Nicolaes Sohier (1588-1642): From Merchant to Member
of the Cultural Elite in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam
Mireille Ploegaert Thesis supervisor: Dr. M. Keblusek Second Reader: Prof. Dr. S.P.M. Bussels MA Arts and Culture: Museums & Collections Leiden University 2017-2018
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 3
CHAPTER 1:FAMILY AND BUSINESS ... 8
1.1 La Veritable Origine de la Très-Ancienne et Très-Illustre Maison de Sohier ... 8
1.2 The Sohier Family ... 9
1.3 Sohier’s Activities as a Merchant ... 12
1.4 Sohier’s Wealth ... 16
CHAPTER 2:THE CULTURAL ELITE ... 19
2.1 Gérard Thibault and His Album Amicorum ... 21
2.2 Constantijn Huygens and Education for the Gentleman ... 24
CHAPTER 3:SOHIER AS ‘GENTLEMAN’ ARCHITECT AND AS COLLECTOR ... 28
3.1 Architecture ... 29
3.2 The Inventory of Sohier ... 33
3.3 The Paintings ... 38
CONCLUSION ... 46
APPENDICES ... 49
ILLUSTRATIONS ... 66
Introduction
The leading Dutch merchants during the 17th century, who in some cases were extremely wealthy, saw themselves as an elite which in many respects was a match for the nobility.1 They did not only equalise or surpass their noble counterparts financially, but also tried to match them by behaviour. The nobility in West Europe had a certain status that distinguished them from the lower sections of the population. Qualities associated with this status are grandeur, elegance, refinement and distinction, which do not apply to the elite of the Dutch Republic according to the famous Dutch historian Johan Huizinga (1872-1945). Huizinga thought the Dutch could not be called ‘civilized’ because they were hard-working capitalists who were too down to earth, too honest and too frank to be interested in the finer points of civility.2
The rise of the mercantile elite, however, did not caused a change in the prestige of the nobility, who with their traditional social and political values still had their influence in the Dutch Republic.3 In the hierarchical society of the early modern period, the rank of nobility
was the highest social rank that one could achieve. The courts in, for example France or in the Italian city states as Venice or Florence, were influential in the spread of the conventional rules of conduct.4 Therefore, the ways of living of the nobles became a referencepoint for the middle or higher-classes of the society. 5 This included copying the lifestyle of this nobility, their behaviour as well as their hobby’s, also known as the process of aristocratisation.6
Huizinga’s opinion of the elite dates already from 1941 and there are several historians who discussed and tried to disprove Huizinga’s theory about the Dutch elite. One of them is historian Herman Roodenburg, who argued that the Dutch elite is more refined, exclusive and internationally focused than Huizinga told us.7 He thus tried to change the cliché of the plain and sober 17th century citizen that Huizinga and others created.8
Even more, Roodenburg admitted that we lack an in-depth cultural history of the elite, in other words, a study about the upbringing and education of the elite, its manners and social
1 Lesger and Noordgraaf 1997, p. 26. 2 Roodenburg 2010, p. 271.
3 Price 2011, p. 51. 4 Burke 1991, p. 14.
5 Lesger and Noordegraaf 1995, p. 33. 6 Roodenburg 2004, p. 39.
7 Idem, p. 272. 8 Idem, p. 285.
circles, its leisure and travel and its interest in arts and sciences.9 Here, Roodenburg was influenced by historian Peter Burke, who observed that “relatively few historians have studied the culture and mentalities as well as the wealth and power of the European urban patriciates.”10 Indeed, an overall study on (urban) elite culture in the Dutch Republic during the 17th century is missing, but there are different case studies of specific important figures from the Dutch elite who can definitely be described as honnête hommes, meaning a decent, cultivated man of the world.11
Nevertheless, publications about the Dutch culture during the so succesfull Golden Age are manifold.12 The Dutch Republic was a centre of humanist learning and gained an
important position as a pioneer in the area of scholarship.13 Even more, the step from a rather conservative Rennaissance humanist culture, with a main focus on the classic literature and culture, to a culture where it was possible to challenge these classics, was taken within the 17th century.14 Many authors discussed the importance of the scholars who were the main reason of this development.15 The role of the merchants, the group within the Dutch society that played an important role in the prosperity of the Dutch Repulic during this age, however, is left out of this story until the last decades.
That there was a change in the approach towards a more refined and culturally interested Dutch elite, including merchants, becomes evident from the raise of interest in the theory of the Mercator Sapiens, in other words, the wise merchant.16 Already in 1632, it was the scholar Caspar Barlaeus (1584-1648) who introduced this ideal of a merchant who was not only successful in business, but also a well-educated scholar.17 With his ideas, he went beyond the prevailing view that commerce and scholarship could not be united.18
It was not that easy to convince the learned community to rethink their opions about the, in their eyes, intellectually inferior group of merchants.19 The main reason for this antipathy, as historian Harold Cook argued, came from the religious belief that the worldy matters that were so important in the life of merchants, could not be assimilated with the life
9 Ibidem.
10 Roodenburg 2010, p. 285 and note 68.
11 De Jongste 1999, p. 12. For example, Constantijn Huygens was used by Roodenburg as example for a Honnête
homme, see Roodenburg 2010.
12 Important historians who wrote about this topic are, among various other writers: Johan Huizinga (1872-1945), Jonathan Israel (1946), Simon Schama ((1872-1945), Maarten Prak (1955) and John Price (1942). 13 Price 2011 p. 154-156.
14 Idem, p. 162-163.
15 See for example Price 2011.
16 See Cook, 2007; Peters, 2008; Keblusek, 2011; Rauschenbach, 2013. 17 Rauschenbach 2013, p.86.
18 Cook 2007, p. 69.
of those who commited themselves to a life of learning, without these worldy distractions.20 Barlaeus, however, tried to create a bridge between the scholars and merchants by stressing the importance of merchants in the distribution of knowledge.21
The international traderoutes of these merchants where important for this distribution of knowledge, because it gave them the opportunity to trade not only in their own merchandise, but also in objects such as books, artworks, naturalia, as well as in information.22 Even more, by collecting this type of objects themselves, preferably rare and exclusive objects, the houses of these merchants became meeting points for interested scholars and others.23 Barlaeus thus saw commerce as interaction between different people
and through this interaction the exchange of knowledge was possible, which gave the merchants and important position within the network of scholars.24
Barlaeus hereby also highlighted the importance of scholarship for merchants. Sina Rauschenbach argued that this acquisition of knowledge even became a status symbol among Dutch merchants.25 Acquiring knowledge, thus, could happen by education but also by collecting naturalia and art. With these collections the liefhebber or virtuoso could express his wisdom, because the learned man also had to be able to discuss and contemplate about the knowledge that he had.26
In this light, the idea of the Mercator Sapiens seems to come close to the idea of the
honnête hommes. The aristocratisation of the elite, as mentioned before, implied that they
took over the lifestyle, including good manners, education and diverse cultural activities, of the nobility. The wise merchant had to engage in the same activites and needed the same qualities to, according to Barlaeus, be succesfull in society. Most of these activities were on a cultural level, which raises the question if the Dutch merchants of the 17th century used
culture to achieve a higher status in society. This is an important question to ask beacause it might confirm the view that merchants during the 17th century were more indeed involved in the cultural circles of the Dutch Republic.
Therefore, the starting point of this research is a merchant in Amsterdam who engaged himself in cultural activities: Nicolaes Sohier (1588-1642). Sohier, a man who has not been the subject of a larger study before, was a very wealthy merchant originating from the 20 Cook 2007, p. 69-70. 21 Idem, p. 71. 22 Keblusek 2011, p. 98 and p. 101. 23 Idem, p. 504. 24 Cook 2007, p. 73. 25 Rauschenbach 2013, p.87. 26 Cook 2007, p. 72.
Southern Netherlands and active within a network of important Amsterdam merchants. Besides his divers activities as a merchant, which made him one of the richest citizens of Amsterdam during the first half of the 17th century, he was also interested in art and culture,
especially in Italian art and music. His name is not entirely new in the field of research of the 17th century Dutch Republic and just because his interests were so varied, he is mentioned in a diverse range of studies about merchants, art collectors, music lovers, architecture and the interest in Italy in the Dutch Republic.27
For the purpose of this research, Sohier is an interesting research subject because his diversity but also because the noble aspirations he had for himself and his son, Constantijn Sohier (1624-1671).28 Therfore, the main question of this research is: did Nicolaes Sohier use his cultural interests and cultural networks in order to climb the social ladder in Amsterdam during the first half of the 17th century?
In the first chapter, which will focus on the life of Sohier and his activities as a merchant, the book La veritable origine de la très-ancienne et très-illustre maison de Sohier (1661) by historian Jean-Baptiste Carpentier (c.1606-1670) is very important. This book about the Sohier family gives an insight into the family, their alliances with other families but at the same time the publication of the book itself is indicating the importance of the family history for Constantijn.
In the search for clues about one’s network, whenether cultural or more in business activities, archival sources are essential but at the same time they are part of the reason why it is so difficult to study the cultural elite of the 17th century in Amsterdam. Sources like these are only fragmentary available and documents are spread over all kinds of archives. This makes this type of research not only time-consuming, but it also means that the information found is nearly always giving an incomplete image of the person researched, just because documents have lost over time.
In the case of Sohier, there was no family archive to start with, so the starting point of the research to his family history was the city archive of Amsterdam, the city where he lived until his death in 1642. Most of these documents are made by the notary Pieter De Bary (?-?), such as Sohier’s testament (1641), an estate inventory (1642) and an a separate inventory of silverwork (1643) There is also another inventory, made at the Amsterdam Weescamer that
27 For merchants see: Gelderblom 2000 and Wijnroks 2003; for his art collection see mainly Meijer, 2000 and Filtenborg and Mester, 2008; for his interest in music see Giskes 1991; for architecture see Schmidt 2006.
28 According to an old story about the Sohier family, as told in Bijleveld, 1906: Constantijn told his father at his deathbed that he was going to say fare-well to his career as merchant and that he was going to restore the family’s status as noble family (they claimed to be descending from the Counts of Vermandois).
lists Sohier’s financial assets (1642). One of the first who published only part of the estate inventory of De Bary was historian J.G. Kam in 1963.29 He, however, only used this estate
inventory and singled out the paintings but did not publish the rest of the inventory, nor did he pay attention to the other inventories. Since then, the attention of most art historians went only to these paintings and therefore they did not use the rest of this document. However, these inventories shed a wider light on Sohier’s possessions and also his personal interests, such as in art, silver, coins and music. Therefore, these sources are very valuable in this research because they are direct evidence of his cultural interests.
There are more primary sources that give an insight into Sohier’s network and these will be more widely discussed in chapter two, where his cultural network is the central theme. These documents are the entry of Sohier in the album amicorum of fencing master Gérard Thibault (1574-1627) as well as the correspondence between Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) and Sohier. Huygens was an important source for this chapter not only because of these letters, but also because he visited Sohier at least once and described this visit in his biography. In the last chapter we will look more closely at the residences Sohier had built in Amsterdam, such as the famous Huis met de Hoofden (House with the Heads) and his second house at the Herengracht. From his house, we move towards the interior with the help of the estate inventory and the separate inventory of the silver. These inventories will guide us through the house of Sohier and with the use of other primary sources, we will discover his collection.
The secondary sources that will be used in this research are very divers and can be largely split into two catagories. First, there are the sources that have been used because Sohier is mentioned in these studies, for example in studies with a prosopographic character.30
These sources are helpful to place Sohier in a specific context, such as that of Flemish merchants active in Amsterdam. At the same time, they will give insight into Sohier’s activities and hereby, they provide a starting point for more specific research into a subject. In addition to this, because the diversity of Sohier’s activities, both in commerce as in more cultural affairs, very case specific sources are going to be used.
Secondly, the other secondary sources that will be used are placing Sohier in a wider context. These will help to understand the life of Sohier, his actions and activities better in relation with other merchants, collectors, music lovers and so forth.
29 Kam 1963, p. 164-166.
Chapter 1: Family and Business
1.1 La Veritable Origine de la Très-Ancienne et Très-Illustre Maison de Sohier
In 1661, the historian Jean-Baptiste Carpentier (c.1606-1670) published La veritable origine
de la très-ancienne et très-illustre maison de Sohier. In this book, which was commissioned
by Constantijn Sohier (1624-1671), son of Nicolaes Sohier (1588-1642), Le Carpentier traced the family tree of the Sohier family back to the year 450. The main reason for this publication was to prove that the family descended from the Counts of Vermandois and thus to prove the family’s nobility. Already in 1658, the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (1640-1706) granted the title of Baron to Constantijn and the publication by Le Carpentier could be seen as a celebration of this event as well as an extra confirmation of the family’s noble roots.
Le Carpentier also used parts of La veritable origine in his most important publication:
Histoire Genealogique des Païs-Bas, ou Histoire de Cambray, et du Cambresis […] (third part, 1664). This book was dedicated to two noblemen, one of whom was Constantijn Sohier and it put the Sohier family among noble families from these regions. The other nobleman was Philippes-Nicolas Comte d’Aumale and Marquis de Haucourt (?-1668), a French protestant who moved to the Dutch Republic and who had a interest in heraldry and more specific, in the coat of arms of noble families.31 Le Carpentier thanks both men for their generosity and the fact that he was allowed to use their family archives and cabinets, but he was also pleased with their eagerness of learning more from the past.32 Therefore, Constantijn might have been interested in heraldry as well, which could be an extra reason why he ordered
La Veritable Origine.
A small part of the elite in Amsterdam already started in the early 17th century to compose family trees to prove their noble origins.33 It was important for the elite to associate themselves with the nobility, the highest rank in the more traditional or medieval threefold division of the society in clergy, bourgeoisie and nobility. Even more, one of the goals of the elite was to be able to live a life as a rentier, as the nobility did, because this was traditionally valued as the most honourable way of life.34
One’s ability to move to a different social class, either upward or downward, is what
31 Martin 1900, p. 280. Philippes-Nicolas made during his travels through Europe several albums or manuscripts (unfinished) with drawings of coat of arms from many European noble families or from regions, cities and so forth. An example can be found in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France: D’Aumale Marquis d’Haucourt, P.N. Charolois, mareschal d'armes du bon duc Philippes de Bourgogne et de Braban, Limbourg, Luxembourg, Lotrich et Gueldre, etc […]. Manuscript, 1658, Inv. MS-4150.
32 Le Carpentier 1664, p. 5. 33 Burke 1991, p. 83.
we call social mobility. The Dutch Republic during the 17th century was as a class society in which status was more often the result of wealth and power rather than the result of origin.35
Therefore, social mobility was easier within the Dutch Republic than it was in a traditional divided society such as in Venice, where the division was still based on origin.36
In that light, La Veritable Origine might seem a strange document just because it draws so much attention to the ancienne and illustre origin of the Sohier family. However, this can be explained with the different division of the society in the Dutch Republic, caused by the raise of wealth and influence of the merchants in Amsterdam. Already around 1600, the leading Dutch merchants earned so much that they surpassed the nobility wealth, which caused a shift in the medieval threefold hierarchy that we have seen before.37 The leading social and political elite, who had also been the economical elite before, saw a decline in their position, to the benefit of the new group of rich merchants who began to see themselves as equally important.38
To see justice done to this new position, the elite developed a more opulent lifestyle in the second half of the 17th century in order to imitate the nobility.39 One of the goals the elite had was to acquire titles, just like the nobility. Constantijn already succeeded in this in 1644, when he bought the estate of Oud-Poelgeest, which brought him the title of Lord of Warmenhuysen, Krabbendam and Oud-Poelgeest.40 The title of Baron, however, was more important step on the social ladder since it made him part of the nobility. Therefore, La
Veritable Origine can also be seen as a confirmation of the importance of these titles for the
elite.
1.2 The Sohier Family
La veritable origine is also an important source for the family history of Nicolaes and his
ancestors. According to this book, Nicolaes Sohier was born in Cologne in the year 1588, as son of Hugo Sohier (c. 1550-1592) and Anna Saye (c. 1561-1615). Hugo Sohier was born in Mons, a small town in the Southern Netherlands. As member of a protestant family, he was forced to leave this town after the siege of Mons in 1572 and moved to Antwerp, where he married Anna Saye.41 When the city fell into the hands of the Catholic Spaniards in 1585,
35 Burke 1991, p. 25. 36 Idem, p. 38.
37 Lesger and Noordgraaf 1995, p. 26. 38 Ibidem.
39 Roodenburg 2004, p. 39. 40 Jaspers et al 2009, p. 99. 41 Le Carpentier 1661, p. 149.
Hugo had to move again and took his family to Cologne, a popular town among protestant immigrants from the Southern Netherlands.42
Many Protestants from the Southern Netherlands moved to Cologne and other German cities in the 1580s. The city of Cologne took restrictive measures at the end of the 16th century to stop the organised Protestantism caused by this migration. Many of the estimated 2000 South-Netherlandish immigrants had to leave Cologne and they moved to the Dutch
Republic.43 One of them was the poet and silk trader Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679), who became an important figure in the cultural environment of Amsterdam. Vondel knew the Sohier family, which is evident from the fact that he wrote a couple of poems for Constantijn Sohier around 1644.44
After Hugo died in 1592, the family moved to Amsterdam. The precise date of this migration is unknown, but the earliest hint we have of the Sohier family in Amsterdam is 6 September 1612, when Anne Sohier (1586-1612) died in Amsterdam.45 Jean Sohier (1582-1600), a younger brother, died at a young age on 25 September 1600 in Cologne.46 This means that the Sohier family moved from Cologne to Amsterdam somewhere between those two dates.
Many family members of Nicolaes moved to Amsterdam as well.47 The family established itself within a circle of South-Netherlandish merchants. When we take a look at the family tree (see appendix 1), we can see ties to De Latfeur, Becker, Mercier, Malapert, Van der Meulen, Van Surck, Bartolotti and Dragon, families whom we will encounter later.
Nicolaes’ only brother who survived childhood was Wilhelm Sohier (1587-1657), also known as Guglielmo Sohier. He was the only direct family member who did not live permanently in Amsterdam, but in Padua, a city under the rule of the Republic of Venice. In this university city, Guglielmo was active in a circle of scholars, such as the anatomist Adriaan van den Spiegel (1578-1625), Bartolomeo Souvey (1576-1629), professor in mathematics, and historian Lorenzo Pignoria (1571-1631).48 He married Isabella Zorzi (?-?), a member of an important noble family of the Republic of Venice, in 1626.49 Guglielmo will be
42 Briels 1985, p. 217. 43 Ibidem.
44 Sterck et al 1927, vol.4, p. 602. Vondel made a couple of poems, the so-called “Maydeuntjes” for Anne Engels’ birthday, sung to her by Constantijn Sohier. Who Anna was remains a mystery, as Sterck already remarked.
45 Le Carpentier 1661, p. 10. 46 Ibidem.
47 For example his uncle David Sohier (1553-1593) and his aunts Catherina Sohier (1549-?) and Maria Sohier (1558-1639).
48 Boutcher 2017, vol.2, p. 176. 49 Zen Benetti 1972, p. 51.
discussed more extensively in the next part about the activities of Nicolaes as a merchant. Nicolaes married the daughter of the Antwerp jewellery dealer Arnold Hellemans (?- 1599) in 1621.50 Suzanne Hellemans (?-1625) was the widow of the merchant Eduart van
Surck (?-1619) and sister of Leonora Hellemans (1595-1661). Leonora married the very wealthy merchant Jan Baptista Bartolotti (1590-1624) and after his death she remarried with historian and poet Pieter Cornelis Hooft (1581-1647).
The Hellemans’ were an important merchant family in the Netherlands and they had branches of their business all over Europe. The Hellemans family had strong connections with Venice through Guglielmo (?-1593), Carlo (?-1605) and Antonio Helman (?-1582), who started a branch of the family company in this city.51 They were also the brothers of Arnout Hellemans (?-1599), the father of Suzanne. As we shall see in the next part, Nicolaes was also active as a merchant in Venice and thus this connection might explain Sohier’s marriage with Suzanne. This marriage therefore could be seen as an alliance between two families who both had commercial activities in Venice and wanted to strengthen their positions by combining their forces.
The economic connections between Sohier and the Hellemans’ are not the only link. Sohier might have met his later family-in-law at more cultural events, such as music evenings or at the fencing school of Gérard Thibault. Both Sohier as members of the Hellemans family could be found in these cultural circles. Sohier, Hellemans but also Bartolotti, Hooft and Callandrini are known as families where music was made on a high level.52 Music evenings were organised on a weekly base at, for example the house of Giovanni Calandrini (1544- 1623) and many members of the earlier named families played music instruments themselves.53 In case of the connection with Thibault, who will be thoroughly discussed in the
next chapter, both Carlo Hellemans (1595-1632), the brother of Suzanne, as Sohier can be found in his network.
Together with Suzanne, Nicolaes had three children: Felitia (1622-1625), Constantijn (1624-1671) and Olimpia (1625-1625).54 Only Constantijn outlived his father and continued
50 Hageman 2016, p. 50 and G.A. DTB (5001) 426, fol. 22v, marriage contract between Nicolaes Sohier and Suzanne Hellemans, dated 29 April 1621.
51 Van Gelder 2009, p. 1-4. The Hellemans brothers in Venice used the surname “Helman” instead of the more common Dutch version of “Hellemans”.
52 Giskes 1991, p. 182. 53 Idem, p. 178.
54 In the baptismal register of the city of Amsterdam (G.A. DTB (5001) 40, fol. 129v, baptismal register of Constantia (Constantijn) Sohier, dated 22 June 1624), we can read the name “Constantia” instead of Constantijn. This might suggest that it Constantia was (another) daughter of Nicolaes and Suzanne. However, in La veritable Origine, only three childern are named (Felitia, Olimpia and Constantijn) and the
the Sohier de Vermandois family line.55 He married Catherina Coymans (1624-1653), the only daughter of the very wealthy merchant Jeronimus Coymans (1598-1651). Their son, Baron Nicolaes (II) Sohier de Vermandois (1645-1690) married Anna Christina Pauw (1649- 1719), member of one of the foremost Amsterdam patrician families. Nicolaes II was the last male descendant of the family since he only had two daughters, Anna Catherina Sohier de Vermandois (1672-1687) and Adriana Constantia Sohier de Vermandois (1675-1735). When Adriana Constantia died childless in 1735, the female line of the family also ended.
1.3 Sohier’s Activities as a Merchant
During the 17th century, it was important for every merchant to be able to trust their trading
partners and thus the business connections were more then often based on family relations.56 Trading could bring great risks and a merchant was not only responsible for himself, but also for his family’s name and reputation. Therefore, one had to protect his good name and that of his family.57 It was easier to trade when one had a partner or trusted correspondent in the city where one did business with and this is the reason why family members were spread throughout Northern and Western Europe.58 Therefore, it is not strange that Sohier’s network as a merchant did consist mostly of family members. Most of them were related with him by marriage, but there are some exceptions. What is more interesting, however, is that he was active as a merchant in different regions, such as Venice, the Levant and Russia.
Sohier was active as a silk trader in Amsterdam.59 He was an associate of the firm “Nicolaes Sohier, Jacob Bicker en Compagnie”, which he started with Jacob Jacobsz. Bicker (1581-1626).60 Bicker was a member of one of the most prominent patrician families from
Amsterdam. This regent family had many important governmental positions within the city of Amsterdam and were also closely connected to the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC), the Dutch East India Company.61
It is remarkable that Sohier and Bicker had a company together because not many Flemish immigrants were associated in business with merchants from the Northern-
birth date of Constantijn is 4 June 1624. Therefore, it seems that Constantia and Constantijn are one and the same person.
55 After Constantijn received the title of Baron of the Holy Roman Empire in 1658, he and his male descendants were able to add ‘De Vermandois’ to their names.
56 Lesger and Noordgraaf 1995, p. 28 and p. 148. 57 Idem, p. 30.
58 Idem, p. 85 and p. 121.
59 G.A. Not. P. de Bary, 70 1659, fol.177v-181v, testament of Nicolaes Sohier, dated 30 July 1641: “Nicolaas Sohier zaliger: in sijden coopman dese voorts stede [Amsterdam].”
60 Elias, vol.II, 1903-1905, p. 359. 61 Burke 1991, p. 34-35.
Netherlands, at least not on an intensive and long-term basis.62 Even more, when immigrants and locals worked together, these merchants were almost always connected with each other through marriages.63 This was not the case for Sohier and Bicker, who do not seem to have
shared any family bonds.
The company was active in trading with the Levant region, as appears from the charter contract for the ship De Geluckige Leeuw.64 Together with some other merchants from Amsterdam, Elias Trip (1570-1636), Samuel (1581-1640) and Eduart Becker (?-?) and Emanuel van Surck (?- after 1645), Sohier and Bicker chartered this ship in 1623 to sail towards the Levant region and “elders als in Ciprus, Suria, Palestina ende Egipten”.65 Trip,
the owner of this ship, was also the director of the VOC and thus an important figure in Amsterdam. Both Beckers and Emanuel van Surck were relatives of Sohier.
Sohier had already been active as a merchant dealing with the Levant before the shipment in 1623. In August 1619, he signed a request alongside other Amsterdam merchants to protect the Levant trade.66 Sohier was also among the merchants who signed the request to name Cornelis Witsen (1599-1646) the new head-consul of Aleppo in 1625.67 It seems that he established himself within the network of merchants dealing with the Levant region.
In those two documents we can also find the names of Consalvo Romiti (?-?) and Daniel Colpijn (?-?). These two names also appeared in Sohier’s marriage contract with Suzanne Hellemans as “[…] de eersame sr Daniel Colpijn ende Gonsalvo Romiti, sijn goede en bekende vrienden.”68 Both were merchants and active in Amsterdam during the first half of the 17th century. They were no direct family of Sohier, but they seem to have been involved in trading with the same regions as Sohier.
The names of Sohier and Colpijn also appear on a list made by Christofforo Suriano (1580-?), the Venetian Secretary in The Hague between 1616 and 1623.69 On this list, made in April 1618, we find the names of merchants from the Dutch Republic who had a branch in Venice. The names of Sohier and Colpijn are both marked with two crosses, which meant that
62 Gelderblom 2000, p. 229. 63 Ibidem.
64 G.A. Not. J.F. Bruijningh, 8 170, fol. 1v-3v, charter contract for De Geluckige Leeuw dated 11 September 1623. The contract does not tell us the nature of the goods that were transported.
65 Ibidem. Own translation: “Elswhere in Cyprus, Syria, Palestine and Egypt” 66 Heeringa and Nanninga 1910, vol. II, p. 803.
67 Heeringa and Nanninga 1910, vol. I, p. 503; Samuel Becker, Jacob Bicker, Emanuel van Surck and Elias Trip also signed this request.
68 Le Carpentier 1661, p. 157. Own translation: “The honourable sr. Daniel Colpijn and Gonsalvo Romiti, his good and known friends.”
they were “I più potenti” (the most important).70 Other names here are, among others, Guillelmo Bartolotti (possibly Guillelmo the younger, 1602-1658), Giovanni Battista Bartolotti (1590-1624), Eduardo (Eduart) van Surck (?-1619) and “sr. Calandrini, letfeur, et Vandermeulen”.71 The Bartolotti’s, as well as Van der Meulen and de Latfeurs were all in- laws of Sohier and Eduart van Surck was the first husband of Suzanna Hellemans.
Sohier was thus active in the trade with Venice and this is his most direct connection with the Italian region. It might also explain the position of Nicolaes’ brother, Guillelmo, who lived in Padua and might have been involved in the trade between Amsterdam and Venice. Evidence of this is that Guillelmo appeared twice in the notarial records of Giovanni Andrea Catti (active in Venice ca.1577-1621), both times in relation with Daniel Nijs, (1572-1647) an important Flemish merchant and art dealer who was also active in Venice.72
Even more, Nijs formed a consortium with Charles de Latfeur (?-1650), Filipo Calandrini (1587-1649), Andries Van der Meulen (1591-1654) and Melchior Noirot (?-?) to provide funding for the supply of ships to the Venetian Republic, an ally of the Dutch Republic during their war against the Spanjards.73 Suriano also received funding from this group of merchants during his period as Venetian ambassador in the Republic.74 This group of merchants thus played an important role in gaining support of the Venetian Republic in the time of war and therefore played a role in the state formation of the Dutch Republic.75 The close family connections of Sohier with this group of Flemish merchants in combination with his name on the Suriano list marked as important, suggests that he might was also part of the consortium or at least closely involved with the business activities of this group. 76
Although this far, Nicolaes Sohier’s activities in Venice or Padua remain inconclusive in the absence of more sources, the relation he had with the Italian region seems more clear
70 Idem, p. 359; Daniel Colpijn is named together with “Pietro et Gio. Benoist.”
71 Idem, p. 359-360; Letfeur could be Charles or his brother Pieter de Latfeur (1588-?). Pieter acted as a witness in the testament of Nicolaes Sohier (see G.A. Not. P. de Bary, 70 1659, fol.177v-181v, testament of Nicolaes Sohier, dated 30 July 1641).
72 Devos and Brulez 1986, p. 516 nr.3303, dated 26 January 1616, here, Guillelmo acted as a middleman between Daniel Nijs and one Giovanni Dunoski. Dunoski had his clothes repaired, for which they used a bargain of Sohier; and p. 652, nr.3742, dated 16 June 1618, here Giovanni Antonio de Battista (a merchant) gives permission to Gulielmo Sohier to release someone called Hortensio Ballarin from prison. Daniel Nijs paid de Battista to realize this.
73 Anderson 2015, p. 100. 74 Ibidem.
75 De Jong 2005, p. 327-328.
76 Charles de Latfeur was Sohier’s nephew and also a witness at Sohier’s marriage. He also married to Hester van der Meulen (1587-1643). The connection with the Van der Meulen family is even more evident a genartion before Nicolaes, since his aunt Catherina, as well as his father Hugo and uncle David corresponded with Daniel Van der Meulen between 1590 and 1598, see: Leiden City Archives, letters of Daniel van Der Meulen, 0096, inv. 168, 482, 483 and 627, dated between 1590 and 1598. Andries van der Meulen’s father was married to a Susanna de Malapert, a family to which the Sohiers were also connected (see family tree, appendix 1).
compared to the other regions where he did business. We can see these Italian influences, for example in his art collection and his interest in Italian music, which we will discuss later. Even the names of his children, Felitia, Olimpia and Constantia, sound more Italian.
Another example is that he used the name Nicolo instead of Nicolaes as his signature in different documents.77 This was not only the case in notarial documents, which had a more official character, but also for more informal letters or even in a short note about a payment for his house at the Keizersgracht.78 He thus not only used Nicolo for business or in his letters with Constantijn Huygens, but it seems that he used this name as signature in most of the documents he signed.
We also learn something about Sohier’s activities as merchant from the inventory made at Sohier’s death in 1642 at the Amsterdam Weeskamer. Here we read that Sohier also possessed a large quantity of cloves.79 These Cruijdt Nagelen were an expensive spice from the Indonesian region and brought to the Dutch Republic by the VOC. The fact that Sohier had a large amount of this spice in his possession might suggest that he traded in cloves. It is, however, until this point not known what the role of Sohier was in the trading activities of the VOC.80
Sohier, as it seems, was active as a merchant in different regions. He thus must have had a network of likeminded people with whom he did business and who he trusted. Whether or not he only was active in silk trading remains a question. Apparently, he was quite successful in his activities because he was among the wealthiest citizens of Amsterdam at the time of his death in 1642.
77 See for example his marriage contract with G.A. DTB (5001) 426, fol. 22v, intended marriage
contract between Nicolaes Sohier and Suzanne Hellemans, dated 29 April 1621; the charter contract for De Geluckige Leeuw (G.A. Not. J.F. Bruijningh, 8 170, fol. 1v-3v, charter contract for De Geluckige Leeuw dated 11 September 1623) and his letters with Constantijn Huygens (Rasch, 2007). See also fig. 1.
78 G.A. 88 588, notes of Nicolaes Sohier about the payment of expenses for the house at the Keizersgracht, dated 26 October 1621.
79 G.A. 5073 796 (‘25’), fol. 200r-207v, inventory of assets of Sohier, made at the Amsterdam
Weeskamer, dated 8 October 1642. Fol. 204r: “Also the following quartelen [Dutch measurement] and half quartelen cloves that according to Sohier have the netto weight of no1… tt 380 […].” Own translation. 80 Evidence for a more extensive role of Sohier within the VOC is missing. His name does not appear in the VOC archives, at least not in the indexes concerning the VOC of the National Archive in The Hague. However, family members of Sohier can be linked to this company or the WIC. For example, his aunt Maria Sohier (1558-1639) married Everard Becker (?-?), who was the director of the Middelburg chamber of the VOC.
1.4 Sohier’s Wealth
That Nicolaes was rich is evident from the fact that in 1631, he had to pay a tax of 1.200 guilders, which meant that his estimated property was 240.000 guilders.81 His activities as a
merchant generated only a part of his income. As the only son of Hugo Sohier, Sohier must have inherited his father’s possessions, but is it not known what this inheritance consisted of because the testament of Hugo seems to be lost.82 The other parts of his fortune did come from a very lucrative marriage with Suzanne Hellemans and his investments in the VOC and
West-Indische Compagnie (WIC).
Upon his death in 1642, his only son Constantijn inherited his possessions and most of the assets. According to the testament of Sohier, he left 4000 guilders to the Walenweeshuis (the Walloon orphanage), 600 guilders to his principal servant (Hendrick van Mijnert), as well as 200 guilders to each servant who worked more then three years for Sohier and 100 guilders to every servant who worked for him less then three years, 60 guilders for every handmaid. His son Constantijn received 150 guilders a year until his death and all the movable and immovable property that was left over.83 To estimate what the total fortune of Sohier was at the time of his death is difficult since the inventories made upon his death shows us that much of his fortune are both movable as immovable goods (see also appendix 2).84
The marriage with Suzanne Hellemans turned out to be really important from a financial perspective. But this wealth was not given to Nicolaes without a fight between different heirs of the Hellemans family. Several lawsuits about the majorat that Peter Petersz. Hellemans (?-1601) left to his brother Francesco (I) Hellemans (?-c.1602/1603) and about the inheritance of Susanna van Surck (?-1628) were processed in front of the court in Brussels, as well as at the Hof van Holland, the High Court in the province of Holland.85
Peter Petersz. Hellemans’ estimated fortune was 85.000 guilders and this was split in two majorats in order to keep his fortune within his family without the risk of it being scattered.86 The first majorat went to his brother Carlo Hellemans (?-1605) and the second to
81 Wijnroks 2003, p. 419.
82 In La Veritable Origine, Le Carpentier only published an extract of the testament of Hugo, dated 1584. In this extract, there are no mentions of what Hugo left his son. The location of the original testament is not known. See Le Carpentier 1661, p. 155.
83 See G.A. Not. P. de Bary, 70 1659, fol.177v-181v, testament of Nicolaes Sohier, dated 30 July 1641. 84 Historian Bosscha estimated the total wealth of Sohier at 4 milion guilders, but he does not give a clear explanation for this amount. See Bosscha 1895, p. 482 and Lugt 2014, p. 29.
85 Tricht 1976, p. 884-886. A majorat is an arrangement that prevents that the inheritance of one
person scatters between different family members. The eldest son or nearest relative inherited everything wholehearted, including titles.
his other brother, Francesco (I) Hellemans. With the death of Francesco I, the fortune came with his son, Francesco (II) Hellemans (1592-1634). Francesco was captain in the Spanish army and died, together with his only son Francesco (III) Hellemans (?-1634), on the battlefield. After his death, the battle for the last majorat began. Leonora, as the eldest and still living daughter of Arnout Hellemans had good papers, as well as Sohier who represented his son Constantijn (who was the son of the eldest daughter of Arnout Hellemans).87
These lawsuits between Sohier and his sister-in-law Leonora Hellemans, took place mainly in the 1630s and are described in the letters by Leonora’s husband, Pieter Cornelis Hooft.88 Hooft was not pleased with his brother-in-law and blamed Sohier for the lawsuits
and the fact that Leonora and her sister Lucretia were disinherited by Sohier.89 In 1633, Sohier lost the first lawsuits about the inheritance of Susanna van Surck against Leonora at the Hof
van Holland, but he had more luck when he went to the Hoge Raad van Holland en Zeeland
(High Court of Holland and Zeeland) for an appeal in 1637.90 Sohier won this appeal and inherited the possessions of his mother-in-law. The lawsuits at the Court of Brussels, about the majorat of Francesco Hellemans, took much longer because Franceso died in Spain, which complicated the whole case. Eventually, Sohier’s great-granddaughter Adriana Constantia received the majorat in 1710.91
Besides Sohiers activities as a merchant and the received money from the Hellemans family, he has earned his money through other ways. Nicolaes Sohier is named in secondary sources as “tax collector”.92 However, archival documents seem not to support this assumption because Sohier is only named as “coopman” or “sijden coopman” (silk merchant) and there are no mentions of him as a tax collector. Nevertheless, what we do know about Sohier’s income is that he invested in the VOC as well as in the WIC. This becomes clear from the inventory made at the Amsterdam Weeskamer after Sohiers death in 1642, where an overview of his financial assets is given.93
Until now, the importance of family for Nicolaes Sohier has become visible. From the publication La Veritable Origine we not learned about the Sohier family, but also about the 87 Ibidem. 88 Ibidem. 89 Tricht 1977, p. 866. 90 Tricht 1976, p. 885. 91 Idem, p. 886.
92 Heinen 2010, p. 151 and Golahny 2013, p. 1. Both authors did not give a source or explanation why they call him a tax collector.
93 G.A. 5073 796 (‘25’), fol. 200r-207v, inventory of assets of Sohier, made at the Amsterdam
importance for Nicolaes and Constantijn Sohier to climb the social ladder. It also became evident that Nicolaes Sohier’s family helped him with enlarging his fortune, either by doing business together or by the inheritances that he received. On the other side, it also became clear that Sohier’s most important associate was not family, but instead a member of the patrician family Bicker. Even more, he also had connections with other important Amsterdam families, mostly those of Flemish origin and he was closely connected to a group of merchants active in the trade with Venice. Through this important network, it became clear that Sohier was active in the economical elite of the Dutch Republic.
Chapter 2: The Cultural Elite
In the first chapter, we already discussed the term social mobility and that Sohier was very much aware of his position on the social ladder. At the same time, it has been remarked that the elite wanted to emulate themselves with the nobility. However, imitating the lifestyle of the nobility did not only focus on acquiring titles; it was much more about adopting the ideals of civility that the nobility had.94 This process of the (urban) elite developing a more opulent lifestyle in order to match the nobility is what has been called aristocratization.95
The term is according to Roodenburg outdated and he suggests that we should forget about this term entirely or only use it in its general sense of leaning towards a certain stylishness or grandness that we tend to associate with the aristocracy.96 Roodenburg, however admitted that while this term is not the best to describe this process, the elite certainly embraced an ostentatious lifestyle.97
This lifestyle had much in common with the court culture that played an important role in preceding centuries and could be still found on a larger scale in other countries. The nobility were entitled to serve at the courts, which caused that cities around the royal houses rose and attracted not only the nobility, but also other elites, servants, artists and so forth.98
However, these other groups did not receive the same privileges as the nobles, which caused a distinction between the noble courtiers with their titles and own culture and those who did not belong to these inner circles.99 This court culture had much to do with luxury, prestige, splendour but also good manners or education.100
From the late Middle Ages onwards, however, courts were also important meeting points for scholars, artists and craftsmen, as Hooper-Greenhill argued with her example of the Medici court in Florence in the 14th and 15th century.101 The Medici’s, the merchants and scholars that were involved in the court, used their art and naturalia collections to show their knowledge and to express their wealth.102 Their taste for expsensive artifacts, artsworks as well as books, changed the idea of what was ‘taste’.103 This development of the increasing emphasis on the importance of scholarship, as well as the importance of the installement of art
94 Roodenburg 2004, p. 40. 95 Idem, p. 39.
96 Idem, p. 40 and Roodenburg 2010, p. 275-276. 97 Roodenburg 2004, p. 40.
98 Duindam 2015, p. 235. 99 Idem, p. 237.
100 Idem, p. 275-277.
101 Hooper-Greenhill 1992, see chapter 2 and 3. 102 Idem, p. 33-34.
and naturalia collections and the knowledge that was paired with it, was based on the wish for social advancement because rulers, such as the Medici’s, wanted to present themselves as more powerful, more knowledgeable and wealthier as their counterparts.104 This is essentially
what also drove the elite of the Dutch Republic two centuries later, to show that they were equal to the nobility.
These nobles formed a reference group or cultural model for the elite in Amsterdam, where regents and the wealthiest merchants belonged to the highest group.105 The elite can be defined on the basis of three characteristics: status, power or influence and wealth.106 In the Dutch Republic, the highest class could be found in The Hague, where nobility stayed around the court of the Oranges, the most important family in the Republic.107
“The elite” in the 17th century Dutch Republic is not easily defined, especially because the political elite was not equal with the social elite. If we look for example at the government functions in Amsterdam, we see that a lot of citizens were legible to be chosen for public functions, but in practice, it was a closed group who in fact had most of the power in their hands.108 Especially for immigrants from the Southern-Netherlands it was difficult to gain access to these governmental functions, because the hostile feelings towards the Spaniards who dominated the Southern Netherlands.109 In other words, to be part of the economical elite did not necessary mean to be also a part of the political elite. The term ‘cultural elite’ is in that regard also a bit conflicting, because there is no strict boundary if someone belonged to this group or not. Nevertheless, it is the best term to use if we speak of the highest class of society within a cultural milieu.
Nicolaes Sohier was someone who was active within the circles of the cultural elite of Amsterdam. This becomes evident from two important connections that he had, namely the fencing master Gérard Thibault (c. 1574-1627) and secondly, one of most important cultural figures in the Dutch Republic during the 17th century, Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687). Both connections are very interesting from the viewpoint that Sohier did develop a lifestyle that affiliates him with the nobility but at the same time, it also showed that he, as a merchant, was interested in music, art and culture in a more general sense as well.
The relation with Thibault is therefore a good starting point for this chapter, because it gives us an idea in which circles Sohier was active. The evidence that Sohier was an 104 Idem, p. 44. 105 Burke 1991, p. 156. 106 Idem, p. 18. 107 Idem, p. 156. 108 Idem, p. 37. 109 Idem, p. 35.
acquaintance of Thibault could be found in the album amicorum of this fencing master, made around 1615-1620. Along the entries of many interesting names, we can find a poem written by Sohier. This poem itself is even more interesting because it was the only entry written in Italian.
2.1 Gérard Thibault and His Album Amicorum
In c. 1610, the fencing master Gerard Thibault came to Amsterdam and started his fencing school, which soon became a meeting point for the cultural elite of the city. His fencing school attracted a public of young and rich merchants, future regents, intellectuals and artists, such as members of the Coymans, Pauw, Bartolotti and Hellemans families but also cultural important figures as diplomat and art agent Michel le Blon (1587-1658), the painter Johannes Torrentius (c.1589-1644), artist and poet Anna Roemers Visscher (1584- 1651) and musician Nicolas Vallet (1583-1642).110 Thanks to the album amicorum that was made for Thibault, at least a part of his circle of friends and students is known.
It is remarkable that more then half of the contributors in the album were from southern Netherlandish origin and at the same time, Thibault also made connections with the traditional Amsterdam elite families, such as the Pauw family. Apparantly, the fencing classes of Thibault attracted both groups and his school was possibly a meeting point for the elite. Thibault had easily access to the Amsterdam elite thanks to his brother-in-law Guillelmo Bartolotti.111 The album was made because Thibault announced that he would leave the city and thus we can read the disappointment of his friends and students between the lines.112 What is also evident from this album is that fencing was not the only activity organised, music was also important as well as the parties that took place.113
Fencing, at that time, was part of the education of noblemen and thus a sign for a sophisticated lifestyle.114 Education and training for children was necessary already from an early childhood to learn the right stance, correct behaviour and eloquence.115 Therefore, members of the elite send their children to fencing, dancing and horse-riding classes to learn about the correct stance and elegance.116 When children learned these skills already from a
110 Idem, p.52-53 and Roodenburg 2004, p. 100.
111 Idem, p. 30. Another brother-in-law of Thibault was Antonie van Surck (c.1576/77-1619), who was a brother of Suzanna van Surck (?-1628), mother of Suzanne Hellemans.
112 Idem, p. 32.
113 Ibidem. Mayor of Amsterdam, Dr. Albert Coenraets Burgh (1593-1647) called 1615 an ‘annus dionysianus,’ referring to the Greek god of wine and ecstasy.
114 De La Fontaine Verwey 1977, p. 24 115 Roodenburg 2010, p. 277.
young age, it would appear effortless when they were of higher age. This effortlessness or
sprezzatura as Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529) called it in his famous Il libro del Cortegiano (1528), was an important characteristic that a real gentleman should had because
this provoked even more admiration then when it seems more like forced behaviour.117 In the same book we can indeed find fencing as part of the education for the lettered nobleman.118 We will return to the importance of education in the next part about Constantijn Huygens, who is a great example of a father who saw education as very important for his children.
The entry of Sohier in Thibault’s album (see fig. 2 and appendix 4) does not only inform us about the cultural milieu he was in, but also that he wanted to show his knowledge of the Italian language. It is, however, not certain if Sohier wrote and or invented his own entry. The laudatory poem that Sohier wrote is not the only one in the album and it even seems that Thibault has ordered long, laudatory poems from one unknown author to highlight his own career.119 This assumption is also based on the fact that the calligraphy of the poems is in some cases by the same hand. There could also be a difference between the calligraphy in which the poem is written and the calligraphy of the person who signed it.120
Sohier’s entry was one of the earliest in the album amicorum (first entry was on 1 December 1615) and it is evident that several contributors used a lot of the same themes.121 As said before, there are many laudatory poems in this album amicorum and thus it is not that strange that the same themes reoccur. The difference with these types of poems, however, is the length. While Sohier’s entry is only one page long, the laudatory poems of which De Fontaine Verwey suppects they are made by the the same hand are at least three pages long.122 Therefore, Sohier’s contribution might be placed with the more spontaneous and short poems that are possibly written by the same persons who signed the entries.123
This assumption is reinforced by the fact that there is no coat of arms of Sohier next to his poem, while we can find these decorations next to most entries in the album, which underlines the spontaneous character of Sohier’s entry. Besides this, it is also remarkable that the handwriting of Sohier’s poem does not seem to match any other handwriting in the album and, more obvious, that it is the only one in Italian. Whenether or not Sohier wrote and invented the poem himself cannot be proven at this point of research, even more because the
117 Castiglione (translation by Haakman) 1991, p. 54. 118 De La Fontaine Verwey 1977, p. 24.
119 Idem, p. 35. 120 Idem, p. 35-36.
121 For example Theodore Rodenburg (1574-1644) fol. 23v, dated 17 August 1617; Pedro Alvares (?-?), fol. 24v (not dated) and Anne Roemersdr. Visscher (1584-1651/2), fol. 25v-26r (not dated).
122 De La Fontaine Verwey 1977, p. 35. 123 Ibidem.
handwriting of Sohier himself, in for example his letters to Constantijn Huygens (see fig. 3) which we also will discuss later, does not seems to match with the poem.
The poem itself is full of admiration and respect for Thibault and he is admired for his qualities as a very courageous and skilled fencing master. For example, Thibault is not just considered as a son of Mars, but he is even compared with Mars, the god of war, himself.124 More interestingly, Thibault is also praised for his prudence, his knowledge and as someone who can turn the most “covetous become jocund” because of his valore (valour, someone courageous and intelligent).125 In other words, the fencing classes of Thibault were not only about how to learn to master the sword, but as we have seen before, it was also about learing the correct behaviour.
Even more, in the first sentence of the poem, it is mentioned that Thibault showed how eloquent he was.126 Here the word facondo is used, which refers to intelligent academics that speak in public with great elegance. It thus seems that Sohier really admired these skills of Thibault, which is even strengthened by the fact that it is the first quality (and maybe the most important) of Thibault that is highlighted. Could it be that Sohier attented the classes of Thibault mainly because he wanted the learn how to behave in an eloquent way himself? At least, the poem shows that the fencing school of Thibault was about more than only fencing and that Sohier, if he wrote this poem himself, really draws attention to these other qualities.
This way of focussing on these qualities of prudence, reason, courage and so forth happened more often in album amicorums, as for example by Thibault himself. One example is an engraving and coat of arms of him in the album amicorum of diplomat and merchant Isaac Massa (1586-1643) (see fig. 4). Especially the engraving is interesting, because here we can see all the qualities that a warrior should posses: virtue, reason, courage, wisdom, moderation and perseverance.127 These qualities are in essence quite similar to those values that a courtier needed according to Castiglione.
It would be interesting to know if Sohier attended the fencing classes of Thibault to learn the abilities a real gentleman needed. However, the only source we have that hints on the presence of Sohier in the circle of Thibault is his entry in the album amicorum and this is not enough to prove this assumption. What could have helped to prove this is if we knew if
124 KB, KW 133 L4, Entry of Nicolaes Sohier in Album Amicorum Gerard Thibault, fol. 78v, dated 6 December 1615: “Figlio di marte, anzi pur marte stesso” (Mars’son or even, better you are Mars yourself). For the complete poem and translation see appendix 4.
125 Ibidem. “Col tuo valor, ch’a nullo altro è secondo, veggio ed i più famosi dir espresso” (“with your valour, second to none, I see even the most covetous become jocund”).
126 Ibidem. “Mentre ti scopri a noi di facondo” (While you show us how eloquent you are). 127 De La Fontaine Verwey 1977, p. 32.
Sohier did send his son Constantijn to one of the fencing schools in Amsterdam to learn these qualities as well. But once again, the evidence that Constantijn had fencing classes is missing. Nevertheless, we do have other sources that indicated that the education for his son was important for Nicolaes. For this, we have to turn our attention to Constantijn Huygens and the letters between him and Nicolaes.
2.2 Constantijn Huygens and Education for the Gentleman
Poet and courtier Constantijn Huygens and his sons operated precisely where the court and city intersected.128 Historian Herman Roodenburg used Huygens as the perfect example for a
honnête homme or courtoisie, in other words, a civilised and well-mannered gentleman.129
Huygens indeed was one of the best examples of a honnête homme in the Republic: he studied law at the Univerisity of Leiden, kept a library with more than 5000 books, spoke several languages, wrote poems, he was a composer and also a respected connoisseur of art.130
Huygens, as well as other members of the elite, saw the importance of the education for their children in order to prepare them for their future careers.131
A sign for the importance of education was that books about manners, such as the earlier mentioned Il libro del Cortigiano by Castiglione, could be found widely on the bookshelves of the elite.132 Another early but nevertheless important example is Erasmus’ De
Civilitate Morum Puerilium Libellous (1530), one of the first books on etiquette and
education in which Erasmus gives detailed rules of conduct. Interesting is that he argued that children had to be teached about the liberal arts by the means of a good education, as soon as possible.133 Also important is that the children had to be prepared for their duties within the society, as well as they had to be teached how to behave civilised.134 These ideas of Erasmus seem to have originated from the medieval court culture that has been discussed before.135
Music was also an important part of the education according to Castiglione and Huygens is one example of a father who his children to play different instruments as the lute, viola da gamba and harpsichord.136 This interest in music is what links Sohier and Huygens with each other because in a letter from Constantijn Huygens to Sohier, dated 6 March 1638, 128 Roodenburg 2004, p. 29. 129 Idem, p. 31. 130 Dekker 2013, p. 4-8. 131 Wesseling 2001, p. 120. 132 Roodenburg 2004, p. 42-43. 133 Ibidem. 134 Ibidem. 135 Idem, p.121. 136 Idem, p. 55-56.
Huygens wrote: “I have seen that you [Nicolaes] have collected a large amount of Italian music and you must be richly supplied of this, because you are working for a good education for your son [Constantijn].”137
It becomes clear that music was seen as important for the education of children of the elite in Amsterdam becomes apparent from the same letter from Huygens. It is Huygens who asks Sohier if he can provide him with music from Venice, for the education of his own children. Apparently, Huygens approached Sohier because he was looking for Venetian music and he thought that Sohier could help him with this because Sohier knew what composers were fashionable at that time in Venice.138 That Sohier indeed knew something about Italian
music becomes clear from the two letters that Sohier send in response to Huygens.139
Beside his knowledge about Venetian music, this letter also shows us that Sohier was involved in the education for his son. Constantijn became known as a competent singer, player of the flute, viola da gamba and harpsichord because composer and organist Joan Dusart (1621-1691) dedicated his book Zang-wortel en gheestelyke spruit […] (1653, Paulus Matthijsz.) to Constantijn and praised these abilities.140 Sohier’s interest in music is also apparent in the 1642 inventory because he owned: “een viool basgen van eijken hout”, (bass violin made of oak wood), two other violins and a lute.141
More evidence that the education of Constantijn was important for his father seems to be missing. The many books about civility that, for example, Huygens had are not found in the inventory of Sohier, only “een ditto [kiste] vol gedruckte boeken” (“a ditto [chest] full of printed books”) is mentioned, leaving us with the unanswered question which books were in this chest.142
For the education of his son a grand tour towards Italy would be an important undertaking, as it was for most sons of the elite.143 However, we know that Sohier did not
137 Own translation of : “J’ay veu que vous ramassiez quantité de musique Italienne, et ne se peut que n’en soyez pourveu largement, depuis que vous travaillez à belle institution de vostre fils,” as published in Rasch 2007, p. 289.
138 Ibidem. Own translation of: “C’est ce qui m’en faict recercher de Venize pour saouler leur curiosité de temps en temps. Vous [Nicolaes] cognoissez donq, Monsieur, les auteurs qui à present y ont le plus de vogue.”
139 See Rasch 2007, p. 291. In the first letter, dated 13 March 1638, Sohier sends a madrigal possibly by the Italian composor Gregorio Veneri (c.1602/1603-after 1631), but he did not seem to be convinced by the quality of the music. In a second letter to Huygens, dated 26 March 1638, Sohier gives more advise about Italian composers, but he also has to admit he could not find a copy of Amarissime dolcezze by the composer Giovanni Biseghino (?-1631).
140 Den Hertog 2009, p. 97.
141 G.A. Not. P. De Bary (70) 1681B, inventory list made after the death of Sohier dated 9 August 1642, fol. 1257 and 1269.
142 Idem, fol. 1266. 143 Roodenburg 2004, p. 41.
allow his son Constantijn to travel to Italy: “He [Constantijn] shall not travel towards Italy. Because reasons of my own and which I announced to my friends.”144 The question is
obviously what reasons could Sohier have had? Maybe the fact that living in Italy was considered dangerous for a young merchant because the lack of social control might have scared Sohier to sent his only living son towards this region.145
The education of the young elite did not only consist of music and good manners. Serious study, at for example universities, was also part of their upbringing. Whenether or not Sohier send his son to university or if he arranged any other form of serious study for his son, for example by hiring a private teacher, is not clear. Constantijn did not go to the university in Leiden, the university of the province of Holland, but there are plenty of other universities in Europe where Sohier could have sent his son.146
According to historians Arjan van Dixhoorn and Benjamin Roberts, the Dutch chambers of rhetoric also played an important role in the education for the youth, especially for those who could not afford a Latin school or university.147 Within these literary and dramatic socities, a diverse range of rhetorical skills were practiced and at the same time the members also learned how to behave like civilized men, in other words, as honnête
hommes.148 It has been suggested that Sohier might was involved in one of the Amsterdam chambers of rhetoric, Het Wit Lavendel or D’Eglentier on the basis that Sohier was friends
with one of the most famous poets and member of both chambers, Joost van den Vondel.149
That Sohier possibly knew Vondel and also that he certainly knew Hooft, who was an important member of D’Eglentier combined with the fact that many members of Het Wit
Lavendel were of Southern Netherlands origin, is interesting. Nonetheless, a direct link
between Sohier and the chambers of rhetoric has not been found.150
In this chapter, we have seen that Sohier was active within a cultural milieu in Amsterdam.
144 Own translation of: “Hij [Constantijn] geene reijsen sal doen naer Italien. Van redenen mij moverende, ende de vrienden bekent gemaeckt.” See: G.A. Not. P. de Bary, 70 1659, fol.177v-181v, testament of Nicolaes Sohier, dated 30 July 1641.
145 Lesger and Noordgraaf 1995, p. 32-33.
146 In the Leidse Album Studiosorum (1575-1812), which includes the names of the students and teachers of this university, the name of Constantijn, and that of Nicolaes himself, his learned brother Guglielmo, who probably studied in Padua, are missing (the only family member of that went to Leiden University is Constantijn’s son, Hieronymus Sohier (?-1688) in 1688), see Du Rieu 1875, p. 532 for Hieronymus.
147 Van Dixhoorn and Roberts 2003, p. 332. 148 Idem, p. 334-335.
149 Hageman 2016, p. 50; Schweitzer 2012, p.26: Vondel might have even met Nicolaes or Contantijn Sohier in Velsen (now part of Beverwijk), were Nicolaees and Suzanne owned a house at the Breestraat. But other sources of this house or a stronger connection between Vondel and Sohier have not been found.
150 Van Boheemen and Van der Heijden 1999; Sohier is not mentione in this important work on the Dutch chambers of rhetoric, were many members of these societies are named. However, as not all the members were known by name, it might be possible that Sohier indeed was, a anymous, member of one of these chambers.
He was interested in music, fencing and probably also literature because his connections with members of the chambers of rhetoric. Even more, this assumption might have been proven by the fact that he wrote and invented his own poem in the album amicorum of Thibault.
Nonetheless, it became apparent that the cultural activities in which Sohier was involved could be explained in the light of the process of aristocratisation. This interest for culture, and especially the interest in collecting of art and naturalia, which shows the connection with court culture and noble aspirations even more, will be discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter.
