYGROUP ELITES 24 JanuaryThe studygroup elites met informally in Leiden this day on the occasion of the retirement of one of its leading members for the past twenty years: Jan de Jongste. A small symposium was held in his honour about the legacy of Daan Roorda, the leading light on research of elites in the Netherlands, who died in 1983. Lecture summaries Jan de Jongste (Leiden University) gave a brief overview of the career of Roorda, who should especially be remembered because of the introduction of prosopography as an important methodical tool in researching Dutch elites. This method of writing collective biographies on clearly definable groups in society has however not been without its critics, especially from social historians. They see the method of prosopography as lacking in basic theoretical structure and are critical about the asumed relationship between political power and social status. Roorda succeeded in establishing factions as more likely candidates for power politics in the Dutch Republic than parties (Orangists versus Republicans). Local groups of regents vied for political supremacy in their towns and this formed the basis of their real power. This was further determined in each States’ assembly, where new internal divisions could occur. These could be further enhanced in the States General by regional differences. The resulting shift in Dutch historiography, away from the political centre of The Hague to each locality has however gone too far. The two parties have been discredited for too long and their role needs to be reconsidered. The so-called ‘aristocratisation’ process among Dutch elites has not stood the test of time. Although certain developments towards more luxury were discernible in their lifestyles, these had little to do with a conscious effort to outdo the nobility. Dutch regents remained foremost burghers; that they sought to distinguish themselves as citizens with a special status in society was nothing out of the ordinary. Simon Groenveld (Leiden University) talked about Dutch elites in the 16th century. This is a tale of a slowly declining nobility and an ever increasing role for the urban patriciate. The role of the nobility diversified into new areas of government; they were thus incorporated in the overall structure of the emerging state to such a degree that they were still a force to be reckoned with in society. Their largest problem was demographic, in finding suitable marriage candidates - further enhanced by the onset of war and its religious and regional consequences. This led to much more concentration on keeping the property undivided in the hands of the first-born son. Other members of the family were forced to go to university or to town to find work. The urban patriciate originated in the economic spheres of each town. Here they amassed their fortunes in trade (textile, shipping or beer) which formed the basis of their future political leverage. Neither they nor the nobility were however spendthrift: familycapital was on the whole still being accumulated. Joop de Jong (Maastricht University) talked about the 17th and 18th centuries, but more specifically the relationship between current debates in society and historical interest. Het thus concluded that research of elites in the Dutch Republic in the past decade has focused largely on cultural issues. Structural analysis of the political situation at both central (party) and regional (faction) level has wavered. Apart from this, recent studies have also neglected the economic foundation of political dynasties throughout the country: how were they able to hold on to power for so long? Although we may have come to know a lot more about elites since Roorda’s death, our focus has been split into too many fragments. Local studies should have a wider aim than to be of mere regional genealogical interest, and Dutch historians ought to do more research themselves on certain key issues in the wider area of political studies. Rob van der Laarse (Amsterdam University) talked abouth the 19th century. This short period between 1815 and 1880, he considers to be a continuation of the 18th century. The usual enddate for the Dutch Republic of 1795, with the onset of French influence, should therefore be reconsidered in this area. Social stratification remained much the same. The political structure was however widened to include new local dignitaries; this in turn led to a new process of internal regrouping. Sadly, we lack sound structural analysis of this process, whereby family identity seems to have been more stressed than in earlier times. Jan Bank (Leiden University) finally gave a brief analysis for the 20th century, which is again lacking in structural analysis. He stressed the difficulty in analysing this century because of its inherent character. Differences among the generations seem to be the only fruitful approach for understanding more recent events. Conclusion The study of Dutch elites still shows many defects. First of all across the age: only the 18th century, more specifically for Holland, is well covered. Here clear conclusions can already be drawn; for the 16th and 17th centuries these are still very tentative. This can also be said for the 19th and 20th century. Ideally, before the historical field will further concentrate on the more specialized areas, a handbook on elites of the Netherlands for the period 1500-2000 should be written - the sooner the better. This could be done in the wider context of social stratification, taking the less clearly made distinctions between the various types - nobility, regents, patriciate, burghers - into account as well. Future research for the Dutch Republic will have to focus more on the political and economical importance of elites, and less on their cultural impact. C.O. van der Meij STUDYGROUP 'ELITES' CONFERENCE TALK The studygroup for elites held its annual meeting this year in the surroudings of the Raad van State (the Council of State) in The Hague. This was appropriate in view of its subject matter : the domain of the civil servant; space and identity. Lecture summaries Dr. Paul Knevel (National War Museum, Delft) talked about the functioning of civil servants in The Hague during the 17th century. Most of the generality bodies were situated at or near the so-called Binnenhof, resulting in a web of political and administrative intrigue. He distinguished at least two levels of bureaucracy : the top level of civil servants and a larger mass of administrative clerks. Working conditions and moral attitudes differed along these lines. Dr. Joke Roelevink (Institute for Netherlands History, The Hague) talked about how civil servants reacted to changing times during the brief but important period of French occupation (1795-1813). The workings of government changed radically but the civil servants took it upon them to guide this process more naturally. They were faced with frequent changes of ministerial duties and surroundings but seem to have largely adopted new French regulations into their own working practices. After lunch, drs. Jan Hein Furnée (Groningen University) talked about the self imagery of civil servants in The Hague during the second part of the 19th century. With the creation of separate ministeries, the 19th century witnessed an unprecedented growth in bureaucracy; The Hague, however, remained the political centre of the Netherlands. The city did undergo an important makeover and the culture of the civil servants became one of the the new dominant social forces. Dr. Robert Dettingmeijer (Utrecht University) talked about the role of architecture in displaying power and authority of civil servants in the 20th century. In the space of less than a hundred years these new ‘palaces’, although large in size and therefore omnipresent in the urban context, have become symbols of invisible power, rather like the purported role of bureaucracy itself. There seems no longer a need for visual reflection on what is going on in these buildings or pride taken in the social standing of civil servants. Seminar discussion C.O. van der Meij |