Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Few contemporaries and fewer historians have seen fit to praise the diplomacy of James I, least of all in its religious aspects. Oldenbarnevelt found it impossible to follow James’s apparent tergiversation on the Dutch religious issue between 1613 and 1618, while historians have tended to look no further than a purely theological interest to explain James’s intervention. This paper does not set out to ‘rehabilitate’ James, but it does attempt to show that his actions were more coherent and had a more respectable political motive, than was hitherto believed.
1 The older, more critical line is found in Willson, D. H., James VI and I(London 1956), esp pp 399–400Google Scholar; Seelcy, J. R., The Growth of British Policy, 2 vols (Cambridge 1895) 1 pp 263–329Google Scholar, and Edmundson, G., Anglo-Dutch Rivalry (Oxford 1911)Google Scholar. More balanced verdicts were given by recent historians, notably Carter, C., The Secret Diplomacy of the Habsburgs, 1598-1625 (New York 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jones, J. R., Britain and Europe in the Seventeenth Century (London 1966)Google Scholar. For a fuller study of James’s policy towards the United Provinces see my ‘From Protectorate to Partnership. Anglo-Dutch Relations, 1598-1625’ unpubl PhD thesis (London 1978).
2 For the Dutch Reformed Church in this period see Reitsma, [J.], revised by Lindeboom, J., [Geschiedenis der hervorming en der Hervormde Kerk in Nederland] (3 ed Utrecht 1916)Google Scholar which has full references to the literature and sources; Deursen, [A. Th.] van, [Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen: kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt] (Assen 1974)Google Scholar Harrison, [A. W.], [The beginnings of Arminianism] (London 1926)Google Scholar, Nobbs, D., Theocracy and toleration (Cambridge 1938)Google Scholar and above all Brandt, [G.] [Historie der reformatie en andere kerkclyke geschiedenissen in en omirent de Nederlanden] (Amsterdam 1672)Google Scholar of which volumes 2 and 3 are relevant.
3 Van Deursen, pp 83-90, tends to minimise this social element, but lists of church-council members printed, for example, by Jaanus, H., Hervormd Delft ten tijde van Arent Comelisz (Amsterdam 1950)Google Scholar make it clear that the Reformed Church could offer one of the few avenues of advancement to those below the patriciate.
4 Spifame to Villeroy, 18/28 July 1611, PRO 31/3/42 fol 76 for an account of a con version between Cecil and Spifame on this subject.
5 Van Deursen passim; on Oldenbarnevelt’s beliefs see Tex, [J.] den, [Oldenbarnelt,] 5 vols (Haarlem 1960-72) esp 3 pp 1–35Google Scholar.
6 Ibid 3 p 204.
7 There are several detailed accounts of the Vorstius case: Rogge, H.C., ‘Het beroep van Vorstius tot hoogleeraar te Leiden,’ De Gids, 37 (Amsterdam 1873) pp 31–70, 449–558Google Scholar; den Tex, 3, pp 191-223; Shriver, [F.], [‘Orthodoxy and diplomacy; James I and the Vorstius affair,’] EHR 85 (1970) pp 449–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harrison pp 165-89; Brandt 2 pp 145-88; and the account given by James, himself in his Declaration concerning His proceedings with the States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys (London 1612) reprinted in The Works of King James I, ed Montacute, J. (London 1616)Google Scholar.
8 Shriver pp 460-3.
9 Adams, [S. L.], ‘The Protestant Cause: England and the calvinist communities of western Europe, 1585-1635’, unpubl DPhil thesis (Oxford 1972)Google Scholar, gives an excellent account of the influence of protestant sympathisers on English foreign policy and internal court politics. See also his article, ‘[The] road to La Rochelle: [English foreign policy and the Huguenots, 1610-29], Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 15 (London 1975) pp 414-29.
10 For Casaubon, see his pamphlet, , The Answere of Master Isaac Casaubon to the Epistle of the most illustrious and most Reverend Cardinal Perron (London 1612)Google Scholar. On Saravia, Nijenhuis, W., ‘Adrian Saravia en het optreden van Jacobus I tegen de benoeming van Vorstius tot hoogleeraar te Leiden’, N[ederlands] A[rchief voor] K[erkgeschiedcnis], ns 55 (Leiden 1975) pp 171–91Google Scholar, lays stress on the way in which James sought to convince European catholics of his place in the catholic and apostolic tradition by disassociating himself from extreme protestantism in the person of Vorstius.
11 Hallema, H A., Hugo de Groot, het Delfisch orakel (The Hague 1946) pp 172–3Google Scholar; Roldanus, C.W., ‘Nederlandsch-Engelsch betrekkingen op den bodem van arminianisme’, Tijdschrift voor Ceschiedenis, 58 (Groningen 1943) pp 6–21Google Scholar.
12 Duplessis-Mornay, Philippe to Frans van Aerssen, 8/18 November 1611, Les mémoires et correspondance de Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, 12 vols (Paris 1825) 11 p 348Google Scholar; Mornay to Aerssen, 3/13 December 1611, ibid pp 365-6; Mornay to Rivet, 20/30 March 1611, ibid p 183.
13 Oldenbarnevelt to Caron, 18/28 January 1612, [Johan van OJdenbamevelt,] Bescheiden [betreffende zijn staatkundig beleid en zijn familie], ed Veenendaal, A.J. (The Hague 1962)Google Scholar, Riijks] G[eschiedkundige] P[ublicatiën] G[rote] S[erie], 108 pp 247-8, 265-7.
14 See the introduction to The Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Bamauett, ed Frijlinck, W.P. (Amsterdam 1922)Google Scholar.
15 For the intellectual contacts see Winkelman, P.H., Remonstranten en katholieken in de eeuw van Hugo de Groot, (Nijmegen 1945)Google Scholar.
16 For the background to this, see Deursen, A. Th. van, Honni soit qui mal y pense; de Reputitele limen de mogendheden, 1610-12 (Amsterdam 1964)Google Scholar.
17 Shriver pp 455, 474.
18 Oldenbarnevelt to Caron, 11/21 May 1612, A[lgemeen] R[ijks]a[rchief The Hague] S[taten] v[an] H[olland] 2620c, not foliated, abbreviated in Bescheiden 2 p 517, full text in Bergh, [L. Ph. C] van den, [Intendit of acte van beschuldiging tegen mr Johan van Oldenbarnevelt] (The Hague 1875) pp 71–5Google Scholar.
19 Oldenbarnevelt to Caron, 1/11 February 1613, ARA SvH 2620c; Bescheiden, 2, p 535; van den Bergh, p 75-8. See also Oldenbarnevelt’s, replies to questions about this episode at his trial in 1619, ‘Verhooren van Johan van Oldenbarnevelt’, Berigten van het Historisch Genootschap, 2, pt 2 (Utrecht 1850) pp 37-8, 254–61Google Scholar.
20 The letters are given in Dutch translation in Triglandt, J. Kerkelyke Geschiedenisse (Leiden 1650) pp 656–7Google Scholar, with the eventual replies of the States.
21 Grotius, Hugo, Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae et Westfrisiae, (Leiden 1613)Google Scholar.
22 Grotius to Oldenbarnevelt, 9/19 April 1613, [De] Briefwisseling [van Hugo Grotius], ed Molhuysen, P. C. 1 (The Hague 1928) RGP, GS 64 pp 231–3Google Scholar.
23 Caron to Oldenbarnevelt 6-7/16-17 May 1613, Bescheiden, 2, p 544.
24 Grotius to Oldenbarnevelt 5/15 May 1613, Briefwisseling, 1, pp 234-6.
25 Abbot to Winwood, 1/11 June 1613, Memorials of Affairs of Slate in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I collected from the original papers of Sir Ralph Winwood, ed Sawyer, E., 3 vols (London 1725) 3 pp 459–60Google Scholar.
26 Den Tex, 2, pp 292-304; Rogge, H.C., ‘De resolutie der Staten van Holland tot den vrede der kerken,’ Bijdragen voor Vaderlandsch Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, 1 ser, 8 (Utrecht 1875) PP 79–12Google Scholar; Grotius to Wtenbogaert, 28 May/7 June 1614, Briefmsseling, 1, pp 324-6.
27 Casaubon to Grotius, 20/30 May 1614, Briefwisseling, 1, pp 316-17, with postscript of same date, ibid p 318; Grotius to Wtenbogaert, 6/16 June 1614, ibid pp 320-1; Grotius to Casaubon, 29 May/8 June 1614, ibid pp 321-3.
28 Reitsma pp 505-10; den Tex, 3, pp 394-438; Harrison, pp 190-240; Brandt 2, pp 288-322.
29 See my ‘Protectorate to Partnership,’ chaps 7 and 9 for the cloth trade and the East India conference, and ibid pp 168-72, for the cautionary towns.
30 Carleton to Buckingham, 1/11 September 1620, The Fortescue papers, consisting chiefly of letters relating to state affairs, collected by John Packer, secretary to George Villiers, duke Oj Buckingham, ed Gardiner, S. R., CSer, 2, 1 (1871) pp 136–7Google Scholar.
31 Aerssen’s first letter to Trumbull is dated 22 February/4 March 1614, HMC Downshift, 4, p 316. It is preserved at the Berkshire Record Office, Reading in the Trumbull Papers among the Downshire collection, Trumbull alphabetical series, 1. These letters were not known to Aerssen’s biographer Barendrecht, S., François van Aerssen diplomaat aan het Franse hof,1599-1613 (Leiden 1965)Google Scholar. Aerssen was not, as is often assumed, wholly out of office at this time, but was appointed administrator of the fiefs of Philip William, the eldest son of William the Silent, kept hostage in Spain. I am grateful to Drs J. G. Smit for bringing this to my attention.
32 One of Carleton’s informants is referred to as ‘M.A.’ in BL Harley MS 4298, fol 56. This could well refer to ‘Monsieur Aerssen’.
33 These instructions are in [Letters to and from Dudley] Carleton [during his embassy in Holland, 1616-20], ed Yorke, P. (3 ed London 1780) pp 1–8Google Scholar.
34 Carleton to Buckingham, 24 January/3 February 1617, BL Harley MS 1580, fol 212v.
35 BL Harley MS 4298, fol 50v.
36 Ibid fol 51; den Tex 3, pp 452-4.
37 BL Harley MS 4298, fol 51v.
38 For Dutch policy towards France see den Tex, 3, pp 349-93; and for England’s attitude to the Huguenots, Adams, ‘Road to La Rochelle’, pp 414-29.
39 Carleton to Winwood, 11/21 March 1617, Carleton, pp 107-113.
40 BL Harley MS 4298, fol 52r/v.
41 James to Maurice, 25 February/7 March 1617, PRO SP 84/76 fol 214, draft; James to States General, 20/30 March 1617, ARA, Sftates] G[eneral] 3176, fols 130 et seq.
42 Winwood to Carleton, 1/11 April 1617, Carleton pp 123-5.
43 BL Harley MS 4298, fol 56.
44 Oldenbarnevelt to Caron, 7/17 May 1617, Bescheiden, 3, pp 323-4.
45 Carleton to John Chamberlain, 19/29 May 1617, PRO, SP 84/77 fol 147; BL Harley MS 4298, fol 57; den Tex, 3, pp 480-2; Carleton to James I, 19/29 May 1617, Carleton PP 129-31.
46 BL Harley MS 4298, fol 63; Carleton to anon 21/31 July 1617, Carleton pp 149-50. See also den Tex, 3, pp 471-3 for opposition to the advocate inside Holland.
47 Carleton to James I, 12/22 August 1617, Carleton pp 166-8.
48 Den Tex, 3, pp 475-6, 488-530; esp pp 429-4; BL Harley MS 4298, fol 67.
49 Ibid fols 71v-4.
50 ARA, SG 5886, not foliated. The speech was printed against Carleton’s will, see Knuttel, W. Ph. C., Catalogas van de pamfletten verzameling berustende in de Koninklijke Bibliotheek 9 vols (The Hague 1889-1920) nos 2361-4 for details of the impressionsGoogle Scholar.
51 (J. Taurinus) Weeghschael om in alle billickheydt recht te overweeghen de oratie van. Dudley Carleton onlanghs ghedaen in de vergaderinghe der Staten Generaal (np 1617) On Taurinus see Rogge, H.C., ‘Jacobus Taurinus en de Utrechtsche Kerk in het begin der seventiende eeuw’, Archief voor Nederlandsche Kerkgeschiedenis, 3 (Leiden 1889) pp 105–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp pp 213 et seq.
52 Carleton to Bacon, 30 January/9 February 1618, Carleton pp 239-40.
53 Carleton to Throckmorton, 16/26 March 1618, PRO SP 84/83, fol 71; for a Swedish observer’s view of Anglo-Dutch relations in early 1618 see the letters of Johan Skytte to Oxensticrna and Gustav Adolf, from both countries, in Rikskamleren Axel Oxenstierna’s skrifter och brefvexling, ed Sonden, P., part 2, 10 (Stockholm 1901) pp 201–54Google Scholar; and den Tex, 3, pp 545-77.
54 Ledere to Puisieux, 26 June/5 July 1618. PRO 31/3/52, fol 266v.
55 Oldenbarnevelt to Caron, 28 May/June 1618, Bescheiden, 3, pp 440-1.
56 States General to James I, 16/26 June 1618, PRO SP 84/84, fol 106; den Tex, 3 pp 580-1.
57 ARA SG 3177, fols 186v-9.
58 The assertion of the Delft vroedschap member, Kittesteyn, cited by Brandt, 2, p 841, though not apparently believed there, is repeated without qualification by later writers, for example Reitsma p 517, and has been accepted too readily. Poelhekke, J., Het verraad van de pistoletten (Amsterdam 1975) p 26Google Scholar, cites the report of a Spanish spy in the United Provinces that Maurice conferred with Carleton, but the source is a dubious one. Carleton’s own letter to James I, 19/29 August 1618, Carleton pp 278-85, indicates that he had not seen Maurice, and Carleton had no reason to conceal the truth from James.
59 Naunton to Carleton, 31 August/10 September 1618, PRO SP 84/85, fol 250.
60 Aerssen to Trumbull, 12/22 March 1619, Berkshire Record Office, Trumbull MSS, 1, art 102.
61 Carleton to Naunton, 30 December/9 January 1618/19, Carleton pp 300-3.
62 Carleton to Naunton, 13/23 January 1619, PRO SP 84/99 fol 13. On Duyck and his role in the trial of Oldenbarnevelt see den Tex, 3, pp 648-9.
63 It is not possible to go into detail on the activities of the Anglo-Scots delegation at Dordrecht here. See Dewar, M., ‘The British Delegation at the Synod of Dordrecht’, Evangelical Quarterly, 56 (London 1974) pp 103–116Google Scholar; Peters, R., ‘John Hales and the Synod of Dort’, SCH, 7 (1971) pp 277–88Google Scholar; Itterzon, [G. P.] van, ‘Koning Jacobus [en de Synode van Dordrecht]’, NAK, ns 24 (1931) pp 187–204Google Scholar; Itterzon, van ‘Engelse bclangstelling voor de Canones van Dordrecht’, ibid, ns 48 (1967-8) pp 267–8Google Scholar; Henderson, G. D., ‘Scotland and the Synod of Dordt’, ibid, ns 24 (1931) pp 1–24Google Scholar; Harrison, pp 300-83; and for original English correspondence from the synod, Hales, John, Golden Remains (London 1659)Google Scholar and the letters of Samuel Ward in Bodleian Library, Tanner MS 74.
64 Brandt, 3 p 4.
65 They are printed in van Itterzon, ‘Koning Jacobus’, pp 203-4.
66 ‘Een nota van sir Francis Nethersole over de partijstrijd in de Republieken Engeland’s houding daartegenover’, ed Geyl, P., Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Cenoot-schap, 45 (Utrecht 1924) pp 66–76 esp pp 70–1Google Scholar.
67 See Hoenderdaal, G. D. ‘The debate about Arminius outside the Netherlands’, Leiden University in the seventeenth century, ed Scheurleer, Th. H. Lunsingh and Posthumus, G.H.M. Meyjes (Leiden 1975) pp 137–59, esp p 155Google Scholar.
68 Adams ‘The road to La Rochelle,’ p 428.
