Chapter Six Returning and Remembering

The signing of the Union of Utrecht in 1579 probably also encouraged a number of migrants to move to rebel-held parts of the southern Netherlands. As we mentioned in chapter 1, Elisabeth Zeghers returned home as soon as the situation in Antwerp became more stable, and, from a Reformed perspective, more promising. Some ministers did the same. Gaspar van der Heyden, who came from Mechelen, apparently did everything he could to return to his region of origin. He fled several times to different places, but as soon as circumstances allowed, he returned to Brabant. But his return to Antwerp in 1579 was only temporary. After the Spanish military victories in 1585, Van der Heyden was one among many who migrated again. He died en route to Frankenthal in 1586.

This chapter is dedicated to the return of migrants and the subsequent memory culture that later developed about their time abroad. Many historians have made extensive claims about the profound influence of former migrants on the religious landscape of the Dutch Republic. As we explained in the introduction, they suggested that the experience of exile resulted in refugees embracing a more theologically rigid Calvinism independent of interference from government officials. According to this narrative, returning exiles spread this worldview in the newly independent United Provinces. Former exiles, in this view, became the backbone of orthodox Calvinism in the first years of the Dutch Republic, including at the Synod of Dordt in 1618–19.8 Asaert, 1585; Oberman, John Calvin; De Jong, Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis, 189. According to Alastair Duke, their stay abroad also incited the exiles to foster the idea of a Dutch “fatherland.”9 Alastair Duke, “In Defence of the Common Fatherland: Patriotism and Liberty in the Low Countries, 1555–1576,” in Dissident Identities, 50, 69–70. As we emphasize throughout this book, such causal connections between exiles’ experiences and these later outcomes are implausible. Exiles’ experiences were shaped by diverse local circumstances, variable church structures, different demographics within the communities, and, of course, individual personalities. A second problem with this common picture of the influence of former exiles on the Dutch religious landscape is that it also presupposes that most migrants returned home. In fact, however, most migrants never returned home. Many died before they even had the option of moving back to the Low Countries; many others made new homes abroad.

It is therefore necessary to reevaluate the significance of this migration on the migrants as well as on later generations. How did their experiences influence their later lives? How did they write about those experiences? How did others and later generations write about their migration? Did these stories share common patterns? And, finally, if there was something like a common exile narrative, how did this narrative influence the religious landscape of the Dutch Republic? Several scholars have pointed to the importance of exile narratives, whether told by migrants or later generations. After all, it was only due to these narratives that the diverse forms migrations we have examined became understood primarily as “confessional migration.” In their stories, former exiles or later generations explained the decision to move as a religious act to which they ascribed a spiritual meaning.10 Niggemann, “Confessional Migration.” Understanding the actual influence of sixteenth-century mass migration is hard to measure for at least two reasons. First, the existing evidence simply does not prove that migration encouraged the development of a specific belief system. There are simply too many examples of believers who accommodated to their environment and developed compromising strategies while living in exile to make such a link between exile and strictly confessionalized forms of belief plausible.11 Van Veen and Spohnholz, “Calvinists vs. Libertines.” Similarly, there is no reliable evidence that those refugees who did later move to the Dutch Republic were especially influential there. However, we can describe the way people remembered these migrations and utilized the discourse of exile within subsequent memory culture. In the case of the Dutch Republic, Johannes Müller insightfully highlights how later generations created a specific memory culture about sixteenth-century Dutch Reformed refugees. To do so, they draw on older stories and images, including medieval Christian ideas about pilgrimage and suffering as a way to follow Christ’s footsteps.12 Breedvelt-Van Veen, Louis de Geer, 1–2; Müller, Exile Memories, 124–46. Rather than tracing the direct influence of the refugees themselves, we can better understand the influence of the sixteenth-century mass migration on the Dutch religious landscape by analyzing this memory culture.

But first, we need to understand the diverse ways that the migrants themselves described their experiences at the time, as well as how they remembered those experiences. To do so, we use the correspondence of the Van der Meulen and the Van den Corput families—which included individuals living in one or more of the eleven refugee centers covered in our study. While previous chapters focused on the eleven migrant communities in the Empire, in this chapter we are more expansive because (1) we are examining communication networks across the diaspora, and (2) we are examining correspondence networks that are personal or familial, rather than ecclesiastical, in function. We have also compared these letters to the correspondence of Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert, who lived as a refugee in the duchy of Cleves but was never a member of a Reformed congregation, to avoid making unwarranted conclusions about the confessional distinctiveness of particular responses to life abroad. Similarly, we also compare these letters to the correspondence of a group of migrants from Ypres who settled in England as well as to several other writings on the suffering of believers during the years of the revolt in order to compare the Van der Meulen and the Van den Corput correspondence to that of people who share the same faith but lived in more supportive political and religious environments. This correspondence allows us to describe the diversity of exile experiences as well as to trace the later consolidation of memories of those experiences.

During the last few decades, historians have started to recognize that religious migrants were more than mere victims. Using strategies to build themselves a better future, these people made their own decisions as agents to shape their lives. As we described in the previous chapters, migrants had their own agency about when they decided where to go, how they interacted with their neighbors, and how they organized their congregations and worship.13 Cf. Janssen, “Legacy of Exile.” See also Lougee, Facing the Revocation. At the same time, however, migrants still sometimes described themselves as passive victims. In several letters written to her siblings, Sara van der Meulen, for example, downplayed her own agency: she blamed the “circumstances” for the dispersal of the family, ignoring the decision of the Van der Meulens to settle in a variety of places.14 See also Sadler, “Family in Revolt, 563–66. In a song, Coornhert described his stay in the Empire as an exile, caused by the rulers in his home country.15 Coornhert, Lied-boeck, b7r. In 1581, Johanna van den Corput saw the movements of the family members within an almost providential framework. She described her move with her husband Hendrik de Smet as part of the larger plan of Count Palatine Johann Casimir to create a refuge for believers in Neustadt, and she assured her addressee that the “pure doctrine” was preached in her new home.16 Johanna van den Corput to a cousin, [1581], in CPG 841, 1r.

According to Jesse Sadler, the Van der Meulen family developed a discourse of exile in their letters. 17 Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 527. Actually, the word “exile” rarely occurs in these texts. The same goes for Hendrik van den Corput’s letters, although he mentioned his return “ab exilio” in one letter from 1597, nineteen years after moving from the Palatinate to Dordrecht. 18 Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 527, 541. Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, May 3, 1597, in CPG 838i, 3–13v. Instead, it might be more appropriate to speak of a discourse of suffering in refugees’ letters.19 On this point as it relates to John Calvin, see Pitkin, Calvin, the Bible and History, 122–140. On sixteenth-century ways of coping with suffering, see Kuijpers, “Emotional Narratives.” Migrants spoke extensively about the suffering of the true believers, but this suffering was not confined to refugees. Apparently, Johanna van den Corput, Hendrik’s sister, regarded exile as a better option than staying at home.20 Johanna van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, undated, in CPG 841, 11v. Johanna wrote that “moeike Bruyninx” (a woman unknown to us) would regret it if she remained in the “fatherland.” She foresaw that circumstances in the Netherlands would deteriorate and, in an apocalyptic letter, bemoaned the fate of those who hadn’t left the country.21 Johanna van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, July 18, [1568], in CPG 841, 9r. “Ick hadde beter geraden te vlieden die plaetsen daer die plagen vallen als ons Esaias en Apocalypse voorseyt: “Gaet wt mijn volck”, want ic beduchte dat over onse landen noch harde straffe sal comen.” She was referring to Isaiah 48:20 and Revelations 18:4, which called on believers to distance themselves from sin. Johanna also applied the message to her “fatherland” where unjust judges shed “innocent blood.” Likewise, Johan Badius explained to Coornhert that those staying at home were probably worse off. While Coornhert lived in freedom in his place of exile, Badius explained that people back home had to endure imprisonment and even severe torture.22 Coornhert, Een Lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 381v. Other correspondents staying in the Low Countries reminded the migrants that living in the “fatherland” was probably worse. Katharina Court, for example, wrote from Breda that Anna van den Corput could probably hardly imagine how it was for a Christian to live in the Netherlands and that she would have preferred to live in Duisburg with Anna.23 Katharina Court to Anna van den Corput, Breda, December 11, 1567, in CPG 841, 36v. See also her letter written on December 9, 1567, to Anna van den Corput, in CPG 841, 33v.

The awareness that people back home were probably worse off made it impossible for the Van den Corputs and Coornhert to ascribe a heroic role to migrants or regard them as exemplary believers. Some migrants from Ypres fleeing to England, however, seemed to understand fleeing as a way to follow in Christ’s footsteps. Some of their letters describe migration as a mark of religious virtue.24 An unknown person to Jacob Balde, June 24, 1568, Janssen, “De Hervormde vlugtelingen,” 262. For other examples, see Janssen, “De Hervormde vlugtelingen,” 216, 224, 228. In this line of reasoning, they even went beyond John Calvin. As we saw in chapter 1, early modern Europeans were inclined to regard staying at home as a duty. Calvin’s polemic against the Nicodemites painted the decision to flee as the safer option. In his view, it was simply unrealistic to expect ordinary believers to keep themselves uncontaminated from “idolatry” as long as they lived at home in what he called “Babylon.”25 Van Veen, ‘Verschooninghe van de roomsche afgoderye’, 35–96. The believers from Ypres described flight as the more pious option and as a religious virtue. But although members of the Van den Corput family, the Van der Meulens, and Coornhert were aware of the miseries back home, they occasionally struggled with the consequences of having left their homeland.

A dialogue between Coornhert and Basius, published in Coornhert’s collected works, reveals the troubles Coornhert experienced during his stay in exile. He missed his homeland, its benefits, and his friends, and he was concerned about the loss of social status. He also feared adversities like illness, poverty or even death that he might encounter while living among foreigners. But the awareness that “evildoers” rejoiced in the miseries of true believers and the “tyranny against the pitiful and innocent Christians” made things truly hard to bear.26 Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 380r/v. The absence of friends, the dispersal of families, the uncertainty of each other’s well-being, and the impossibility of attending one another’s weddings, births, and deaths, could be a heavy burden for migrants. This burden differed from person to person. Whereas Coornhert mentioned the absence of his friends repeatedly, the Van der Meulens were, as it seems, primarily concerned about the dispersal of their family. As we will see below, Sara van der Meulen worried that the next generation might grow up without getting to know each other and, hence, without establishing a mutual bond of friendship.27 See below, n. 84. As we mentioned in chapter 1, the Van den Corputs struggled to keep track of each other and grew concerned when they did not know one another’s whereabouts.28 See chapter 1, n. 148. Anthonina’s sickness was a second source of suffering. Anthonina herself longed for news from her parents while she was ill.29 Johanna van den Corput to an unknown person, [November/December 1567], in CPG 841, 8r. But their arrival in Lemgo in later 1567 came too late. By then, their daughter had already passed away.30 See chapter 1, n. 118.

Migrants used various coping strategies to soften their feelings of loss and loneliness. Writing letters helped them to keep in touch and compensated for the absence of family and friends; a discourse of suffering helped them to understand their sorrow and to put it into perspective. Letters offered an important means of maintaining contact with family members and friends elsewhere. Writing letters helped those facing uncertainty assure one another of their well-being. Writers often asked about the health of their correspondent or other loved ones and shared information about their own health or that of loved ones who were with them. Another important goal of letter writing was to preserve the bonds between family members and friends.31 See Sadler, “Family in Revolt.” At the same time, these letters served a more practical goal: correspondents shared information about the well-being of other relatives, about the successes and failures of the rebels in the Netherlands, and on other political and economic developments. Additionally, writers used their letters to exhort one another to behave in a certain way or to comfort each other.32 Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 188–224. The letters we analyzed reveal a remarkable variety in tone. The Van den Corput sisters wrote letters reminiscent of the Pauline epistles. They were careful to start with an apostolic greeting and to apply scripture to their daily lives. By contrast, the Van der Meulen letters were more down to earth. God is not absent from their letters, but their main goal was to share information and preserve their mutual bonds.

The letters written by women were also often far more pious in tone than those written by men. Many women even wrote letters in a Pauline style, recalling the apostolic letters of the early church.33 See for example: Anthonina van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo, November 12, 1567, in CPG 841, 64r. The women exhorted each other to take biblical examples to heart and were quite explicit about the meaning they ascribed to their experiences. Some of these women felt called to admonish (vermanen) their correspondent. They regarded their ability to apply Scripture to their lives and to admonish each other as a gift that they were eager to use to benefit others. To be sure: they didn’t confine their admonishments to female readers but extended them to male readers as well. For example, in 1567 Anthonina van den Corput wrote a letter on the necessity of suffering to Peeter Meere and his wife. Peeter thanked Anthonina for the comfort she offered and embraced her interpretation of the religious meaning of their persecutions.34 Peeter Meere and his wife to Anthonina van den Corput, Breda, August 24, 1567, in CPG 841, 38v. On one occasion in early 1568, Johanna van den Corput entered into a written debate with a Catholic woman she referred to only as “Miss Vervloet,” still living in Breda. She tried to convince Vervloet of the truth of the Reformed faith. Although Johanna asked her minister for theological advice, she definitely took the lead in writing the letters and deciding which arguments to use in them.35 Schipper, “Across the Borders of Belief,” 184–87. She also exhorted her brother Nicolaas to stay true to the Reformed faith, too.36 Nicolaas may well have been born as an extra-marital son of Johan de Oude. See Postema, Johan van den Corput, 18. During his imprisonment in 1582, Johanna wrote him a letter offering comfort and urging him to confess the truth. In her view, those who denied the faith were not better off because their own consciences troubled them as well as God’s wrath. She urged Nicolaas to rejoice in his suffering, which was for the sake of Christ.37 Johanna van den Corput to Nicolaas van den Corput, April 11, 1582, in CPG 841, 13r.

While sources produced by and for the migrant churches mostly only discuss women as the subjects of church discipline or the recipients of charity, these women’s letters show a remarkable self-confidence and demonstrate their extensive familiarity with biblical texts and theological arguments.38 Dorothea Mercator to Anna van den Corput, Duisburg, November 5, [1568], in CPG 841, 41r. Johanna van den Corput was confident about her gift for “warning” her brethren and she felt that others recognized her gift as well. In a letter from July 1568, one replete with warnings and exhortations, she wrote that she wouldn’t mind if the addressee shared the content of the letter with others.39 Johanna van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, July 18, [1568], in CPG 841, 9r, 10v. Johanna was probably just one example of many women who seized the opportunities that renewal movements offered. The temporary absence of formal ecclesiastical structures reduced the centrality of formally ordained pastors and increased the importance of charisma. This offered new opportunities to women. The Van den Corput sisters may have been familiar with the important role Reformed women played in their hometown of Breda, where Philipotte van Belle (Philip van Marnix’s wife) and Henrica des Barres were at the forefront of the Reformed movement. Henrica des Barres had probably helped to spread the Reformed message, including having someone only known to us as Master Adriaen teach Calvin’s Genevan Catechism at her house.40 Beenakker, Breda, 46–47.

In their pious letters, correspondents used a discourse of suffering. Their letters resembled other letters of comfort that early modern people wrote to loved ones suffering from illness or from the loss of a close family member or friend. For example, in November 1568 Dorothea Mercator wrote of the suffering of those in exile, those persecuted, and those suffering from illness all at the same time. Suffering belonged to life on earth, she explained, since it pleased God to send his afflictions upon his children.41 Dorothea Mercator to Anna van den Corput, [Duisburg], November 5, [1568], in CPG 841, 41v. Believers were proud of their suffering and took it as a sign that God would, in the end, give them martyrs’ crowns. They attributed no special role to their exile experience—they understood all true believers who faced persecution within this framework. True believers, in this mindset, had always been persecuted by infidels. The might of these infidels was, however, limited. They were unable to kill the soul of believers and, ultimately, God would punish the infidels for their deeds, as Peeter Meere wrote to Anthonina van den Corput in August 1567.42 Cf. Matthew 10:28. Peeter Meere to Anthonina van den Corput, August 24, 1567, in CPG 841, 38v. The early modern perception of the suffering of true believers was thus highly ambiguous. On the one hand, many Reformed Protestants were sure that their suffering was caused by non-believers and they comforted each other with an apocalyptic vision according to which God would eventually take revenge.43 Katharina Court to Anthonina van den Corput, Outside Zevenbergen, July 19, 1567, in CPG 841, 29v. Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 383r. They occasionally presented suffering as a test offering believers the opportunity to demonstrate the strength of their faith. In September 1585, Anna van der Meulen tried to comfort her mother, who had been traveling from Antwerp to Geertruidenberg, even though she was old and fragile. It was clear to her that God wanted to test believers to see whether they were steadfast. “It is heavy to bear in our eyes, but God sends us only [afflictions] that serve our best.”44 Anna van der Meulen to Sara van der Meulen, Cologne, September 18, 1585, in RGP 196, bijlage LXVII, 507. On the other hand, Reformed writers sometimes blamed themselves for all the evils happening. They confessed their sins, saw suffering as divine punishment for those sins, and exhorted one another to repent and convert. Migrants sometimes also applied this framework to their life abroad.45 Johanna van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo [November 14, 1567], in CPG 841, 11r. Anna van den Corput to (unknown), January 20, 1568, in CPG 841, 58r–v. See also Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 381v.

Awareness of the suffering of believers in the “fatherland” and their own remorse about their sins as the cause of misery were reason enough to take their forced migration as it was. Although Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and Johanna van den Corput differed in many ways, they agreed that their exile was in accordance with divine will, which prevented them from labeling exile as evil. In their view, a believer should not resist God’s providence but rather remain steadfast and bear adversities with patience. According to the writings of migrants, believers embraced patience as an essential virtue. According to early modern thought, perfect exiles were neither fanatics nor immoderate zealots. Instead, they were moderate and patient. Believers urged each other to rest in God’s will and forsake their own wills, which only led to evil.46 Maria Adriaensdr to Anna van den Corput, January 15, 1568, in CPG 841, 45r. The fact that Coornhert and the Van den Corput family did quite well in exile certainly helped them to embrace these virtues. Anthonina van den Corput wrote extensively about her house in Lemgo and recommended living there: she was happy with the local bread and judged the women she met as friendly and beautiful.47 Anthonina van den Corput to Anna van den Corput, Lemgo, November 12, 1567, in CPG 841, 65r. Coornhert cooperated during his stay in the duchy of Cleves with notable artists.48 Veldman, “Coornhert en de prentkunst.” Hendrik van den Corput reminded Gillis van Musenhole of the prosperity he acquired during his exile. Since God had blessed him with a thriving business, Van Musenhole was now obliged to allow his son to study theology instead of becoming a merchant, and to pay for his studies.49 Hendrik van den Corput to Gillis van Musenhole, undated, CPG 841, 20r. But besides the more practical advantages that sometimes befell migrants during their time abroad, they were also confident about the spiritual benefits of suffering. According to Johanna, this suffering ensured the growth of the church, since as the Church Father Tertullian understood, the blood of martyrs was the seed of the church.50 Johanna to a cousin, [1581], in CPG 841, 1r. Early modern Reformed Protestants equated suffering with the passing of a test: the ability to bear suffering marked someone as a follower of Christ. But this interpretation of exile as a trial from God and an opportunity for spiritual growth was not limited to Reformed authors. Coornhert too was convinced that God used his exile to teach him to improve. His own feelings of loss were due to his attachment to things he did not own. They really belonged to God, he explained, though had had wrongly treated them as his possessions. Exile taught him that he had made idols out of his wealth, friends, and the love of his “fatherland.” The cross of exile forced him to quit his sins. For that reason, Coornhert agreed that exile was not a punishment but a blessing. Hence exile should be endured with patience and gaiety.51 Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 384v.

According to migrants, exile and the suffering that went along with it were quite normal. They quoted biblical stories on fleeing patriarchs and Jesus’s flight to Egypt to show that exile was an ordinary part of the Christian life. The references to these stories also offered comfort because they testified to God’s care for his people when they lived among foreigners.52 Maria Adriaensdr to Anna van den Corput, January 15, 1568, in CPG 841, 45v. Anna van den Corput to Johanna van den Corput and her husband Hendrik de Smet, January 20, 1568, CPG 841, 58v. The use of these Old Testament narratives was also not confined to Reformed authors, as Coornhert’s example shows. He referenced the story of Joseph and Jacob in a spiritualist-mystical framework: this story showed that God used exile to force believers to distance themselves from their carnal belongings and concentrate on divine goodness.53 Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 384r. Even more important was the influence of Augustine’s idea that believers were ultimately strangers in this world on their way to the heavenly home. For example, Maria Adriaens, who had been a member of Breda’s Reformed community too, applied this insight to the decision of Johan van den Corput and Antonina Montens to leave their homeland. She lamented over their hardships but also reminded them that they were pilgrims on their way to the heavenly fatherland.54 Maria Adriaensdr to Anna van den Corput, January 15, 1568, in CPG 841, 45r. Maria Adriaensdr probably remained in Breda, since she did not send her greeting to Hendrik who was still in Breda at the time. Ibidem, 45v. In March 1568, she wrote a letter describing the dire circumstances in Breda. See below, n. 93. Johannes Basius urged Coornhert to see earthly distance from an eternal perspective: he was still living on the same earth and enjoying the warmth of the same sun.55 Coornhert, Een lieffelijcke tsamenspreeckinge, van de droefheydt, WW 3, 381r. In 1569, one unknown correspondent of Johanna van den Corput called all life on earth “a Babylonian exile” from which believers were only delivered by death.56 An unknown person to Johanna van den Corput, after February 26, 1569, in CPG 841, 54r. No doubt migrants also had more down-to-earth ideas of what it meant to be at home. Coornhert, for example, longed for the Netherlands, his “earthly paradise” (“aardsch prieel”).57 Coornhert, Liedboeck Amsterdam: Herman Janszoon, [1575]), b7r. But his poem about his “aardsch prieel” shows that his understanding was embedded in a religious framework. Coornhert understood the miseries of exile as a divine punishment for human sins. One of these sins was, precisely, longing for one’s earthly home while forgetting the heavenly home.58 Coornhert, Liedboeck, b7r. This religious framework induced John Calvin to define “home” in purely religious terms: believers were at home where they could listen to the pure preaching of God’s Word.59 Calvin to Agneti Angliae, 1553, CO 14, ep. 1890, 739–42. Many Reformed believers, at least in theory, agreed with him. Anna van den Corput only wanted to return home when the preaching of the true Word of God could be reintroduced.60 Katharina Court to Anna van den Corput, December 9, 1567, in CPG 841, 33r. Katharina Court, a correspondent of Anthonina van den Corput, defined the quality of life of a particular place by the preaching of the word in different languages.61 Katharina Court to Anthonina van den Corput, July 19, 1567, in CPG 841, 30r. Longing for the preaching of the “pure Word” allowed for some flexibility. Reformed were willing to balance the pursuit of Reformed purity with other interests and were willing to live and work in Lutheran or even Catholic lands.62 Hans van Dursten to Hendrik de Smet, Franckfurt, November 9, [1589], in CPG 804, 191r. Van Dursten was a cousin of De Smet and was well known to Hans van den Corput.

When early modern people spoke of their home in a more literal, earthly sense, their understanding of being at home was not limited to a specific spot. The presence of family and friends enabled early modern people to feel at home. As we saw, the Van der Meulens regarded their dispersal as an exilic drama. Especially the female correspondents of this family longed to be together again. Likewise, the Van den Corput family connected their return home with being reunited.63 Cornelis Ymans (a cousin of Johan) to Johan van den Corput, Speyer, November 30, 1568, in CPG 841, 68v. See also Postema, Johan van den Corput, 43. For another example, see Van Roijen, “Een familiecorrespondentie,” especially 141. Dorothea Mercator longed to live in the same place as her friend Anna van den Corput and to have the opportunity to admonish and comfort others. This place could be Brabant, but it could just as well be Duisburg.64 Dorothea Mercator to Anna van den Corput, [Duisburg], November 5, [1568], CPG 841, 41r. Coornhert was happy to return home after his second exile because this implied the renewed proximity of family and friends.65 Coornhert to Frans Coornhert, undated, Coornhert, Hondert Brieven, ep. 6, 8. But, as the presence of family and friends as well as the preaching of the Word were so important to early modern believers, many people were able to develop a sense of belonging even while living abroad. The Dutch Reformed pastor Lubbertus Fraxinus, for example, a native of Brabant, was at first glance destined to remain homeless. After serving as pastor to the Dutch Reformed congregation in Cologne, his attempt to return home ultimately failed; in 1581, he moved to Oudenaarde and later to Antwerp, but Farnese’s military conquest of that city in 1585 prompted him to flee again. This time, Fraxinus went to Holland where he became a valued minister in the early Dutch Republic.66 BLGNP, sv. It is uncertain whether a man like Fraxinus ever considered himself an exile and whether he felt he had suffered while living in Cologne.

The interpretation of exile as a disruptive experience that fundamentally altered the lives of migrants and induced them to embrace a specific belief system, fails to take into account the early modern understanding of what it meant to be at home and overlooks the frequency of suffering in a sixteenth-­century context. Much like other sorts of suffering, exile could breed Christian virtues like patience, resignation, and steadfastness. Coornhert’s play, Abraham’s Uytgangh (Abraham’s Exodus), offers a striking example of the interplay between migration and this type of spiritual growth. Coornhert wrote this play during his own exile and dedicated it to Arend van Wachtendonk, a nobleman in the service of the duke of Cleves. The play was first published in 1575 in Rees.67 Fleurkens, Stichtelijke lust, 221–22. A character named “Cruysvlucht” (fleeing the cross), who wants to avoid the plagues savaging his own country, is told to take Abraham’s example to heart.68 Coornhert, Abrahams Uytgangh, in Van der Meulen, Het roerspel, line 1–62. But Abraham’s migration is, according to this play, a spiritual one for Abraham, who decides to leave his evil life.69 See, Coornhert, Abrahams Uytgangh, line 1038–1041 in Van der Meulen, Het roerspel. Nevertheless, literal migration is not absent in this play: the concerns “Cognatio” raises against migration are very much the concerns of early modern migrants and of Coornhert himself: the loss of friends, the uncertainties and loneliness that went with living among foreigners, the duty to stay in one’s “fatherland,” and the dangers of traveling.70 Coornhert, Abrahams Uytgangh, line 337–66; 535–47; 795–806, in Van der Meulen, Het roerspel. It is tempting to see autobiographical elements interwoven with the biblical story of Abraham. In Coornhert’s play, Abraham is worried about Sara’s readiness to follow him, even as Sara is, indeed, severely tempted by “Communis opinion,” “Cognatio” and “Affectus.”71 Coornhert, Abrahams Uytgangh, line 471–622, in Van der Meulen, Het roerspel. As the biblical story doesn’t even mention the option of any doubts on Sara’s side, this part of the play seems to mirror Coornhert’s doubts about Neeltje’s willingness to follow him and the attempts of others to convince her to stay in Holland.72 See chapter 1, n. 103. Coornhert’s lesson is, in fact, a pretty general one: believers should leave their worldly concerns behind them and submit themselves to God’s eternal will.

As we outlined above, migrants’ longing for home took diverse forms in practice. Some migrants seemed to have hoped for a return within a short time, but as their stay in the Empire was prolonged, the metaphorical distance between them and their homeland grew. People became part of their host society and sometimes even grew alienated from their homeland. Hence, the decision to return (if possible) was not always easy to make. In the following, we will describe some of the push and pull factors.

Werner Helmichius (1551–1608) returned home.73 BLGNP, sv. He was born and raised in Utrecht, but in 1566 he left to enroll in the Genevan Academy. In 1570, he continued his studies abroad, in Heidelberg. William of Orange’s military successes starting in 1572 didn’t inspire him to move to Holland. Instead, in 1576 he became minister in the Dutch Reformed congregation in Lutheran Frankfurt. A year later, fellow believers seized the opportunity to organize a Reformed church in Utrecht. Helmichius soon returned home to become a minister in his hometown. Wherever Orangist troops gained ground, Reformed leaders intensified their efforts to provide the nascent church in the new state with a minister. Sometimes, the migrant congregations helped them.74 Philip van Marnix to [the consistory of the Dutch stranger community in London], Middelburg, January 27, 1577, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 2, ep. 154, 572. Gaspar Heydanus to [the consistory of the Dutch Stranger community in London], Middelburg, March 8, 1577, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 2, ep. 158, 584. The Dutch church in London felt obliged to send ministers to the rebel-held lands of the Netherlands because ministers could make a greater contribution there than they could in small congregations in England. See: the consistory of the Dutch community in London to the consistory of the Dutch community in Maidstone, London, August 8, 1577, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 3, ep 492, 464. The farewell speech of refugees in Wesel to the city council in 1578 and the presentation of chalices as signs of gratitude for the hospitality the city had shown, are probably the most notable example of believers making plans to travel home.75 Janssen, “De Nederlandsche hervormden in Kleefsland,” 307–318, 320–422. See also Spohnholz, “Calvinism and Religious Exile.” Sometimes, members of the refugee communities mentioned changes they had undergone as a result of the rebels’ successes. The Dutch Reformed community at Yarmouth, England, for example, witnessed the departure of the wealthier members “as God had opened part of our fatherland”76 The consistory of the Dutch church in Yarmouth to the consistory of the Dutch church in London, Yarmouth, May 15, 1576, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 3, ep. 388, 369. Other Reformed refugees also returned after Orange’s initial victories.77 De Jong, Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis, 149; Selderhuis, Handboek Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis, 318. See also Fagel and Pollmann, 1572, 88, 177, 196.

In the case of the migrants in our study, however, many people stayed in the refugee communities, moved to elsewhere in the Empire, or died before they had the option of returning home. Elizabeth Zeghers, the founding mother of the Van der Meulen firm, died in Bremen, just as so many other migrants died while living in exile.78 Sadler, “Family in Revolt,” 541–54. Her children were unable to return home after 1585 when Antwerp came under Spanish rule. Some of them visited Antwerp occasionally, but this was not without risks. In 1588, Daniel van der Meulen planned to go to Antwerp, but his sister Sara expressed concern, warning him of the dangerous journey and of friends in Antwerp behaving like “foxes.”79 Sara van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Cologne, September 5, 1588, DvdM, 295 Brieven van Sara van der Meulen. In 1598, Jan della Faille urged Daniel to come to Antwerp: his coming would be useful in resolving a family conflict, but Jan also encouraged Daniel to see his relatives again.80 Jan della Faille to Daniel van der Meulen, Antwerp, January 3, 1598, DvdM, 270 Brieven van Jan della Faille, 33. Sara van der Meulen continued longing for a return to Antwerp. Brabant and Flanders were their “fatherland” and Holland was only second best. Living in Holland was better than living in Bremen, but only because it was closer to Antwerp.81 Sara van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Bremen, December 7, 1592, DvdM, 295 Brieven van Sara van der Meulen. Gradually, migrants’ hopes to return to their homeland evaporated.82 Spohnholz, “Calvinism and Religious Exile.” For another example, see Müller, Exile Memories, 64. The desire to live in Antwerp again was closely connected with Sara van der Meulen’s ardent wish to live as a united family in one place, instead of being dispersed among different countries.83 Sara van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Bremen, December 7, 1592: “Je me suis resjoui de veoir vostre filz et le filz de notre frere Andries. Ils sont ici comme estants freres avecque les notres s’asbatant et s’entrejouissant en toute modestié. J’espere que le Seigneur nourira et liera leur amytié.” DvdM, 295 Brieven van Sara van der Meulen. Once Sara had settled in Utrecht, she joyfully watched the sons of both Daniel and Andries playing with her own boys. She prayed that the Lord would bless their friendship.84 Sara van der Meulen to Daniel van der Meulen, Utrecht, July 22, 1599, DvdM, 295 Brieven van Sara van der Meulen. The unity of the family—so tested by its dispersal—was a matter of high significance to Sara. Brothers and sisters were able to remain in touch via written correspondence, but a second generation grew up without having the opportunity to know each other. Sara was worried about how to keep the dispersed family together, especially when a new generation was growing up apart. Behind her description of the scene of her nephews playing together one can almost detect a sigh of relief.85 Likewise, Hendrik van den Corput rejoiced when he reunited with family members. Hendrik van den Corput aan Hendrik de Smet, September 16, 1592, in CPG 804, 76r.

Whereas some members of the Van der Meulen family moved from the Holy Roman Empire to the Dutch Republic beginning in the early 1590s, other migrants decided to stay in the Empire: apparently, they had found a new home. Johanna van den Corput, for example, never returned to the Dutch Republic. In 1578, she and her husband made plans to settle in Dordrecht, together with her mother and sister Elisabeth. However, as Johanna explained in a letter, Count Johann Casimir was not willing to let her husband, Hendrik de Smet, go, and so they stayed in Neustadt. The two later moved to Heidelberg. Elisabeth married Franciscus Junius, the renowned professor of theology, and postponed moving to the Republic as well. Dorothea Mercator longed for her homeland, as she testified in a letter to Anna van den Corput, although she was aware that a return might take longer than they anticipated.86 Dorothea Mercator to Anna van den Corput, Duisburg, February 9, 1569, in CPG 841, 43r. In fact, she seems to have felt perfectly at home in the Empire: she gave birth to several children and, as far as we know from their biographies, these children stayed in the Empire just like their mother. Hendrik van den Corput did not rush to move to the Republic either. In 1573 his main goal was not to help build the Dutch Reformed Church, but rather to obtain a pastorate in the Palatinate. Only in 1578 did he move to Dordrecht.87 Hendrik van den Corput to an unknown person, [March 2, 1573], in CPG 841, 19r. See also Hendrik van den Corput to [Hendrik de Smet?], March 1573, in CPG 841, 19v. See also BLGNP, sv. And indeed many migrants became members of their host societies: they acquired citizenship, married locals, and participated in local politics.88 Schilling, Niederländische Exulanten, 158–59. See also chapter 3.

At first glance, Holland offered favorable conditions for exiles to return. William of Orange granted former exiles privileges such as housing, occasionally confiscated property from Catholic exiles who had fled, and made it clear that returning exiles were to have an honorable position in the newly forming government. As Geert Janssen has shown, the world was turned upside down, as Orange replaced Catholic officeholders (who had fled) with arriving Protestant exiles and allowed them to take a visible role in the new state.89 Janssen, “Exiles.” When Coornhert returned to Holland in 1572, he was given back his belongings, including his house, which was being repaired after apparently being damaged.90 Becker, Bronnen, no 97, 63–64. At the same time, despite these enticements, some migrants may well have found the circumstances in the Empire more promising. After years of war, the Dutch economy was evidently in a bad state. Wouter Jacobsz’s dramatic account of the poverty, hostilities, and damage caused by the war is particularly moving.91 Van Eeghen, Dagboek van Broeder Wouter Jacobsz. To be sure: regions like the duchy of Cleves had suffered from war as well, and both rebel and royal troops looted the lands. But at least until the Thirty Years’ War, circumstances in the Empire were often better. A second factor that an objective observer could not fail to see was the uncertainty about the near future in the Low Countries, where the situation was extremely unstable as Johannes Ceporinus (1541–1626), for example, experienced. After living as a refugee in Goch, his return to Nijmegen, where he had begun his ecclesiastical career, came too early. After Farnese’s successes he had to flee again; this time he went to Medemblik. In 1617 we find him back in Goch. This was not the end of his journey, for in 1620, he had to flee yet again after which he returned to Nijmegen. He ended his life in Zaltbommel, about fifty kilometers to the west.92 Acquoy, Jan van Venray. He was not the only person for whom the miseries of war and the violence of religious discord was practically omnipresent. When the return of the exiles began, in the summer of 1572, the revolt, with its mutual hatred, religious and political violence, and economic misery still had a tremendous impact. Even people who were able to keep themselves at a distance from the economic, political, and religious distress heard stories of people who had to flee, saw the damage caused by outbreaks of violence, or had witnessed the trials of heretics.93 Maria Adriaensdr to Anna van den Corput, March 1568, in CPG 841, 47r. People in the new state watched the military maneuvers with a keen eye. Military successes and failures affected the lives of people they knew and endangered their own lives. In 1581, for example, Hendrik van den Corput apologized for writing a rather chaotic letter, one in which he expressed serious concern about his family and friends in Breda who were suffering through a brutal Spanish military occupation.94 Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, August 4, 1581, in WMV 3/2, ep. 20, 156. Ministers watching what happened in the southern Netherlands lumped this military threat together with the actions of the opponents of their Reformed endeavors. In their view, enemies were everywhere and were endangering everything.95 W. Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Utrecht, April 25, 1584, in WMV 3/4, ep xx, 45–46.

Migrants may well have had also more personal reasons to stay in their places of refuge. According to Henricus Caesarius, who described the history of Zaltbommel in a treatise, Johannes Ceporinus’s heart tended toward the Palatinate.96 Caesarius, Danck Sermoon, 4r. As we outlined above, as people became involved in their host societies, they grew more distanced from their homeland. Members of the Van der Meulen family managed to stay in touch and keep each other posted on their well-being, but in other families the bond between brothers and sisters or parents and children weakened. Carolus Batten reported to Hendrik de Smet that he did not know how many children his brothers and sisters had. He reminded his addressee that he hadn’t been in his hometown for twelve years.97 Carolus Batten to De Smet, Dordrecht, February 6, 1591, in CPG 804, 165v. To people who had fled during their childhood, their native town or village sometimes became just a hazy memory. Bonaventura Vulcanius asked De Smet for more information on his family: because of his flight he knew little of his family history.98 Bonaventura Vulcanius to De Smet, Leiden, March 18, 1592, in CPG 804, 109r. As time passed, migrants integrated into their host societies, including, as we have seen, sometimes becoming citizens.99 See chapter 3. For the children of migrants, especially, their place of refuge gradually became home. Some children of migrants ceased speaking Dutch altogether. In the case of Hendrik van den Corput, the question of where one belonged caused tension between the first and second generation of migrants. Hendrik felt that his sons should return to their “fatherland” and assist in building the Dutch Reformed Church.100 Hendrik van den Corput felt that the Netherlanders should have their own ministers instead of relying on foreign ministers. Hendrik van den Corput to Gillis van Musenhole, undated, in CPG 841, 20r. But his sons were probably not entirely sure that the Republic was really their fatherland. Abraham planned to buy a house and marry in the Palatinate, but his father felt that he and his sons were obliged to serve their fatherland and the Dutch Reformed Church. Men like Hendrik van den Corput grew concerned that their children had become alienated from the Netherlands. Buying a house and marrying someone from one’s place of refuge enlarged the distance to one’s home country. In the case of Hendrik van den Corput and his sons, the first and second generation of migrant families had different perceptions of the meaning of their land of origin and their obligations to it.101 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, October 2, 1590, in CPG 804, 171v. Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, December 1590, in CPG 804, 166r. Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, December 1590, in CPG 804, 168r. We see a similar thought process in the correspondence of the Thijs family. See Müller, Exile memories, 64. On this family correspondence, see Van Roijen, “Een familie-correspondentie,” 126, 130. The son of Hendrik de Smet returned to the Republic to help build the church, even though he didn’t speak Dutch. Hendrik van den Corput offered help: he had learned German by reading it aloud every day and was now ready to teach Dutch by reading it to his son daily.102 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, December 26, 1592, in CPG 804, 56r. After decades away, the place where one belonged could become unclear. The Anabaptist writer Joost van den Vondel is probably the most famous example of how difficult it became to define “home” for early modern migrants. His parents had left Flanders and found a refuge in Cologne. They went to the Republic and Joost van den Vondel eventually went to Amsterdam, but he continued to identify himself as a native of Cologne.103 On Vondel, see Sneller, De gouden eeuw in gedichten.

Ministers often had more reason than ordinary citizens to return to the Netherlands since they often received requests to come help them build and grow new congregations. Since the new Reformed congregations struggled with a shortage of ministers, the prospects for ministers willing to work were good. Although Reformed pastors always asked for stronger support from the authorities than they received, the circumstances under which they worked were overall favorable. Reformed pastors were allowed to use the main church buildings in cities and towns, and they received stable salaries from secular authorities. But as far as we have been able to ascertain, fewer than 25 percent of ministers in exile returned.104 This is only a rough estimate. Our database lists 168 ministers; we know of 29 who later served in a congregation in the Republic. We compared a list of pastors in the eleven Reformed congregations that form the center of our study to Van Lieburg, Repertorium. Whereas new congregations in the independent Netherlands sometimes put pressure on ministers to assist in building the new church, the Dutch congregations in the Empire also had good reason to urge their ministers to stay. Often the congregations in our study only let their ministers go reluctantly.105 On this point, see also chapter 5. After all, losing a pastor might mean that their church would have to function without a pastor.106 When Helmichius left Frankfurt, consistory members opted to worship by reading pious writings. Frankfurt consistory records, May 3, 1579, Meinert, Dahmer, Das Protokollbuch, 186–87. Migrant communities sometimes refused to give their ministers permission to leave or otherwise tried to keep them. In 1586, Emmerich prevented Henricus Helmichius from accepting a call to a church in Utrecht. People from Emmerich had been ready to pay his ransom to have him relieved from prison. So long as he had not paid them back, he had to stay there.107 Werner Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Utrecht, September 6, 1586, in WMV 3/4, ep. xxv, 57. Likewise, Petrus Gellius Faber was obliged to stay in Lehr (near Emden). Since the church at Emden had paid for his ransom, Emden was unwilling to permit him to accept a calling to The Hague. Bernardus Faile (minister in The Hague) to the consistory of Emden, August 28, 1584, ub WMV 3/2, ep. 12, 28–30. Jacobus Rolandus was ready to accept a call to Amsterdam in 1602, but his flock in Frankenthal insisted that he stay.108 Werner Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, April 2, 1603, WMV 3/4, ep. 79, 180. On Rolandus’s readiness to accept a call to Amsterdam see: Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, December 23, 1602, in WMV 3/4, ep. 74, 169. On Rolandus, see Harline, Jacobs vlucht, 17–142. Ultimately, however they were unsuccessful. In 1603 we find Rolandus back in Amsterdam.109 BLGNP, sv. The migrants’ congregations, of course, aimed to protect their own survival and were probably as interested in the flourishing of Reformed Protestantism in their own region as in the thriving of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Republic.110 In 1573 the classis of Birkesdorf attempted to establish a church in Dusseldorf and Essen, WMV 3/5, ep. 35, 79. See also Gorter, Gereformeerde migranten, 173–79. See also chapter 5.

They were not alone in their endeavors, as others also took an interest in their well-being. Certainly, the articles of the synod held in Emden in October 1571 urged ministers to prioritize serving churches in the Netherlands. Yet they also took measures to organize ecclesiastical life abroad and safeguard the bonds among the churches in the diaspora.111 Rutgers, Acta, 59–61. Some ministers in the Republic took an interest in the congregations in the diaspora, including discussing how to support them. In 1586, Johannes Kuchlinus, a Reformed minister in Amsterdam, was concerned about the Dutch Reformed community in Danzig (present-day Gdańsk) since so many merchants from Brabant had moved there. He felt called to help keep Danzig’s flock of Christ awake and he assisted in the search for a new minister.112 Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, November 5, 1586, in WMV 3/5, ep. 20, 263–64. See also Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, February 17, 1586, in WMV 3/5, ep. 18, 260. Apparently the duchy of Cleves continued to be a promising place to live and work. Rutger Topanus, for example, was a minister in Amersfoort, but at some point in the 1590s he left for the duchy of Cleves. Werner Helmichius held him in high esteem and attempted to draw his attention to the vacant churches in the Dutch Republic.113 Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, January 10, 1603, in WMV 3/4, ep. 76, 174. Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, March 22, 1603, in WMV 3/4, ep. 77, 176. But in 1610, he probably still lived in Moers and attended the synod of Duisburg, representing Herrschaft Hardenburg, a Reformed noble enclave within the duchy of Berg.114 Rosenkranz, Generalsynodalbuch, 1:17. No wonder many Dutch Reformed congregations in the Empire persisted long after the rebels had secured a foothold in the northern Netherlands. The Dutch community in Frankfurt am Main, for example, thrived into the eighteenth century.

It is not clear that those who had stayed at home were always happy to welcome former migrants back. As we outlined in chapter 1, early modern Europeans fostered mixed feelings about people who moved. On the one hand, cities needed newcomers to survive and developed mechanisms for integrating foreigners. On the other hand, early modern societies often perceived foreigners as infringing on the natural order. The difference between migrants and vagabonds was blurry, and the decision to leave one’s homeland evoked mixed feelings. Indeed, many sixteenth-century people were inclined to consider the decision to move as a sign of a lack of loyalty rather than of steadfastness. It seems that some of those who returned struggled with the early sixteenth-century axiom that people ought to stay at home. Van den Corput, for example, wished that those living in Frankenthal would come to Holland and Zeeland to contribute to the local economy. Yet he understood the decision to stay abroad since, as he wrote in 1585, nobody really cared about those “poor expelled people.”115 Van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, August 14, 1585, in WMV 3/2, ep 54, 253–54. Doede van Amsweer, whose treatise was published in 1613, felt compelled to write on his return that he now really longed to help build the fatherland. His former life in exile mattered to him, but he was well aware that those who had stayed at home sometimes had mixed feelings about former exiles, and he wanted to assure his readers that he was not seditious or unfaithful to the country.116 [Doede van Amsweer], Een Christelijcke Tragedia, b6v. Bartholomeus van den Corput had to settle the estate of the deceased Hendrik van den Corput, but after years in exile he found that people on the streets in Breda no longer knew him.117 Jean and Jacob van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, Dordrecht, May 22, 1602, in CPG 838, 2–31v. The same went, of course, for the next generation: they did not know the people of Breda either.118 Jean van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, Dordrecht, November 13, 1603, in CPG 838i, 1–78r. Jean complained that he knew nobody in Breda that could be trusted with the administration of his inheritance. He expressed his relief that in Dordrecht he finally found someone who could serve this role.

Neither migrants themselves nor those who had stayed at home regarded the former exiles as a spiritual elite. The fact that the Reformed movement didn’t leave a wealth of exile literature––as the Lutheran movement did––is telling. Whereas Lutheran authors used exile as a pious example worth imitating, sixteenth-century Reformed authors rarely discussed this topic.119 Van Veen, “‘Reformierte Flüchtlinge.” In 1568, Dorothea Mercator even complained about the lifestyles of her fellow exiles. The majority were more interested in idle things than in pious speech, she explained. She saw this as reason enough to keep herself at a distance from them.120 Dorothea Mercator to Anna van den Corput, Duisburg, November 5, 1568, in CPG 841, 41r. Coornhert did the same: according to him, many exiles lacked the right mindset because they fled to distance themselves from the economic miseries that oppressed the country rather than to distance themselves from their evil thoughts, wills, and inclinations.121 Coornhert, Abrahams Uytgangh, line 25, Van der Meulen, Roerspel. In his correspondence with Hendrik de Smet, Hendrik van den Corput described those who had adhered to the Reformed truth from the very beginning of the troubles as a spiritual elite—and not just those who had experienced exile. Apparently, this long-standing commitment to the truth created a bond among people, for, as Van den Corput stated, the commitment of his parents to the Reformed faith should induce De Smet to watch over Arent Cornelisz’s son more carefully than other students.122 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, May 22, 1590, in CPG 804, 175r. See also Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, April 15, 1590, in CPG 804, 178r. Johannes Kuchlinus’s request of Arent Cornelisz to help a young exiled man start his theological studies at Leiden University is another clear example of exilic status mattering little. In this case, it was the fact that he belonged to the poor and the hungry who deserved support that Kuchlinus thought would move Arent Cornelisz to offer the man aid.123 Johannes Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, January 9, 1579, in WMV 3/5, ep. 1, 234. Johannes Kuchlinus from Amsterdam also wrote to Arent Cornelisz, on April 24, 1579. “Non enim mentitur os, quod dixit: Quicquid fecisti uni ex istis minimis, mihi fecistis.” WMV 3/5, ep. 2, 235. Cf. Matthew 23:40. The short biography of the Flemish pastor Pieter Hazaert published after his death is yet another example of exile failing to provide people with an aura of piety or steadfastness. In this short description of Hazaert’s life, the pastor of Naaldwijk, Pieter Louwijc, did not praise him because of his exile experiences in Norwich, Wesel, Emmerich, and elsewhere but because of his willingness to help build the church in the Habsburg Netherlands, despite the dangers.124 Louwijc, De wtkomste der wandelinge, b6v.

In the sixteenth century, Reformed authors hardly ever ascribed an exemplary role to exiles. The diversity of migrants’ experience that we have described in the proceeding chapters shows that forced migration did not inherently promote any specific belief system. The influence of the sixteenth-century mass migration was less concrete and more ambiguous than historians have sometimes claimed. It is unclear to what extent their former exile continued to influence these mobile people: it often seems as if the memory of their exile barely mattered to them. The correspondence between Arent Cornelisz and Hendrik van den Corput, two ministers firmly rooted in the diaspora Reformed communities, attests to the minor role exile played in the correspondence of former exiles. In their letters, the two ministers remembered the persecutions and the suffering under Spanish tyranny but not their exile experience. This memory of suffering, however, called for action: it obliged believers to do their utmost to preserve the pure religion and to prevent “papal idolatry” from taking possession of the land again.125 See, for example, Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, Dordrecht, May 14, 1579, in WMV 3/ 2, ep. 4, 100. This memory of suffering became a founding myth of both the Dutch Republic and its public church. The brave steadfastness of the ancestors in the midst of suffering continued to be a call for commitment to the Republic, to freedom, and to the true faith. Later generations viewed the revolt as a golden age of true faith and contrasted it with the lukewarm faith of their own time.126 Cleyn, Dank-offer, 56–57; Hoornbeeck, Belydenis Predicaty, *2r–**2v; Van der Sloot, Twe honderdjarige gedagtenis, 76–79. More generally, see Monge and Muchnik, Early Modern Diasporas, 25–54. See also Fagel and Pollmann, 1572, 184–92.

Ministers often interpreted the revolt against Spain and the suffering of the Dutch in biblical terms. They used Old Testament stories like the exodus from Egypt or the Babylonian exile to explain what happened to the faithful in earlier years. In their explanations, they identified themselves with Israel and their adversaries with Israel’s enemies. This framework helped them call on true believers to stay firm against Spain, ascribe meaning to the suffering of the rebels, and assure their audience of God’s providence for his people.127 Groenhuis, “Calvinism and National Consciousness.” This narrative of the deliverance of the Republic from tyranny clearly impacted how Dutch Reformed authors described their new state and how they characterized their identity. Dutch Reformed authors were also inclined to take suffering as a hallmark of their church and in their histories created a lineage of martyrs to which the Christians of the first centuries and Reformed Protestants of their own days belonged. Whereas Catholic theologians developed the concept of apostolic succession, Protestant authors (Reformed Protestants, but also Lutherans and Anabaptists) invented a succession of persecuted believers to demonstrate continuity with the ancient church.128 Van Veen, “Protestantse martelaarsgeschiedenis”; Gordon, “Changing Face of Protestant History.” Reformed Protestants took the sufferings of members of their church as a clear sign of the verity of their faith. They often referred to earlier periods of suffering to promote the authority of, for example, the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. The fact that their confession and the church order were rooted in a time of suffering bestowed them religious gravitas.129 Van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, August 15, 1587, in WMV 3/2, ep. 62, 281. Abraham van den Corput, a grandson of Hendrik van den Corput, used the argument that the true church had always been persecuted to polemicize against the Catholic Church. In his view, the splendor and wealth of clerics had nothing to do with the example of Christ and his apostles who had been ready to suffer and to bear the cross.130 Van den Corput, De Goddelicke Vierschare, 6v–7r. His focus on history allowed him to juxtapose the Catholic cooperation with the mighty and the powerful with the cross-bearing of the true Christians.131 Van den Corput, De Goddelicke Vierschare, ******3v. The emphasis on suffering also influenced how Dutch Reformed authors understood the place of their church within the history of Christianity. The awareness that the true church was always a suffering church encouraged believers to sympathize with those who suffered, especially, of course, those who suffered from persecution.132 See also Pollmann, “Met grootvaders bloed bezegeld.” For an example of Reformed Protestants cultivating a memory of suffering elsewhere, see Richter, Koexistenzen und Konflikte, 18–20.

And yet, this memory of suffering could lead believers in different directions, as the polemic between Coornhert, on the one hand, and Arent Cornelisz and Hendrik van den Corput, on the other, so clearly shows. Their parallel exilic experiences and their parallel memory of suffering did not result in them having shared worldviews. On the contrary. Cornelisz and Van den Corput, ministers in Delft and Dordrecht, counted the freedom to worship according to a Reformed liturgy as the main heritage of the revolt. Consequently, they called on magistrates to defend this freedom for Reformed Protestants and to keep other religious groups in check. But they saw their efforts endangered from all sides: foreign enemies were but one threat to the heritage of the revolt, internal enemies were another. These Reformed pastors were not sure that magistrates or the states would continue to uphold the Reformed cause rather than begin supporting the enemies of the pious.133 For some examples: Jean Taffin to Arent Cornelisz, Dordrecht, May 11, 1575, in WMV 3/ 5, ep 11, 156. Arent Cornelisz to Estienne Guyonin, July 3, 1576, in WMV 3/5, ep. 2, 328. Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, Dordrecht, November 15, 1579, in WMV 3/2, ep. 10, 119. Antwoort Lamberti Danei, 12. (This part was written by Arent Cornelisz); Werner Helmichius to Arent Cornelisz, Utrecht, October 22, 1586, WMV 3/4, ep. xxvi, 60. By contrast, Coornhert was wary of Reformed ministers seizing power and replacing the Spanish Inquisition with a Genevan variant. He urged people to be on their guard against Reformed ministers, who threatened to introduce what Coornhert described as a new inquisition. According to Coornhert, the revolt had not been about freedom for Reformed Protestantism, but about a more general freedom that allowed all believers to worship, each in their own way.134 Van Veen, “’De aert van Spaensche Inquisitie’.” Similar experiences of suffering clearly inspired opposing visions and contributed to a ferocious debate.

In addition to the memory of suffering, the international outlook of former migrants influenced the Dutch religious landscape. An outspoken example of this international outlook was presented by Hendrik van den Corput. As we saw, Hendrik moved to the Republic and became a minister in Dordrecht. His two sisters, however, together with their husbands, stayed in the Palatinate. Van den Corput used his relationship with De Smet and Junius to strengthen the influence of Heidelberg’s theology at the cost of Leiden’s influence. He esteemed Heidelberg, possibly in part because his brothers-in-law worked there, while he now regarded Leiden University as a hotbed of heresies.135 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, August 13, 1589, in CPG 804, 202r–v. Since in his view Leiden would only improve if the professors were replaced by more pious men, he urged his correspondents to send young students who wanted to study theology or law to Heidelberg. He was sure that Daniel Tossanus, Franciscus Junius, and Hendrik de Smet, then professors at the Collegium Sapientia in Heidelberg, would be happy to help students to obtain permission to attend the seminary there at a reasonable price.136 Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, November 28, 1586, in WMV 3/2, ep. 57, 265–66. Hendrik van den Corput to Arent Cornelisz, January 10, 1587, in WMV 3/2, ep. 58, 270. One of the young men he sent to Heidelberg was his own son, Johannes Nicolaus: a clear sign that his esteem for the University of Heidelberg was heartfelt.137 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, August 13, 1589, in CPG 804, 202r–v. Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, July 25, 1589, in CPG 804, 192v. Educating future ministers to serve the Dutch Reformed Church was a concern of Van den Corput.138 See also 304–5. His efforts to support students must have been a considerable task, for in 1590 he complained that his involvement in the training of students came at the cost of his work as a minister.139 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, December 13, 1590, in CPG 804, 167r. His support included the writing of letters of recommendation, financial help, assistance in securing proper housing, and keeping the fathers updated on the well-being of their sons.140 In a letter from April 14, 1590, Hendrik van den Corput recommended Theodoricus Adriaen to Hendrik de Smet. Since Adriaen wanted to study law, Van den Corput explained, he would be best off if he shared a house with jurists, which would help him to learn the language properly and further aid his studies. CPG 804, 181r. On some occasions, Van den Corput felt highly responsible for the spiritual well-being of his students. In the case of Andries Cornelisz and David Balthasar, whose parents had belonged to the “true church” from the very beginning, he asked De Smet to keep them under Christian discipline and to consider himself as their father.141 Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, April 15, 1590, in CPG 804, 178r–179r. See also Hendrik van den Corput to Hendrik de Smet, May 22, 1590, in CPG 804, 174r. The historian Anton Beenakker was able to trace fourteen students who were part of Van den Corput’s endeavors: René van der Warck, the son of Hendrik de Vorst (whose first name we do not know), Johannes van Mijlen, Erasmus Putwaert, Andries Cornelisz de Witt, Dyrck Adriaensz, Michiel Hendrickxsz, David Balthasar, Balthasar Fransz, the brother of Andries Cornelisz, Michiel Wittensz, Adriaen Verstraten, Theodoricus Adriaen, and Michiel Dircksz. There were probably even more. According to Beenakker, Van den Corput started his student support system in 1589, but, as his correspondence with Arent Cornelisz shows, he had already started promoting Heidelberg in 1586.142 Beenakker, “Brieven 1585–1612,” 12. We haven’t been able to trace these students back to the Netherlands. They are not listed in Van Lieburg’s Repertorium. Only three of them appear in Heidelberg’s list of students: René van der Warck, Andries Cornelisz and David Balthasar. In this correspondence, he recommended that students of Arent Cornelisz go to Heidelberg.

Van den Corput was not the only one who highly valued the University of Heidelberg. At the time it was a center of international Reformed learning, attracting students from all over Europe. Students attending Heidelberg mixed with other students from across Europe and brought a new international outlook back home.143 Selderhuis, “Eine attraktive Universität.” See also chapter 5. This cosmopolitan Reformed perspective was probably the most important and most specific contribution former migrants made to the religious culture in the early Dutch Republic. They kept in contact with people in the Empire, and they used these networks to exchange news, offer support, and to exhort each other to stay true to the faith. These networks were a constant reminder that the members of the Dutch Reformed Church indeed saw themselves as members of a catholic (that is, universal) church. To members of the Van der Meulen and Van den Corput family, the familiarity with the diasporic Dutch Reformed and their interest in the well-being of the church in the Republic and the churches abroad bolstered their belief in that sense of a “reformed catholic church.” They understood the Reformed Church, in this sense, not as bound to a single place but, as in a truly catholic sense, everywhere.144 For example, Bernardus Faille to the Consistory in Emden, The Hague, August 28, 1584, in WMV 3/2, ep. 12, 29. To be sure: an international outlook was not a specifically Reformed characteristic. Catholics shared such an identity as well.145 Janssen, Dutch Revolt and Catholic Exile, 104–28; Hsia, World of Catholic Renewal.

Besides promoting a memory of suffering and a more international worldview, in later generations the sixteenth-century mass migrations also encouraged a memory of some former refugee churches in the diaspora as “model churches” that might serve as guides from an idealized past. By the early seventeenth century, believers sometimes revered the Dutch-speaking congregations in Emden and London as “mother churches.”146 Simon Ruytinck to ministers and elders of the Dutch Church in London, Middelburg, July 25, 1604, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 3, ep. 1620, 1145. Many glorified Emden, especially for the asylum it had offered to so many pious believers.147 Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, February 8, 1580, in WMV 3/5, ep. 6, 244. Its hospitality was not the only reason that Emden obtained a special place in some Reformed narratives; the other reason was the foundational role later ascribed to the synod held at Emden in 1571. That synod had, according to many Reformed authors, laid the foundations for the Dutch Reformed Church. Reformed believers in the Dutch Republic continued to watch developments in Emden with a keen eye and to regard “Emden” as a part of the history of their church.148 Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, March 12, 1580, in WMV 3/5, ep. 8, 247.

The Palatinate, with the University of Heidelberg and the model church in Frankenthal, sparked the imagination of many Dutch Reformed authors as well.149 Kuchlinus to Arent Cornelisz, Amsterdam, April 21, 1586, in WMV 3/5, ep. 19, 262. This appreciation of the Palatinate was deeply rooted, as Leiden’s actions in 1624 showed. That year, after the Spanish conquest of the Palatinate, Leiden’s university felt called to help students from the Palatinate, precisely because the Palatinate had been a place of refuge for the Dutch brethren and because Heidelberg had sent so many excellent ministers to the Netherlands.150 The professors of the faculty of theology in Leiden to the ministers and elders of the Dutch stranger community in London, September 10, 1624, in Hessels, Epistulae et Tractatus, vol. 3, ep. 1833, 1310–11.

The eleven Dutch Reformed communities in our study, however, played only a minor role in this sixteenth- and seventeenth-century memory culture. Only in the seventeenth century did Wesel’s Dutch Reformed community acquire any status as the town where the so-called Convent of Wesel had purportedly convened in November 1568 and where the first foundations of Dutch Reformed ecclesiastical organization had thus supposedly been laid.151 See Spohnholz, Convent of Wesel. In the mid-seventeenth century, Jacobus Trigland marked a new development in describing Wesel and Emden as the churches that had laid the foundations of the church order. In his view, “Ballinghen om des Evangeliums wille” (exiles for the Gospel) had convened in Wesel in 1568 to summarize the basis of a future church order. Trigland was keen to list the names of those who had supposedly met in Wesel that autumn because he believed that readers might be happy to learn the names of their ancestors.152 Trigland, Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, 160–62. His church history was highly polemical, however. He wrote it as a reply to Johannes Uytenbogaert’s vision, which linked orthodox Calvinism together with the bigotry of zealous Lutherans of the sixteenth century. According to Uytenbogaert, orthodox Calvinists resembled zealous Lutherans who had never been ready to grant more moderate Reformed a secure place in the Empire.153 Uytenbogaert, Kerckelicke Historie, part 2, 68. By contrast, Trigland insisted that it was the Reformed refugees in the Empire who had been the first staunch defenders of a Reformed confession.

Trigland’s understandings were part of a general trend of Reformed authors from the mid-seventeenth century romantically remembering a heroic past. The children and grandchildren of former exiles also started to write family histories that remembered the exilic experiences of their ancestors. Abraham van den Corput (1599–1670), for instance, explained the decision of his ancestors to leave Breda as a refusal to yield to Spanish tyranny.154 Van den Corput, De Goddelicke Vierschare, eerste deel, *4v. Van den Corput first published his four volumes between 1659 and 1669. Andries van der Muelen interpreted Elisabeth Zeghers’s decision to live in Cologne as a form of exile. He emphasized the commitment of his ancestors to the Reformed faith and described how his father Andries had left Antwerp immediately after Farnese’s victory.155 Het Utrechts archief, 57 Familie Van der Muelen, inv. nr. 3. Müller, “Permeable Memories,” 290. In other historical writings too, authors increasingly remembered going into exile as an act of piety. In his short description of the Reformation in Zaltbommel, for example, published in 1609, Henricus Caesarius (1550–1628) mentioned the exiles as among the first believers who dared to confess the Reformed faith.156 Caesarius, Danck Sermoon, 3v.

Gradually “exile” acquired a special place within the memory culture of the Dutch Reformed Church. The new waves of Reformed migrants in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, including the Bohemian Brethren, the French Huguenots, and the Salzburg Emigrants, were important factors in the growing relevance of “exile” for Dutch Reformed Protestants.157 Van der Linden, Experiencing Exile; Walker, Salzburg Transaction; Janssen, “Legacy of Exile.” In particular, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 shocked the Dutch Republic and had a profound impact on Dutch Reformed identity. The support of persecuted brothers and sisters continued to be an important characteristic of Reformed communities. Later, stories of the persecution of Protestants and their mutual support for one another cemented the conviction of many Reformed authors that the Catholic Church was inherently tyrannical.158 Grell, Brethren in Christ, 229–48. They apprehended stories on the sufferings of their coreligionists as a warning against the Catholic threat, and writers called on their audience to be on their guard against the “papists.” Even as Reformed Protestants in the Dutch Republic maintained a privileged position from political authorities, allowing them to push expressions of Catholic piety into the hidden corners of Dutch society, these actions of solidarity and the stories of persecuted Protestants confirmed their self-perception as a minority under threat.

While many sixteenth-century Reformed authors had been in doubt about whether escape was even permitted, Huguenot leaders in the Republic after 1685 were especially inclined to portray exiles as martyrs of the true faith.159 Benoit, Historie der Gereformeerde Kerken van Vrankryk, d2r–d3r; Gillis, Kerckelijcke historie, 6. They were sure of their exemplary role and hallowed their fellow refugees as the purest part of Christ’s flock.160 Van der Linden, Experiencing Exile, 96. Huguenot authors in the Republic often described exiles as having laudable virtues, such as a steadfast faith and an industrious work ethic. This changing image of exiles influenced the memory culture of sixteenth-century Dutch exiles as well. New migrants used older stories and older visions to interpret their experiences, but their stories also influenced how the older stories were retold. And although the Huguenots and the Salzburg Exiles praised migrants as models of steadfast faith, they did not explain exile itself as promoting any specific theological outlook. This link only later came into being.

Nineteenth-century Reformed church leader and Dutch political giant Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) proved key in creating a rather specific image of both the refugee churches and the refugees. His use of the refugee churches is a clear example of an invented history. Starting in the later 1860s, Kuyper advocated for churches whose members were ready to commit themselves to the Reformed confession independent from state interference. He described those sixteenth-century refugee churches as the forerunners of the independent churches he envisioned and idealized the sixteenth-century exiles as paragons of Calvinist steadfastness.161 Kuyper, “De eerste Kerkvergaderingen of de vesting onzer Hervormde Kerk, en de strijd over haar zelfstandig bestwaan 1550–1618,“ and “De eeredienst,” in Ter Haar and Moll, Geschiedenis der christelijke kerk, 71–86, 87–113; Kuyper, De Hollandsche gemeente te Londen. Thus, references to sixteenth-century Reformed Protestants helped him claim authority for his late nineteenth-century vision. According to him, voluntary church membership, confessional commitment, and ecclesiastical discipline had been the core of Calvinism from its beginning. Kuyper’s involvement in the publication of sixteenth-century sources, the quality of his work, and his many students enabled him to have an impact on historical research on exiles up to the present day. A striking example of Kuyper’s influence is the use of A. A. van Schelven’s extensive history of the Dutch refuge churches by modern historians. Van Schelven’s work, written as a PhD dissertation at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam that Kuyper founded, is in many ways an admirable piece of work. It is also permeated by Kuyper’s ecclesiastical ideals. Historians continue to use Van Schelven’s work, in large part because he provides us access to sources that do not survive. To a large extent, a century later the historian Heiko Oberman took over the general picture that Kuyper drafted. According to Oberman, sixteenth-century Reformed migrants formulated a “theology of exile,” that is to say a theology that embraced predestination, promoted a strong ecclesiastical discipline, and drew clear confessional boundaries.162 Spohnholz and Van Veen, “Disputed Origins,” 418–25.

The sixteenth-century picture of migrants, however, was more diverse than this picture suggests. Migrants did not invent a new theology but applied old theological ideas to ascribe meaning to their experiences and did so in various ways. Their interpretations were primarily embedded in a narrative of suffering. Sixteenth-century Dutch Reformed believers had interpreted their persecutions and troubles in terms of Christian suffering. Their readiness to endure tribulations marked them as true believers who were ready to follow Christ’s footsteps and to bear his cross. In this larger story, suffering migrants did not play a major role. Some migrants saw flight as the better option, describing it as a form of obedience to Christ’s commandments. Others became convinced that they fared better than those who stayed at home. How migrants classified themselves varied as well: some identified as exiles, others as pilgrims. On the chalices Dutch migrants offered to Wesel in 1578, they had themselves depicted as pious strangers receiving hospitality. This identification mattered: the term “exile” suggests a forced displacement and recalls Old Testament stories of the exile of ancient Israelites. The term “pilgrim” does not necessarily imply forced displacement and rather refers to medieval pilgrimage stories.163 Van Veen, “Reformierte Flüchtlinge.”

The idea that exiles developed a specific theology stems from the idea that they did so as a way of competing with extraordinary suffering. In fact, many of them fared quite well abroad and even integrated into their host societies in a variety of ways (as we have seen throughout this book), even if doing so required a range of often frustrating compromises and sometimes even dangers. Only a small minority of those who had the opportunity returned home. It is difficult to pinpoint the extent to which their former migration continued to influence returnees. Their stay abroad probably stimulated an international outlook. After his decision to move to Dordrecht, for instance, Hendrik van den Corput continued to exchange letters with people who stayed in the Empire. His contacts in the Palatinate allowed him to establish an early modern student exchange program: for years he helped students attend the University of Heidelberg. This international outlook was probably the most important fruit of this sixteenth-century mass migration. This was, however, not a result of any specific Reformed way of thinking, since Europeans of all faiths—especially educated Europeans living in cities—were increasingly adopting international worldviews as well.

However, theologically, migrants mostly draw on intellectual traditions they already knew. Reformed migrants used old theological concepts about Christian suffering to make sense of their experiences. They draw on ideas about pilgrimage for the same reason. There has been little recognition of Protestant migrants’ emphasis on pilgrimage and on being strangers in this world, but the topic is worth further research. Decades after the end of the Reformation, even after securing a privileged position in the Dutch Republic, Dutch Reformed Protestants continued to identify as a minority under threat. The sins of the world, in this view, never stopped troubling “true Christians.” The decision of the so-called Pilgrim Fathers who migrated to North America is probably the most well-known example of this migration-related rhetoric in the seventeenth century. In other instances, authors used this rhetoric of pilgrimage in a more spiritual sense. John Bunyan’s 1678 Pilgrim’s Progress is a clear example of how important the idea of distancing oneself from a hostile world through an inner migration continued to be. Yet there is still much research to be done regarding the extent to which later puritan rhetoric drew on narratives of earlier Reformed migration experiences.