The prosecution of Anabaptists in Holland, 1530-1566. (2024)

Abstract: The prosecution of Dutch Anabaptists in the sixteenthcentury was less straightforward than either the Anabaptistmartyrologies or the imperial decrees suggest. Although later(Mennonite) scholarship has acknowledged this fact, the variables thatinfluenced the punishment meted out to Anabaptists has not beenthoroughly studied. Based on research into the prosecution ofAnabaptists in three Dutch cities and by the Court of Holland, theauthor argues that the punishments inflicted on Anabaptists were basedon a careful examination of the misdeeds of the accused by themagistrates, who also took into account a number of variables, includinglocal legal traditions, gender, role and the residential and socialstatus of the suspect. As a result, magistrates often did not earn'out the decrees of the Habsburg authorities to the letter, whichprevented the automatic execution of Anabaptists and led to a variety ofpunishments.

In the fall of 1534 the sheriff (schout) and aldermen (schepenen)of Amsterdam identified Jan van Schellincwoude as a dangerous Anabaptistleader. Not only did he deceive innocent people by luring them into thisfalse sect, they believed, but he also stirred up people, causingcommotion and "great upheaval" (grooten oploop). Despite theirfailure to capture him, in November of 1534 the local court banished Janfrom Amsterdam for the rest of his life. (1) Nonetheless, he continuedto hold meetings (vergaderinge) just outside Amsterdam's city gatesin which books about the "life and errors of those who lived inMunster were read and discussed." The following year authoritiesfinally apprehended Jan, and he appeared before the Court (Hof) ofHolland. After hearing the case, the court banished Jan from Amsterdamfor five years, threatening capital punishment if he did not comply. (2)

Around the same time authorities also captured and interrogatedJacob van Campen, another Anabaptist leader. On July 10, 1535, thesheriff and aldermen of Amsterdam sentenced him to death. According tothe verdict, Jacob was to be placed on a scaffold in front of his houseand seated on a chair for at least an hour with a mitre on his head.After that, his tongue--with which Jacob spread his "falsedoctrine" (valssche leer inghe)--his right hand, which he had usedto baptize people; and finally his head, were to be cut off. Then hisbody was to be cut in four pieces and burned, with his head, hand, andmitre put on a stake above the Haerlemmer gate to serve as an examplefor the rest of the population. (3)

Both of the men were found guilty of belonging to the Anabaptists,and according to imperial law, they both should have been killed. In1529, the Diet of Speyer had issued a harsh edict against theAnabaptists, decreeing that anyone who rebaptized others or had beenrebaptized was to be executed without an ecclesial trial, althoughrepentance could lessen the punishment. (4) The "demonic threat tothe religious unity and civic peace of Christianity" had to beremoved swiftly and thoroughly. (5) However, as these two cases suggest,the sentences actually imposed on Anabaptists who were tried beforelocal and provincial courts varied widely. Both men had disseminatedAnabaptist ideas--Jan van Scellincwoude even caused public unrest. YetJan came away with his life, whereas Jacob van Campen was executed in anelaborate and cruel fashion.

Clearly, the punishments inflicted on Anabaptists varied accordingto several variables. One of these variables, noted in the edict of1529, was the possibility of recanting and returning to the Catholicfaith, an invitation eagerly accepted by many Anabaptists who were notprepared to die for their faith. (6) Other variables that affectedpunishment included the religious outlook of individual magistrates; thedegrees of loyalty that urban and provincial authorities held forofficials in Brussels; the distinction that the courts made betweenleaders and followers; and the manner in which urban magistrates(stadshestuur) defined and prosecuted strangers (vreemdelingeri),inhabitants (inwoners), and citizens (poorters). (7)

Though historians have acknowledged the relevance of thesevariables, relatively few have questioned the extent to which thesefactors actually influenced the prosecution of Anabaptists. This gap inthe analysis can be explained in part by the fact that most historianswho study early modern Anabaptism are themselves Mennonites and havetended to focus primarily on nonviolent, biblically-oriented Anabaptistgroups, while excluding the more violent currents of early modernAnabaptism. (8)

Even though this older confessional perspective has been challengedin Anabaptist historiography, (9) its influence has not yet beeneclipsed. Since most attention regarding religious persecution isfocused on the experience of the martyrs, factors that mitigatedpunishment or explain why many prosecuted heretics did not becomemartyrs tend to be undervalued. Focusing on the influence of mitigatingvariables requires a change of perspective. Instead of examining whatAnabaptists did right in the eyes of their confessional heirs--namely,being steadfast in times of persecution and willing to die for theirfaith--this essay will analyze what Anabaptists did wrong in the eyes ofthe authorities, and how their punishments varied accordingly.

In particular, this study examines the prosecution of Anabaptistsfrom 1530 to 1566 in three cities--Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft--as wellas in the Court, or Hof, of Holland, asking what variables influencedthe outcomes of prosecution and whether these variables remainedconstant over time.

The Context of Prosecution: An Overview

Adopting the perspective of the secular authorities when studyingreligious persecution means that we must recognize the expanding role ofthe state in early modern Europe. (10) As elsewhere, one way theHabsburg state tried to impose its will on its subjects in the LowCountries was by enforcing the limits of religious tolerance. Yetdespite the Imperial Edict of 1529 and several similar decrees thatfollowed in the early 1530s, Anabaptists in Holland did not sufferimmediate or widespread prosecution. (11)

This would change, however, in the years 1534-1535 when severalviolent uprisings of Anabaptists in Amsterdam and the north German cityof Munster destroyed the reputation of virtually all Anabaptist groupsfor decades to come while also securing the undivided attention ofsecular authorities. Thus, in June 1535 Charles V issued a decree:

 Everyone who is deemed to be contaminated by the damned sect of the Anabaptists, their agitators, followers, and accomplices regardless of their condition, shall forfeit their life and property and shall be punished to the maximum, without any mitigation. (12)

Clearly, anyone connected to this movement was to be executed. Asthe edict went on to elaborate, Anabaptists leaders were to be burned,males who were merely Anabaptist followers were to be decapitated, andAnabaptist women were to be buried alive. Reducing these sentences was apunishable offense. (13)

In the years that followed imperial authorities reissued several ofthese edicts to remind local authorities of their obligation to enforcethe policy. Repeating the decrees ruled out any excuse for not knowingthem. (14) In 1550 the penal code against heresy was completed with thepublication of the Perpetual Edict, also known as the "bloodedict" (bloedplakkaat). (15) The edict received its name because itdemanded the execution of anyone whose actions even hinted of heresy.Those who clung to their heretical beliefs had to be burned. Recantationonly served to change the manner of execution: men should be decapitatedand women were to be buried alive.

Issuing edicts, however, was easy. The real question in the LowCountries was how local and provincial authorities would carry out thepolicies designed by their Habsburg overlords. In the towns and citiesit was the sheriff--assisted by seven to ten aldermen--who administeredjustice, whereas at the provincial level this duty fell to theprovincial court. (16) These traditional structures of justice did notdisappear in the face of imperial edicts. Indeed, the evidence suggeststhat despite their negative reputation, Anabaptists in the Low Countrieswere not simply captured and immediately tried. After an initialexamination, the aldermen would conduct an investigation if doubts aboutthe suspect's story persisted. (17) The Hof Holland also stuck tocherished judicial legal procedures and traditions, which preventedprosecution from turning into outright persecution.

In March of 1531 the first Anabaptist was executed in Delft in thenorthern Netherlands; executions in Amsterdam and Leiden first occurredin 1534. (18) For its part, the Hof executed nine Anabaptists in 1531.(19) However, further prosecution did not immediately ensue in any ofthese settings, perhaps because late in 1531 Melchior Hoffmann forbadehis followers to rebaptize other people for a period of two years. (20)In late 1533 Jan Mathysz reinstated the rebaptism of believers, and in1534 the Hof ordered the beheading of several Anabaptists who followedhim. (21) In Amsterdam the prosecution of Anabaptists also began in 1534after three of them walked down the streets with their swords drawn (thezwaardlopers) while others, inspired by their prophet, ran naked throughthe city streets proclaiming God's imminent judgment on the city(the naaktlopers). In response, Amsterdam authorities sentenced fourpeople to death while nine people received noncapital punishments. (22)

No Anabaptists were executed in Leiden in 1534, but the citycouncil there became increasingly worried about Anabaptist activities inand around their city. On October 20, 1534, Leiden's pensionary,(23) Willem Pietersz, stated that "many people went to meetings,are contaminated by numerous errors and are called the Anabaptists ...Many of them travelled to Miinster in order to forcibly relieve the cityof the siege." If they succeeded, Pietersz feared, they would"return to these lands even more powerful (mit meerder macht) andthey would slay all of those who opposed their sect ..." (24) OnJanuary 23, 1535, Leiden's city fathers were warned about thepresence of Anabaptists in their city. It turned out that a group ofAnabaptists had gathered in a house belonging to Jan Beukelsz, theself-proclaimed king of Miinster.25 All the Anabaptists capturedthere--fourteen men and four women, among them Marye IJsbrandsdr, thewife of Jan Beukelsz--were burned at the stake. (26)

During the night of May 10-11, 1535, around forty Anabaptistsmanaged to occupy Amsterdam's city hall, killing several burghers,members of the militia, and a burgomaster. The following day theAnabaptist uprising was defeated and the magistracy of Amsterdam,already criticized by the central government for its lenient treatmentof heretics in their city, responded forcefully. During the course ofthe year, the city executed sixty-two Anabaptists, banishedtwenty-three, and required one of them to do penance. (27) Thoseinvolved in the attack were severely punished as an example for the restof the population. The magistrates demanded that they lie down on atable, where they were cut open and their hearts removed. According tothe chronicler Joost Buyck, the executioner threw "their heart intheir face while saying 'now eat thy treacherous heart!'"Their decapitated heads were put on stakes above the city gates, andtheir bodies were quartered and hung on the gallows outside the city.(28) The Anabaptists who died while resisting attempts of theauthorities to recapture the city hall were hung on the gallowsupside-down. (29) This inversion of the normal practice of hanging showsthe contempt contemporaries held for the deeds of these Anabaptists--byhanging them from their feet the authorities demonstrated that their"lower body" (emotions) had prevailed over their "upperbody" (reason and restraint), just as their material and spiritualcrimes negated everything that made someone a good Christian. (30)

Though the prosecution of Anabaptists declined markedly in thesucceeding years, authorities acted forcefully in two other instances.In 1538 authorities in Delft published two edicts against David Joris,marking their increased awareness of him. (31) The following year theyexecuted twenty-eight followers of Joris, including his mother, inDelft. (32) In the second case, ten Anabaptists were burned in Amsterdamin 1549. Until then the burning of Anabaptists in Amsterdam had beenquite unusual. (33) Historians Albert Mellink and I. J. Brugmans werelikely correct in their assessment that "in the first place theconvicts were tried by the municipal authorities as peace-breakers andrebels." (34) Even though most of them were not revolutionaries,the Anabaptists arrested in the 1540s and 1550s still had to bepunished, since rebaptism remained a crime. (35) All the AmsterdamAnabaptists who were burned in 1549 had refused to recant and"remained stubbornly committed to their errors" (in zijnendzualingen ende ketterien hartneckelkken hlijjvende) (36) In theirrefusal to recant, they gave the authorities no other choice than tofollow the imperial edicts to the letter and to sentence them to death.

MAKING DISTINCTIONS

Despite the harsh measures meted out to Anabaptists, the judgesclearly distinguished among various types and levels of criminalbehavior in heretics. Moreover, courts categorized heretics differently,depending on the nature of their crimes, and issued a range ofpenalties. Differences in punishment are also noticeable among thecities of Amsterdam, Delft, and Leiden. (37)

As the tables that follow demonstrate, historian James Tracy wasgenerally correct in his conclusion that in "the towns there was adefinite slackening of interest in heresy trials." (38) Theprosecution of Anabaptists in Amsterdam, for example, continued to dropafter the 1530s despite the fact that Tracy undercounted the number ofAnabaptists executed there between 1544 and 1550. (39)

Table 1.1: Percentage of Executed Anabaptists Per Decade 1530s 1540s 1550s TotalAmsterdam 65 21 14 1OO (n=109)Delft 94 6 0 100 (n=32)Leiden 51 22 26 100 (n=43)Sources: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3, inv. nr. 4H(Correctieboek); GAD, arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr.3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654.

[FIGURE 1.1 OMITTED]

How can we explain this decrease in Anabaptist executions? Onecould argue that the changing behavior of Anabaptists led to a change ofmentality at the various levels of government: as the more violentcurrents of Anabaptism diminished, "moderate magistrates realizedthat executing the peaceful Mennonites was barbarian." (40)Thisconclusion runs contrary to Michael Driedger's concept of"deviance amplification," according to which the use ofviolence by authorities actually provoked dissenters or nonconformiststo resort to violence. Driedger has argued that since "mostAnabaptists were not anti-governmental revolutionaries in their verynature," state violence actually led to "the intensificationof Anabaptist opposition." (41) Research has shown, however, thatthe Anabaptists who plotted to take over Amsterdam had carefully plannedtheir attack.(42) Moreover, the fact that several Anabaptists fromMunster were given money and were sent to recruit Anabaptists to helpdefeat the army of the prince-bishop or to establish a New Jerusalemelsewhere,43 suggests that it was not primarily the actions of thegovernment that led Anabaptists to embrace violence. Instead, theimpetus to violence --at least in the 1530s--came from strains ofAnabaptism itself.

According to the extant records, a total of 182 Anabaptists wereexecuted in Amsterdam, Delft, and Leiden between 1530 and 1560 while anadditional seventy-four Anabaptists received noncapital punishments.These figures suggest that the majority of captured Anabaptists died fortheir convictions. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that only a fewof Delft's judicial sources are extant and it seems unthinkablethat all of the Anabaptists captured in Delft received the deathpenalty, especially since we know that some Anabaptists in Delft in thelate 1560s were not sentenced to death. (44) Moreover, the repressionfollowing the Anabaptist attacks in Amsterdam and Minister hugelyinflated the number of the executed Anabaptists. And we should keep inmind that even in 1535, when the prosecution reached its peak inAmsterdam, twenty-four Anabaptists received "minor"punishments.

[FIGURE 1.2 OMITTED]

Still, table 1.2 suggests that the policy of the local authoritiestoward Anabaptists was not mild. Only in the 1550s, and solely inAmsterdam, are there signs that the authorities tended to favornoncapital punishment instead of capital punishment. Thus in 1550Amsterdam officials banished twenty Anabaptists because they refusedmultiple times to appear before court, partly explaining the highernumber of noncapital penalties. In the end, however, even if persecutionclearly became less heavy in terms of the number of Anabaptists who werecaptured and tried, the penalties the authorities dealt remained harsh.Although the authorities in the 1550s may have focused less on capturingAnabaptists than in an earlier era, Anabaptists who did appear beforetheir courts faced the full rigor of justice, certainly when they werefound guilty and were unwilling to recant. As the percentages in table1.2 show, being a peaceful Mennonite did not really help when fallinginto the hands of the authorities. All that seemed to change was thelikelihood of capture; which sharply decreased after 1535. (45)

Table 1.2: Percentage of Executed Anabaptists in Relation toPercentage of Anabaptists Who Received Noncapital Punishments 1530s 1540s 1550s Capital Non-Cap. Capital Non-Cap. Capital Non-Cap.Amsterdam 66.4 33.6 73.3 26.7 30.6 69.4Leiden 81.5 18.5 100 0 84.6 15.4Sources: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3, inv. nr. 4H.Delft is omitted in this table since all captured Anabaptistswere executed in this city.

Clearly some of the harshness of the punishments was related to thelegacy of Munster and the other Anabaptist attacks. In 1536 a decree ofAmsterdam's municipal government stipulated that every year aprocession should be held on May 11 to commemorate the victory over theAnabaptists, (46) and an engraved text was posted above the new door ofAmsterdam's city hall to remind the citizens of the Anabaptistattack. (47) Eight paintings, all destroyed when the city hall burned in1652, depicted the evil deeds of the Anabaptists along with theirpunishment. (48) The actions of the Anabaptists in the mid-1530s and a"culture of memory" help to explain the "extremesensitivity [of authorities] to religious radicalism in subsequentdecades." (49) Nonetheless, as this overview1 has shown,Anabaptists were not automatically executed.

RESIDENTIAL STATUS

One variable in the punishment inflicted on Anabaptists wasresidential status. The population of most Dutch cities in the sixteenthcentury was divided into three groups: "citizens," who werefull members of the urban community; "inhabitants," who livedmore or less permanently in a city but without full legal rights; and"strangers" or "foreigners," (50) Citizens enjoyedvarious rights, among which was a clear limit on the amount of theirproperty that could be forfeited if they were convicted of a crime. InAmsterdam the limit was set at 100 pounds; in Leiden and Delft at 60pounds. Furthermore, citizens were entitled to a "trial by theirpeers" before a local court. (51) It was also more difficult tobring a citizen to court, since the sheriff was required to investigatethe credentials of the witnesses before a citizen with "a good nameand a good reputation could be arrested." (52) If the evidence wassound, citizens could certainly be prosecuted. However, this process ofpreliminary inquiry (informatie precendente) protected citizens fromreckless accusations and ultimately prevented judicial prosecution frombecoming a tool of religious violence. (53)

Table 2.1 analyzes the extent to which citizenship influenced thepunishments of Anabaptists. Unfortunately, the sources only distinguishbetween citizens and noncitizens, and generally do not differentiatebetween "inhabitants" and "strangers. (54) The tableshows some significant differences. Clearly, the percentage ofAnabaptist strangers who received capital punishment was higher thanthat of citizens, both in Amsterdam and in Leiden. The courts alsoconvicted more Anabaptist strangers than citizens, probably because oftheir limited judicial status.

Table 2.1: Punishments Imposed on Anabaptist Citizens and Strangers Total Capital Non-Cap No. % No. % No. %AmsterdamCitizens 72 100 42 58 30 42Strangers 82 100 58 71 24 29Unknown 22 100 9 41 13 59DelftCitizens 6 100 6 100 0 0Strangers 22 100 22 100 0 0Unknown 2 100 2 100 0 0LeidenCitizens 6 100 4 67 2 33Strangers 41 100 36 88 5 12Unknown 3 100 3 100 0 0Sources: DAN TI, V; GAA, arch. nr. 5014 (Stadsrekeningen), inv. nrs.1-22; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1; arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 21(Poorterboek "C", 1459-83, 1509-32), inv. nr. 22 (Poorterboek "D",1532-74); GAD, arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr.3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654.

Yet Anabaptist citizens did not escape the rigor not justice. In1534 in Amsterdam, for example, all the Anabaptists who were executedwere citizens. Three of them were leaders (principaelen) while the onlywoman who was sentenced to death, Griete Arentsdr, was banished butrefused to leave the city and was eventually drowned. (55)

One explanation for these differences is gender--since women weregenerally punished less severely, both because of their role withinAnabaptist groups and because of a gender bias. (56) A higher number ofthe Anabaptist citizens were men (compared with the captured Anabaptiststrangers); but, contrary to the gender bias, this group received amilder punishment, suggesting that being a citizen influenced thepunishment they received.

Table 2.2: Number and Percentage of Men and Women Among AnabaptistCitizens and Strangers Who Were Prosecuted Male Female No % No %AmsterdamCitizens 53 74 19 26Strangers 51 62 31 38Unknown 4 18 18 82DelftCitizens 4 80 1 20Strangers 14 64 8 36Unknown 2 100 0 0LeidenCitizens 83 1 17Strangers 28 68 13 32Unknown 3 75 1 25Sources: DAN II, V; GAA, arch. rtr. 5014, irtv. nrs. 1 - 22;RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1; 501, inv. nrs. 21-22; GAD,arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654.

In all these cities more strangers than citizens were involved inAnabaptism, In the 1530s many people, confronted by economic hardship,roamed from city to city, trying to find a job and a place to live. (57)The majority of these immigrants went to Amsterdam "because of itssingular economic growth." (58) The city was especially attractivefor the many Anabaptists who were artisans since their leaders haddeclared Amsterdam to be the "New Jerusalem" and themagistrates were relatively tolerant compared with other cities. (59)Because some Anabaptist groups within Amsterdam embraced an economicreform program similar to the Munsterites (i.e., communal ownership ofproperty), moving to Amsterdam and converting to Anabaptism appealed tojobless non-Anabaptists as well. (60) Although in the end what matteredmost was their behavior, these jobless strangers without rights werearguably the primary target of the magistrates when suspicions aboutheresy arose.

LEGAL PRIVILEGES

Anabaptist citizens were often better off when they were triedbefore local courts, in part because they were judged by their peers, acustom both the citizens and the ruling elite wanted to maintain. Themagistrates and the city council (vroedschap) were not motivated todefend the privileges of their city primarily because of compassion fortheir citizens, but because they ardently wanted to safeguard thecommunal autonomy of their city. (61) As a result their stance sparkedhuge controversies and debates about the privileges of cities, such asthe jus de non evocando (literally, the right not to be summoned), thatcontinued well into the 1550s. (62).

Originally, and contrary to the notions of urban magistrates, thejus de non evocando was a privilege granted to the states of Holland andFrisia, not to the individual cities of these provinces --people livingin these provinces could not be tried outside these lands. (63) Overtime, however, the city magistrates considered this to be a privilege ofthe cities themselves. (64) This would not have been a problem ifCharles V had not regarded heresy as high treason--a crime that couldnot be dealt with by the local courts. However, he did see it that way.(65) And crimes of high treason, the Habsburg overlord reasoned,rendered every privilege null and void. Therefore, no officer chargedwith the task of prosecuting heresy--the inquisitors, for example, orthe officers of the provincial and national courts--should be impeded intheir pursuit of justice.

Most magistrates did not agree with Charles's interpretationand protested loudly when some of their citizens were summoned to appearbefore the Hof in The Hague. The magistrates responded with a vigorousdefense of the privilege., not only in cases of heresy. In 1538, forexample, when a burgomaster was insulted, the secretary of Amsterdamwent to Brussels to deliver the documents regarding the trial, but hewas sent with clear instructions to argue that this case was in thehands of Amsterdam's local court. (66) A number of times citieswere successful in defending their privilege, such as in 1544 whenLeiden's sheriff was allowed to retrieve an Anabaptist who waslocked away in The Hague. (67) At other times, however, cities had toaccept defeat, proving that privileges were not unchangeable laws butlegal principles whose status and influence were in a constant processof negotiation.

Another heavily debated privilege related to the confiscation ofthe goods of convicted heretics. Not surprisingly, both the local andnational authorities were keen on this extra source of income. Yetcitizens were partly shielded from greedy authorities because not alltheir possessions could be confiscated. On February 26, 1538, emissaries(gevouchden) from Amsterdam defended the privileges of the city when theHof attempted to confiscate the goods of two convicted Lutherans, Aefgenand Geryt Listincx. The emissaries stated that the city of Amsterdam hadenjoyed the privilege "without any infraction" for more than100 years and "that no one could remember when this had not beenthe case" (dat geen memorie van menschenter contrarie en gedochte).(68) The attorney-general responded that this privilege could be claimedonly when people forfeited their life and were executed, which was notthe case since the Lutherans had fled. Furthermore, he argued, thisprivilege could not be invoked when dealing with Lutheranism or heresyin general. (69) In addition, the councilors of the Hof brought newcharges. Ultimately, the Hof banished both of them for the rest of theirlives and ruled that all their goods were to be confiscated in the nameof His Royal Majesty. (70) Whereas Amsterdam tried to claim itsprivilege, the Hof defended what it believed to be the court'srights--in this case successfully.

On various institutional levels then, ranging from individuals (71)to the national court, a battle over privileges was unfolding. Therelationships between these parties were dynamic, changing ascirc*mstances changed. (72) Eventually, however, many cities likeAmsterdam had to acknowledge the superiority of the central government:on March 6, 1549, the court determined that heretics "not only cutthemselves off from their community, but from Christianity as a whole(geheelder Christenheyt)." (73) From that day onward all the goodsof the heretics--as opposed to other criminals--were confiscated infavor of Charles V. (74)

Anabaptist citizens could thus benefit from the battles overjurisdiction between local authorities and the higher levels ofgovernment. In the end, however, the question was over who had theauthority and the legal right to try a suspect, not whether a suspectshould be tried. When tried, the specific actions of the suspectmattered most; but the differences in table 2.1 clearly show that beinga citizen mitigated the punishment imposed on Anabaptists. (75) J. E. A.Boomgaard has argued that in the case of religious crimes "theverdicts were less diverse," since after 1535 the judges were notso flexible when dealing with religious criminals "and citizenshipno longer constituted a measure of protection." (76) Our data,however, suggests that citizenship still offered some protection after1535, since fewer citizens were captured or executed.

When looking at the punishments imposed on convicted Anabaptists itbecomes even more clear that what mattered most to magistrates was theiractual deeds. For example, eight of the thirty-three convictedcitizens--and eighteen of the forty-one strangers--were women.

Table 2.3: Verdicts of Anabaptists in Amsterdam in 1535 Total Capital Decapitated Drowned Other Non-CapitalCitizens 33 28 20 1 7 5Strangers 41 27 7 8 12 14Unknown 12 7 0 7 0 5 Banished PenanceCitizens 5 0Strangers 14 0Unknown 4 1Other = the most severe punishments, usually consisting of acombination of other punishments, such as being strangled andburned afterwards.Sources: DAN V; GAA, arch. nr. 5014, in v. nrs. 1-22.

Generally, capital punishment for women was by drowning. But now anumber of women received other penalties because of their specificactions. Thus, Aechen Jansdr, one of the so-called "nakedrunners," was "publicly hanged in front of her house, thenstrangled and killed." (77) It is not entirely clear why she washanged in front of her house rather than before the local court(vierschaar), as was the case with Fye Daenen, who aided the Anabaptistbishop Jacob van Campen. (78) Possibly it was done to show her neighborsthat the strong arm of the law could reach into every part of Amsterdam.Besides warning the neighborhood, the magistrates may have also intendedto carry out a "ritual cleansing of the location through theshedding of blood" since several conventicles had been held atAechen's house, further stressing the link between the crime andthe punishment. (79) These public executions were not only judicialrituals, but also political rituals--ceremonies "by which power ismanifested." (80) After all, crimes were a personal attack on thesovereign, the source of law and justice. Thus, public executions weremeant to redress and to restore the sovereignty of the ruler. (81) Theseverity of the punishment was the result of a calculation: it had to beproportional to the crime committed; it had to set a clear example forthe rest of the population; and it had to redress the injury done to thevictims of the crime and to the sovereign, who was a victim as well.

ANABAPTIST ROLES AS A FACTOR IN PROSECUTION

The specific role an individual Anabaptist played in the movementalso affected the punishment received. In some cases, aspects of thepenalty referred directly to the actions of a convicted Anabaptist. Themitre that Jacob van Campen had to wear, for example, symbolized hisleading role--he was a bishop, authorized to baptize people. For theauthorities such bishops constituted the gravest danger, for theyintentionally deceived people and maliciously led them astray. They werethe ones who spread the poison of heresy. In 1534 Charles V issued anedict specifically directed against the "seducers and impostors,who rebaptize people and teach evil, infected errors and sects." Itstrictly forbade any aid to these teachers (leeraars) and declared eachof them to be worth a bounty of twenty-five guilders, beyond theexpenses of capture and transport. (82)

Besides bishops, other Anabaptists spread the alleged errors ofAnabaptism by printing and selling heretical books. This was somethingauthorities could not easily contain, since the borders betweencountries could never be sealed completely. (83) Active association withbook publishing could be dangerous in the sixteenth century even if thebooks were not heretical. The reasoning behind this was that simplepeople easily fell victim to all kinds of errors, even when readingnonheretical books, since they lacked the intellectual capacities tofully understand theological treatises or other texts dealing withreligious subjects. Charles V therefore forbade any references to"evil matters" (duystere material) in sermons, even if it wasdone to combat wicked doctrines. (84)

Anabaptists who actively disseminated their errors or were involvedin acts of sedition, riots, and scandals were identified by theauthorities as leaders, or principaelen. Regarding the specific form ofpunishment for Anabaptists in this category, national and localauthorities were in agreement that all of them should be put to death.In Amsterdam, forty-two of the forty-four principaelen were executed; inLeiden, twenty-one of the twenty-two principaelen faced the deathpenalty. One of these principaelen had fled the city and was thereforebanished. Another was not identified as a leader by the localauthorities (and so was banished), but according to the attorney-generalof the Hofhe was indeed a leader and should have been executed.Leiden's sheriff regarded Anthonis Hugensz as a leader, butcontrary to the sheriffs demand for the death penalty, the courtbanished Anthonis for a period of fifty years --an interesting case towhich we will return.

In general, Anabaptist leaders were punished more severely thantheir followers--the harshness of the penalties was related to theseverity of their crimes. This distinction was clearly visible inAmsterdam where far more principaelen than non-principaelen received aform of capital punishment categorized under the header"other"-- including hanging, strangling, quartering, and somecreative combinations of various punishments.

Table 3.1: Penalties Imposed on Principaelen and Non-principaelen Principaelen Burned Decap. Drowned Other Ban. Pen.A'dam 1 19 2 20 2 0Delft 0 0 0 0 0 0Leiden 18 3 0 1 1 0 Non-principaelenDecap. Burned Decap. Drowned Other Ban. Pen.19 19 24 19 5 57 70 0 21 11 0 0 03 0 5 9 8 5 0Decap. = decapitated, ban. = banished, pen. = penanceSources: DAN IT, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1; GAD,arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654.

Local judges distinguished between the different actions of theprincipaelen in determining the appropriate punishment. The Anabaptistsinvolved in the attack on the city hall, for instance, were cut open andtheir hearts taken out, whereas the Anabaptists who "held a secretmeeting, set something on fire and caused great tumult andcommotion" were decapitated. (85) Remarkably, only one principaelwas burned in Amsterdam. This was Quirijn Pieterssen, who activelyrebaptized other people. All the nineteen non-principaelen who wereburned had refused to recant their heretical beliefs and were executedas staunch heretics. In Leiden the pattern was somewhat different. Therethe principaelen were burned immediately whereas in 1552 the Anabaptistswho stuck to their errors were first strangled and then burned.

The difference in sentences speaks volumes: principaelen wereexecuted primarily for their seditious and treacherous behavior. Thefact that they rebelled or actively spread heresy was more important tothe authorities than their heresy itself. To be sure, there was no fixedrule on this. In Leiden, for instance, all the Anabaptists involved inthe "planned attack" were burned at the stake. Yet regardlessof the differences in punishments between the cities, it is clear thatall magistrates were more inclined to execute principaelen thannon-principaelen.

As the same time, as table 3.2 shows, magistrates were also willingto kill non-principaelen. In Amsterdam and Leiden more than 50 percentof the non-principaelen forfeited their life, and in Delft allnon-principaelen were executed. As noted, three of the four Anabaptistsexecuted in Amsterdam in 1534 were principaelen, and one refused toleave the city after she was banished. If the Amsterdam magistrateswould have stuck with the policy of only executing principaelen, farfewer Anabaptists would have been killed. The first Anabaptists executedin 1535 were principaelen. However, on March 6, 1535, nine Anabaptistswere executed, only one of whom, Jan Paeuw, was a leader. The rest hadmerely been rebaptized. (86) Thus even before the attack of May 10 thedistinction between principaelen and non-principaelen was breaking down.Although the differences in harshness of the punishments remained, thelocal court of Amsterdam now considered rebaptism itself to be a capitaloffense.

Table 3.2: Anabaptists Principaelen and Non-principaelen whor*ceived Capital and Noncapital PunishmentsPrincipaelen Total Capital % Non-Cap %Amsterdam 44 42 96 2 5Delft 0 0 00 0 0Leiden 22 21 96 1 5Non-principaelen Total Capital % Non-Cap %Amsterdam 131 67 51 64 49Delft 30 30 100 0 0Leiden 28 22 77 6 21Sourees: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1; GAD, arch. nr.13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654.

This was probably a consequence of developments inside and outsideAmsterdam. Preceding the decapitation of Jan Paeuw and others, thenaaktlopers and the Anabaptists who instigated a fire had caused tumultin Amsterdam. Outside Amsterdam an Anabaptist conspiracy was revealed inLeiden and the Anabaptists in Mtinster were causing havoc. These eventsquickly led to a somewhat distorted, though not completely false, imageof the Anabaptist heresy in general. "For at least a decade,"Alistair Duke has written, "heresy in Holland was equated withAnabaptism, and Anabaptism in turn with disorder, even rebellion."(87) The Anabaptist attack in May 1535 only confirmed the veracity ofthis equation.

Violently quashing a rebellion--as happened to the Peasants'Revolt in Germany in 1525, or in Munster in 1535, or at the Oldekloosterin the northern Netherlands in 1535--was a widely accepted response tosocial turmoil in early modern societies. A decree from Haarlem, anothercity in Holland, is particularly instructive: "In circ*mstanceswhere commotion and riots lead to great danger" the sheriff wasallowed to forgo the normal judicial procedure and to decapitate thefirst rioter he captured, since order had to be restored swiftly. (88)In Leiden, as far as we know, Anabaptists who were suspected of plottingan attack on the city were immediately executed. Peter Gael, anAmsterdam citizen who was involved in the attack on the city hall, wasinterrogated twice (on May 11 and 13) before he was executed on May 14.(89) Here, the delay in his execution was probably not to determinewhether or not he was really guilty, but to gain more information aboutother rebellious Anabaptists. Nevertheless, the local judges at leastpartly adhered to the standard judicial procedure, not wanting toadminister justice without due process. This policy would be continuedin the following decades: Anabaptists were given a formal trial beforethey were punished and were not automatically executed. (90)

Between May 14 and 21, 1535, Amsterdam authorities executedthirty-two Anabaptists. Three days later, on May 24, the firstAnabaptist to receive a milder punishment was Rem Garbrantsz, who wasconvicted for supporting Anabaptists as a result of his close contactwith the leader Jan van Scellincwoude. He was banished from Amsterdamfor ten years. (91) On the same day Anna Baelhuvs was banished fromAmsterdam in perpetuity. Her husband was involved in the Anabaptistattack, though she apparently did not know this. (92) After 1535 themagistrates moved somewhat closer to the position of Charles V,executing not only the leaders but also the people who were"merely" rebaptized. But as these examples suggest, they werestill not prepared to condemn mere followers to death.

In Leiden a similar pattern is visible. Walich Wijnantsz waspresent at the meeting of the Anabaptists who plotted to take overLeiden, but when tortured he revealed that he had not been rebaptizedand "had no erroneous opinions" about the holy sacrament. Hewas therefore sentenced to walk in a procession with the"city's barrel" (stede tonne) around his neck, and tostand on a platform (up een hoechte) in front of the house in which hewas captured. After that he was banished from Leiden for a period of 100years. (93) Mere presence at an Anabaptist meeting was thus not regardedas a capital offence. Of course, there were exceptions. Albert Reyersz,for example, had lived among Anabaptists for years, organizedconventicles in his own house, denied the holy sacrament, and wasexecuted, even though he apparently had never been rebaptized. (94)

Thus, not every follower of the Anabaptists was executed as CharlesV wished; but the closer the connection to the Anabaptists, the moremagistrates were inclined to impose harsh punishments. This, and thefact that recantation after 1535 only served to change the manner ofexecution--for example, decapitation instead of burning--makes clearthat the policy of the magistrates toward Anabaptists was becoming morestringent, though it never completely coincided with the policyadvocated by Charles V.

PUNISHING FEMALE ANABAPTISTS

Gender also played a role in determining the nature of Anabaptistpunishment. The following table makes it clear that women were generallypunished less severely than men, likely because of a gender bias butalso because women were less likely to have leading roles withinAnabaptist groups.

Table 3.3: Percentage of Non-capital Punishments Related toTotal Number of Anabaptist Men/Women Convicted Total Barnished Pen lance Men Women Men Women Men WomenAmsterdam 28 53 27 44 2 9Leiden 17 0 17 0 0 0Sources: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1.

In the end, thirty-six of the sixty-eight convicted Anabaptistwomen (53 percent) received non-capital punishments. This probably hadsomething to do with the nature of their activities, though we shouldnot downplay the role of women in the Anabaptist movement. Despite theirgenerally inferior position, writes Sigrund Haude, "women wereessential for the maintenance, growth and survival of the religiousmovements--particularly since the communities lived underpersecution."(95) Anabaptist women often provided shelter to theircoreligionists and sometimes acted as messengers, warning others intimes of danger. (96) Some of them hosted conventicles in their homes,or they allowed Anabaptists to hold their meetings there. Women thusclearly contributed to the infrastructure crucial to the survival andexpansion of Anabaptism.

Many of the women who aided the Anabaptists were not rebaptizedthemselves and could sometimes pretend --as did Marie Jorysdr--not toknow that the people living in their house were Anabaptists.97 Not beingrebaptized was of crucial importance for sentencing, both for men andwomen. In Amsterdam in 1553 three women and one man who had been presentat conventicles and discussed matters of religion with Anabaptists, buthad not been rebaptized, were merely banished.98 Only four days earlier,on January 16, 1553, three men were executed with the sword because theywere rebaptized.99

Gender prejudices--the result of widely shared opinions about womenin general--often worked to the advantage of women when beingprosecuted. Most women, for example, were seen as being "incapableof independent action."100 Women did not make a conscious decisionto join the Anabaptists, but were lured into this false sect. Women withallegedly heretical husbands were even more liable to fall victim toheresy since households were traditionally headed by men. Therefore,"their ignorance preserved their innocence ... and punishment wasmeant to deter them from falling prey to such doctrinal erroragain."101 Not all women were so innocent, however, and many provedto master the act of pretending to be weak, ignorant, and reproachlessin order to mitigate the punishment.102

Taking into account all these different variables, as themagistrates clearly did, was probably not a big issue for the imperialgovernment in the 1520s and early 1530s. According to Brad Gregory,"ecclesiastical and secular authorities wanted to correct theheterodox, not to kill them."103 The fact that clergymen frequentlywent to captured Anabaptists to refute their wicked doctrines andpersuade them to return to the church bears witness to this. Early on,authorities made a genuine effort to prevent heretics from dying asheretics. Even Charles V stated in the late 1520s that "he was notseeking the death of our subjects ... nor their goods, but only themaintenance of the faith and of the statutes, ordinances, andconstitutions of the Holy Church and of our ordinances, and thesuppression and reformation of errors, abuses, and endeavors to thecontrary." (104)

By 1535, however, Charles V was taking another path, demanding thespeedy execution of Anabaptists and their followers. Nonetheless, manyof the verdicts in Amsterdam in the 1540s and 1550s still explicitlystated that the convicted Anabaptist had refused to recant. TheseAnabaptists would have had the option of returning to the Catholicfaith, but since recantation after 1535 did not avoid death--both inCharles V's edicts and in the policy of the local courts--spiritualcorrection was no longer a primary aim of the magistrates.105 Suchcorrection was reserved almost exclusively for those who passivelysupported Anabaptists or had passing contact with them, or for those whocould benefit from the periods of grace as stipulated in earlier edictsof Charles V. Their punishments were mitigated, in spite of a localdecree issued in 1537 that prohibited providing shelter to Anabaptistson the penalty of death, a punishment which the magistrates of Amsterdamregarded as excessive.106

Thus, as time passed, a growing number of actions qualified ascapital offenses. Not only the principaelen were executed, but alsothose who were rebaptized but did not have leading roles withinAnabaptists groups. The nature of the execution, however, differedaccording to the role they had held. And women were less liable to beput to death, both because of their lower positions within theAnabaptist movement and because of a gender bias. Thus, despite the factthat even non-principaelen faced the death penalty after 1535,magistrates still did not follow imperial edicts to the letter andcontinued to adhere to their own principle: namely, the closer theconnection with Anabaptists or Anabaptist groups, the heavier thepenalty. But not everyone connected with the Anabaptists deserved to bekilled.

SOCIAL STATUS AND HERESY PROCEEDINGS

Two additional albeit less tangible, variables that influenced thepunishments imposed on Anabaptists were: 1) the composition and policyof the magistracy in each city; and 2) the status (aanzien) thatAnabaptists enjoyed in the urban communities where they lived.

In early modern Dutch cities the sheriff and his aldermenadministered justice, but they were assisted by burgomasters whoincreasingly encroached on activities that had previously been confinedto the former. (107) The picture that emerges from the rich sourcematerial is that the Habsburg government suspected many of the localmagistrates of being "contaminated" by heresy. The weakness ofjustice (slapheyt van der jttsticie) in the cities was especiallyproblematic. (108) According to two imperial memoranda drafted in 1536,one of Amsterdam's burgomasters had even dined with Jan Boekelsz,the later king of Minister. (109) On several occasions magistrates hadobstructed the administration of justice by keeping judicial documentsof Anabaptists to themselves, thus preventing Habsburg officials from,initiating a prosecution. (110) One reason for their unwillingness tohumbly abide by the demands of the Habsburg authorities was clearlyexpressed by a burgomaster from Amsterdam in 1531--he refused to"deliver any prisoners or innocent Anabaptists to thebutcher's block." (111)

The Habsburg government responded in 1536 by directly appointingseven new aldermen in Amsterdam, something that had never happenedbefore. (112.) These new aldermen--not "suspected of anyerrors"--had to deal with heretics more forcefully and wereexpected to influence the outcome of the elections of new burgomastersthrough the "Old Council, " which consisted of formerburgomasters and aldermen. (113) The plan succeeded. In 1539 HendrickDircksz, the main protagonist of the "sincere and Catholic"party, was appointed as burgomaster. (114)

So after the late 1530s Amsterdam enjoyed a "sincere"Catholic government. Yet in spite of this, prosecution of Anabaptistsdid not increase in Amsterdam (or in Delft or Leiden) in the 1540s and1550s. This could hardly have satisfied the Habsburg government, whichkept a close eye on the cities' magistracy. But the quantity of theletters sent to and from the cities regarding the activities ofAnabaptists and the policy of the magistrates in these decades seems toindicate that even the central authorities were not as focused oncatching heretics as they were in the 1530s.115

How is the policy of the local magistrates to be explained? Manyhistorians have pointed, almost reflexively, to the influence ofErasmus. Thanks to the moderating voice of Erasmus, the argument goes,the upper stratum of Dutch society was weary of persecution and ready toadvocate a moderate and relatively tolerant religious policy.116 This ishard to prove, however, because it is extremely difficult to demonstratethe precise impact of books and ideas, especially in the sixteenthcentury. A related interpretation regards tolerance as a uniquecharacteristic of Dutch society.117 Attractive as it might be, however,we have many examples where tolerance gave way to intolerance in theNetherlands during the early modern era.118 Therefore, it is morehelpful to consider a number of alternative explanations for the policyof the magistrates.

First, as we have already noted, magistrates wished to defend theprivileges and autonomy of their city. Second, the religious outlook ofmagistrates was of great importance. In the first years of the 1530sAmsterdam's magistrates were clearly sympathetic to hereticalmovements, provided that heretics behaved appropriately. It is possiblethat magistrates did not mercilessly hunt down every last Anabaptistbecause it could implicate people in their own circles who sympathizedwith heretics, or worse.119 Occasionally, their religious outlook eveninspired some authorities to rescue heretics, as was the case with thesheriff of Delfshaven who stirred up a mob to aid him in freeing someAnabaptists from the scaffold, thereby resulting in a siege ofRotterdam's city hall that forced the executioner and his servantsto retreat.120

Yet another factor that could influence the stance of magistrateswas their most important duty, namely "maintaining the harmonywithin the city walls (the stad$urede)." (121) The antiheresy lawsof Charles V threatened this peace by nullifying the rights of thecities and its citizens. Already in the 1510s magistrates "came toappreciate that the conservative religious policy of Charles V could noteasily he reconciled with the imperative of peace within the localcommunity." (122) As a result the magistrates and the city councilhad to walk a thin line between the demands of the local community andthose of the higher levels of government resulting in a pragmatic policythat alternated between the various interests of these pressure groups.

Fourth, heresy was not the magistrates' only problem. Theyalso had to contend with finances. As a result, they were oftenmotivated to restrict expenditures as much as possible, certainly whenthe expenses were more or less imposed by higher levels of government.The cities themselves had to pay the costs of the executions, which insome cases could amount to nearly twenty-four pounds. (123) It is notsurprising that many magistrates thought it more wise to invest thismoney in the city's economy if only to maintain harmony and peacewithin the city. (124)

In the end, then, magistrates who wished to prosecute heretics werebound by the means available to them. This, and the fact that they hadto take into account the interests of many pressure groups, forced themto adopt a policy of political pragmatism--different circ*mstancescalled for different solutions. Defending the interest of their city wasoften their highest priority. But this could be done in many ways,sometimes leading to resistance against the uniformity expected by thecentral authorities and at other times--especially when hereticsjeopardized the stadsvrede--resulting in punishments as strict as theHabsburg authorities wanted them to be. Clearly, the way authoritiesreacted to Anabaptism was based on many considerations, with religionbeing just one of them.

Finally, the behavior of magistrates was also influenced by thesocial status of a suspect. In general, the authorities were far morewilling to prosecute people of "inferior standing" than their"social equals." (125) Anabaptists, as recent research hasshown, were to be found in all layers of society. (126) Most of theprosecuted Anabaptists during this period, however, were artisans. (127)Apart from a sheriff and a former sheriff no members of the politicalelite were convicted, likely because they--thanks to their status andsocial networks--were better shielded from the arms of the law. CornelisJansz de Vlaminck, a former aldermen and patrician of Amsterdam, wasaided by his friends who tried to convince the stadholder, albeitunsuccessfully, that he was a respectable but deceived man. (128) Thatstatus made a difference can also be inferred from the edictsspecifically admonishing magistrates not to "treat wealthy peopledifferently than the poor." (129)

On the other hand, people coming from the lower strata of societycould also benefit from the fact that they were part of a localcommunity. This became clear in the case of Anthonis Huygensz, who,according to the sheriff of Leiden, was rebaptized, had been present atconventicles, and had even sold gunpowder (boschcruyt) to varioussectarians.130 In the interrogations that were part of the investigationsome of Anthonis's colleagues maintained that he was a good andobedient militiaman, while his neighbors reported that he was "agood Christian," an "honest and reliable young man," andan "honorable burgher." (131) All of those interrogated deniedthat Anthonis had anything to do with the Anabaptists and, in the end,the aldermen, contrary to the demands of the sheriff, decided merely tobanish him.

Another example can be found in the so-called "letters ofremission." Anna Lenaertsdr, one of the "naked runners/7 wasdefended by the president of the Court of Holland, Gerrit vanAssendelft, and by the attorney-general, Reynier Brunt, in a letter theysent to the stadholder. Because no evidence was found that she had beenrebaptized--combined with the fact that she was pregnant, had received agood recommendation from the pastor of the Old Church, had an honorablereputation, and was young, "beautiful and graceful"--theythought she should be exempted from punishment.132 Anna was pardoned andonly had to do penance and pay the "costs of justice."133 Itis telling that her letter of remission was registered on December 1,1535, when Anabaptists were causing so much havoc in parts of Europe.Already then, albeit only in extremely rare cases, the Habsburg overlordhimself (or his representative) was willing to take into account anumber of extenuating circ*mstances and to mitigate the punishment.

This selection of examples shows that when Anabaptists wereintegrated into the rest of society, it became much harder to simplyoutlaw and execute them. Even when Anabaptists were depicted asarchheretics and intensely rebellious, many people who knew them inperson refused to reduce their identity to this religious core. Theircivil status and the fact that they still were part of a social networkshielded them, at least partly, from the full extent of the law.

PROSECUTION OF ANABAPTISTS BY THE HOF

Perhaps more suited than the local courts to carry out theantiheresy policy of the central government was the Hof The Hof afterall, was in close contact with the central authorities, who scrutinizedthe proceedings of this court. Second, the councillors were appointeddirectly by the Habsburg overlord,134 which, in theory, reduced thechance that magistrates would be elected who were sympathetic towardheretics. Third, people in the cities or towns were judged by theirpeers. This was not the case when they were summoned before the Hof Notsurprisingly, Charles wanted the Grote Raad and the Hof to oversee allheresy trials instead of the local courts. Although this did not happen,the Hof was still very active in prosecuting Anabaptists, as table 5.1shows.

Table 5.1: Prosecution of Anabaptists by the Hof Capital Non-Capital Princ. % Non-principael % Princ. %1530s 19 23 64 76 7 11540s 1 10 9 90 0 01550s 0 0 4 100 1 71560s 0 0 2 100 3 50Total 20 20 79 80 11 1 Non-principael %1530s 727 991540s 12 1001550s 14 931560s 3 50Total 756 99Princ. = principaelSources: DAN V; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nrs. 5653-5654.

Between 1530 and 1570 the Hof convicted an astonishing number ofAnabaptists (866). In the early 1530s, a large number of Anabaptistsreceived non-capital punishments. Most of them were Anabaptists stoppedby the authorities while traveling to Mimster in March of 1534.135 Giventhese large numbers, it was impossible for the authorities to prosecutethem all. Thus many, except for the leaders, were simply sent home.Anabaptists living in Holland, however, had to appear before the Hofbefore they could be released.

Many in this group benefited from an edict issued on February 27,1534, granting Anabaptists a period of twenty-four days in which theycould recant and would be pardoned. The edict was issued after acouncillor of the Hof traveled to Brussels and explained that the Hofhad no problems executing the leaders, but that putting to death allthose who were simply deceived would be too harsh.136 This policy ofclemency continued through the Munster debacle--even in September of1535 Claes Jacobsz managed to be pardoned by appealing to thisdecree.137

It appears that the Hof determined the punishment of theAnabaptists only after they had been carefully categorized. In general,Anabaptists who came directly to the Hof and could prove that they hadalready had done penance were released after paying a fine. (138)Anabaptists who appeared before the Hof several weeks after they werecaptured, but could prove that they had already done penance, had to begthe court for forgiveness, go to a church to do penance in a ritualbefore the holy sacrament, and pay a fine. (139) The people whotravelled with Anabaptists, but had not been rebaptized, were onlyrequired to appear before the Hof, beg for forgiveness, and pay a fineeven though they had not yet done penance. (140) Those who already haddone penance had only to pay a fine. (141) Of course, there were alwaysexceptions. In some instances, for example, Anabaptists had to go to thechurch several times and do penance. (142) In general these seem to havebeen the distinctions councillors made in assessing the different cases.

When people had to be punished strictly but not too severely,banishment was added so that the penalty would be "an example forothers" (143) Banishment was the common punishment of the Hof andthe local courts for those who did not appear before the Hof whensummoned. It was especially common as an additional punishment when theHo/held court outside The Hague. (144)

Punishment, however, was not the only goal of the Hof Transgressorshad to redress the wrong they had done (heteringe) to society by payinga fine, and they also had to be reconciled (amende honorable). (145)Begging forgiveness from the judges was one part of the beteringe. (146)The goal was to restore these wandering souls into the loving arms ofthe Holy Church, with the ultimate aim of healing the shattered unity ofChristendom.

Yet in spite of these lofty goals the Hof did indeed sentence manyAnabaptists to death--especially those who did not want to recant or whohad committed crimes that the authorities believed could only beexpunged by death. Not surprisingly, among those executed were severalprincipaelen. In the 1530s nineteen principaelen were executed; but thesame year also saw sixty-four non-principaelen share that fate sincemany of them refused to recant and to do penance. In 1534 this couldstill make a difference. Thus, on April 15 some Anabaptists who haddemonstrated no remorse (geen leetzuesen) and refused to recant wereburned accordingly. (147) Six days later two Anabaptists who admittedthat they were led astray and were willing to recant only had do topenance and pay a fine. (148) The principaelen who received non-capitalpunishments all were on the run. Jan Mathijsz van Haarlem, for instance,preferred to be king in Miinster instead of facing the judges at TheHague. The fact that his verdict is dated on July 14, 1534, made hisappearance in person impossible, since he died on April 5 of that year.(149)

Table 5.2: Punishments Imposed on Principaelen and bion-principaelen Total Capital Burnded Decap. Drowned Other Non-CapPrinc. 31 20 2 17 0 1 11Non- 835 77 22 42 11 2 758princ. Banished Penance Fine Other (*)Princ. 11 0 0 0Non- 391 222 144 1princ.The Anabaptists who had to pay a fine had already done penance andhad proof of this.Sources: DAN V; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nrs 5653-5654.

Almost all the principaelen sentenced by the Hof were decapitated.Although in some cases the Hof decided to decapitate unrepentantAnabaptists, burning was the preferred mode of execution for staunchheretics who were unwilling to recant.

As in the cities, the number of Anabaptists executed by the Hofrapidly decreased after the 1530s. In 1536 fifteen Anabaptists were putto death by the Hof, compared with just one Anabaptist in the cities.Twelve of these Anabaptists were executed because they were present orsomehow involved with meetings held in Poeldvck, in which AdriaenAdriaensz van Hazerswoude, a self-proclaimed king who "received asword and crown from heaven to punish the unjust," told hisfollowers that he would use this sword "to kill all those who werenot elected by God" (150) The councillors of the Hof must haverecognized the resounding voice of the Miinsterites when hearing thisand, since these ideas "tended to [inspire] revolt, sedition,perturbation of the general prosperity and destruction of thecountry," the people involved were to be executed. (151)

Yet even during this episode the Hof still resorted to what iscalled "arbitrary correction" (arbitrate correeiie)--that is,taking into account the circ*mstances and the "quality" of thetransgressor. A different range of punishments was inflicted on thepeople present at the meeting in Poeldyck compared with those arrestedin transit to the gathering, reflecting the extent to which they wereinvolved in this meeting and the roles they had played. (152) It istelling that in the case of Claes Jansz--who had been involved in theriots in Hazerswoude--his heart was cut out of his body, he wasdecapitated, and his body quartered, a punishment that clearly resemblesthe penalty inflicted on the Anabaptists who assaulted Amsterdam'scity hall. (153) In 1536, the Hof responded just as the local courts hadresponded. Furthermore, the prosecution of Anabaptists by the provincialand local courts reached its peaks in the years of burgeoning Anabaptistactivity (figure 5.1).

According to the Dutch historian Serge ter Braake the councillorsof the Hof punished heretics more harshly than did local judges.134 Yeta careful comparison of the penalties inflicted on Anabaptists by threelocal courts and the Hof do not support his conclusion. In the period1530-1566 the Hof executed fewer Anabaptists than did the city ofAmsterdam alone, with more Anabaptists also receiving non-capitalpunishments.

[FIGURE 5.1 OMITTED]

The wav the councillors reacted to the event in Poeldvck--and thefact that they too resorted to arbitrary correction, and discriminatedbetween the various actions of Anabaptists and theirsupporters--suggests that their treatment of Anabaptists was rathersimilar. As table 5.3 shows, in the 1540s and 1550s a higher percentageof male Anabaptists convicted by the Hof did not forfeit their life.Thus, in most cases the Hofs sentences were even milder than those ofthe local courts in these decades.

The fact that the Hof dealt with heretics in a manner similar tothe policies of the local courts made them vulnerable to the critique ofthe central government. Reynier Brunt blamed the Council (Rciad) ofHolland--the most important body of the Court of Holland--for stickingto the "right to alter or moderate penalties, as had beenexplicitly authorized by heresy edicts published in Holland before1531." (155)

Another precedent claimed by the Hof was the judgment by thepresident of the Grotc Raad, who maintained in 1527 that the penaltiesregarding heresy as stipulated in the edicts could be mitigateddepending on "the circ*mstances of the case, the quality of theperson, whether he be responsible for a wife and children, and whether[by execution] he might be eternally damned." (156) Of course theHabsburg authorities thought that later edicts superseded the earlierones, but the discussion of whether everyone should be subjected to thesame punishment was carried out even in the upper echelons of thecentral government. (157)

In some cases, as noted above, the Hof was willing to revoke thedeath penalty for Anabaptists who recanted. In 1544, for instance, thecourt sentenced two followers of David Joris from Delft to penance andbanishment because they had acknowledged their errors. However,Hippolitus van Persijn, who was appointed attorney-general in 1534,lodged an appeal against these verdicts. Eventually both of them weredecapitated. (158) Persijn supported the Habsburg policy that"denied the provincial courts the usual judicial latitude inpassing sentences," a stance that created "a rift betweenBrussels and The Hague."(159) Like the local judges, thecouncillors saw this policy as an infringement on their authority and anunjustified breach with the traditional judicial practice they weretrying to maintain.

Tracy is correct to insist that the Raad "never was a facelesspanel of bureaucrats" who unconditionally obeyed the centralgovernment. (160) The claims of historian Piet Visser to the contrary,Holland did not "[carry] out the directives of Brusselsfaithfully." (161) Indeed, the Hof was quite often more lenientthan were the local courts, since they were far more willing to mitigatethe punishment of repentant Anabaptists. (162) What mattered most wasthe actual deeds of the accused Anabaptists. When necessary the Hof wasjust as severe as the local courts; but in the end all the courtsfrequently resorted to arbitrary correction, giving rise to the manyparallels in their antiheresy proceedings. Neither the Hof nor the localcourts proved to be the well-oiled machine dealing with heresy that theHabsburg overlords wished them to be.

The figures for Anabaptist prosecution in Holland can be put in asomewhat broader perspective by comparing them with the execution ofAnabaptists in the neighboring cities of Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent.Table 5.4 shows that more Anabaptists were executed in the southernNetherlands than in the province of Holland. Indeed, the difference isquite significant. Compared with the 183 Anabaptists executed in thethree cities in Holland between 1530 and [570, 244 Anabaptists were putto death in Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent--a difference of 61.

Table 5.4: Number of Executed Anabaptists in Amsterdam, Delft,Leiden, Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, and by the Hof 1530s 1540s 1550s 1560s TotalAmsterdam 70 23 15 0 108Delft 30 2 0 0 32Leiden 22 10 11 0 43Total 122 35 26 0 183Hof 83 10 4 2 99Antwerp 24 0 100 17 141Bruges 7 0 18 0 25Ghent 9 0 31 38 78Total 40 0 149 55 244Sources: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1;GAD, arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.(11.01, inv. nrs.5653-5654; Waite, Eradicating the Devil's minions, 108, 110,122.

Table 5.4 also suggests wide differences among cities in the numberof Anabaptists executed. This discrepancy could have resulted fromnumerous variables, including the availability of sources and therelative size of the Anabaptist movements. Unfortunately, it is almostimpossible to reconstruct an urban Anabaptist community based onprosopo-graphical research since the court records are not extant forcities such as Leiden and Delft. It is likely that the biggestAnabaptist communities were to be found in the two largest cities,Amsterdam and Antwerp, which, in turn, could explain the high number ofexecutions in these cities.

Table 5.4: Number of Executed Anabaptists in Amsterdam, Delft,Leiden, Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, and by the Hof 1530s 1540s 1550s 1560s TotalAmsterdam 70 23 15 0 108Delft 30 2 0 0 32Leiden 22 10 11 0 43Total 122 35 26 0 183Hof 83 10 4 2 99Antwerp 24 0 100 17 141Bruges 7 0 18 0 25Ghent 9 0 31 38 78Total 40 0 149 55 244Sources: DAN II, V; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1;GAD, arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.(11.01, inv. nrs.5653-5654; Waite, Eradicating the Devil's minions, 108, 110,122.

Figure 5.2 highlights another significant difference. In thesouthern Netherlands the execution of Anabaptists also started in the1530s; but the majority of executions occurred in the 1550s and 1560s.Even in the 1570s many Anabaptists faced the death penalty: seventy inAntwerp, seventy in Bruges, and thirty in Ghent, (163) Anabaptists inHolland, by contrast, were executed only sporadically in the 1570s, withthe last execution of an Anabaptist in the northern Netherlandsoccurring in 1574; (164) It is likely that prosecution continued intothe 1590s in the southern Netherlands since these provinces, in contrastto the northern provinces, remained firmly under the control of theSpanish Habsburgs.

[FIGURE 5.2 OMITTED]

Just as in the northern Netherlands, the prosecution of Anabaptistsin the southern cities was partly a reaction to the violent actionsby-Anabaptists themselves. In addition, Charles V and Philip II refusedto distinguish among the various Anabaptist groups, be they Mennonites,Davidjorists, or Batenburgers.165 Peaceful or not, all Anabaptists hadto be executed. Thus, the legal basis for Anabaptist prosecutionremained intact throughout these decades and could be exercised byzealous magistrates. But regardless of the local nuances, the violenttakeover of the city of Munster in 1534-1535 triggered something like aninternational wave of Anabaptist prosecution. In Antwerp, Ghent, andLeiden executions started in 1535. Prosecution in Bruges began a bitlater (1538), and still later in Delft (1539). Seen from thisperspective, Amsterdam and the Hof reacted more swiftly.

CONCLUSION

Although Mennonite historians acknowledge that not all theirreligious predecessors were executed, their attention has focusedoverwhelmingly on the martyrs, cherishing them, as did themartyrologies, as the champions of the faith. But as this research hasshown, the policies of the authorities toward the Anabaptists and thepunishments they meted out were less straightforward than themartyrologies and the imperial decrees suggest. On the local andprovincial level, Anabaptists enjoyed a measure of judicial latitudeshaped by traditional legal notions. Magistrates generally stuck totheir standard legal procedure and "customized" a wide varietyof punishments that were based on a careful analysis of the actual deedsof the captured Anabaptists. As a result, any Anabaptist whom the localand provincial courts regarded as a "mere follower" benefitedfrom more lenient treatment.

Viewing the prosecution of Anabaptists from the perspective of theauthorities has made it clear that their punishments closely reflectedthe perceived crimes. The fierce prosecution in the 1530s can beattributed largely to the rebellious activities of Anabaptists invarious cities in the northern Netherlands and in neighboringterritories, such as Munster. Because of the panic caused by theseevents, the policies of city magistrates moved a bit closer to thecourse of action demanded by Charles V. Whereas municipal authoritiesusually had to take into account the interests of various local pressuregroups, these sometimes divergent interests coincided in the mid-1530sthanks to the violent actions of certain Anabaptists, For example,whereas the quest to track down heretics could easily come in tensionwith the city's legal customs, in 1535 securing the stadsvrede andprosecuting heretics meant virtually the same thing in Amsterdam. Thepanic of the 1530s also explains why magistrates started to executenon-principaelen as well.

Assorted variables continued to influence the punishment inflictedon Anabaptists throughout this period. This followed largely from thefact that the edicts of the Habsburg rulers were regarded as aninfringement on the power of the municipal authorities and an outrightattack on the jurisprudence rightfully wielded by local andprovincial--and even national--courts. This explains why even"sincere" Catholic magistrates defended what they perceived tobe their privileges. Magistrates often simply refused to heed the demandby the central authorities that everyone should be prosecuted regardlessof their status and rights. Even though they were heretics, Anabaptistswere not simply condemned or executed without trial--they were stillseen as family members, colleagues, neighbors, fellow citizens, andsometimes even as "good Christians." Citizenship continued tooffer a measure of protection, as did the social networks in whichAnabaptists participated. And although the magistrates eventually beganto execute non-principaelen, the punishments they imposed show that theystill distinguished between staunch heretics and "mere"followers.

Several years ago a Frisian historian, Samme Zijlstra, concludedthat Anabaptists "thought worse of the persecution than it actuallywas." (166) This research has confirmed his conclusion: prosecutionwas hard, sometimes even severe. But an examination of the sourcesbeyond the unrepentant Anabaptist martyrs included in the martyrologiesreveals that authorities imposed a wide array of sentences onAnabaptists, both capital and noncapital punishment, and that thesejudgements were often tailored to the specific actions and behavior ofindividual Anabaptists. Moreover, even though the prosecution ofAnabaptists could be severe, magistrates frequently "relaxed normaljudicial rules." (167) Arbitrary correction, often resulting in amitigation of the punishments stipulated in the imperial decrees, wasapplied to Anabaptists as well.

(1.) A. F. Mellink, Documenta Anabaptistica Neerlandica (hereaftercited as DAN) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), 5:72.

(2.) DAN 5:239-242.

(3.) DAN 5: 217. The Haarlemmer Gate was one of the city'smain gates (principale poerte). -DAN 5:24.

(4.) Hans-Jiirgen Goertz, The Anabaptists (London: Routledge,1996), 118-119. Michael Driedger, "Anabaptists and the Early ModernState/' in A Companion to Anahaptism and Spiritualism., ed. John D.Roth and James Stayer (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 516.

(5.) Gary Waite, Eradicating the Devil's Minions (Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2009), 18.'

(6.) Recantations were not only driven by a fear of death but alsoby the fact that the restoration of freedom made it possible to continuesupporting an Anabaptist community. --Sigrun Haude, "Gender Rolesand Perspectives," in Roth and Stayer, A Companion to Anahaptismand Spiritualism, 457. John Oyer has also explored the complex dynamicsof recantation in "Nicodemites among WiirttembergAnabaptists," Mennonite Quarterly/ Review 71 (Oct. 1997), 487-514,and They Harry the Good People Out of the Land: Essays on thePersecution, Survival and Flourishing of Anabaptists and Mennonites(Goshen, Ind.: Mennonite Historical Society, 2000), 42-43, 313-314.

(7.) Piet Visser, "Mennonites and Doopsgezindcn/' in Rothand Stayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 316.

(8.) For example, see William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 3rded. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 171,190, or the description of Anabaptist historiography in John D. Roth,"Recent Currents in the Historiography of the RadicalReformation," Church History 71/3 (2002), 523-535. For anotherexample of a comparable vision, see VV. J. Kiihler, Geschiedenis derNederlandsche doopsgezinden in de zestiende eeuw, 2nd ed. (Haarlem:Tjeenk Willink, 1961), esp. 245 and passim. This impulse has deepprecedents. Hans de Ries's History of the Martyrs of 1615, forinstance, jumps from "1533 to 1536, skipping the "Miinsteryears" and the Anabaptist martyrs associated with this"aberration."--Hans de Ries, Historie der martelaeren oftezvaerachtighe getaygen jesu Christi... (Haarlem, 1615). In Thieleman vanBraght's Martyrs Mirror one will find only one martyr from the year1534 and six from 1535 (all executed in Holland and Friesland).Furthermore, van Braght explicitly notes that Pieter Kofter, sentencedto death in 1535, was no seditious person.--van Braght, Het bloedigtoneel of martelaers Spiegel (Diemen: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1984;originally published in 1685), 2:36. And van Braght's MartyrsMirror goes to curious extremes by editing the birthplace of Peter Jansz(executed in 1549 in Amsterdam) to replace the location "in thecounty of Miinster" (tot Luninckhusen in den gestichte van Munster)with an ellipsis.--DAN 2:141 (note 96). Apparently seventeenth-centuryAnabaptists had the idea their history should also be without a spot orwrinkle.

(9.) See, for instance, Samme Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente en deoude gronden. Geschiedenis van de dopersen in Nederiand 1531-1675(Hilversum: Verloren, 2000).

(10.) Thomas A. Brady Jr., "Limits of Religious Violence inEarly Modern Europe/' in Religion und Gezoalt. Konflkt, Rituale,Deutungen, 1500-1800, ed. Kaspar von Greyerz and Kim Siebenhiiner(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 133.

(11.) Kiihler, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche doopsgezinden, 93.Greta Grosheide, Bijdrage aan de geschiedenis der Anahaptisten(Ililversum: J. Schipper, 1938), 19.

(12.) " ... dat alio offe degene, die bovenden sullen vvorden,besmet te zyn, met de vervloektte secte der Anabaptisten ofteWederdoopers, van wat staet ofte conditie datse zyn, hunne oproerders,aenhangers, medepleghers, sullen vervallen in de verbeurte van lijf endegoet, ende sullen tot de uyterste straffe gebracht warden, sonder eenighvertreek."--De Ries, Historie der martelaeren, 4r.

(13.) Ibid., 4r-v.

(14.) For such an example, see ARA (Aigemeen Rijksarchief), arch.nr. [archive number] 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. [inventory number] 5653, f.194v. Cornelis Meenenz claimed that he did not know he was not allowedto buy one of Luther's books because he had not heard the officialsproclaim the placards out loud (aflesen).--ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01,inv. nr. 3545 (Interinementen van remissies, March 17,1529-Feb. 21,1531) f. 42v. Between 1544 and 1550 the heresy placards were reissuedsix times.--James D. Tracy, Holland under Habsburg rule, 1505-1566(Oxford: University of California Press, 1990), 171.

(15.) Johan van de Wiele, "De overheidspolitiek terbestrijding van de reformatie in Vlaanderen in de zestiende eeuw voor debeeldenstorm. Een verhaal van warm en koud blazen," in Beleid enbestuur in de oude Nederlanden (Gent: Vakgroep Nieuwe GeschiedenisUniversiteit Gent, 1993), 416.

(16.) The inquisition, although invigorated by Charles V in the1520s, never really got off the ground in the northern Netherlands.--P.E. Valvekens, De inquisitie in de Nederlanden (Amsterdam: De Kinkhoren,1949), 171-175, 179, 182; and Aline Goossens, "Karel V en deonderdrukking van de wederdopers," Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 27(2001), 22.

(17.) For a clear example of the questions asked during anexamination, see DAN 2:64 or N. van der Zijpp, Geschiedenis derdoopsgezinden in Nederland (Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1952), 60-61.

(18.) Zijlstra, Om de waregemeente, 98.

(19.) They were executed in The Hague and their heads were sent toAmsterdam.--DAN 5:2-3. One of them, a priest, remainedimprisoned.--Jochen A. Ftihner, Die Kirchen-unci die antireformatorischeReligionspolitik Kaiser Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen derNiederlande 1515-2555 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 267. According to GaryWaite, in 1532 one Anabaptist was executed in Amsterdam. I have not beenable to trace this verdict, however.--Waite, Eradicating theDevil's Minions, 82.

(20.) Albert F. Mellink, Amsterdam en de wederdopers in dezestiende eeuw (Nijmegen: SUN, 1978121.

(21.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.0L0I, inv. nr. 5653, f 40v-42v.

(22.) By capital punishments I mean the death penalty.

(23.) A pensionary (Raadspensionaris or Landsadvocaat) gave adviceto the states of Holland and acted as its first official. Some cities inHolland, such as Leiden, also had a pensionary, an official appointed bythe city who advised the city council.

(24.) RAL (Regionaal Archief Leiden), arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 384(Vroedschapsboek, 1522-53) i 59r (meeting on Oct. 20,1534).

(25.) RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 1185 ("Stukken derAnabaptisten").

(26.) K. Vos, "De in 1535 te Leiden ter dood gebrachteAnabaptisten," Leids jaarboekje 15 (Leiden, 1918), 24-25.

(27.) See table 2.3. According to Gary Waite, fifty-fourAnabaptists were executed in this year.--Waite, Eradicating the DevilsMinions, 82.

(28.) DAN 5:140.

(29.) Ibid, 130.

(30.) Regarding contemporary notions about the "lower"and "upper" body, see Edward Muir, Ritual in Early ModernEurope, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), esp.89-154.

(31.) Reinier Boitet, Beschrijvinge der stadt Delft... (Delft1729), 773.

(32.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. lv. In secondaryliterature one often finds that twenty-seven people were executed inDelft in 1539. See, for instance, I.V.T. Spaander and R.A. Leeuw, Destad Delft: Cultuur en maatschappij tot 1572 (Delft: Stedelijk MuseumHet Prinsenhof, 1979), 109; Wijbenga, Delft (Rijswijk: Elmar, 1984),120. However, Katrijn Wittendr. is listed twice in the vonnisboek.--GAV(Gemeentearchief Delft), arch. nr. 13 (Oud-rechterlijk archief), inv.nr. 46 (Crimineel boeck, Oct. 1539-Dec. 1591) f 173 v. Besides that twoAnabaptists were executed in Aug. 1539, making a total of twenty-eightexecuted Anabaptists in that year.

(33.) The first one was Quinjn Pieterssen in 1544--DAN 2: 65.

(34.) Mellink, Amsterdam en de zuederdopers, 72; I. J. Brugmans,Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, deel 1,2nd ed. (Utrecht: SUN, 1972), 284.

(35.) Brugmans, Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, deel 1, 284. Gary K.Waite, "David Juris' Thought in the Context of the EarlyMelchiorite and Miinsterite Movements in the Low Countries,1534-1536," The Mennonite Quarterly Reinezv 62 (1988), 314-316.

(36.) DAN 2:149.

(37.) Thus, Aelbrecht Thaems, for example, one of the Batenburgerscaptured in 1544, was "strangled and burned while copies of achalice and ciboria hung on a gallows above him/' clearly stressingthe criminal nature of their offense (robbing churches). --L. Knappert,De opkomst van het protestantisme in eerie Noord-Nederlandsche stud(Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1908), 182. The Hof also identified AelbrechtTaems is also identified as a Batenburger.-ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01,inv. nr. 5654* f. 127v. In Amsterdam, Batenburgers were hung.-DAN 2:36

(38.) Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 173.

(39.) Tracy listed only four instead of thirteen.--Ibid.

(40.) J. J. Woltjer, "Het conflict tussen Wiliem Bardes enHendrick Dirkszoon," Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende deGeschiedenis der Nederlanden [BMCN] 86 (1971), 196-197.

(41.) Driedgcr,"Anabaptists and the Larly Modern State,"519-520.

(42.) DAM 5:207. A.F. Mellink, De wederdopers in de noordelijkeNederlanden, 1531-1544 (Leeuwarden: Uitgeverij Gerben Dykstra, 1981),127-131; Waite, "The Anabaptist Movement in Amsterdam and theNetherlands 1531-1535: An Initial Investigation into its Genesis andSocial Dynamics," The Sixteenth Century journal 18:2 (1987),263-264.

(43.) RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 1185, Letter from Deventer toLeiden (1535).

(44.) GAD, arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 72b, Jan. 14, 1569, and June 3,1570.

(45.) This impression is supported by the fact that in all threecities the number of heresy trials dropped after the 1530s, and by thefact that the central authorities sent fewer letters to the citiesdemanding that they prosecute Anabaptists (or heresy in general).

(46.) Herman Roodenburg, Onder censuur: de kerkelijke tucht in degereformeerde gemeente van Amsterdam, 1578-1700 (Ph.D. Diss., Hilversum:Verforen, 1990), 69. In Leiden, in Jan. 1536, a procession was held toremember the prevented attack.--RAL, Aflezingsboek "B",f.51v-52r.

(47.) Mellink, Amsterdam en de wederdopers, 74.

(48.) Ibid.A

(49.) Gregory, "Anabaptist Martyrdom," in Roth andStayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 478.

(50.) On the different ways to become a citizen, see: Wagenaar,Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten,koophandel, geboitwen, kerkenstraat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden enregeeringe (Amsterdam, 1780), 1:142, 154-155; and Maarten Prak and ErikaKuijpcrs, "Burger, ingezetene, vreemdeling: Burgerschap inAmsterdam in de 17e en 18e eeuw," in Een geschiedenis van hetbegrip 'burger' in de Nederlanden van de Middeleeitwen tot de21ste eeuw, ed. Joost Kloek and Karen Tilmans (Amsterdam: AmsterdamUniversity Press, 2002), 119,123.

(51.) Prak,"The Politics of Intolerance: Citizenship andReligion in the Dutch Republic (Seventeenth and EighteenthCenturies)," in Calvinism and Religions Toleration in the DutchGolden Age, ed. R. Po-chia Hsia and Henk van Nierop (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002), 161; J. G. Van Dillen, Bronnen tot degeschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en gildwezen in Amsterdam (The Hague:Nijhoff, 1.928), I: XXIII; Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, 142;RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1, f. 62r; and Grosheide, Bijdrage tot degeschiedenis der Anabaptisten, 262, 272-287.

(52.) Alistair Duke, Reformation and Revolt in the Lozv Countries(London: Hambledon Press, 1990), 159.

(53.) About accusations used to prosecute minority groups,sometimes described as "judicial persecution," see DavidNirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in theMiddle Ages (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), esp.93-126. On "street level" enmity that could arise becausepeople were accused of being Anabaptists.--ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01,inv. nr. 3351 (Interinementen van remissies, Sept. 3,1534 -Sept.27,1546), f. 160r-163r.

(54.) When proclaiming a keur against Anabaptists the city fathersof Amsterdam made a distinction between citizens andnoncitizens.--Tracy, Holland Under Habsburg ride, 163. For the keur seeDAN 5:37-8. In other decrees, however, they conflated citizens andinhabitants into one group.--Van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis,101.

(55.) DAV 5:40, 91-92.

(56.) Sigrun Haude, "Gender Roles and Perspectives" inRoth and Stayer, A Companion to Anahaptism and Spiritualism, 425-465,esp. 455-456.

(57.) See the complaints of Leiden's city council about thebad economic situation.--RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 384, f. 2v-3v(Dec. 12,1530), f. I3r (March 1, 1536), f. 84r-v (22-8-1540).

(58.) Waite, "The Anabaptist Movement in Amsterdam and theNetherlands," 260.

(59.) One Anabaptist declared that many of his brothers went toAmsterdam because the population of this city was "merciful andwould receive them with open arms."--DAN 5:226. See also Hamilton,"The Development of Dutch Anabaptism in the Light of the EuropeanMagisterial and Radical Reformation," in From Murky? to hiuppy. AHistorical Introduction to Cultural Assimilation Processes of aReligious Minority in the Netherlands: The Memumites, ed. AlistairHamilton, et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994), 9,11.

(60.) Waite, "The Anabaptist Movement in Amsterdam and theNetherlands," 258-260.

(61.) Letters sent by municipal authorities to other cities, askingabout the whereabouts of their cities, should be interpreted in thislight. For some examples, see SAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 1185, letterfrom Dordrecht to Leiden (Jan. 25, 1535); letter from Deventer to Leiden(Shrove Tuesday [dinxdach op den vastenavond] 1535).

(62.) Grosheide, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Anabaptisten,274-276.

(63.) In a few cases the Great Council (Grote Raad) of Mechelen wasallowed to intervene--Ibid., 272-273.

(64.) About the various privileges and their legal status, see J.]. Woltjer, "Dutch Privileges, Real and Imaginary," in Britainand the Netherlands, ed. J.S. Bromley and E. H. Kossmann (The Hague:Nijhoff, 1975), 5:19-35.

(65.) Grosheide, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Anahaptisten,274, 280

(66.) Ibid., 275.

(67.) Ibid., 278.

(68.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 322v.

(69.) Ibid., f. 323r-v.

(70.) Ibid., f. 324v-325v. About a similar conflict between theCourt of Holland and the city of Delft see ARA arch. nr. 3.03.01.01,inv. nr 5654, f. I v-3r.

(71.) For an individual defending her rights, se: ARA, arch. nr.3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. (127v-129r.)

(72.) For instance, when in 1523 certain citizens of Amsterdam weresummoned to appear before the "spiritual judge" (geestelijkerechter) of the bishop of Utrecht, Amsterdam pointed at the jus de nanevocando. In this case their claim was supported by the Habsburggovernment, for Utrecht (and the bishop in his capacity as a temporaryruler) were opponents of the central government. --Mellink, Amsterdam ende wederdopers, 12.

(73.) Grosheide, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Anabaptisten,266.

(74.) The city of Delft had already lost this privilege a decadeearlier, in 1538. --Ibid., 265.

(75.) The historian J. E. A. Boomgaard, who has investigatedAmsterdam's local court between 1490 and 1552, also concluded thatthe penalties issued varied depending on whether the accused was acitizen or stranger. In some cases judicial officers even distinguishedbetween strangers "who came to the city with a clear goal [e.g., atemporary job] and those who did not." --Boomgaard, Misdaad enstrafin Amsterdam: een onderzoek naar de strafrechtspleging van deAmsterdamse schepenbank 1490-1552 (Amsterdam, Zwolle: Waanders, 1992),216.

(76.) Ibid., 224.

(77.) DAN 5: 203.

(78.) Ibid., 218. The only difference was that she was publiclyhanged in front of the local court (vierschaar).

(79.) Muir7 Ritual in Early Modern Europe, 117. For the linkbetween the location of the crime and the execution, see MichelFoucault, Discipline and Punishment. The, Birth of the Prison (London:Penguin Books, 1991), 44.

(80.) Foucault, Discipline and Punishment, 47. Pieter Spierenburg,The Spectacle of Suffering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1984), 201-202.

(81.) Foucault, Discipline and Punishment, 47-48; Spierenburg,Spectacle of Suffering, 78.

(82.) " ... verleyders oft bedriegers ...die luyden wederdopenende quade geinficeerde dvvalinghen ende secten leeren...."--DAN1:10-11.

(83.) In 1544, for example, Jan Claesz. and Lucas Lambertsz printedsome 600 books written by Menno Simons in Antwerp and sold around 200 ofthem in Holland. The rest were sent to Frisia.-DAV 2:47-48.

(84.) RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 451, letter from Charles V toLeiden (Sept. 26,1539).

(85.) DAN 5:113-4.

(86.) DAN 5:118. Although, of course, being rebaptized required adeath sentence according to the edicts of Charles V.

(87.) Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 89. In 1538 councillors of theHof maintained that "all Anabaptists tried to raise tumult andrevolt."--ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654, f. 2r.

(88.) RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 370.

(89.) DAN 5:130-131, 135, 140. Other Anabaptists were alsointerrogated before they were executed.

(90.) This bears resemblance to the policy advocated by magistratesin other parts of Europe. See, for instance, Claus-PeterClasen,"Nuernberg in the History of Anabaptism," MQR 39 (Jan.1965), 25-39, esp. 34.

(91.) DAN 5:193-194.

(92.) Ibid., 194.

(93.) RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 4, I 107r, March 23, 1535. Forthe use of the city's barrel see Rnappert, De opkomst van hetprotestantisme, 21.

(94.) DAN 2:9.

(95.) Haude, "Gender Roles and Perspectives," 431.

(96.) DAN 5:194-5, 213, 223,287.

(97.) DAN 5:236-7. It did matter whom the women aided. The twowomen helping Jacob van Campen were gruesomely put to death.--DAN5:217-218.

(98.) DAN 2:227.

(99.) DAN 2:226. They were not burned because they recanted.

(100.) Haude, "Gender Roles and Perspectives," 455.

(101.) Ibid., 456.

(102.) Ibid. 456-457.

(103.) Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake. Christian Martyrdom inEarly Modem Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999),81.

(104.) Ibid., 79.

(105.) Of course, there are always exceptions that prove the rule.--See, DAN 5:225.

(106.) For the keur see Grosheide, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis derAnabaptisten, 203-204. Also, in Utrecht magistrates often granted milderpunishments than they should have according to their keuren.--J. vanBeurten, "Ham met mosterd: de 'kracht' van de Lftrechtsewereldlijke overheden bij de bestrijding van ketterij" (M.A.thesis, Utrecht Universitv, 2007), 48-19.

(107.) J. L Price, Holland and the Dutch Republic in theSeventeenth Century, The Politics of Particularism (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1994), 8, 20. In the fourteenth century,Amsterdam's burgomasters started to issue keuren (decrees), forinstance.

(108.) DAN 5:46, 48-51. Kiihler, Geschiedenis der Nederlandschedoopsgezinden, 156.

(109.) DAN 5:251-260.

(110.) Mellink, Amsterdam en de zoederdopers, 42. Mellink, Dexvederdopers in de noordelijke Nederlanden, 116. This was a tactic thatwas used more often by Amsterdam's magistrates.

(111.) DNA 5:257, 264.

(112.) Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, 336.

(113.) DAN 5:106. Tracy, "Habsburg Grain Policy and AmsterdamPolitics: The Career of Sheriff Willem Dirkszoon Baerdes,1542-1566,"The Sixteenth Century journal 14:3 (1983), 294.

(114.) Woitjer, "Het conflict tussen Willem Bardes en HendrickDirkszoon," 180. Similarly inspired purges of political offices didnot take place in Delft and Leiden during the period under study.

(115.) In the period 1544-1550 there was "hardly any mentionof heresy" in the correspondence between The Hague andBrussels.--Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 171.

(116.) See, for instance, Sherrin Marshall, Tire Dutch Gentry,1500-1650 (New York: Greenwood, 1987), 84. See also, H.F.K. van Nierop,Van ridders tot regenten. De Hollandse adel in de zestiende en eerstehelft van de zeventiende eeuio (The Hague: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1984),189; Enno van Gelder, Getemperde vrijheid (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff,1972), 65; and Knappert, De opkomst van het protestantisme, 102.

(117.) For an essay about Dutch religious tolerance and the ways ithas been perceived throughout the ages, see Benjamin J. Kaplan,"Dutch Religious Tolerance: Celebration and Revision," inPo-Chia Hsia and Van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in theDutch Golden Age, 8-26.

(118.) It is therefore not surprising that more recent studies ofDutch tolerance characterize it as being"Janus-faced."--Judith Pollmann, "The Bond of ChristianPiety: The Individual Practice of Tolerance and Intolerance in the DutchRepublic," in Po-Chia Hsia and Van Nierop, Calvinism and ReligiousToleration in the Dutch Golden Age, 53.

(119.) This fear inspired magistrates in Overijssel to be"tolerant."--Waite, "Dutch Nobility and Anabaptism,"464.

(120.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5634, f. 329v-334r.

(121.) Duke, Reformation and Revolt, 74.

(122.) Ibid., 75.

(123.) Grosheide, Bijdrage tot degeschkdenh der Anabaptisten, 298.

(124.) According to Sterling Andre Lamet, economic problemsmattered most to Leiden's city council before 1566. See his Men inGovernment. The Patriciate of Leiden 1550-1600 (Ph.D. diss., 1979), 71,272. The lack of resources further restricted the capabilities of thesheriff and aldermen to administer justice, and sometimes the judicialapparatus almost collapsed under the weight of popular pressure oroutright violence.--ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654, f.33v-35r. Knappert, De opkomtt van lief proteshwtisme, 153. ARA, arch.nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 216v-222v. Also reprinted in DAN5:237-242.

(125.) Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 96.

(126.) Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente, 103.

(127.) This conclusion confirms the findings of Gary Waite in hisarticle "The Anabaptist Movement in Amsterdam/' The sourcesused to analyze the professions of convicted Anabaptists are: DAN 2 andDAN 5; RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3-1; 501, inv. nrs. 21-22; GAD,arch. nr. 13, inv. nr. 46; ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nrs.5653-5654.

(128.) Mellink, De wederdopers in de noordelijke Nederlanden, 116.

(129.) Ibid., 82, 287.

(130.) RAL, arch. nr. 508, inv. nr. 3, f. 9r, lOr.

(131.) RAL, arch. nr. 501, inv. nr. 1185; interrogation of CornellsDircxsz., Nov. 27, 1d3d; Willem Dircxs and Mouwerijn Jacobs, Nov. 17,1535; Dircxs and Heynrick Jansz. and others, Nov. 16,1535.

(132.) DAN 5:233-4. According to Vrolijk, having a "goodname" was essential for being pardoned. Marjan Vrolijk, "Rechtdoor gratie. Gratie bij doodslagen en andere delicten in Vlaanderen,Holland en Zeeland (1531-1567)" (Ph.D. diss., Uni. of Nijmegen,2001), 316. For Anna's letter of remission, see ARA, arch. nr.3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 3548.

(133.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 3548, f. 19r.

(134.) Though in practice the regent often took care of this.--TerBraake, Met recht en rekenschap, 96.

(135.) Although, according to James Tracy, the contemporaryestimate of 3,000 Anabaptists was too high, there were thousands ofAnabaptists on their way to Munster.--Tracy, Holland under HabsburgRule, 163.

(136.) Ter Braake, Met recht en rekenschap, 239.

(137.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 2I3v-214v.

(138.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 61v-62r;81v-82r. Anabaptists who were too poor did not have to pay a fine.Idem., f. 61v.

(139.) Ibid., f. 71r-v.

(140.) Ibid., f.84r.

(141.) Ibid., f. 68v.

(142.) Ibid., f. 73v.

(143.) ARA. arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654, f. 378r-v.

(144.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 62v. On thesame day those who were rebaptized were convicted to do to penance andwere banished, also for the period of six weeks.-Ibid., f. 65r, 66r-v.Some were banished for a longer period. Ibid., t 69r, 74r, 76r.

(145.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 79v, 83r. InFrance the amende honorable could even be a part of the "rite ofexecution." -Foucault, Discipline and Punishment, 65.

(146.) Boomgaard, Misdaad en straj, 226. For example, a Davidjoristhad to pray for forgiveness to those he had "scandalized"(gescandaliseert).--ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 143v.

(147.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 43r-v.

(148.) Ibid., f.44r-v.

(149.) Ibid., f.!20r-121v.

(150.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f. 233r, 235r.

(151.) Ibid., f. 233r.

(152.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5653, f.234r, 235r-v; f.236r-v; f. 237v-238r.

(153.) Ibid., f.233v.

(154.) Braako, Met recht m rekenschap, 236.

(155.) Tracy., "Heresy Law and Centralization," 294. Thiswas ruled out in the placards issued in 1529 and 1531.--Tracy, Hollandunder Habsburg rule, 167. In an instruction from the Secret Council(from May 1535), magistrates who resorted to arbitral justice had toappear before the Hof and it was forbidden to mitigate the punishment ofAnabaptists.--Ibid., 168.

(156.) Ibid., 293-294, 300.

(157.) Fiihner, Die Kirchen- and die antireformatorischeReligionspolitik, 315.

(158.) ARA, arch. nr. 3.03.01.01, inv. nr. 5654, f. 141r-143v.

(159.) Tracy, "Heresy Law and Centralization," 304-305;Boomgaard, Misdaad en straf, 108.

(160.) Tracy, Holland under Habsburg Rule, 46-47.

(161.) Visser, "Mennonites and Doopsgezinden," 316.

(162.) The same goes for the Hof van Utrecht compared withUtrecht's local court.--Van Beurten, Ham met mosterd, 43-44, 48-49.

(163.) Waite, Eradicating the Devil's Minions, 108, 110, 122.in Amsterdam the execution of Anabaptists was continued in 1569 andlasted to 1572.-Ibid., 82. DAN 2: 286, 295-298, 300, 306,318-319.

(164.) Gregory, Salvation at Stake, 235.

(165.) See the placard of Charles V proclaimed on Aug.31,1544.--Mellink, De wederdopers in de noordelijke Nederlanden,268-269.

(166.) Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente, 110.

(167.) Gary VVaite argues that this was the case--Waite,Eradicating the Detail's Minions, 4.

JAAP GERAERTS *

* Jaap Geraerts is a doctoral student at University College London.The article is drawn from his similarly-titled M.A. thesis (UtrechtUniversity, 2010). The author would like to thank Ben Kaplan and JoSpaans for supervising the thesis, and John D. Roth for his generousassistance with the preparation of the article.