Belgica Caracteristica
A critical edition accompanied by contextual information and annotation
Nick Becker s2002361
Supervisor: Dr Kees Dekker 8 August 2014 Word count: 16,098
1
Abbreviations
DI - The Dutch Imbergo Upon Their State Fleet, Huntington
DE - The Dutch Embargo Upon Their State Fleet, Harvard Houghton
BC - Belgica Caracteristica, Harvard Houghton
OED - Oxford English Dictionary Online
2
Table of Contents
Abbreviations ... 1
Introduction ... 3
Chapter 1: Historical Background ... 5
1.1: The Second Anglo-Dutch War of the Seventeenth Century ... 5
1.2: Pamphlet and Propaganda Culture in England ... 10
1.3: Pamphlets during the Second Anglo-Dutch War ... 21
Chapter 2: Edition of Belgica Caracteristica ... 24
Introduction to Belgica Caracteristica ... 24
Belgica Caracteristica: or the Dutch Character. Being News from Holland. A Poem ... 33
Explanatory Notes ... 42
Analysis ... 55
Conclusion ... 60
3
Introduction
The three Anglo-Dutch Wars of the seventeenth century (taking place in 1652-1654, 1665-1667, and 1672-1674 respectively) have been overshadowed in English history by other major events of political importance, such as the Civil War, Interregnum and subsequent
Restoration. Even so, the country’s wars with the Dutch Republic were certainly relevant on a European scale: at least from the viewpoint of the English, their trade supremacy and
dominion of the seas depended on a total victory over the Dutch. Trade rivalry between these two major players was intense, and it should come as no surprise that both parties eagerly employed propaganda to incite rage against the opposing nation, to convince the public of the rightenousness of their cause, or simply to mock their rivals.
As during any other war, thousands of pamphlets were printed in England to coincide with the Anglo-Dutch wars. Pamphlet culture, together with print culture in general, was booming, and an increasingly literate population began to consume printed work as
entertainment on a large scale. Pamphlets written on the occasion of the Anglo-Dutch Wars could take many forms, including that of serious news reports, ballads celebrating the latest English victory, or short, sometimes humorous, works in verse that were not written for any particular occasion, but rather just to coincide with a war in general.1
One of these poems is Belgica Caracteristica by John Crouch, a royalist author working from London that has gone relatively unnoticed in the course of literary and bibliographical studies. It is a poem that is brimming with optimism for the English cause, and seems to taunt the Dutch by referring to past English victories, stressing, almost
1 This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of the types of anti-Dutch propaganda, which could take many
4
threateningly, that an all-out English domination is inevitable unless the Dutch capitulate. The poem’s style is markedly generic, and its subject matter hardly original, which means that it has so far fallen short of appearing in compilations or discussions of early modern poetry. Its author, John Crouch, if discussed at all, is frequently derided and dismissed as nothing more than a “mere peddler of dull obscenities”.1
Yet despite the fact that Belgica does not belong to the canon of early modern literature, and that its literary merits are minimal, it is still a valuable tool for the study of many aspects of early modern culture, and can be used to gain a better understanding of, among other things, English pamphlet culture in general, or on the style of pamphlets circulated specifically. As a historical artifact, it also teaches us about the way early modern audiences in Britain saw the Anglo-Dutch wars, or at least how they were portrayed to them through pamphlets. By itself, however, the pamphlet can only reveal so much, and anyone interested in using it as a source for their own studies will benefit from an introduction to the period the pamphlet was conceived in, and a discussion of its contents.
To accommodate the need for this knowledge of context and content, this thesis will present an extensively annotated critical edition of Crouch’s Belgica Caracteristica, rendered in the original Early Modern English, accompanied by a bibliographical introduction, and featuring extensive notes that cover both textual variation and contextual references. The text of Belgica is preceded by a background chapter that aims to provide a brief introduction to the Second Anglo-Dutch War and the English printing culture of the mid-seventeenth century.
5
Chapter 1: Historical Background
No text exists solely in a vacuum. Every written work is a product of its time, in form and content, and the same applies to its author; as a historical object, it can be placed within a specific context. A historical contextualization of a text will therefore serve to gain a better understanding of its contents.1 The following two sections will each contribute to the establishment of this contextualization: in the first, the Second Anglo-Dutch War of the seventeenth century will be introduced in broad strokes, paying special attention to political and social relations between the English and Dutch nations; the second section deals with the pamphlet and reading culture in England during the 1660s. Finally, the third section will introduce the use of the pamphlet for anti-Dutch propaganda purposes. Combined, these three sections will allow for a better understanding of the socio-political environment in which
Belgica Caracteristica was conceived.
1.1: The Second Anglo-Dutch War of the Seventeenth Century
It would be difficult to produce a satisfying description of English pamphlet culture during the mid-seventeenth century without focusing on the war that spurred the production of many pamphlets, and that caused a boom in pamphlet culture in general. The war discussed in this section took place from 1665 to 1667, and was the second of three maritime conflicts that broke out between England and the newly-formed Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century
1 Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda During the English Civil Wars and Interregnum
6
(the first taking place from 1652 to 1654, the third from 1672 to 1674).1 This section does not
seek to describe the second war and its political complexities in its entirety, as it goes beyond the scope of this thesis. Instead, a short description will be given of the political situation that led to the outbreak of hostilities, which in turn will be linked to the production and use of pamphlets related to the war in the third section. Although it might seem sensible to include all three wars in the short overview here, especially given that they all take place in the span of twenty years, they are considerably different in their causes and in their circumstances. The first war was fought between the Dutch Republic and the Commonwealth of England under Cromwell, whereas the third also involved France and was not exclusively a naval war. Since
Belgica Caracteristica hails from the first year of the Second Anglo-Dutch war (1665), a
basic understanding of that conflict alone will suffice.2
The dominant theory concerning the cause of the second war is that it was initiated by factions in the English parliament that lobbied for an aggressive mercantilist approach to
1 A fourth war erupted in 1780, but it differs from the earlier three in multiple ways: the war took place over a
hundred years after the third war, and it was not fought between the same nations, as the English and Scottish crowns had merged following the Acts of Union in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. For a description of the fourth war, see H. M. Scott, “Sir Joseph Yorke, Dutch Politics and the Origins of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War,” The Historical Journal 31.3 (1988): 571-589.
2 A more detailed discussion of the second Dutch war can be found in Gijs Rommelse, The Second
Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667) (Hilversum: Verloren, 2006). For an introduction to all three wars of the seventeenth
century, see J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch Wars; Charles Wilson, Profit and Power: A Study of England and the
Dutch Wars (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1978); or C.R. Boxer, The Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th Century, 1652-1675
7
Anglo-Dutch trade issues.1 These factions believed that a second war would greatly enhance
English trade prospects, income, and would not drag on for too long.2 Mercantile interests lay mainly with the expansion of English trade, which at the time was hampered by Dutch
dominance in several faraway territories, particularly along the coast of West Africa and in the East Indies.3 For English merchants – and consequently members of parliament that were backed by merchants or were merchants themselves – the Dutch were seen as the single largest obstruction in obtaining a greater share of the world’s trade.4 Those in the navy, on the other hand, were more interested in going to war for personal gain: young and ambitious naval officers hoped for a chance to attain glory and prize money. Additionally, the war would lead to more work opportunities for unemployed sailors, and to new contracts for businesses, like those of shipbuilders.5 As such, the reasons for parliament to support the war
appear almost wholly commercial.6 This war, and to some extent the other two as well, were therefore something of an anomaly in the region at the time – they were not the direct result of
1 This is a generally accepted viewpoint, but certainly not the only one. For a discussion of the various
motivations behind the second war, see Steven C. A. Pincus, “Popery, Trade and Universal Monarchy: The Ideological Context of the Outbreak of the Second Anglo-Dutch War,” The English Historical Review 107.422 (1992): 1-29.
2 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch Wars 187.
3 For more information on the Dutch world trade during the first three Anglo-Dutch Wars, see Jonathan I. Israel,
Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740 (Oxford: OUP, 1989). See pages 269-279 in particular for
Anglo-Dutch relations.
4 Perhaps surprisingly, one of the main players in English international trade, the East India Company, was not
entirely supportive of a new war, fearing financial losses. See Steven C. A. Pincus, “Popery” 8.
5 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch Wars 146.
6 They were, of course, not entirely so. Several of the underlying ideological conflicts between the English and
8
a threat (either real or imagined) from different persons, states or coalitions. England’s sovereignty over its lands was not disputed, nor was its territory under threat of invasion. Instead, the wars were born largely out of the need for commercial gain (other interests certainly coincided with these). The second war in particular dealt with territories that were not even near the homeland: early conflicts between the English and Dutch trading companies took place in the Caribbean and near the coast of Western Africa, and only later led to
aggression in European waters.1
Throughout the war, English politicians and pamphleteers made use of a relatively fixed staple of arguments in support of the war. One argument that largely coincided with mercantilist interests, and was therefore not wholly untrue, was the fact that the Dutch possessed much of the lucrative trade business, and had taken over business previously carried out by the English. 2 This was often extended to include the notion that the Dutch were attempting to establish a mare clausum, or closed sea, in the East Indies, an idea that was particularly propagated by the Anglo-Irish politician Sir George Downing.3 Downing served as an English ambassador to the United Provinces on several occasions, and was one of the main forces behind the Navigation Act of 1660, which sought to curtail Dutch freedom on the seas surrounding England.4 He felt that England could only obtain greater wealth by
1 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch Wars 146. 2 Jonathan I. Israel, Dutch Primacy 199-200.
3 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch War 147. For information on the concept of mare clausum, see Mónica Brito
Vieira, “Mare Liberum vs Mare Clausum: Grotius, Freitas, and Selden’s Debate on Dominion over the Seas,”
Journal of the History of Ideas 64.3 (2003): 361-377.
4 For a detailed discussion of Downing’s activities in the Dutch Republic, see Roger Downing and Gijs
9
overcoming the Dutch, and was a strong supporter of aggression and eventually war.1 It was a
common belief that this could be achieved by forcing the Dutch into submission; initially, this was attempted through diplomacy, but when negotiations failed more bellicose parties in English parliament resorted to calls for war. Some reasons that were based on earlier events were also offered: the English role in the liberation of the Dutch provinces from Spain, during the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648), in the early seventeenth century was frequently used as an argument to claim that the Dutch owed their current freedom and success to the English, and that it was ungrateful of them to now wish to surpass the English in wealth and power. Several prominent English figures, among which the poet and courtier Philip Sidney, perished in the Dutch War of Independence.2 Whether the newly restored King Charles II supported the development of anti-Dutch policies, or thought it the most sensible course of action, is not entirely clear, but he did not actively attempt to dissuade others from promoting them.3 His brother James (the later King James II), however, was a staunch supporter of a new war with
or Jonathan Scott, “’Good Night Amsterdam’. Sir George Downing and Anglo-Dutch Statebuilding,” The
English Historical Review 118 (2003): 334-356.
1 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch War 153.
2 Robert Lloyd Haan, The Treatment of England and English Affairs in Dutch Pamphlet Literature, 1640-1660
(Ann Arbor: UMI, 1980): 9.
3 Steven Pincus argues that the king’s decision not to oppose anti-Dutch actions was simply a matter of
10
the Dutch, and he and his supporters lobbied tirelessly for this cause.1 These factions, and
others still, all thought a war would be won swiftly and largely effortlessly, and result in total victory for the English.2 Instead, after the decisive Battle of the Medway (1667), the second war ended in a victory for the Dutch.3 A treaty was signed at Breda in 1667, ushering in a peace that lasted just five years.
From this brief background it already becomes apparent that there were multiple reasons for the English to initiate the second Anglo-Dutch war, some of which were more openly communicated than others. Whatever the underlying motives of the war’s proponents were, however, there was still a need to convey news of the conflict to the general public, and to win popular support. In this period this was often achieved through various forms of printed materials, the pamphlet being foremost among them. To allow for a clear
contextualization of Belgica Caracteristica, the pamphlet culture in England during and around the Anglo-Dutch wars will be discussed in the next section.
1.2: Pamphlet and Propaganda Culture in England
During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the pamphlet evolved not only as a political tool, but also grew in popularity and in value.4 As will be outlined below, the pamphlet
1 John Shovlin, “Trade, International Competition, and Political Economy,” Mercantilism Reimagined: Political
Economy in Early Modern Britain and its Empire, eds. Philip J. Stern and Carl Wennerlid (New York: OUP,
2014): 309.
2 J.R. Jones, The Anglo-Dutch War 146.
3 For more information on the Battle of the Medway, see P. G. Rogers, The Dutch in the Medway (London, OUP,
1970); or Anthony Bailey, “Inferno on the Medway,” MHQ: Quarterly Journal of Military History 9.4 (1997): 50-59.
11
developed from a humble and lowly piece of entertainment for the masses to a powerful and irrepressible type of publication. This development was not unique to England; the
pamphlet’s influence increased equally on the European mainland, peaking in the mid-seventeenth century.1 In order to fully comprehend the growth and use of the pamphlet, it is useful to establish what exactly constituted a pamphlet in the mid-seventeenth century.
In contemporary definitions, “pamphlet” commonly refers to a single sheet of paper folded into a short leaflet, often for informative purposes. UNESCO defines a pamphlet as “a non-periodical printed publication of at least 5 but not more than 48 pages”, adding no specifications as to its contents or function.2 Usage of the term varied greatly in the early modern period, and fluctuated over time. During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, anything from a “book” to a “small book” could refer to what is now called a pamphlet.3 Even so, some general characteristics can still be noted. By the late sixteenth century, the term generally referred to a work consisting of one to twelve sheets, often folded in quarto.4 As such, a pamphlet could therefore still be a relatively sizeable work. Like the larger books of the period, they were mostly sold unbound; customers would buy the loose sheets and bring them to a binder themselves. Occasionally, though, a number of pamphlets would be bound, and sold as a whole.5 Pamphlets were not only generally shorter than other
1 Robert Lloyd Haan, The Treatment of England 2.
2 “Recommendation Concerning the International Standardization of Statistics Relating to Book Production and
Periodicals,” 19 November 1964, Unesco, 5 May 2014.
3 Alexandra Halasz, The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England
(Cambridge: CUP, 1997) 3.
4 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 5.
5 Alexandra Halasz, The Marketplace of Print 3. Alternatively, they were sold in stitched bundles, see Michael
12
books, but also smaller, and this size difference is reflected in the records from inventories of the period.1 Books were typically arranged in groups according to size, rather than entered individually, which meant that pamphlets were generally found near the end of catalogues of sale, or inventories.2 Smaller sized books were often, with very few exceptions, considered to be of lesser value than larger works, especially those of folio format. As a result, the pamphlet came to be associated with cheap, dispensable print.3
Due to being viewed as essentially disposable, pamphlets were regarded as examples of fringe literature: they were intended to be bought, perused quickly and then thrown away again, while its buyer would move on to the next piece of entertainment. This function was in stark contrast with the respectability that accompanied “serious” writing, which was intended to be studied more intensively and to be kept and stored for longer periods of time. Despite this, pamphlets were massively popular. In some ways, they are not entirely dissimilar to modern tabloid magazines: they cost relatively little to produce, are not made of high-end material and therefore not intended to last, with a shelf-life of approximately a week, or a month – its main purpose is often to entertain. The comparison is, of course, strenuous at best, but is mostly to illustrate what function a pamphlet might serve in comparison to other printed work in early modern England.4 Another factor that contributed both to the pamphlet’s
growing popularity and to its image as a lowly publication was that it became increasingly
England,” Material Texts: Books and Readers in Early Modern England, eds. Jennifer Andersen and Elizabeth Sauer Philadelphia: U of Philadelphia P, 2002): 204.
1 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 4.
2 Michael Mendle, “Ephemeral” 204.
3 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 5.
4 For a comparison between early modern pamphlet and modern “mass market” product, see also Alexandra
13
associated with libel and slander.1 Pamphlets, representing an accessible mode of publication,
were simply a suitable vehicle for transferring libellous or views. It is important to note, however, that the notion of a pamphlet is not synonymous with libel; indeed, any other type of publication with potentially defamatory contents could be seen as “libel” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2
As pamphlets were largely seen as ephemeral works, it seems remarkable to consider the great amount that has survived to this day. Of course, these copies have survived in most cases not because of their perceived worth, but simply as a result of their sheer quantity. A successful pamphlet could receive multiple reprints and updated editions. Realistically, at least a few of these would manage to avoid destruction or recycling.3 Additionally, the popularity of collecting grew throughout the seventeenth century, and the size of private libraries increased. Eventually, even ephemeral printed works like pamphlets were deigned important enough to be collected, although sometimes grudgingly so.4 It is from these first private libraries and collections that the bulk of the remaining pamphlets hail.
By far the best-known and most sizeable of these is the Thomason Collection of Civil War Tracts. George Thomason (1602-1666) was an English bookseller and collector who had gathered over 22,000 books and pamphlets published during the English Civil War and the
1 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 8.
2 Adam Fox, “Ballads, Libels and Popular Ridicule in Jacobean England,” Past and Present 145.1 (1994): 266;
Andrew McRae, “Reading Libels: An Introduction,” Huntington Library Quarterly 69.1 (2006): 1; Alastair Bellany, “Railing Rhymes Revisited: Libels, Scandals, and Early Stuart Politics,” History Compass 5.4 (2007): 1137.
3 Michael Mendle, “Ephemeral” 202.
14
Interregnum (1640-1661).1 While in his care, he had them arranged in chronological order
and bound, currently being divided in more than 2,000 volumes. After his death, the
collection was eventually purchased from his descendants by King George III, and they were named the “King’s Pamphlets”, after which they were presented to the British Museum. They are now housed in the British Library, with the entire collection stored as a whole in St. Pancras, London.2 The Thomason Tracts now form an invaluable tool for the study of Civil
War pamphlets.3
Another important collection that contains early modern pamphlets is the George III Collection or the King’s Library, which is home to over 65,000 books and 19,000 pamphlets.4
Other Collections?5
1 Stoker, David. “Thomason, George (c.1602–1666).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Eds. H. C. G.
Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed. Ed. Lawrence Goldman. Oct. 2008. 5 Jul. 2014 <http://www.oxforddnb.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/view/article/27250>.
2 Like many other early modern pamphlets, the entire Thomason collection has been made available digitally
through Early English Books Online.
3 For more information on George Thomason and his collection, see Lois Spencer, “The Professional and
Literary Connexions of George Thomason”, Library (1958) s5-13.2 (1958): 102-118; and “The Politics of George Thomason,” Library vs5-14.1 (1959): 11-27.
4 For information on the King’s Library, see Graham Jefcoate, “Most Curious, Splendid and Useful: The King’s
Library of George III,” Englightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Kim Sloan with Andrew Burnett (London: British Museum P, 2003).
5 More information on the collecting of pamphlets in seventeenth-century can be found in Michael Mendle,
“Ephemeral”. The importance of inventories and catalogues from the early modern period is discussed in Malcolm Walsby and Natasha Constantinidou, eds., Documenting the Early Modern Book World: Inventories
15
The pamphlet’s rise as a medium reflects an overall explosion of print in England. While this can be seen as a constantly ongoing process, there are a few particular moments, or events, that sparked new revolutions. A crucial moment for pamphlets can be found in the 1580s, which saw them transformed into a staple of booksellers’ inventories.1 Aside from
such general developments, conflict in particular proved to be a strong instigator for boosts in printing, and pamphlet publication in particular. Prime examples of this are the French Wars of Religion in the 1560s and the Eighty Years’ War, but also the English Civil War, which caused a tremendous increase in the amount of printed material in England.2 During this conflict, both sides – the royalists and the parliamentarians – gladly made use of print to spread their message and to win popular vote for their cause. Although Cromwell and the Commonwealth made attempts to curb the spread of pamphlets that attacked their
government, they were unsuccessful in repressing the spread of pamphlets, both seditious and conformist, for a longer period of time.
So far, pamphlets have only been discussed from the viewpoint of politics and government, but it would be a mistake to assume that only these parties had an interest in pamphlets. On the contrary, while the many revolutions, restorations, crises and wars of the period were the catalysts that set off the growth of pamphlet culture, it was the public interest in low-priced and accessible writing that kept it alive and viable as a medium. As pamphlets required a relatively low investment and were very popular among the reading public, it proved to be a very suitable method for up-and-coming authors to try and attract a reading
1 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 11-12.
2 P.M. Handover, Printing in London from 1476 to Modern Times (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1960): 116;
16
audience. During most of the seventeenth century, and certainly before, authors did not receive much compensation for their work.1 In fact, in many instances, the authors were rewarded for their efforts not with money, but with printed copies of their work.2 The time and research needed to prepare, write, and produce a large volume for a large sum of money in the end would require authors to already have the means available to support themselves with existing funds or a different income. Due to their lowly status, the writing of pamphlets was considered to be a pursuit not befitting a gentleman, especially not if this was done in an attempt to earn a livelihood;3 a gentlemen should not have to have any profession in order to support himself, and should have free command of his time.4 In general, there were few in early modern England who could profess to being full-time writers in the modern sense of the word;5 indeed, most authors of longer books were primarily politicians, scholars and/or
members of the clergy, and they often earned very little from the publication of their work, if anything at all (the whole concept of copyright and royalties had not yet been established).6
1 Sandra Clark, The Elizabetan Pamphleteers: Popular Moralistic Pamphlets 1580-1640 (London: The Athlone
Press, 1983) 25-26.
2 Joseph Loewenstein, Author’s Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002):
95.
3 Gentlemen did, however, engage in the reading of “easy” or mass-market pamphlets. See Nigel Wheale,
Writing and Society: Literacy, Print and Politics in Britain 1590-1660 (London: Routledge, 1999): 91.
4 Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1998) 176;
Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 57; Arthur F. Marotti, “Manuscript, Print, and the Social History of the Lyric,” The Cambridge Companion to English Poetry, Donne to Marvell, ed. Thomas N. Corns
(Cambridge: CUP, 1993): 68.
5 H. S. Bennet, English Books and Readers 1603 to 1640: Being a Study in the History of the Book Trade in the
Reigns of James I and Charles II (Cambridge: CUP, 1970): 2.
17
Members of the gentry or the upper classes occasionally dabbled in writing, often in poetry, but this was done out of personal interest, not with the aim of earning a living. Although it was, by the time of the Anglo-Dutch wars, already possible to earn a living by writing, this was still not seen as a wholly respectable occupation – and pay was still not generous.1 As a result, authors often did not possess the funds required to support themselves during the process of writing a longer book; pamphlets, on the other hand, allowed their authors something akin to a steady wage.2
Pamphlets also served as a way for the authors to advertise themselves. It was not uncommon for pamphlets to include a dedication to a famous and influential public figure, often a known patron of other artists, in order to curry favour. This could realize itself in the form of future employment, or that of a courtesy payment.3 Generally, the writer would
approach the patron beforehand to ask for permission to dedicate the text to them; not all authors went through the trouble to do so, however.4 It should not be assumed, however, that the precarious financial position of the author meant that pamphlets were written only for monetary gain. It was not uncommon for authors to risk financial loss just to successfully write, print and publish a pamphlet in order to denounce or attack an important issue.5 Even
1 Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book 172, 175; Jason McElligott, Royalism, Print and Censorship in
Revolutionary England (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007): 99; Graham Parry, The Seventeenth Century: The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature, 1603-1700 (London: Longman, 1989): 125.
2 For publishers too, such shorter publications could be effectively employed as ‘filler’ publications, to release in
the lull between bigger books. See Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 55; Nigeal Wheale, Writing
and Society 90.
18
so, certainly not all pamphlets were written purely out of ideological conviction – writing to sell was as much a feature of the early modern marketplace as it is of today’s – and aside from establishing specific patronage it was in the author’s best interest to appeal to the general reader and attract an audience as large as possible.
It should be noted, though, that the phrase ‘the general reader’ here has different connotations than it does when applied to the modern period. Today it can be assumed that most adult inhabitants of England (who have completed their mandatory five years of school) are able to read; adult literacy is nearly at one hundred per cent.1 This was clearly not the case during the middle of the seventeenth century. Accurate figures for literacy rates at the time are difficult to ascertain, but approximately thirty per cent of the male population would have been literate around 1600, which would have risen to about fifty per cent around the turn of the eighteenth century.2 For women, this percentage would have been even lower, as the number of women required to read for occupational purposes is likely to have been negligible to overall figures; this is estimated to be ten per cent around 1600 and perhaps thirty per cent around 1700.3 Different researchers have come up with varying figures, but there is a general consensus that, while still low for modern standards, the literacy rate grew strongly during the seventeenth century.4 While these numbers refer to the population as a whole, there are key differences between the various segments of the population. Those with better means were
1 “2011 Skills for Life Survey: Headline Findings”, Gov.uk, 7 April 2014.
2 Keith Thomas, “The Meaning of Literacy in Early Modern England,” The Written Word: Literacy in
Transition, ed. Gerd Baumann (Oxford: OUP, 1986) 99.
3 Keith Thomas, “The Meaning of Literacy” 100.
4 Nigel Wheale, for example, estimates male literacy to have still been at thirty per cent in the 1680s, and female
19
more likely to have received an education.1 Literacy among the landed gentry and the upper
classes of English society would likely have approached a full one hundred per cent, whereas among farmers and labourers in rural areas it would have been much lower. Mirroring the differences in social class, but not necessarily running parallel to these, is the fact that different occupations also lead to different literacy levels. Shopkeepers were more likely to have been literate than servants in estates, and the same applies to philosophers on the one hand and sailors on the other. All in all, it can be said that even the figures we do have access to only paint a part of the picture, although they do offer an indication. The concept of literacy that we hold today might have been very different in the early modern period.2 Being able to read simple print was regarded as the most basic level of literacy. In some circles, you would not be considered literate until you could read Latin and Greek.3 Literacy could even be
limited by the choice of typeface, with some individuals able to read blackface, but not roman, or – admittedly more unlikely – only italic and not roman.4 Actual literacy rates might have been higher than is generally assumed, which would mean that printed works, such as pamphlets, would have been able to reach an even larger reading audience.
Even when assuming that the thirty percent literacy figure is valid, this does not also mean that only thirty per cent of the overall population would have had access to the
information or news spread through pamphlets. Notably, news could travel through coffee houses, an institution relatively new to the period that would become of paramount
1 For a detailed discussion of the relationship between status and literacy, see Nigel Wheale, Writing and Society
1-41.
2 Keith Thomas, “The Meaning of Literacy” 99.
3 Wyn Ford, “The Problem of Literacy in Early Modern England,” History 78 (1993): 22-23.
20
importance to public life in England throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the time of the Second Anglo-Dutch war, the coffee house was still a relatively new invention (the first was opened in 1652), but already immensely popular.1 In these coffee houses, patrons could discuss recent events, the news, or other important matters, and could gossip to their heart’s content while enjoying a warm cup of coffee.2 Subject matters varied wildly, but
discussions were certainly very open, and any topic could be discussed, as long as it was done in a decent manner. Owing to the open exchange of ideas and discussion of recent events, coffee houses also served as hubs for the distribution of pamphlets, which would sometimes be read aloud. Those who did not regularly attend coffee houses still encountered such
pamphlets in inns and taverns, or even on the streets. News still regularly travelled by word of mouth, often in the form of poems, songs, and ballads that could easily be memorized.3 These
could then be transferred to individuals from all social classes, even those who did not have
1 Keith Suter, “The Rise and Fall of English Coffee Houses,” Contemporary Review 286.1669 (2005): 107;
Markman Ellis, “An Introduction to the Coffee-house: A Discursive Model,” Language & Communication 28 (2005): 157; also see Steve C. A. Pincus, “’Coffee Houses Politicians Does Create’: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture,” The Journal of Modern History 67.4 (1995): 807-834.
2 Perhaps unsurprisingly, the authorities were not always pleased with the possibility of a free flow of ideas in
these establishments. See Stephen Bardle, The Literary Underground in the 1660s: Andrew Marvell, George
Wither, Ralph Wallis, and the World of Restoration Satire and Pamphleteering (Oxford: OUP, 2012): 92.
3 Pauline Croft, “Libels, Popular Literacy and Public Opinion in Early Modern England,” Historical Research
68.167 (1995): 266; Ian Atherton, “The Itch Grown a Disease: Manuscript Transmission of News in the Seventeenth Century,” News, Newspapers and Society in Early Modern Britain, ed. Joad Raymond (London: Frank Cass P, 1999) 39; Elisabetta Cecconi: “Comparing Seventeenth-Century News Broadsides and Occasional News Pamphlets,” Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, Pamphlets and Scientific News
21
the opportunity to read or buy the printed versions.1 As can be seen, London in the 1660s
served as a treasure trove of printed information, and even the most humble labourer would have the opportunity to access these pamphlets, even if he might not be able to read them himself.
Pamphlets, and print culture in general, were thriving by the 1660s, and would continue to expand in the years to come. They played a vital role in the public and political spheres of English life, and would be utilized by both government and citizen for various purposes. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they were also used extensively throughout the second Anglo-Dutch Wars.
1.3: Pamphlets during the Second Anglo-Dutch War
The need to gain public support was much greater during the second Anglo-Dutch war than during the first. As detailed above, mercantile interests served as the incentive for supporting the war for many politicians, and the imagined benefits of achieving victory at the expense of the Dutch was often employed by pamphleteers (whether directly employed by others or on their own accord) as a means of explaining the necessity of war to the general public.2 This is understandable; one could imagine the public would not be too eager to support a war if only a select few naval officers were to benefit. A more conventional situation – where for
example the actual livelihood and possessions of the general populace were at stake – might have made it easier to win public support. As it turned out, though, morale was at a high in all layers of society, since the Restoration of the English Crown in 1660 had led to a general sense of optimism among the English people. Support for the war was widespread, due to a
1 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 91.
22
strong general anti-Dutch mood, partially caused by the many anti-Dutch pamphlet published around the start of the second war.1
Aside from attempts to influence public opinion by referring to the prospect of economic profit, anti-Dutch sentiments were also raised through depictions of Dutch injustices against the English Crown, nation and people. A commonly referenced event was the infamous Amboyna Massacre of 1623.2 The actual severity of the massacre and the
lawfulness of it have been contested in the past, but it cannot be denied that it served as a very useful tool in rallying the English people against the Dutch, despite the fact that the massacre took place almost half a decade before the outbreak of the second war.3 As is still the case with propaganda today, well-known events were readily used to gather public support.4 Aside from the Amboyna Massacre, other by the Dutch, such as the West Indian’s takeover of English trading posts on the coast of Guinea, were largely brought to public attention through publication.5
1 Jonathan I. Israel, Dutch Primacy 273-274; Paul Seaward, “The House of Commons Committee of Trade and
the Origins of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, 1664,” The Historical Journal 30.2 (1987): 437-443.
2 For a description of the Amboyna Massacre, see Alison Games, “Violence on the Fringes: The Virginia (1622)
and Amboyna (1623) Massacres,” History 99 (2014): 505-529; D. K. Bassett, “The ‘Amboyna Massacre’ of 1623,” Journal of Southeast Asian History 1.2 (1960): 1-19.
3 Alison Games, “Violence” 507; For more on the immediate political aftermath of the massacre, see Karen
Chancey, “The Amboyna Massacre in English Politics, 1624-1632,” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned
with British Studies 30.4 (1998): 583-598.
4 Jason Peacey, Politicans and Pamphleteers, 239.
5 It should not be assumed, however, that the Dutch had no defenders among English authors. See Stephen
23
In the three sections of this chapter I have attempted to introduce the basic
circumstances of the second Anglo-Dutch war, to outline the function of pamphlets in mid-seventeenth century England, and to contextualize the use of pamphlets and propaganda to promote the war and defame the Dutch during the second war. The next chapter introduces
Belgica Caracteristica with a full bibliographical description, and presents the edition text,
24
Chapter 2: Edition of Belgica Caracteristica
Introduction to Belgica Caracteristica
This thesis deals with the text of Belgica Caracteristica, or, The Dutch Character Being
Nevvs from Holland: A Poem, a second impression of the poem. There is another version
referred to as the second impression, called The Dutch Embargo upon Their State Fleet, or,
Nevves from Holland, A Poem. Finally, the original version is named The Dutch Imbergo upon Their State Fleet, or, Nevvs from Holland a Poem. Throughout this critical edition, the
poem in general (regardless of its version) is referred to as Belgica Caracteristica. Specific versions are referred to by their abbreciations (BC, DE and DI respectively). Digital scans of the three versions have been made available through Early English Books Online.
Editions
The poem currently survives in three versions, each slightly different from the other. The most markedly different variant is DI, which – unlike the others – appears to be the original. It was printed in 1665 by Edward Crouch, and contains the same text as the later versions. These, BC and DE, are referred to on their imprints as improved second impressions. They are improvements over the original in many ways: most differences concern spelling errors that have been corrected, or belong to the categories of improved capitalization, indentation, and italicization. In a few rare instances, the choice of words has been altered (for example, BC and DE have ‘like’ in line 54, where DI has ‘as’). The title page and page layout of the later versions also differs.
25
a corrected version of DI’s title, which could be taken as a sign that it appeared before BC, but there is no evidence to support this; it could be equally likely that BC appeared first, with DE being published next with a title more reminiscent of the original document. The changes that appear in these copies should not be attributed to the author too readily. At the time, proof-reading was mostly done by the printer’s staff, if a proof-reader was even on the payroll. Only rarely would the author proof-read their own work, and it was not uncommon for authors to not see their work again until it had already been printed.1 The same applies to the text’s layout: an author would supply the printer with a written copy of their work, who would then have the compositor decide on an appropriate make-up of the text, right down to font choice, letter size, and – perhaps surprisingly – the use of capitals and italics for
emphasis.2 This, especially, means that the choice of italics in certain words in Belgica cannot
purely be seen as reflecting the author’s wish for emphasis. Even so, considering Crouch’s printer was a relative of his, he may have been more involved in the process than most others would have been.
Provenance
As non-polemic or libellous texts, these pamphlets would have been sold openly by
booksellers at shops, or by hawkers in the streets. Crouch was not a well-known author, and although no written records exist of his works’ print runs and sales, it can be assumed that his reach did not extend too far beyond London and its immediate surroundings. Popular
1 Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering 78. Even so, some printers expected the authors to do their own
proofreading as the book was being printed, see H. S. Bennett, Books and Readers 212.
26
pamphlets have been known to be printed in other more faraway cities as well, or to travel quickly by coach throughout the country, but no evidence of this exists for Belgica.1
Two of the surviving copies, the BC and DI versions, were once part of the sizeable collection of the avid English book collector Richard Heber (1773-1833). He spent most of his adult life travelling the country, and subsequently all of Europe, in search of more rare books for his library. He purchased printed and manuscript copies of books, often of early English (verse) literature, or Greek and Latin classics. On several occasions, he purchased entire libraries.2 It is unknown at which point Heber acquired the Belgica pamphlets, or where he purchased them. After his death, his collection was sold both in England and on the
continent. All the works on sale were divided over a total of sixteen sales catalogues, each of which contained items sold over a period of several days. The DI and BC versions are recorded in the fourth volume of the catalogue, under part four, which were sold by Mr. Evans at his house in Pall Mall, between December 9th and 25th.3 Lot 528 contains the DI copy alongside fifteen other volumes from between 1660 and 1680, dealing with a variety of topics. These were sold on day 3, or December 11th, and categorized simply as ‘quarto’. The BC copy is included in lot 2218 under day 11, (December 20th) which contains twenty-four
pamphlets printed between 1663 and 1667, many of which relate in some way to the Anglo-Dutch wars.
1 See Alexandra Halasz, Marketplace and Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book for more on the transmission of
pamphlets.
2 At the time of his death, his collection was reported to encompass over 140,000 works (ODNB)
3 Bibliotheca Heberiana: Catalogue of the Library of the Late Richard Heber: Sold by Auction by Sotheby and
27
It is not known whether the items were sold immediately, or who bought them, but the DI copy eventually made its way to the Library of Britwell Court. Currently known as
Grenville Court, Britwell Court was home to William Henry Miller (1789-1848), a Scottish book collector. After his death, Britwell Court remained within the family until 1919, when it – and the contents of the library – were sold off. The DI copy is recorded in the first volume of the sales catalogue, which contains predominantly song books, but also “many other rarities of the first importance” (1).1 These items were sold on the 15th of December. Lot 179
contains only The Dutch Imbergo, which is described as having a “woodcut border to title, half calf” (23). At this sale it was purchased by the Huntington Library, where it currently resides.
Belgica Caracteristica was not recorded in the Britwell sales catalogue, and must have
been purchased by an unknown party during the earlier Heber collection sale. It currently resides at Harvard’s Houghton Library, where the Dutch Embargo copy is also located. While there is no evidence of the transmission of the DE copy, it may be assumed that it followed a similar road as the BC copy, and that it was part of some individual’s collection before becoming a part of the Houghton Library.
Aside from what can be inferred from these sales catalogues, only little is known of the text’s ownership history. None of the copies contain visible marks of ownership,
annotations or glosses. This is not surprising considering the nature of the pamphlets, which were, after all, seen as ephemeral publications that would mostly have been bought, read, and tossed aside, rather than studied intensively. As such, it is also not very surprising that not more copies have survived.
28 Author
John Crouch is a lesser known author from a period that saw large increases in the amount of printed books, and in the amount of professional authors. His relatively obscurity hides the fact that he was highly prolific.1 Although John Crouch’s life and career has been the focal point of several books and articles, these mostly deal with the earlier part of his career, on his status as a royalist author, and on his work The Man in the Moon.2
John Crouch was born before 1615 as the son of Thomas Crouch in Standon, Hertfordshire.3 Precious little is known of his personal life, but he had been recorded as an apprentice of the bookseller Nicholas Salisbury between 1632 and 1639. For some period he owned a print shop himself, together with the printer Thomas Wilson. Afterwards, he
repeatedly worked together with an Edward Crouch (typeset as Crowch in the imprint of “Belgica Caracteristica”), likely a relative.4 He had been married, but of his children only one
is found mentioned in records, a son named John. His first written works started to appear during the late 1640s, and included many clearly royalist works that sometimes directly targeted the Parliamentarians. It is from this period that he was most productive, and from which most of his best-known works stem. He started writing the weekly Man in the Moon in 1649, which would eventually number over fifty-seven issues. Crouch’s royalist sympathies placed him in a precarious position during the days of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, and when
1 Jason McElligott, “John Crouch” 139.
2 See Jason McElligott, Royalism; “John Crouch” 139-155.
3 Unless stated otherwise, biographical details come from Jason McElligott, “John Crouch” and Henry Robert
Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland from
1641 to 1667 (London: Bibliographical Society, 1907).
4 More details on Edward Crouch can be found in Jason McElligott, “Edward Crouch: A Poor Printer in
29
Parliament strictly enforced their censorship of royalist propaganda it was not long before he was first arrested in 1949. Although released soon after, he was captured again in 1950, when he remained in prison until 1951. Afterwards, he refrained from much political commentary, perhaps since he was too closely watched to do otherwise, but possibly also simply because he grew to accept the new regime. His work output following the Restoration slowed down considerably, and he had stopped releasing politically-charged work entirely. No additional records in his name can be found from the 1680s, making it likely he died at some point during this decade.
Style
Belgica Caracteristica is a verse written predominantly in iambic pentameter, with simple
rhyming couplets. This style, as one of the predominant verse modes for pamphlet literature, was regularly used for anti-Dutch propaganda. Most sentences are end-stopped, but there are also several instances of enjambment, which in some instances could be attributed to sloppy typesetting. The poem is written from the “we” perspective, with the narrator comprised of the English people in general. The narrator addresses the Dutch people as a whole, and frequently poses rhetorical questions. This address must not be seen in literal terms: the poem is very much intended for an English audience and makes no effort to hide this purpose.
30
Augustan mode, this is surprising. It is not, however, the result of inability on Crouch’s part – despite the fact that he received little official schooling – as he does make liberal use of Latin mythological figures in his other poems.
Although the title suggests that the pamphlet contains news presented in verse form, the actual news value of its contents is very limited. There are no mentions of any recent events, only of occurrences from before or during the First Anglo-Dutch War, or of general characteristics of the Dutch warfare. Judging from the still-growing, but already significant popularity of news pamphlets and news books during the 1660s, it is not unreasonable to assume that Crouch refers to Belgica as a news pamphlet at least partly to attract more readers.
This Edition
31 Notes on conventions
- Spelling is kept as in the original, with the exception of: - ‘v’ and ‘u’, which have been modernized throughout, and - ‘vv’, which has been rendered as ‘w’
- Typography has been conventionalized (i.e. long ‘s’ and short ‘s’ are all portrayed by [s]) - Italics have been kept as in original, except for those cases where faulty typesetting caused too many/too few italicized letters (‘End’, 116, which has been made ‘End’)
- Original capitalization has been retained - Original spelling has been left intact - Sentence structure has been kept intact
- Text layout has been kept intact (indentation, line breaks)
- Page breaks in the BC copy have been marked by two virgules [//] - Original page numbering has been disregarded and is removed
The text is accompanied by an extensive apparatus containing textual footnotes, glosses, and explanatory endnotes. The textual notes show the full collation of the text’s three versions, with all variation between the version marked. Archaic words and phrases, or outdated usage of words and phrases, have been glossed. In-depth explanations of references and allusions made in the text can be found in the explanatory notes, which deals with both a
33
Belgica Caracteristica: or the Dutch Character. Being News from Holland. A Poem
Where are our Mighty Dutch? Still Weather-bound’ Although the Wind has mov’d the Compass round? Are the scar’d Foxes lurking in their Holes,
Or working under-ground, like politick Moles?i 5 Appear, and open your vsurious Baggs,1
Pluck up your Breeches, or pull down your Flaggs.ii Come with your Giant too, you sent of late
To mince our coyne2, and magnifie your State.iii
Is old Trumps broome (hung up to sweep the Seas) 10 Imploy’d to brush off swarmes3 of Belgick fleas?iv
Are you asleep? or has our floating Wood
Dam’d up the Channells of your Seas, and Blood? When the warm season calls you out to meet,
Has your cold Terrors frozen in your Fleet?v // 15 If you4 have any right, or courage, come,
We shall allow you Mare liberum. We’l release all our glorious Selden writ, And wave the waighty moments of his Wit:vi
1 Referring to a purse, or a money-bag, here.
2 “To diminish, take away from” (OED)
3 swarmes - DI swamres
34
The Sea (made by our Cause1, and Valour, wide)
20 Is narrow’d by your Cowardice, and Pride, You make a Mare clausum2, what? must we Break up your Bankes to set the Ocean free? Let’s to that Controversie put an end:vii
Justice, or Warre; be Eenemy or Freind:
25 Ye know what paines your learned Grotius took
De jure belli; fight, or burn his Book3.viii
Are the States Generall dumb by consent4, At one Vote of a loyal Parliament?
Amaz’d that our State Chymists can afford 30 Such vast supplies, coyn Millians with a word:ix
Is Amsterdam, which us’d to be so crank,5 (Boasting the rich Mines of her moun’tenous Bank) Fal’ne sick (not of her Pestilence) but guilt,
Having no innocent blood left to be spilt?x
35 Or (what is worse) is the transplanted Plague Remov’d from Amsterdam unto the Hague?
1 Cause - DI Cruse 2 clausum - DI clasum 3 his Book – DI your Book 4 by consent – DI by free consent
35
Where the great Trades-men all their Plots1 disburse,
Unite the People, and divide the Purse.
All Artless grown?2 no Pilot fit to steer? 40 Where are your souls, neither in Heau’ne nor here?
Do Gunpowder and Brandee mix in vaine To thaw the frozen Region of your braine?xi
Are ye afraid the Brittish Oakes ye bought (Thinking to break our Ribs before we fought) 45 Should with your Guilt sink, or, your Iudgment burn,3
Or by instinct of Simpathy returne?xii //
As once our Phenix (which a fatal hour Had captivated by unequal power)
From midst of all your Screech-Owles took her wing, 50 And flew home, to enjoy a kinder Spring:
An act rare as the Bird, the English will
(Though sometimes Rebells) yet be English still:xiii
The wiser sound this dis-harmonious pause,
Your Ships are strong, your hearts weak like4 your Cause:5
1 Plots - DI Plotts
2 i.e. “Unpractised, inexperienced” (OED) 3 No comma in DI.
4 like - DI as
5 DI and DE have a comma here. A period would seem most appropriate at the end of the rhyming couplet, but
36
55 VVhere is that fury sunk1 your Soveraignes Fleets
Wrap’d all in flameing Sayles for Winding sheets?xiv
While (freind to both)2 th’amazed Brittish shore, Trembled to see her locks bedew’d with Gore. None to succeed the generous Vantrump,
60 Who fiercely grappl’d with th’ omnipotent Rump?xv
(For so deluded Wights, they thought t’have bin, But Heaven is more omnipotent than Sin) That both were stout, is no prodigious thing,
Rebells3 will fight with Rebells, or a King.
65 Restore what ye have gain’d4 by Fraud and Stealth;
Pyrats and Robbers of both Indias wealth,
Hire not the Blacks your Neighbours to betray,
Whites5 in your face, in soule6 more Blacks than they; Nor catch the Guiny natives with your Ginnes,
70 Reform’d more Heathens7 by your Christian sins.xvi
When will a Dutch-man in one vessell hold His Honesty and Trade, his Faith, and Gold?
1 sunk - DI sunk? 2 No brackets in DI.
3 Line 64 is indented in DI, not 65. 4 gain’d – DI gaind
5 No italics in DI. 6 soule – DI soules
37
While man has mem’ry, may that hellish Plott Of curs’d Amboyna never be forgott:
75 Where you pretend a treacherous surprize, First to betray, and then to tyrannize,1
Racks, Flames, and Tortures, all so exquisit;2
Seem’d3 not to shew your Mallice but your Wit: //
By tedious Torments, forcing us confess
80 What we ne’re thought, Made guilty by distress.4 For after strict search (and a Dutch mans Eye Rub’d with revenge is quick as Iealousie) Envy could find no weapons of offence; Nothing to5 storm your walls but Innocence! 85 But you that Innocent blood in peace have spilt,
Doubtless delight to sacrifice to Guilt!xvii
Are all the Men and Ships destroy’d last Warre? Sunk in your mem’ries too, no warning scarre?
Could a poore Epileptick6 Body (dead 90 Without the living infleuence of a Head)
1 tyrannize – DI tiranize 2 exquisit – DI exquisite
3 Seem’d – DI Seemd
4 distress – DI, DE distresse. DI and DE spell distresse with three long ‘s’, BC has a short ‘s’ at the end. 5 to – all three versions have “ro” here. It is likely the result of a printing error that was missed during revision;
the “r” and “t” are very similar.
38 Your numerous, and1 experienc’d Navies beat.
Or force them to the shame of a Retreat? And shall not Brittains Monarchy doe more Then it’s sick Anarchie had done before?xviii
95 Convince us why Republicks Priviledg’d are T’vsurpe2 the wide Sea, and the wider Ayre:?
Is the whole Eastern World your propper due, Which Rome ne’re had, when she had Us, and you? Yet your Republick is a divers Thing,
100 The Romans had two Consuls though no Kings, They durst not start3 too farr, resolv’d to be
Within the prospect of a Monarchie: The prudence of those sober Ages knew
Greater the Monster was, the more heads grew. 105 Two Persons Rul’d, with one misterious Will;
The Roman State was thus Monarchik still:
Two Consuls Raign’d, One the whole Worke did do, Rul’d both the Publick, and his fellow too.
When dire Confusions must in time restore
110 You to the Thraldomes ye bewail’d before.xix //
1 and – DI and and
39 Did the communicative1 Sun create
All Spices, to make Insence for one State? Your Pride, and Auerice will worke your bane; Where no satiety2 is, there’s little Gaine!
115 Graspe what ye well may hold, ‘Tis they extend Too farr, who reach their Ruine, not their End3:4
Though you hold forth a single joynted Hand, Your fingers start, and disunited stand.
We all admire Divinity in One, 120 But not in every Concrete Vnion.xx
You think the Narrow Seas for us too much, Yet the whole Globe too little for the Dutch.
Good Freinds Print Bookes, and let the Mapps alone, Accoumpt5 not what you Sell, but buy, your owne.xxi
125 Thus, while fair Liberty you give, and crave,
You would be Free, to make the World a Slave.
Tell Me (then Low-Dutch) when you were as bigg With Common-Wealth, as ever Sow with Pigg,
1 “communicative” here should be read as “bountiful, gratious”, not in the modern sense of “talkative, eager to
share information”. (OED)
2 satiety – DI Society (no italics) 3 BC – End
4 No italics in DI.
40 Who your blest Midwife was; I trow, a Queen, 130 Or you had never High, and Mighty been.
Who was it rais'd you to this monstrous Height? Taught ye at first, not to Rebell, but Fight?xxii You have forgot our Sydnies, and our Veres; Our Monck, and Oxford, Commoners and Peeres; 135 Who shed their rich blood for your Infant State;
First to procure your Freedom, than your Hate. Doe not so farr degenerate, to conclude
Your utmost Period1 with Ingratitude.xxiii
Ingratitude? O Heavens! Has not that word, 140 An edge as sharp as your old Generalls2 sword3;
Does not that brave heroick Prince's Ghost? Stare in your faces? tell you all is lost?xxiv // If you with England fight or shall invade Her Royal Rights4, or check her Popular Trade;
145 If you by Spannish Gabells5 shall annoy Your Fellow Merchants, and devest his Boy.
41 Tell me ye Men of breeding1 is it meet
Or pleasant for the Head to kiss the feet?xxv Does that new Blood quarter'd in every veine,
150 His or the High and mighties honour staine?
Know the young Prince is more than Orange, now,xxvi He may remit, Great Brittaine must not bow,
Be just to Him, and Vs, the Quarrell ends, Silver will soder2 all, and make us freinds. 155 May never Pest from Amsterdam remove,
Till ye restore him to your Faith and Love!
Meane time our Loyall Duke does kindly waite, To know the pleasures of the Mighty State,
Hopeing this favour youl retaliate too,
160 To send him word what Amsterdam will doxxvii
FINIS
42
Explanatory Notes
i The direction of the wind could strongly influence the outcome of a battle in naval
warfare. As a result, it was not uncommon for commanding officers to avoid engaging in combat until the wind had turned to their favour. The point of the first two lines is, of course, not to truly suggest the Dutch are only inactive due to weather conditions: portraying the Dutch as cowards was a common theme throughout the course of the Anglo-Dutch Wars (“scar’d Foxes lurking in their Holes”), and by referring to them as “politick Moles” Crouch suggests that they are even too dishonourable to fight an honest battle – in which the English were certain they would triumph. Although the hiding could simply refer to a lack of activity, the Dutch also made frequent use of the shoals surrounding their coastal waters for hiding their ships in – notably after the Battle of Lowestoft. English vessels, being of a larger and more heavily-armed variety, had difficulties entering and navigating these treacherous areas.1 The relative safety and respite from battle the shoals offered the Dutch was vexing for English command, which was eager to end the war as swiftly as possible. During the Third Anglo-Dutch War, De Ruyter often used a particular safe spot in the basin of Schooneveld, which the English would refer to as his “sea-hole”.2 It is likely that the concept of the Dutch hiding in
“holes” was already widespread before De Ruyter’s tactics in the third war.
ii In the period preceding the First Anglo-Dutch War, the English strictly enforced
their right to “the sovereignty of the seas”. They claimed that, as part of this sovereignty, all ships from other nations had to lower their flag out of respect to any English vessels that cross their paths while in English waters. When the Dutch Admiral Maarten Tromp encountered the
43
English General at Sea Robert Blake, he refused to lower his flag (he had earlier been given leave by naval command to do so only at his own discretion).1 This act of protest was seen as a gross insult in England, and Crouch mention of it here serves to emphasize Dutch insolence and ingratitude, a theme that will be revisited several times throughout the poem, and that was commonplace in all anti-Dutch propaganda of the time.2 He offers the Dutch a choice: to either “pluck up” their “breeches”, to come into action, or to “pull down” their “Flaggs”, to submit to the English.
iii It is unclear what “Giant” refers to exactly. There is no ship in the Dutch fleet of the
time that was generally referred to as a “giant”, although De Ruyter’s future flagship De
Zeven Provinciën (“The Seven Provinces”) was completed during this time (1665). In another
pamphlet he wrote, Crouch refers to the Dutch Lieutenant-Admiral Jacob van Obdam Wassenaer as “That Giant of the Dutch Theomachy”.3 Possibly, it refers to another
commander in the Dutch Navy. Crouch then goes on to claim this “giant” was sent to “mince our coyne”, or take away from England’s wealth, “and magnifie your State”, which reflects contemporary English fears about the Dutch intention to establish a universal monarchy, and to surpass England in the process.4
iv Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp (1598-1653), born in Brille, the Dutch Republic, was
a Dutch naval officer and national hero who led the Dutch fleet during the Eighty Years’ War. According to popular legend, Tromp attached a broom to his mast after the Dutch victory at
1 J. R. Jones, Anglo-Dutch Wars 152, 196.
2 Stephen Bardle, The Literary Underground 99.
3 John Crouch, The Dutch Armado a meer Bravado. A Poem upon the Late Engagement at Sea, London, 1665.
