Chapter One Leaving Home

Jacques de Falais (d.1556) and his wife Yolande van Brederode (1525–c.1555) were among the earliest Dutch Reformed migrants. They belonged to the noble elites of the Low Countries and had the means and opportunity to prepare their migration carefully. Jacques was an illegitimate son of Philips le Bon, and a cousin of Emperor Charles V. For her part, Yolande van Brederode was a descendant of the counts of Holland. At the urging of John Calvin, they decided to leave “Babylon” for a place where they could serve Christ in Reformed purity.2 This correspondence has been edited. BF. They left their home in Fallais, near the city of Liège, and went to Cologne, where they became one of the driving forces behind the first attempt to establish a Reformed church.3 Denis, “Jacques de Bourgogne, Seigneur de Falais.” In a sense these early migrants paved the way for the other exiles. They established foreign churches that were able to support future migrants. The networks this first generation created provided subsequent migrants with useful information.

Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert (1522–1590) and his wife Neeltje Simonsdr (1510 [?]–1584) belonged to the wave of exiles who left the Low Countries after the riotous iconoclasm in 1566.4 On Coornhert see, Bonger, Leven en werk. Some 40 years after Coornhert’s death, Jacob Aertsz Colom published his collected works Coorhnert, Dieryck Volckertsz. Coornherts wercken, here abbreviated as WW. Bruno Becker published archival sources on Coornhert: Becker, Bronnen. Following waves of image breaking by Reformed zealots and angry mobs that year, the Habsburg government took severe measures against these rebels and heretics. Religious and political persecution forced large groups to look for safe harbor elsewhere. Coornhert’s decision to flee was primarily motivated by his political actions. Coornhert was born in Amsterdam to a well-to-do merchant and lived in Haarlem as a member of the urban elites. He had family connections to Hendrik van Brederode, the Reformed noble and early leader of resistance to Habsburg rule. We know little about Neeltje’s origins, but we do know that her sister was a mistress of Reinout van Brederode, the father of Hendrik van Brederode. Anna Simonsdr was the mother of six of Reinout’s extramarital children, including Artus van Brederode, who helped Coornhert to flee.5 Van Nierop, “Coornherts huwelijk.” Although Coornhert had written a ferocious attack on John Calvin’s calls to commit to the Reformed faith and distance oneself from Catholic idolatry, he still took part in Reformed and rebel networks in 1566. Habsburg authorities, indeed, had many reasons to suspect him of fostering heretical and antigovernment ideas. During the turbulent 1560s, he had been present at a religious disputation, and he was in touch with Hendrik van Brederode. In 1567 Coornhert was apprehended and imprisoned but managed to escape to Xanten. Coornhert is a clear example of the permeability of religious boundaries. He seems to have participated in compromise church services (church services that combined elements of different liturgies), and he exchanged letters with more libertine-minded Reformed believers. Leading libertines fulfilled important roles in the young Dutch Reformed Church and opposed the attempts of orthodox Reformed to rigidly define the Reformed confession. The church they envisioned did not define ecclesiastical boundaries but welcomed all believers.6 In an early modern context, “libertine” was a slur. Its modern use suggests a clarity that was probably alien to the sixteenth-century context. Margolin, “Réflexions sur l’emploi du terme Libertin.” With their pleas for a nonconfessional church, their optimism about human perfectibility, and their critique of Reformed doctrines such as predestination, libertines were a stumbling block to orthodox Reformed ministers. Such libertines were active within and outside the Reformed Church. See Kaplan, Calvinists and Libertines; Augustijn, “Die Reformierte Kirche.” However, during Coornhert’s stay abroad, his revulsion for the Reformed orthodoxy increased, and he started a polemic against the Reformed doctrine of predestination.7 Bonger, Leven en werk. In 1572, he returned to Holland, but soon after he decided to migrate again. This second migration need not concern us since it was only during his first migration that Coornhert participated in Reformed networks and supported William of Orange’s revolt.

About Sybilla we know virtually nothing. She lived in Frankfurt am Main as a maid of Mathijs Schats, a Reformed migrant from Brussels. She first appears in the consistory records in April 1577, when it was recorded that Schats was harassing her. We have identified six women who shared this first name in this community. It is possible she is one (or more) of these women. The earliest record of Schats’s presence in Frankfurt was only the year before, so it is possible that Sybilla arrived with him in 1576. As the consistory records inform us, Mathijs Schats, an elder, beat her when she struggled with her loom.8 Meinert, and Dahmer, Das Protokollbuch, 159–60. As a result of her injuries she was unable to use her arm for a couple of days. The consistory chose (more or less) to side with Sybilla, admonishing Sybilla and Mathijs to behave more peacefully while suspending Mathijs from the upcoming celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Sybilla belonged to a large group of maids in Frankfurt.9 On the occupational profile of Dutch Reformed migrants in Frankfurt, see chapter 3. Unfortunately, Sybilla and her fellow maids left few traces in the archives and hence we know nothing more of where she came from or how she came to live in Frankfurt.10 Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 101.

The Van den Corput family were members of the local elites in Breda who, because of the Reformed faith, fled for Duisburg in 1567.11 Crucial for our study of the Van den Corput family are A. J. M. Beenakker’s articles that are only published online. “Pendelen tussen Heidelberg en Breda in de zestiende eeuw,” “Brieven van de familie van de Corput,” and “Brieven 1597–1612,” (https://docplayer.nl/7757511-Pendelen-tussen-heidelberg-en-breda-in-de-zestiende-eeuw-dr-a-j-m-beenakker-samengebracht-zijn-hier.htmlhttps://www.yumpu.com/nl/document/view/20133579/pdf-brieven-1562-1584-brieven-van-den-corputnl). The family’s correspondence has also been digitized: Codex Palatinus Germanicus, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, abbreviated CPG. On the flight of this family see Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 159–88. Hendrik van den Corput (1536–1601) was to become one of Holland’s leading ministers. After becoming a minister in Holland’s oldest town, Dordrecht, in 1578, he helped define the course of the Dutch Reformed congregation in that city. Together with the other leading reformer, Arent Cornelisz, he insisted on the introduction of a church order and embraced the Heidelberg Catechism as a means of instructing believers but to also to provide doctrinal clarity and foster the bonds between Reformed Protestants across Europe. No wonder he clashed with Coornhert, who saw the introduction of a church order and a confession as a new kind of tyranny. Coornhert equated the Reformed insistence on a church order as the reintroduction of a canon law (jus canonicum) and warned his readers that the Reformed commitment to a written confession undermined their only recently acquired freedom.12 Coornhert, Remonstrance of vertooch, b1r–b3r. Coornhert, Proeve vande Heydelberghsche catechismo, omme te verstaen, of die voort-gekomen is uyt de Godtlijcke Schrift, dan uyt het menschelijcke vernuft, WW 3, 466v. Van den Corput, who fled his hometown of Breda with other family relatives in 1567 (about the same time as Coornhert), had been an elder and voorlezer (a reader of Bible passages during church services) of Breda’s clandestine Reformed church. As we will see, he continued to feel closely connected with his hometown of Breda, and yet his stay abroad offered him the opportunity to study theology in Heidelberg and thus to start a career as a pastor. His time in this leading center of Reformed scholarship may well have first instilled him with an international outlook. We don’t know exactly where he started his ministry, but he soon became pastor in Frankenthal. As we will see, Frankenthal offered the Reformed the possibility to establish a Reformed town and to pursue their efforts to promote Reformed purity with few compromises.

Finally, Daniel van der Meulen (1554–1600) was an extremely successful merchant. He co-owned a large, international firm—founded by his parents—with his brother Andries. Van der Meulen, who had spent parts of his youth in Cologne, returned to Antwerp in 1579 during the heyday of Reformed Protestantism there. In 1584 when Antwerp was under siege, the city government sent him as a deputy to try to convince the States of Holland to help them. In 1585, after Alexander Farnese’s conquest of Antwerp, he moved to Bremen. In each move, his decisions were motivated by a mix of his Reformed conviction, his political involvement, and his commercial interests. As we will see, the decision to move from Holland to Bremen was also motivated by the wish to avoid the confiscation of his belongings in Antwerp. We also found evidence of other members of Daniel’s family fleeing to Frankfurt and Cologne creating points of support for their international firm, and thus linking him to the network of congregations under examination in this book.13 On the Van der Meulen family, see Sadler, “Family in Revolt.” On the archival resources on this family, see Kernkamp, “Het Van der Meulen-archief ca.” For the correspondence between members of the family preceding their flight, see RGP 196.

These individuals represent some of the diversity of the migrants in our study. Extensive correspondence regarding the decisions of De Falais, and members of the Van der Meulen and Van den Corput families to go into exile have been preserved. Coornhert’s treatises and his correspondence with leaders of the revolt against Habsburg authority in the Low Countries allow us to analyze his reasons for going into exile as well. Records drawn from our database help us understand the patterns in movement from a more quantitative perspective. As we will see, these migrants had religious, political, social, and economic reasons for leaving their homes. Some were able to make their own decisions: they had the financial and social resources to collect information about potential refuges and they had reliable means of transportation. Others lacked these resources and, as a result, their agency in the decision-making process was limited. The way people fled had a tremendous impact on their lives abroad. Some migrants were able to prepare carefully: they secured their belongings in the Netherlands and sometimes even managed to arrange for proper and convenient housing at their destination. Many others had to flee in the night, sacrificing their belongings in the process. With little means of securing their futures, they depended on the benevolence of others.

The migrants described above also belonged to different waves of migration. The number of people leaving the Netherlands was closely linked to the course of religious persecutions and the course of the ongoing civil war in the Netherlands. Below, we will describe the political and religious circumstances that caused these waves of migration.14 De Graaf, Oorlog, mijn arme schapen; Van der Lem, De Opstand in de Nederlanden.

The Reformation gained sympathizers in the Low Countries shortly after Martin Luther’s attacks on what he saw as abuses in the old church.15 For a recent overview of the Reformation in the Low Countries, see Kooi, Reformation. The harsh measures the Habsburg regime took toward religious dissenters incited some to migrate. By the early 1560s, Reformed Protestantism had become an important aspect of the religious landscape, and many nobles and town leaders had begun to rail against Philip’s anti-Protestant policies. The year 1566 marked a watershed in the religious and political history of the Low Countries. Angry mobs and zealous Protestant believers “cleansed” the churches of idolatry, breaking religious images and desecrating holy objects. The Habsburg regime momentarily gave in and allowed Protestants to convene, but Margaret of Parma, Philip’s regent in Brussels, soon succeeded in restoring the old order. King Philip II responded by dispatching the duke of Alba to the Low Countries to repress dissent. Outmigration of Reformed Protestants became a mass phenomenon after these tumults of 1566. The noble leader William of Orange was among the thousands who decided to leave the Low Countries at this moment; he fled to his ancestral home in Dillenburg. Like Orange, other Netherlandish nobles sympathetic to the revolt also fled to the Empire, where they already owned property. Hence, from a certain perspective such migration was not quite an exile to foreign lands as much as an expedient move to their second homes.16 Asaert, 1585, 169. This pattern was not new: Rutger van Randwijck and his wife Jacoba van den Bongart, for example, were able to make use of family property across the border. After having been imprisoned for a year, they left Gelderland and around 1534 they went to Gennep, where Jacoba owned House Berkenbosch. Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 43.

From his safe haven in Dillenburg, Orange organized a revolt against the Habsburg regime. He encouraged people back home to resist Habsburg rule, attempted to gain support among German nobles, and tried to use the networks of Netherlandish communities abroad to raise money and amass troops. Coornhert served as one of his agents charged with the task of collecting money. In 1568, Orange launched a military campaign against Philip’s rule. This campaign failed, but it marked the start of a civil war that lasted decades. Only four years later, in 1572, the rebels gained a foothold in the province of Holland when they took Den Briel.17 See now Fagel and Pollmann, 1572. The seizure of this port had been the initiative of rebel sailors known as “Sea Beggars.” Orange tried to use these rather unorganized troops in his military campaigns but failed to bring them under his authority. No wonder: to make their living the beggars were largely dependent on piracy (and Orange allowed them to continue this behavior).18 Doedens and Houter, De Watergeuzen.

During the following years, in the rebel-held lands William of Orange tried to promote a compromise based on a policy of religious coexistence. However, efforts were undermined from multiple sides. Rebel troops, known as “Beggars,” continued to loot on land, rob monasteries, and harass people, especially clerics.19 On the term “beggar,” see Van Nierop, “Beggars’ Banquet.” When they conquered a city, Reformed Protestants were hardly willing to share church buildings with Catholics. Meanwhile, Catholics were inclined to regard Protestant believers as heretics who threatened humanity itself. From the outset, the so-called middle party risked being crushed by more outspoken people on both sides.20 Woltjer, Friesland in hervormingstijd, 292–311; Woltjer, Tussen vrijheidsstrijd en burgeroorlog, 64–88. Woltjer elaborated extensively on this middle party, as he called people who tried to avoid a choice between staunch Catholics and staunch Protestants. Coornhert’s fate may serve as an example. After the successes of Orangist troops, he decided to return to Holland and was commissioned by the States of Holland to investigate atrocities committed by the beggars. But Coornhert gradually became a suspicious figure in the eyes of the rebels, and two Reformed ministers understood his second flight in 1572 as a betrayal of the “fatherland.”21 R. Donteclock and A. Cornelisz to Coornhert, September 11, 1579, in WW 2, 264r. Coornhert included this letter in his Sendt-brief, WW 2, 257v–267r. The ongoing war—which brought economic decline, miseries, and mutual hatred—was, perhaps, hardly compatible with moderation. In these years, the military action of rebel troops and royal troops continued to push people to look for a better life elsewhere.

In 1579, the Union of Utrecht—the treaty that aligned the rebel provinces in the north—and the Union of Arras—aligning southern provinces with the Spanish Habsburgs, further entrenched the religious lines. While defense of the Habsburgs had become a Catholic enterprise, Orange’s rebellion increasingly became understood as a Protestant endeavor. After Alexander Farnese’s successful military campaigns in the south, starting with his victory at Gembloux in January 1578, this confessional and political divide became a geographical divide as well. This military campaign produced a new flood of migrants. The conquest of Antwerp in 1585, especially, caused a mass migration to the northern parts of the Low Countries as well as to the Holy Roman Empire. The Van der Meulen family was part of this second wave of migrants.

Our database allows us to see patterns in the arrival of Dutch Reformed migrants in the Holy Roman Empire in these years. We have traced the first appearance of migrants in the extant sources for each of these communities. We cannot be sure how soon the individual showed up in the sources after their arrival, so we cannot actually measure this. However, the fact that these first appearances generally match the periods of increased crackdowns by Habsburg officials on Protestants and periods of more intensive warfare suggests that they provide a generally accurate picture of the inflows of migrants to these communities. That is, large spikes of migration occurred in the later 1560s and the early 1580s, as King Philip’s armies made major gains in quashing political and religious dissent in the Low Countries.

Although the reasons to flee—the “push factors”— were clear, the decision to migrate was far from evident. In the following, we will describe how early modern people regarded migration. As we will see, this is not a straightforward story. Early modern Europeans fostered mixed feelings about migration. Urban residents of the Low Countries had long been mobile, and many towns and villages saw the advantages of welcoming foreigners. Because mortality rates in cities were high, towns needed newcomers simply to maintain population levels.22 See the discussion in chapter 2. Academics, merchants, and journeymen were accustomed to traveling, and towns and villages were accustomed to welcoming them. Magistrates were often aware of the contribution that newcomers’ skills and trade networks could make to local economies. At the same time, people in the early modern era expected one another to maintain legal and social ties to their hometowns. People were expected to seek permission from political authorities to leave their territory of residence. Some associated migration with criminality. The problem of discerning between migrants, exiles, vagabonds, vagrants, beggars, and foreigners illustrates how close mobility could come to disorder.23 Coy, Strangers and Misfits; Kamp, Crime, Gender, and Social Control, 211–74. Contemporaries rarely understood migrants’ decisions to leave in terms of heroic steadfastness. Instead, they often saw it in terms of betrayal. The warnings of Habsburg authorities in Brussels against leaving the Netherlands, especially as the duke of Alba was arriving from Spain to repress political and religious dissent, and the confiscation of these migrants’ property reflected attempts to enforce social norms.24 See, for example, Van der Lem, De Opstand in de Nederlanden, 70. The request in 1567 of some Reformed believers in Amsterdam for permission to leave was probably motivated by financial and social concerns. To be sure: Reformed refugees tried to avoid the loss of their property, but their motivation to avoid being seen as vagabonds may have also motivated them to maintain their status as respectable members of society.25 Pontanus, Historische beschrijvinghe, 78.

Just as there were reasons to remain where one was born and raised, there were risks in moving to a foreign land. Foreigners were vulnerable in many respects. Although, as indicated above, local magistrates were often aware of the need to attract new inhabitants to survive, early modern people still often had strong prejudices against foreigners. Foreigners were seen as an infringement of the normal order, people who endangered the normal set of beliefs or the normal rules of local societies. It was not by coincidence that, when requesting permission to stay, newcomers tried to assure local authorities that they respected the local order and were obedient citizens.26 This topic is the subject of a study currently being completed by Mirjam van Veen as it relates to the sixteenth-century churchman, Jan Utenhove. Thus leaving one’s homeland implied a loss of security. After all, early modern Europeans were dependent on their family and social networks for help. They maintained ties with friends, family members, or neighbors and turned to these networks in case of illness, conflicts with others, poverty, or other problems. Such networks were usually bound to a specific region.27 Kooijmans, “Andries & Daniel.” Literate people were able to maintain bonds of friendship by writing letters (the conversation between friends at a distance),28 Augustijn and Van Stam, Ioannis Calvini Epistolae, 11. but this was not a possibility for most early modern Europeans. Thus, the decision to migrate could easily lead to a dramatic decline in social stability. Migrants were less able to draw on their preexisting networks for help. Meanwhile, churches, towns, and villages were careful to direct their poor relief to help their own poor, excluding foreigners. Social welfare rules, whether ecclesiastical or secular, explicitly excluded foreigners.29 Kamp, Crime, Gender and Social Control, 213–17; Jütte, Obrigkeitlichte Armenfürsorge. See also Lieuwes, “Dorpsreglementen,” 659–60; Van Zalinge-Spooren, Gemeint en gemeenschap, 200–202. Geneva was an exception since it allowed foreigners to draw on the local charity. This caused tension between foreigners and the “children of Geneva” as the local charity was often overtaxed by the number of foreigners. Naphy, Calvin, 122–26; Olson, Calvin and Social Welfare. Delegates at the synod of Emden in October 1571 noted that people who moved too easily placed a heavy burden on social welfare systems and tried to set limits on the degree to which foreign travelers leaned on Reformed deacons.30 Rutgers, Acta, 81. For further discussion of this point, see chapter 5.

Because of the loss of social stability, migration was easier for strong, young men who were able to make a living elsewhere. The risk that elderly people might fall prey to poverty was often simply too big to justify their migration. Friends of the Van den Corput family were especially concerned about the well-being of parents.31 Maria Adriaensdr to Anna van den Corput, Breda, first half of January 1568, in CPG 841, 45v. Anna received the letter on January 17. It had made a detour: Maria Adriaensdr had sent the letter to Duisburg, but it was forwarded to Wesel. Children also added to the vulnerability of migrants: in one of his letters written during his stay abroad, Coornhert mentioned his neighbor who struggled to get around and make a living not only for himself but also for his children.32 Coornhert to Dirck Jacobsz van Montfoort, undated, in Coornhert, Brieven-boeck, ep. 30, 71. Coornhert wrote that he really wanted to speak with his friend in Holland in a personal meeting, instead of writing letters. This shows that he wrote his letter during one of his stays abroad.

Migration was riskier for women. In our study, we have traced far more Dutch men than Dutch women who traveled to the Holy Roman Empire (70 percent men). To some extent, this overrepresentation of men is due to the sources we have used to make our database: men were more likely to be mentioned in many of the political and ecclesiastical sources on which we based much of our research. Still, for those communities with complete marriage records (listing both the wife’s and husband’s names) and baptismal records (listing the mother’s and father’s names), like Frankenthal, we find greater gender parity, even if we still learn little qualitatively about the women listed. However, still fully 65 percent of Netherlanders recorded as living in Frankenthal in our database were men. Certainly, there were female migrants whose identities were never recorded in Frankenthal’s records, including married women who arrived with their husbands (and thus their identities may have been subsumed under their husbands’), who never bore children in Frankenthal (and thus were never listed as mothers on baptismal certificates), who never served as godmothers for other families, or who predeceased their husbands (and thus were never widows). Still, while men could travel alone without attracting suspicion in early modern Europe, such was not the case with women, whose social stability often depended on their ties to patriarchal authority. Thus, as elsewhere, it is likely that the majority of migrants were indeed male.33 Hippel, Armut; Kamp, “Female Crime”; Dürr, “Die Migration von Mädgen”; Fehler, “Refugee Wives, Widows, and Mothers.” By planning their migration carefully, however, migrants could limit the dangers associated with migration. In the following we will describe the means migrants might have to plan their journey.

Gathering information was key for migrants deciding where to go. They needed to know whether a potential place of refuge could offer job opportunities, whether they could obtain housing, and whether such a place was within traveling distance. The possibility of staying in touch with people back home, either because a place was close by or because it had a working postal system, counted as a strong asset. Accordingly, one’s place of origin determined, to some extent, where one was likely to migrate. People fleeing Amsterdam, for instance, often went to Emden because there were preexisting travel routes but also the regular exchange of news back and forth. Early modern migrants tried to maintain their networks. For the same reason they migrated as a group.34 Spicer, French-Speaking Reformed Community, 159. See also Raymond Fagel, “Immigrant Roots: The Geographical Origins of Newcomers from the Low Countries in Tudor England,” in Goose and Luu, Immigrants, 41–56. Traveling a relatively short distance was less expensive, offered more information about circumstances back home, and made it easier to return.35 Lesger, “Variaties in de herkomstpatronen,” 122. Migrants from Nijmegen, thus, often went to Gennep and Goch, which were both within a day’s walk.

Distance was also a factor in measuring the impact of migration. To people from the northeastern parts of the Netherlands, migrating to small towns along the Lower Rhine did not necessarily imply a major change in their lives. Guelders had only become part of the Netherlands in 1543. People living in Guelders and in neighboring Overijssel maintained long-standing ties with the Empire.36 Aart Noordzij, “Against Burgundy. The appeal of Germany in the Duchy of Guelders,” in Stein and Pollmann, Networks, Regions and Nations, 111–29; Reitsma, Centrifugal and Centripetal Forces, 88. Indeed, there was a strong tradition of people in these regions identifying as members of the Holy Roman Empire rather than as members of the Burgundian Netherlands. In 1566, for example, magistrates in Deventer argued that the Peace of Augsburg applied to their city because, as they understood it, people living there were members of the Empire. This argument was mingled with political strategy: in 1566 Deventer wanted to allow its Protestant inhabitants to assemble. Moreover, some people from the northeastern part of the Netherlands shared their Lower Saxon language with people living in the small towns across the border in the Empire.37 Van der Sijs, 15 eeuwen Nederlandse taal. Likewise, people from Limburg shared their language with people in Aachen. Meanwhile, the language in the duchy of Cleves was much closer to Brabantine Dutch than High German. In those cases, the decision to migrate was probably not terribly difficult. In chapter 3, we will discuss language in more depth, but for our purposes here, it is enough to recognize that not all migration involved the sudden and disorientating experience of confronting a wholly unfamiliar culture.

Figure 1.2 gives an impression of the territory of origin of migrants coming from the Low Countries. It should be kept in mind that some people participating in these Reformed communities originally came from the Holy Roman Empire (and are not included in this chart). It should also be stressed that we do not know the origins of most of the migrants in these communities. It is nevertheless clear that most Dutch Reformed migrants from the Netherlands came from Brabant and Flanders.

Migrants used several methods to obtain information about possible places of refuge. In the case of Hendrik van den Corput, his younger brother Johan was a source of information about Duisburg. Johan van den Corput had studied at Duisburg’s gymnasium. Although Johan’s father regretted his son’s preference of Duisburg over Leuven, and although his family repeatedly urged him to come home, Johan would have been an important source of information and assistance when the other family members decided to go into exile. It seems that the family benefited from the networks Johan had established during his stay in Duisburg as a gymnasium student.38 Postema, Johan van den Corput, 24. Another reason to head for Duisburg was probably that a number of other Reformed Protestants from Breda had also gone there: migration to Duisburg allowed the Van den Corputs to stay (in part) within the same network. Personally knowing someone who lived in a city in the Empire could help someone decide to move there.39 See also Peeter van den Meere to Anna van den Corput, August 24, 1567, in CPG 841, 49r–v. Some migrants even knew political authorities in their place of refuge: De Falais was acquainted with Hermann von Wied, Cologne’s reform-minded bishop;40 Denis, Les églises d’étrangers, 150. For a map with routes see De Graaf, Oorlog, 42. Coornhert knew Wilhelm V, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Mark-Berg. 41 Bonger, Leven en werk, 47–64. The Van der Meulen family used their large network to find a possible place of refuge and even took the time to find suitable housing before leaving. In 1585, Andries van der Meulen, for instance, wrote to Daniel van der Meulen about a house that their cousin Gommar Govaerts had bought in Frankfurt, explaining that, if necessary, others in the Van der Meulen family could probably stay there.42 “Gommar Govarts, ons cousijn, heeft ons gheschreven een huys tot Francfort ghecost te hebben, dat soude in noot moghen voor iemanden van onsen huysse te passe comen. Ick zal hem schrijven oft van grooter commoditeyt is.” Andries van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Antwerp, January 30, 1585, in RGP 196, 145. Reformed networks could also provide assistance in finding a place of refuge, offering migrants financial support and providing them with new social networks. After the fall of Ghent in 1584, for instance, Reformed ministers took care to spread the news that the government of Baden had expressed a willingness to welcome expelled believers as coreligionists.43 Van den Corput aan Arent Cornelisz, February 15, 1585, in WMV 3/2, ep 53, 252. Van den Corput probably referred to the margravate of Baden-Durlach, in the Upper Rhine region.

The presence of a preexisting Dutch community was a strong asset in identifying a potential place of refuge. Not only could such a community help migrants in cases of need, but also the presence of other migrants often helped them to feel more at home. Johan van den Corput (the elder) and his wife Anthonina Montens, along with their daughter Anna, were happy to meet other migrants in Duisburg. They made new friends, rejoiced about the preaching of the Word, and felt they were not lacking in anything. Other refugees in their surroundings were worse off.44 Anna van den Corput to Johanna and Anthonina, Duisburg, March 6,1568, in CPG 841, 60v. During his stay in Wesel, Coornhert was in close contact with his friend Cornelis Fabius to discuss pious matters, and Coornhert definitively missed the relationship after settling in Xanten.45 Coornhert to Cornelis Fabius, 1571, Coornhert, Brievenboeck, ep. 58, 158. Anna van de Meulen felt isolated in Stade where she missed her family and friends and bemoaned the absence of a Dutch-speaking community.46 Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 564–65.

Once people had decided to leave their homelands, they had to plan their journey. Traveling was challenging in the sixteenth century. People could travel by foot, horseback, carriage, or ship. Most roads were poorly maintained and travelers risked falling prey to robbers or meeting bad weather.47 Scholz, Borders, 42. Moreover, in times of war soldiers were often about looting the lands, including those in the areas of the Rhine watershed.48 For example, Consistory of Cologne to the Classis, Cologne, October 31, 1572, in WMV 3/5, ep. 25, 66. No wonder the Van der Meulen brothers worried about the journey their pregnant wives would have to undertake.49 Jacques della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and Hester della Faille, Haarlem, September 10, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 177, 340. For the same reason, Anna van der Meulen worried about her old mother traveling. Anna van der Meulen to Sara van der Meulen, Cologne, September 18, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. LXVII, 506. More than once, families sent a male member ahead to prepare lodgings for others who would arrive.50 Jacques della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen, Haarlem, September 6, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 172, 335. Della Faille advised Van der Meulen to look for a suitable place to stay while the others stayed where they were. Likewise, Peter Marimont first went to London before he wanted his wife and children to come over. See Katharina van Court to Anthonina van den Corput, July 19, 1567, in CPG 841, 30r. And indeed, travel was only for the physically able. After De Falais arrived in Strasbourg, he seems to have been exhausted.51 Jean Crespin to Calvin, undated, CO 12, ep. 637, 73. His feeble health kept him from traveling.52 On the many challenges of traveling see Herborn, “Die Reisen und Fahrten.” Coornhert’s story is another clear example of the dangers involved in early modern travel. His initial plan was to head for Emden, as his brothers had done. He embarked on a ship to cross the Zuiderzee, but once asea, Coornhert’s ship faced bad weather. Facing a dangerous storm required Coornhert to make a change of plans and disembark in Harderwijk. From there, he instead traveled inland to Deventer where Hendrick van Marckel, a burgomaster, provided lodging for him in his house.53 Bonger, Leven en werk, 46.

Before leaving, migrants tried to secure their belongings in their homeland. Coornhert’s friend Cornelis Meynertsz Boon, for instance, sold his house and furniture before going to Wesel.54 Ten Boom, De reformatie in Rotterdam, 256, n. 123. Other migrants gave a debt note to an intermediary for them to reclaim the money if the migrants’ property was confiscated, later returning the money to the migrant.55 Decavele, De dageraad van de reformatie, 523. Andries van de Meulen took care to sublet two houses the family owned in Antwerp on his second escape from that city.56 Andries van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Antwerp, August 16, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 163, 324. Networks were once again key to organizing his migration properly. These networks could even help if authorities confiscated the property of a refugee. Jan Utenhove was able to regain his possessions thanks to his influential family; his noble birth helped to nullify the legal measures taken against him.57 Pijper, Jan Utenhove, 17–18.

Time proved another important factor in the success or failure of early modern migration. People fleeing from Antwerp had considerable time to consider their options and balance their interests. The capture of Antwerp in 1585 took months, and, even after his victory, Farnese allowed Protestants four years to make up their minds about whether to leave Antwerp or return to the Catholic Church. Thus, those considering flight had plenty of time to organize their migration. Eighteen years earlier, in September 1567, Katharina Court told Anna van den Corput that Protestants in Breda packed their belongings in order to send them ahead of their journeys. They too had the time to organize their departure.58 Katharina Court to Anna van den Corput, September 16, 1567, in CPG 841, 32r. More than a decade later, Protestants in Breda lacked the time to properly prepare themselves. In a rather dramatic letter from July 1581, Hendrik van den Corput informed Arent Cornelisz about the miseries faced by Reformed Protestants in Breda after Habsburg troops took the town by surprise in the previous month. Van den Corput bemoaned the fates of highly esteemed people who had once been rich but were now impoverished.59 Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, July 8, 1581, in WMV 3/2, ep. 19, 149. A lack of time robbed migrants of options and could easily prelude a dramatic departure.

The seven migrants we mentioned at the start of this chapter had different reasons to flee: Jacques de Falais, Yolande van Brederode, and Hendrik van den Corput and his family fled for religious reasons; Dirck Volckersz Coornhert and his wife Neeltje fled for political reasons; we don’t know why Sybilla left, but she may have simply been following her employer; and Daniel van der Meulen and his family had political, religious, and economic reasons to flee. These seven migrants also had very different options in terms of planning their migrations. In fact, the social status one had in one’s homeland determined to a high degree the possibilities a migrant had to steer their life in a specific direction. As the examples of Jacques de Falais and Yolande van Brederode show, social status shaped migrants’ experiences too. Jacques de Falais and Yolande van Brederode were warmly welcomed when they arrived in Strasbourg, both by Martin Bucer, whom they already knew, and Strasbourg’s magistrates, who welcomed them with wine.60 Denis, Les Églises d’Étrangers, 154–56. Strasbourg’s magistrates were also ready to help its new inhabitants to find suitable housing.61 Van Veen, “In exelso honoris gradu,” 11. Additionally, they had the means to plan their migration carefully. They had networks to provide them with relevant information on possible places of refuge and to support them in case of need, and their financial resources helped make travel less strenuous. The same applied to the Van der Meulen family. Their networks helped them to balance religious, political, and economic interests, and their financial resources allowed them to search for proper housing. Sybilla, however, lacked the means to make her own choices and was not even supposed to determine her own future. As a woman, she was supposed to be the member of a patriarchal household, and she was expected to not travel alone.62 Dürr, “Die Migration von Mägden.” As a maid, she could not choose her own profession and was excluded from more profitable occupations.63 Ogilvie, Bitter Living, 79–139, esp. 130–31.

The challenges Sybilla had to overcome once she arrived in her place of refuge were probably more significant than the challenges people like De Falais and Van der Meulen faced. We know that Frankfurt’s ruling elites were aware of the economic contribution wealthy migrants could make to the local economy, but as the number of foreigners grew, Frankfurt became more reluctant to offer commoners (gemeine Leut) opportunities to become part of the urban community.64 Frankfurter Ratsprotokollen, August 27, 1585, in Meinert, Die Eingliederung, 310–11. Sybilla probably suffered more from feelings of unease with foreigners than the rich and wealthy. Similarly, there were stronger prejudices against her than, as the city council records called them, “wealthy, stately people” (narhafftige statlich personen). Moreover, she had few resources to bypass such prejudices. In 1572, Frankfurt’s city leaders were inclined to keep the city gates closed to people who were of little use to the local economy.65 Frankfurter Ratsprotokollen, March 14, 1572, in Meinert, Eingliederung, 197.

Social status also mattered within the Dutch Reformed churches in the Holy Roman Empire. Although Reformed Protestants confessed to have no master in their church but Christ, they still respected people of high social status. Calvin took care to meet the needs of De Falais: he asked after De Falais’s health,66 Calvin to De Falais [September 1545], BF, ep. 11, 73. wrote an apology on his behalf67 Calvin, L’Excuse du Noble Seigneur. and sent him a minister to attend to his spiritual care when requested.68 Hollweg, “Calvins Beziehungen zu den Rheinlanden,”136. In an era of inherited status, church authorities’ willingness to give exceptions to social elites was perfectly normal.69 Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 139. Besides, the often overwhelmed and undersupplied Reformed churches relied upon wealthy members, able to contribute financially, to lobby on behalf of and organize for the Reformed movement. Nevertheless, the political and financial support the nobility could offer was only one side of the coin: using noble families to spread the Gospel was not without risks. These noble believers occasionally had their own ideas about what it meant to be Reformed. For instance, it was not always clear to them that, regardless of their noble ancestry, they had to obey the rules of a Reformed synodal-presbyterial church system. The Flemish noblewoman living in the duchy of Cleves, Clara van der Dilft, for example, organized Reformed worship at her property in Goch, separate from the Reformed services that already took place in that town. Godfried Loeffs acted as a minister for this alternative church. The Reformed elders in Goch tried to convince “the Lady of Arnhem,” as Van der Dilft was known to them, to integrate her own church into the ecclesiastical structure of the Reformed church in the region, but for years she refused to do so.70 Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 97–98. On Reformed church structures among migrant congregations in the duchy of Cleves, see chapters 2 and 3.

Although the Reformed church was deeply patriarchal, and although social status mattered within the church, it provided some security to women like Sybilla. Deacons tried to address the needs of poor church members and felt called to care for the sick. Consistories offered some protection against violence against women: they urged their male church members to abstain from using violence against women or harassing their spouses.71 Though they also reprimanded victims of spousal abuse for disobedience to their husbands. Spohnholz, Tactics of Toleration, 90. For the situation in the early Dutch Republic, see Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 362–69. They also knew about the vulnerability of women during travel. Accordingly, when, in 1571, Reformed Protestants in Cologne were worried that they might have to leave the town, Dutch-speaking elders in Cologne wrote to members of the Reformed consistory in Wesel about the widow of Willem de Mulenslaegher.72 See Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 75–79. Given the dangers of travel for women especially, Cologne’s Dutch consistory asked Wesel’s elders and deacons to care for the widow in case the Reformed community in Cologne had to be dissolved.73 Consistory of Cologne to the consistory of Wesel, December 6, 1571, in WMV 3/5, esp. 7, 26–27. See also chapter 5.

Jacques de Falais was among the early refugees. By birth and by dint of his marriage to Yolande van Brederode, he belonged to the highest nobility of the Low Countries. Yolande van Brederode probably played a crucial role in the decision to leave the ancestral lands in Fallais74 Roughly 25 km west of the city of Liège. The prince-bishopric Liège has a complicated history; at the time, it was a semi-independent state with close ties to the court in Brussels. to go to Cologne: she likely preceded her husband in embracing the new religious ideas. John Calvin played a major role in the migration history of Yolande van Brederode and Jacques de Falais: he wrote several letters urging them to take the example of Abraham and Sarah to heart and leave the land from which Christ had been banned.75 John Calvin to Jacques de Falais, [Geneva, October 14, 1543], BF, ep. 1, 35–40. Calvin to Madame de Falais, [Geneva], October 4, [1543], BF, ep. 2 41–43. Calvin to Jacques de Falais, [Geneva, March 1544], BF, ep. 3, 44–47. These letters were all written in French, although De Falais knew Latin as well. Calvin’s decision to write in French may have been an attempt to include Yolande van Brederode in his correspondence with her husband. In the summer of 1544, Jacques de Falais reported to Calvin that he had decided to honor God. Calvin seems to have been delighted, and he was very ready to support De Falais’s efforts to establish a church in Cologne.76 Van Veen, “In exelso honoris gradu.”

De Falais’s decision was exceptional because in the 1540s few people felt the need to migrate. When De Falais exchanged letters with Calvin, the Reformed were still relatively inconspicuous in the religious landscape of the Low Countries. The response of the secular authorities was just as unclear as the official Catholic response to the calls for reform in the Netherlands. Charles V was determined to defend Catholicism, though his anti-Protestant policies were harsher in the Netherlands than in the Holy Roman Empire, the decentralized nature of politics the Low Countries left sufficient room for dissenters to maneuver.77 Seibt, Karl V. For an overview of how the inquisition operated see: Goosens, Les inquisitions modernes. See also Augustijn, “Die Ketzerverfolgungen.” On the use of the term “inquisition” for the Netherlands, see Gielis and Soen, “The Inquisitorial Office.” De Falais’s decision to migrate was definitely inspired by his heterodoxy, but it is difficult to accurately gauge his beliefs. In this way, his religious views reflected the rather inchoate religious situation in the Low Countries. Although John Calvin rejoiced that he had won De Falais over to the Reformation, De Falais assured the emperor that he wished to live and to die “in the true ancient and Catholic religion” ( “en la vraye aucyenne et catholique religion”) and that he abhorred sects.78 Jacques de Falais to Emperor Charles V, Cologne, April 16, 1545. Denis, Les Églises d’étrangers, annexe 11, 656, 657. In his later years, by contrast, De Falais sided with the Anabaptist visionary David Joris, and he might have already fostered these ideas when he decided to migrate.79 Van Veen, “In exelso honoris gradu.”

Calvin might well have seen De Falais’s decision to go to Cologne as a unique opportunity. First, his stay in Cologne coincided with the attempts of Archbishop Hermann von Wied to steer his territory toward Protestantism. For Protestants, winning the archbishopric of Cologne over for the Reformation cause would have been a strategic coup. For this reason, Martin Bucer did everything he could to assist Wied. De Falais’s wish to have a minister at his disposal and to establish a small church conveniently coincided with these larger developments. Second, De Falais’s story was an excellent propaganda tool, and Calvin took full advantage of it. He dedicated one of his commentaries to De Falais, hallowing his choice for the Reformation.80 Calvin to De Falais, Dedicatio prioris epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios, CO, ep. 753, 258–60. With the full support of the pope and the emperor, the defenders of the Catholic Church managed to restore the old power balance, and Hermann von Wied was forced to retreat.81 Badea, Kurfürstliche Präeminenz. Small reform-minded and clandestine Reformed communities continued to exist nevertheless, including in the city of Cologne. The small communities established in the 1540s, like the one established by De Falais in Cologne, became important havens for refugees during these years. The same happened in Wesel and Aachen.82 On the first years of these small communities see, especially, Denis, Les églises d’étrangers. The existence of a foreign community was an important reason for migrants to head for that very place. These preexisting small migrant communities could provide later migrants with information on, for example, the job market, allowing them to make a better-informed decision about where to move. Moreover, as soon as these small foreign Protestant communities managed to stabilize (to become what in French was known as une église dressée, or an “established church”), they also had a deaconry that could, in case of need, provide poor relief.83 On this term, see Wilcox, “‘Églises plantées’ and ‘églises dressées.’”

De Falais could not stay in Cologne. His proximity to the court at Brussels probably worsened matters for him since Charles V, being aware of the propagandistic use of De Falais’s decision as well, was not inclined to ignore the conversion of his cousin. Charles V wrote to his cousin that he planned to visit him in Cologne. De Falais didn’t need another warning and decided to move to Strasbourg. But Strasbourg was not the end of his journey: once again, his old ties with the emperor were not exactly beneficial. When, during the Schmalkaldic War, Strasbourg came under threat from the emperor, De Falais felt compelled to leave again. In 1547, he went to Basel and later to Veigy, a small town northeast of Geneva.84 Van Veen, “In exelso honoris gradu,” 13–14.

Unlike De Falais, Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and his wife Neeltje Simonsdr were part of the large wave of refugees of the 1560s. Authorities had many reasons to be suspicious about Coornhert. For one thing, he had ties with the Brederode family. As we saw his sister-in-law, Anna Simonsdr, had been Reinoud van Brederode’s maitresse. Coornhert himself worked for a short time at Batestein Castle, the residence of Brederode in Vianen. Reinoud’s son Hendrik was to become a rebel leader, and Vianen was to become a nest of heretical thinking and political resistance against Charles V. After his move to Haarlem, probably in 1540, where he became a member of the urban elite, Coornhert stayed in touch with the Brederode family.85 Bonger, Leven en werk, 22–24. These ties with the Brederode family were probably an important reason why Coornhert became a suspicious figure in the eyes of Habsburg authorities.

Coornhert’s connections with Brederode were not his only problem. Heresy ran in his family, with his two brothers, Frans and Clement, choosing sides with the Reformed. Although Reformed ministers described Coornhert as a man contaminated with the worst ideas imaginable, he certainly fostered dissenting ideas and participated in some Reformed networks.86 For a report on Coornhert, see Beza’s brothers in Holland to Beza, Amsterdam, September 1, 1565, De Vries van Heekelingen, Genève Pépinière, ep. 2:107, 283. His early writings show the influence of spiritualist thinkers like Sebastian Franck, who emphasized that humans had to choose to reject sin in order to become perfect.87 Van Veen, Verschooninghe van de roomsche afgoderye, 158–59, 172–79. Coornhert’s attendance of a religious debate in 1566 testifies to his interest in religious renewal as well. During this debate between Catholic clerics and representatives of the Reformed, Coornhert acted as scribe.88 Tsamenspraeck, in Dodt van Flensburg, Archief, 1:297–99. Coornhert was also in touch with leading Reformed Protestants in Amsterdam. In a letter written in July 1566, he wrote that he would really like to speak with three people who led Amsterdam’s religious agitation, Maarten Jansz Coster, Andries Boelensz Loon, and Reynier Simonsz van Neck, “about matters that can’t be written on paper.”89 Coornhert to Willem Dircksz Bardes, Haarlem, July 30, 1566, Becker, Bronnen, 143–44. He was probably also in touch with Cornelis Meynaartszoon Boon who was active in organizing the Reformed church in Rotterdam.90 N. van der Blom, “Geen stilzitter,” in Van der Blom, Grepen uit de geschiedenis, 43–62. During his exile, Coornhert exchanged letters with Boon or Fabius, and these letters testify to their meetings in Wesel. They likely already knew each other before going to the duchy of Cleves. Coornhert and Boon were both involved in Brederode’s efforts to convince Orange not to escape to the Empire but to protect Holland against the inquisition in October 1566. In September, Brederode received deputies from towns from Holland in Vianen, likely including Boon and Coornhert. See also Becker, Bronnen, nr. 63, 40–42; nr. 66, 44. In 1574, the Reformed consistory in Rotterdam blamed Boon for spreading Coornhert’s ideas. By that time, he was one of the men who unsuccessfully tried to convince the magistrates in Rotterdam to hire Pieter de Zuttere as pastor, who was, as the consistory scribe remarked, close to “anabaptists, erroneous spirits and libertines.”91 Consistory of Rotterdam to Emden, undated, in WMV 3/2, ep. 8, 15. See also Van der Blom, “Geen stilzitter,” in Van der Blom, Grepen uit de geschiedenis, 50. On De Zuttere in Rotterdam, see Ten Boom, De reformatie in Rotterdam, 162–66. It seems clear that at that time Coornhert sympathized with those striving for religious renewal. He used the ideas of Sebastian Franck and was in touch with Reformed believers who would later try to steer their church in a more libertine direction.92 See n. 6 above.

During the years preceding the iconoclastic outbreaks in the summer of 1566, Coornhert became involved in the policy of William of Orange. We know that the two met in September 1565, when Orange together with Wilhelm V, duke of Jülich-Cleves-Mark-Berg visited Haarlem. They met again in February 1566 and discussed the persecution of heretics. Orange informed Coornhert of the lists he had in his possession with the names of thirty-six thousand people sought by the inquisition.93 Bonger, Leven en werk, 37–39. Meanwhile, in his role as the town’s secretary, Coornhert contributed to the preservation of peace and concord in Haarlem.94 Bonger, Leven en werk, 41. When a wave of iconoclasm swept through the Low Countries, together with others, Coornhert succeeded in safeguarding Haarlem’s churches. But although Coornhert was certainly among those who abhorred the iconoclastic violence, he decided not to distance himself from those protesting against the royal policy of cracking down on the image breakers. His translation of the Three Million Guilder Request into Dutch, made by a group of leading Netherlanders offering a large sum of money to King Philip II if he agreed to stop persecuting Protestants, testifies to his ongoing involvement in the political upheavals.95 Bonger, Leven en werk, 43. See also Van Stipriaan, De Zwijger, 269.

No wonder Coornhert became extremely concerned when Orange’s efforts failed. Apparently, he made preparations to flee; he tried to sell his house and asked to be relieved from his duties as town secretary. From a sixteenth-century perspective, Coornhert’s initial plan to go to Emden made sense. Emden already harbored a community of religious dissidents who had fled the neighboring Low Countries to escape persecution. There were existing travel routes between Holland and Emden, and Coornhert’s brothers, Frans and Clement, who ran a printing press in Amsterdam, were heading for Emden.96 Together with others, Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert had started a printing office in Haarlem. This office was moved to Sedan and later to Emden. Paul Valkema Blouw showed that Frans and Clement probably took over Dirck’s role in managing this office. During their time in Emden, this printing office bore a decisively Protestant stamp. Valkema Blouw, “A Haarlem Press in Sedan and Emden, 1561–1669,” in his Dutch Typography, 275–348. However, when bad weather caught him on the Zuiderzee, Coornhert changed plans and went instead to Deventer, where he stayed with Van Marckel.

Meanwhile, Coornhert attempted to get to Cologne, but this plan failed as well. When he found out that his books were actually in Emmerich, he decided to go there. In Emmerich, he received a letter from William of Orange urging him to travel as fast as he could to Dillenburg to discuss some issues.97 Bonger, Leven en werk, 46. William of Orange in Siegen to Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert in Emmerich, December 8, 1567, De briefwisseling van Willem van Oranje, briefnummer 7901. Unfortunately, we don’t know anything about Coornhert’s meeting with Orange, but it seems plausible that Coornhert became part of Orange’s plans for a military campaign during the spring of 1568.98 On his campaign see De Graaf, Oorlog, 150.

After a prolonged stay at Van Marckel’s in Deventer, Coornhert decided to go home to Haarlem in July. It is not clear what convinced him to make this decision, but possibly this trip had to do with Coornhert’s meeting with Orange. After all, at the time Orange was trying to gain support in Holland for a revolt, as becomes clear from his letter of commission for Johannes Basius, Coornhert’s former Latin teacher, in March 1567.99 William of Orange, Dillenburg, March 25, 1567, in Groen van Prinsterer, Archives, première série, t. 3, ep. 104a, 196–200. According to a witness during his later trial, Coornhert had tried to raise support for the revolt after his return to Haarlem.100 Becker, Bronnen, 146–47. The idea that Coornhert returned to Haarlem for this purpose is not too far-fetched; after all, he would do the same during his later exile. But since sources remain silent on Coornhert’s reasons for returning, we can’t be sure. In any case, it turned out to be an unfortunate decision. Just a few months later, in September, he was apprehended and sent to jail in The Hague. However, supported by Artus van Brederode, the son of Anna Simonsdr, he managed to escape and fled to the duchy of Cleves together with his wife Neeltje. Someone tried to convince Neeltje to stay in Holland and claim her portion of Coornhert’s property—it was not uncommon for one spouse to stay at home while the other fled. The Reformed consistory of Cologne even asked Emden’s synod for guidelines, wondering whether the refusal of a spouse to go into exile nullified the bond of marriage.101 “Punten ter overweging gegeven op de algemeene Synode te Emden,” in WMV 3/5, ep. 4, 14. Neeltje, however, stayed with her husband, although it would result in her also being banned from Holland. Duke Wilhelm V of Jülich-Cleves-Mark-Berg (whom he had met in Haarlem) granted Coornhert permission to stay in his territories, and for short periods he stayed in Goch, Wesel, and Emden. In 1570, he moved to Xanten where he stayed until his return to Holland.102 Bonger, Leven en werk, 47–64. On Neeltje’s decision, see D.V. Coornhert, Lied-boeck, song 30, WW 1, 504r. According to Bonger, Coornhert stayed several weeks with Van Montfoort in Leiden, but as far as we have been able to ascertain, Coornhert only stayed with Van Montfoort during his second flight, not during his first flight. Boomgaert, who described Coornhert biography, mentioned Artus van Brederode’s help to escape from prison but remains silent on possible help from Van Montfoort’s side. WW 1, 1v. In addition, in a grateful letter to Van Montfoort, Coornhert mentioned the occasions on which Van Montfoort offered him support. He also described his financial help during Coornhert’s stay in prison, and his hospitality in 1572 (and not in 1568). Coornhert to [Van Montfoort], undated, Becker, Bronnen, ep. 6, 209.

Coornhert’s decision to go to the duchy of Cleves instead of Emden seems to reflect his ties to Orange. During Coornhert’s stay in Cleves, the duchy was an important center of fundraising activity to finance the revolt. Jacob van Wesembeke was Orange’s most important envoy in the area. He tried to raise funds, gain information relevant to the revolt, and convince people to side with Orange.103 See also Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, sv. The correspondence between Orange and Jacob van Wesenbeke has been edited: Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling met Jacob van Wesenbeke.” Another important envoy of Orange was Johannes Basius, a jurist who had taught Coornhert Latin and who traveled around Holland to gain support for Orange’s planned military campaign but also stayed occasionally in Cleves. During one of these tours, Coornhert and Basius met up. The two men were still close: Basius counseled Coornhert not to bemoan his exile but to seize the God-given opportunity to bear his cross.104 Coornhert, Eene lieffelijcke samensprekinge van de droefheydt, WW 3, 379r–384v. Among the Reformed in Wesel we find a number of Orange’s commissioners, trying to raise funds, gather troops, and raise support: Pieter de Rycke, Jean Desmaistres, Jacques Tayart, Cornelis Taymon, Cornelis le Brun, Tylman Bruyn, Jacques Liebart, Jean Salengre, Reinier Cant, Gerard van Weshem, and Philippe du Gardin. In these letters of commission, Orange explicitly tried to involve the consistories and ministers as well.105 On the meager financial contributions of Reformed congregations abroad to Orange’s military efforts, see chapter 5. According to his plan, consistories should collect money to support the revolt; others should do so only if the consistories did not.106 William of Orange, Dillenburg, June 10, 1568, De briefwisseling van Willem van Oranje, briefnummer 8862. See also William of Orange, Siegen, June 15, 1570, Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling,” ep. 5, 94–96. See also William of Orange to Jacob van Wesenbeke, August 19, 1570, in Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling,” ep. 19, 208. According to Orange, exiles were obliged take up arms or at least pay for someone to take up arms.107 William of Orange, June 15, 1570, Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling,” ep. 6, 147–50. According to this letter, Orange saw these contributions as a loan and promised to repay the loan as soon as the land had been reconquered. Wesel played an important role in William’s strategy: it harbored a group of agents and served as a meeting point. In 1570, for example, Albert Verbeke and Orange’s deputies met in Wesel to negotiate the weapons Verbeke would sell to the prince.108 Trade agreement between Jonker A. van Huchtenbrouck, Diederik Sonoy and Jacob van Wesenbeke with Aert Verbeke, October 20, 1570, Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling,” ep. 30, 23–24. Coornhert (and Neeltje) played a role in this princely network as well. Together with his brother, Frans Dirck testified to the authenticity of at least one commission letter between Orange and Dirck (and in his absence Neeltje) preserved money that had been collected.109 Cornelis Boon to Neeltje Simonsdr, Wesel, November 28, [1570], Van der Blom, “Geen stilzitter,” 49–50. He was also involved in collecting news from Holland that would be useful to Orange, taking great care that such news reached the prince.110 Diary of Van Wesenbeke’s journey through the Netherlands, July 1570, Van Someren, “Oranjes Briefwisseling,” ep. 11, 157–58. Coornhert’s request to Orange for permission to stay longer in the duchy of Cleves instead of returning to Haarlem in 1572 confirms our thesis that Coornhert’s decision regarding where to go and where to stay depended, at least in part, on Orange’s strategy.111 Het leven van D.V. Coornhart, WW 1, 2r. Coornhert’s migration is thus a complicated mix of political and religious motives in addition to political strategy. His proximity to Brederode, his involvement in networks of Reformed believers, and his support for Orange explain his flight. Notably, among other acts of service, he used his migration to support Orange’s attempts to organize a military campaign.

Like Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert, Hendrik van den Corput was a member of the local elite. But unlike Coornhert, Hendrik’s migration was embedded in the decisions of his family. His father, Johan van den Corput was the secretary of the city of Breda. Hendrik, who had studied law in Leuven, became an attorney at the city’s Aldermen’s Court. Together with his wife, Anthonina Montens, Johan had eighteen children, but only ten, Bartholomeus, Hendrik, Anthonie, Severijn, Johan, Johanna, Anthonina, Adriana, Anna, and Elisabeth, seem to have survived childhood. Hendrik van den Corput was a committed member of the clandestine Reformed church in Breda. He was married to Adriana van Bregt.112 BLGNP, s.v. The other members of the family, with the exception of his brother Anthonie, became Reformed as well. Hendrik served the church as an elder and as a voorlezer (a reader of biblical texts during worship services). Brothers and sisters of Hendrik van den Corput married Reformed elites: Severijn married Anna van der Meulen (sister of Daniel van der Meulen); Johanna married Hendrik de Smet, a doctor; and Elisabeth married Franciscus Junius, a well-known theologian.113 Postema, Johan van den Corput, 17–21.

The early Reformed clandestine church in Breda probably came close to Calvin’s ideal vision of an organized Reformed congregation, called an “église dressée” in French. The Reformed consistory there had been founded by 1565. A series of itinerant Reformed preachers preached in Breda, among them were Franciscus Junius and Herman Moded.114 Beenakker, Breda, 41–43. Johan van den Corput sometimes hosted visiting ministers himself. The Reformed community received strong support from two noblewomen: Philipotte van Belle (Philip van Marnix van St Aldegonde’s wife) and Henrica des Barres. When iconoclasts began attacking religious objects in Breda, in August 1566, members of the Van den Corput family made preparations to flee. In 1567, Hendrik van den Corput, his parents, Anthonina, Anna and Elisabeth, Johanna and Hendrik de Smet (aka Henricus Smetius), left Breda. Hendrik’s brothers Anthonie and Nicolaas remained at home; Bartholomeus left later, while Severijn fled to Frankfurt, where he earned a living as a merchant.115 Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 172–73. The family moved to Duisburg, where they rented a house. But the Van den Corputs remained highly mobile. They even occasionally lost track of one another. For that reason, the whereabouts of family members are not always certain.116 See also Postema, Johan van den Corput, 22–24. Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 172–80. Within a short time, Johanna and Hendrik de Smet, together with the ever-ill Anthonina, moved on to Lemgo. The parents, along with their daughter Elisabeth, followed, while Hendrik and Anna remained in Duisburg. Soon after this, however, Anna moved to Lemgo as well. After six years in Lemgo, Hendrik de Smet became the physician of the Elector Palatine. Consequently, Johanna and Hendrik de Smet also moved to the Palatinate, first to Neustadt and later to Heidelberg, where Hendrik de Smet became a professor. Johanna and Elisabeth were reunited again. Elisabeth married Junius in 1578, then a professor in Neustadt. They too moved to Heidelberg in 1584, where Elisabeth died in 1587. In 1592, Junius became a professor in Leiden where he lived for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, Hendrik used his flight to effect a major change in his own life: he embarked on an ecclesiastical career, taking up his studies in Heidelberg. He eventually became a minister, first in a place not known to us, later in Frankenthal, and finally in Dordrecht where he helped to build the Dutch Reformed Church.

We don’t know precisely why Johan van den Corput, his wife Anthonia Montens and their daughters Elisabeth and (later) Anna moved to Lemgo, where Anthonina lived together with Hendrik de Smet and Johanna van den Corput. This decision to move to Lemgo might have had to do with Anthonina’s ill health. In any case, Anthonina described Lemgo as a small paradise. According to her, the local bread tasted far better than in the duchy of Cleves and the women were friendly and beautiful.117 “Die vrouwen syn hier int gemeyn veel vreyndelycker dan int lant van Cleve. Het syn al lange vrouwen, veel schoon.” Anthonina van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo, November 12, 1567, in CPG 841, 65r. Their arrival in Lemgo came too late: by the time other members of her family entered Lemgo, Anthonina had passed away. Other family members decided where to go based on career opportunities. As we saw, Hendrik succeeded in his ecclesiastical career, and Junius and De Smet worked in Neustadt and Heidelberg, respectively. Why Hendrik moved to the Dutch Reformed settlement Frankenthal remains a matter of conjecture. It might be that Hendrik was attracted to the vision of Reformed purity that the town represented.

All in all, the Van den Corput family offers a clear example of confessional migration. Their commitment to the Reformed movement was an important and probably decisive factor in their migration. But this religious motive merged with other motives. Hendrik used his time in the Empire to start a new career; Hendrik de Smet became a physician of the elector and a professor at the university; Junius embarked on a theological career and also became a professor in the Palatinate. Although life in the Empire was not bad for the Van den Corputs, some members of the family continued to feel deeply connected to the “fatherland.”118 It is unclear whether this term referred to the entire Netherlands, the duchy of Brabant, or the city of Breda. In most cases in our research for this project, however, this term referred to the Netherlands generally. For a discussion of this concept, see Poelhekke, “Het naamloze vaderland” (an English version appeared in Acta Historiae Neederlandicae 7 [1974]: 54–87). Tilmans, “De ontwikkeling van een vaderland-begrip.” They took care to stay in touch with people back home, shared news about what happened in Brabant, and regarded their stay in exile as temporary.119 Anthonina van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo, November 12, 1567, in CPG 841, 64r.

While sources reveal many details about the decision of other migrants to go into exile, we know virtually nothing about Sybilla’s journey to Frankfurt. Like most migrants, she left few traces in written records. We can only speculate about the details of her own migration and her decision-making process. Only a small minority of early modern people had the writing skills and leisure time to record their own experiences. As a result, information on how commoners understood their displacement is scanty at best. We do not know where Sybilla came from, nor do we know why she decided to go to Frankfurt; although she may have traveled from Brussels with her master. Frankfurt’s Reformed community included many maids and servants who worked for the rich merchants in that city.120 See chapter 3. People like Sybilla probably had little choice but to follow the religious decisions of the heads of their households, like the wealthy Dutch Reformed merchants who were so important to this migrant community.121 Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 44, 86. Nevertheless, early modern women were often mobile and although women were less likely to travel unaccompanied than men, some did. Of course, such outliers paid a price: their contemporaries regarded these women with suspicion and associated their decision with immorality.122 Kamp, Crime, Gender and Social Control, 225–30. Dürr, “Die Migration von Mädgen.”

In any case, Sybilla’s agency was limited and people of means were probably more likely to move than the poor. In a letter written in 1584, Andries van der Meulen suggested that displacement was a condition primarily for people with financial means. Writing during the siege of Antwerp, he warned his brother that the poor were likely to stay in Antwerp, while those with means planned to flee.123 Andries van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Antwerp, November 12, 1584, RGP 196, ep. 39, 81. Indeed, travel often required significant funds, including for transport, food, and lodging. Thus, someone like Sybilla probably had few options in deciding where to go and what to do. Her gender further limited her agency in life as well as within the Reformed church. Although Reformed congregations elsewhere counted deaconesses among their members, the new church remained deeply patriarchal.124 Van Booma, Onderzoek, 67–68; Spohnholz, “Instability and Insecurity.” Women continued to be excluded from congregations’ decision-making processes: they were not allowed to become ministers or elders, nor were they allowed to vote for church officers. In addition to her gender, Sybilla remained in the margins of Frankfurt’s Reformed church because of her lower social status as a servant.

Meanwhile, the impact of displacement on Sybilla’s life was probably greater than it was for migrants from more privileged backgrounds. Whereas Jacques de Falais and Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert were able to use their networks as resources for information and support, Sybilla was unlikely to have had any such network. This put people like her in a more vulnerable position. Sybilla also probably had little means of staying in touch with friends and family back home or of returning periodically for a visit, as more wealthy migrants occasionally did. It is also unlikely that she was able to read or write, let alone send letters back home. Sybilla’s break from her old home was likely more complete than, for example, Coornhert’s, and her ability to build a new life for herself more constrained.

The difference between Sybilla’s migration and Daniel van der Meulen’s migration could hardly be bigger. Daniel had many opportunities to combine religious and political zeal with self-interest and managed to turn his displacement into a success story. As we will see, Daniel’s decision to head for Bremen was part of a business strategy. Just like Hendrik van den Corput’s migration, his own migration was very much linked to the dispersal of his entire family. After Farnese’s siege of Antwerp, the Van der Meulen family had to find new avenues to continue their thriving business. Part of this new business strategy was a plan regarding where family members should move. Many archival resources on this family have been preserved, allowing us to learn in detail about their decisions about where to go, where to live, and how to create a more prosperous future for themselves.

Daniel’s parents, Jan van der Meulen and Elizabeth Zeghers, were the founders of the family-owned trade firm. After their marriage in 1543 they had six children, three sons Jan (born in 1547 or 1548), Andries (born in 1549) and Daniel (born in 1554), and three daughters, Anna, Sara, and Maria, whose birth years are unknown. It is not clear when the Van der Meulens converted to the Reformed faith, but the names of Sara and Daniel might give a clue. These Old Testament names were not used in their family’s lineage. Indeed, given the widespread popularity of Old Testament names for members of the Reformed tradition specifically, the use of these names should probably be interpreted as a sign of sympathy for the Reformed church.125 On the use of Old Testament names among Reformed Protestants see Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 504–6. Naming practices in migrant communities varied, however. See chapter 3. After Jan Sr. died in 1563, Elizabeth was forced to both care for her children and run the firm. When political and religious tensions mounted in the Low Countries, in the later 1560s she sent her three daughters and her youngest son to Cologne, a choice that likely reflected that city’s long-standing trade connections to Brabant, which, in turn, attracted Protestant migrants from the Netherlands despite the city’s fame as a center of Catholicism. As mentioned above, Anna van der Meulen married Severijn van den Corput during this stay in Cologne. In 1574, Elizabeth left Antwerp for Cologne as well. Elizabeth attempted to start a firm together with her son-in-law, but Severijn died in 1575, only a few months after they had decided to work together. Severijn left one son behind: Hanske van den Corput. During this time, Jan and Andries played a significant role in Elizabeth’s business: they commuted between Antwerp, Frankfurt, and Strasbourg depending on when the cities’ large trade fairs took place. But in 1576, Elizabeth Zeghers lost her oldest son, Jan. By then, Daniel had started to participate in Elizabeth’s business as well. He continued to live in Cologne.

After Reformed Protestants had launched a successful overthrow of the government in Antwerp in 1577, and after rebels in that city had signed the Union of Utrecht in 1579—marking their political alliance with rebels elsewhere in the Netherlands against Habsburg rule—Daniel seized the opportunity to return to Antwerp. Meanwhile, Elizabeth found a new business partner in François Pierens, a merchant from Comines (in Flanders). At a certain point (we don’t know the precise date) he became her son-in-law by marrying Elizabeth’s daughter Anna. While Anna van der Meulen and François Pierens continued to live in Cologne, in 1582 Elizabeth joined her two sons in Antwerp. The Van der Meulens became involved in the political affairs of Antwerp. Andries became an alderman, and Daniel represented Antwerp and the States of Brabant with the States General. Andries married Suzanne Malapert in 1583: like Andries, she belonged to a merchant family. The Van der Meulens’s marriages—both Anna’s marriage to François Pierens and Andries’s marriage to Suzanne Malapert—served as opportunities to expand the family business.

But the success of the Orangist rebels and the Reformed Protestants in Antwerp did not last. In the early 1580s, the efforts of the Habsburg military general, Alexander Farnese, to reconquer the Low Countries were gaining traction in the south. Brabant sent Daniel van der Meulen to Holland to convince the States to help Brabant, but he was on a mission impossible.126 Daniel first lived in Haarlem, but in the spring of 1585 Hester and Daniel moved to Delft. During his stay in Holland, Daniel married Hester della Faille: yet another marriage that enabled the Van der Meulens to expand their business network. Andries became increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for Reformed Protestants in Antwerp. The two brothers were—because of their political involvement—well aware of the danger posed by Farnese’s advance. As early as September 1584 Andries van der Meulen warned his brother Daniel that, with the rebels’ loss at Vilvoorde (just outside of Brussels), Antwerp was at risk. If Holland and Zeeland did not help, he wrote, their enemy would undoubtedly continue gaining victories.127 Andries van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, September 7, 1584, in RGP 196, ep. 8, 20. During the months that followed, the Van der Meulens monitored events carefully, tried to support the revolt in many ways, and contemplated their own options.

If Farnese’s troops succeeded in taking Antwerp, then the religious interests, business strategy, and family loyalty would all shape how the members of the Van der Meulen family decided where to go. During the challenging months of the siege of their city, the Van der Meulens pursued the interests of the revolt as well as their own. As it became increasingly clear that they would have to relocate, they initiated negotiations with Antoine Lempereur in Cologne in addition to their existing cooperation in that city with François Pierens. Lempereur also became their brother-in-law when he married their sister Sara in 1586. The new firm they founded focused on trade between Antwerp and both Frankfurt and Strasbourg, but the Van der Meulens took the liberty of expanding their business to other places as well: Hamburg, Cologne, Emden, Amsterdam, Middelburg, and London. In the late 1580s, Daniel also partnered with Jacques della Faille (his brother-in-law) to expand their business into the Italian lands.128 RGP 196, xl–liv. When the conditions of Antwerp’s surrender became public, it became clear that the Van der Meulens would have to find a “neutral” place in order to save their property in Antwerp. That is why they could not move to Holland or London.129 Jacques della Faille to Hester della Faille, Haarlem, August 12, 1585. RGP 196, ep. 161, 321. A place near Antwerp would have the advantages of allowing them to closely oversee their ongoing business there.130 Marten della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and della Faille, Antwerp, September 16, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 179, 343. Marten della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and Hester della Faille, Antwerp, September 17, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 180, 344. They wanted to continue their normal business, and not every place would allow them to do so.131 Jacques della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and Hester della Faille, Haarlem, August 22, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 165, 326. Jacques della Faille made a case for Hamburg instead of Bremen. The presence of family members, and the possibility of starting a new “colony” of the family, was another important criterion. And, finally, they wanted a decent house.132 Jacques della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and Hester della Faille, Haarlem, September 8, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 175, 338.

After the fall of Antwerp, the family remained as dispersed just as they had been before. Elizabeth Zeghers, Suzanne de Malapert, Sara van der Meulen, and Hanske van den Corput (the son of Anna van der Meulen and Severijn van den Corput) travelled together via Geertruidenberg to Bremen. In Bremen, Sara van der Meulen married Antoine Lempereur, a merchant working in Cologne. After their marriage, Antoine Lempereur returned to Cologne along with his wife, Sara van der Meulen. Daniel van der Meulen went with his wife Hester dalla Faille to Bremen, where he stayed until 1591. In 1589, Antoine Lempereur and Sara van der Meulen moved to Bremen, joining Sara’s brothers, Andries and Daniel. Antoine Lempereur, and Sara van der Meulen would later move again: to Utrecht in 1598, to Leiden in 1607, and finally to Amsterdam in 1615. François Pierens and Anna van der Meulen already lived in Cologne, and they stayed there until 1592, when they moved to Bremen. Gommar Govaerts, a cousin, stayed in Frankfurt. Andries van der Meulen went to Bremen after being removed from his duties as an alderman in September 1585. In 1607, he too left Bremen and spent the remainder of his life in Utrecht.133 RGP 196, xv–cxvi.

During their decision-making process the family tried to balance several, sometimes contradictory, interests. Religion was one interest, but certainly not the only one. Indeed, the Van der Meulens and their correspondents barely mention religion in the letters preceding their migration. A noticeable exception is a letter from Jacques della Faille describing the challenges for Reformed Protestants in Hamburg. Historians have often pointed to the government of Bremen’s decision to embrace the Reformed faith for its state church to explain why the Van der Meulens traveled to Bremen. For the Van der Meulens, Bremen’s public Reformed church was an asset but not as a decisive factor.134 See, for example, RGP 196, xxix. After all, the whole family did not go to Bremen: Sara van der Meulen and Antoine Lempereur continued to live in Cologne, which, being a Catholic city, only harbored a clandestine Reformed church.

After Antwerp’s reconquest by the Habsburgs, the Van der Meulens continued to do business in a variety of trade centers. Marten della Faille, Daniel’s brother-in-law, continued to live in Antwerp; Gommar Govaerts lived in Frankfurt; Anna and Sara van der Meulen and their husbands remained in Cologne; Hans Berwijns—who was married to Vincentia della Faille and whose son Abraham was to become the accountant of Andries van der Meulen—lived in Hamburg along with François Boudewijns, another trusted relative.135 Jacques della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen and Hester della Faille, Haarlem, August 6, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 155, 312. Andries van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Antwerp, August 8, 1585, in RGP 196, ep. 158, 316. See also RGP 196, lv. In Bremen, Andries and Daniel van der Meulen received all the information they needed to make their decisions. The decision of some of the family to move to Bremen was, of course, a direct consequence of Farnese’s victory in August 1585; the decision of other family members to live in Cologne, though, had little to do with Antwerp’s fall. Pierens and Lempereur were already active as merchants there before the rebels lost Antwerp.136 Thus, our reading of the sources supports Oscar Gelderblom’s conclusions about the Van der Meulens’ migration, and not Jesse Sadler’s recent critique. Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 536; Gelderblom, Cities of Commerce, 10–15.

The Van der Meulens were only one among many merchant families who left Antwerp after Farnese’s capture of the city. The dispersal of these merchant families had important effects on trade across Europe: other cities benefitted from the relocation of thriving businesses and these Antwerp families continued to use their old networks. Hence, Farnese’s victory had a major impact on the location of trade but also on the networks on which trade was based. To a large extent, these trade networks were rooted in kinship. Having kin-based business networks allowed early modern merchants to reduce the risk involved in long-distance trade and increased the likelihood of payment.137 See for a discussion of the relevance of kinship in trade networks: Roitman, Same but Different?, 5–21; Monge and Muchnik, Early Modern Diasporas, 61. According to Wilfried Brulez, the dispersal of merchant families allowed them to expand their businesses: from a business point of view, the dispersal after the seizure of Antwerp was actually beneficial.138 Brulez, “De diaspora der Antwerpse kooplui.” See also Gelderblom, Zuid-Nederlandse kooplieden, 75. Ole Peter Grell has drawn attention to the influence of these international networks of merchants on the Reformed movement of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. He shows how they became a key network of what he calls “international Calvinism.”139 Ole Peter Grell, “Merchants and Ministers: The Foundations of International Calvinism,” in Pettegree, Duke, and Lewis, Calvinism in Europe, 254–73. See also Grell, Brethren in Christ. The networks of merchants and their mobility helped Reformed congregations stay in touch. Hendrik van den Corput, for example, sent letters to Frankfurt via merchants who travelled to Frankfurt’s Messe.140 Hendrik van de Corput to Arent Cornelisz, Dordrecht, August 20, 1581, in WMV 3/2, ep. 22, 162. The networks and financial resources of merchants could help consistories add gravitas to the requests they made to city councils. Nicolas de Malapert (the brother-in-law of Andries van der Meulen), for example, signed several requests to Frankfurt’s city council on behalf of the Dutch-speaking Reformed consistory. Moreover, political rulers sympathizing with the Reformed merchants helped the Reformed secure their position in Frankfurt.141 Frankfurter Ratsprotokollen, November 23, 1592, in Meinert, Eingliederung, 487. Supplication of August 4, 1608, in FRH, vol. 1, Beylage CIII, 160–62. In the first request, the Reformed asked for a preacher; in the second request they asked for a church building within the city walls. Merchants were also able to support congregations financially. Jan Matruijt’s rental payments for the building in Frankfurt used by the Dutch Reformed for private worship provide a striking example of the dependence of the Reformed community on wealthier members.142 Frankfurt Consistory records, January 15, 1576, in Meinert and Dahmer, Das Protokollbuch, 138. Because of the financial support merchants could offer, elders of Frankfurt’s Reformed church were diligent in ensuring that Dutch-speaking merchants contributed to the Dutch-speaking church and not to the Walloon church: “We have to support our poor.”143 Frankfurt Consistory records, April 8, 1576, in Meinert and Dahmer, Das Protokollbuch, 139. Frankfurt’s Reformed consistory called on the merchants when it needed financial support.144 Frankfurt Consistory records, March 23, 1578, in Meinert and Dahmer, Das Protokollbuch, 176. Floris van Pallandt supported Aachen’s Reformed community financially by lending it money. In fact, Aachen’s Dutch Reformed congregation was largely dependent on Van Pallandt’s generosity.145 Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 119. As a result, merchants impacted how Reformed communities organized themselves. When Gommar Govaerts, a business partner of the Van der Meulens, criticized the preaching of Martinus Lydius, the classis strongly urged the minister to improve his sermons.146 Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 121–22. To be sure: the classis was critical of Govaerts’s behavior as well.

While the dispersal of merchant families helped to build international firms and furthered Reformed networks, it caused problems, too. The extensive correspondence of the Van den Corput family is replete with the testimonies of parents and siblings who desperately missed each other.147 Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 180. As a consequence of their migration, the Reformed Protestants missed major life events in their families. They were absent from each other’s marriages, the births of new babies, and the funerals of family members. Anna van der Meulen in Cologne, for example, expressed disappointment that she was not able to visit her brother Andries’s new daughter, Suzanna van der Meulen back in Antwerp.148 Anna van der Meulen to Sara van der Meulen, Cologne, September 18, 1585, in RGP 196, bijlage 67, 506. Hester della Faille wrote to her new mother-in-law (Daniel van der Meulen’s mother), Elizabeth Zeghers, that she regretted that the two were unable to meet in person.149 Hester della Faille to Elizabeth Zeghers, Haarlem, January 5, 1585, in RGP 196, bijlage 22, 431. Sara van der Meulen was living in Cologne when her mother died in Bremen. Because the journey from Cologne to Bremen was too dangerous, Sara was only able to offer her dying mother words of consolation and comfort in writing.150 Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 545–47. In a letter written in October 1592, Sara testified to her desire to travel to her brother in Bremen: the children of the Van der Meulens were growing older and she wanted them to know each other.151 “…dat onse kinderkens die beginnen tot verstande te comen, met u.l. kinderkens als met haer andere nichtkes ende nefkens alhier de lieffde ende vrintschap souden mogen eens ververschen.” Sara van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Bremen, October 1, 1592, DvdM, 295 Brieven van Sara van der Meulen. People used extensive correspondence networks to soften the absence of friends and family. But, as Coornhert testified, a letter could not replace personal contact.152 Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert to Frans Volckertsz Coornhert, undated, Coornhert, Brievenboeck, ep. 6, 8r. Even so, staying in touch via writing was not always easy. Letter writers had to wait for a carrier who was willing and able to deliver their letters, and these highly mobile migrants lost track of each other more than once.153 Anthonina van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo, November 12, 1567, in CPG 841, 65r. Johanna van den Corput to [Anna van den Corput], Lemgo, November 14, 1567, in CPG 841, 11v. Anthonina and Johanna both wondered where Johan was and whether he was in Basel. On the difficulties of staying in touch, see Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 178–81. Exiles indeed considered it an asset if their new home was one where letters could be easily delivered, and many were the complaints about letters written by loved ones that were never received.154 Katharina Court to Anna van den Corput, September 16, 1567, in CPG 841, 31v.

Such feelings of loss were not confined to exiles, of course. Those who stayed at home felt the same. Marten della Faille, for example, was probably unhappy with the decision of his brother-in-law and his sister to move to Bremen. He initially suggested that they move to Aachen since it was closer to Antwerp. But since Hester della Faille and Daniel van der Meulen had already moved to Bremen, he wrote a letter to his sister, urging her to consider returning to Antwerp. He doubted whether Bremen would remain neutral in the confessional politics of the day and felt that the presence of his brother-in-law and his sister was needed to manage the family’s properly. But he also explained that his advice was also inspired by brotherly affection.155 Marten della Faille to Hester della Faille, DvdM, 274 Brieven Marten della Faille, 45.

The migrants we discussed in this chapter had different motives to flee. In some cases, religion was a primary factor; in other cases, political pressure or the miseries of war compelled people to migrate. The tides of refugees were closely connected with the outbreaks of violence in regions of the Low Countries. The iconoclasm and the subsequent crackdown by soldiers of the duke of Alba in 1567–68 pressured many to look for safe harbor elsewhere. The same happened during the military successes of Farnese in the south in the 1580s. Reformed migrants gained an advantage from the experience of early refugees who had fled the Low Countries in the 1540s and 50s, like Jacques de Falais. The small foreign communities that formed in the Holy Roman Empire during these years could provide later waves of migrants with both the information and networks of fellow migrants that would make them less vulnerable. In all the cases we analyzed, Reformed migrants balanced political and religious motives with their personal interests. Before they left, they took care to secure their property as much as possible, and in deciding where to go, they carefully considered the respective economic opportunities. Each host community offered different employment prospects that served as pull factors as well. Large trade cities like Cologne and Frankfurt attracted artisans and wealthy merchants, despite the compromises that Reformed Protestants had to make to live there. Migrants leaving the Low Countries after the iconoclasm and during Farnese’s victories were often part of larger groups. Groups of migrants from a specific place often headed for one and the same place, effectively preserving the networks they had had at home.

Although historians have often been inclined to equate the decision to migrate with suffering, migration was only an option to those who could afford to travel and could earn their living elsewhere. The Van der Meulens understood that the poor did not have the option to leave. The same went for Reformed Protestants who could not take their occupations with them: like farmers, for example. The number of intellectuals, such as schoolmasters, ministers, doctors, and lawyers, among these migrants is indeed striking.156 For a comparison of the occupational profile of migrants, see chapter 3. Merchants are also strongly represented among the migrants in our study: their profession was flexible, they were used to moving, and they often had the networks to settle elsewhere. Moreover, the communities along the Rhine River watershed were attractive to many migrants: they were within travel distance of the places migrants came from and the existing travel routes made them easy to reach. The availability of sufficient financial means was but one prerequisite for undertaking a journey. Physical strength was another. Because of the bad roads and because of the means of transportation, travel was often strenuous. Migrants tried to reduce the risks of traveling. They often avoided traveling during the winter and tried to monitor military maneuvers to avoid being looted by troops. Families sometimes also sent one (male) member ahead to prepare the way for the rest of the family.

The social background of migrants had a significant impact on the success or failure of their migration. People with strong networks had a better chance of securing their property back home. Additionally, they used their networks to collect information, arrange housing in their refuge, and plan and organize their travel. People with financial means and extensive networks were less vulnerable than people who lacked money and local insight. A lack of time, however, was an equalizer. When people had to flee suddenly, they lacked the time to activate their networks and take measures to safeguard their property from confiscation. One of the sources of drama in the rebels’ unexpected loss of Breda in 1581 was that it left so many migrants destitute. People needed time to plan a migration, and, accordingly, inhabitants of cities under threat took precautions in case they had to leave. In sum, the way that Reformed Protestants left influenced their migration experiences. Another factor was of course their place of refuge. The context in which they tried to build a new life had a major impact both on their migration experience and how they understood their migration. Once the journey had passed, however, migrants had to navigate life in their new host communities, as we will explore in the next two chapters.