dutch crossing, Vol. 35 No. 1, March, 2011, 4–19 Being Nassau: Nassau Family Histories and Dutch National Identity from 1541 to 1616 Liesbeth Geevers Utrecht University, NL William I of Nassau, Prince of Orange, and his sons Maurice and Frederick Henry were seen in their own time as the protectors of the new Dutch nation. As such, they play a significant role in the formation of a Dutch national identity. This essay addresses the question in what measure this sentiment was returned: did the Nassaus feel Dutch? An analysis of dynastic arguments used in the Apology (1581) will be compared with two genealogies dated 1541 and 1616 respectively, to show that a Dutch framing of the Nassau dynasty occurred only in the Apology, while the other texts present the dynasty mainly as a German family, owing its good fortune to the German emperors. keywords Nassau dynasty, genealogy, Dutch Revolt, national identity Introduction It goes without saying that William of Nassau, Prince of Orange (1533–1584) is closely associated with the emergence of the Dutch Republic. The Dutch national anthem, the Wilhelmus, still bears his name, and during his lifetime he was given the title ‘Father of the Nation’.1 In contemporary prints he was portrayed as the pious and virtuous leader of a just struggle against tyranny.2 In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, this nation increasingly referred to the states that made up the northern Netherlands,3 and William and his sons Maurice and Frederick Henry were seen as its protectors.4 The Apology, in which William of Orange defended his rebellious actions against Philip II, supported this idea with its patriotic rhetoric and its concern for the liberation of the ‘common fatherland’.5 The most recent biography written about Orange also refers to him in its title as ‘father of the Republic’.6 Although it is clear that the Princes of Orange are part and parcel of the history of the Dutch revolt and the Dutch nation to which it gave birth, we know slightly less © W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2011 DOI 10.1179/155909011X12930363744106 BEING NASSAU 5 about the measure in which the Nassau dynasty associated itself with the Netherlands. How did they look at themselves? As Broomhall and Van Gent have recently argued, although Orange was considered the father of the nation, not all of his children considered him as their primary father figure, because they were raised by other Nassau males.7 In fact, after William’s death, the Nassau dynasty lacked a clear leader,8 but John the Elder of Nassau — the eldest of Orange’s four younger brothers and head of the German Dillenburg line — looms large as a substitute father for the Orange children.9 Also, the Dutch propaganda machine operated partly outside the control of the Nassaus, while they had to maintain a barrier between their private status as princes of Orange and counts of Nassau, and their public office as stadholder.10 What influence did the image of the patriotic prince of Orange have on the formation of identity of the Nassau family as a whole, and what influence did the many German relatives have on this process? As far as I am aware, historians have not tried to answer this question. Few historians have looked so far at the Nassau genealogical texts, so we do not know how the Nassaus’ ideas of their own history and identity evolved during the Revolt. In this essay, I propose to contribute to an answer to these questions, by analysing a number of texts about the Nassau dynasty in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: Wilhelm Knüttel’s Epitome Stemmatis nobilissimi illustrium dominorum comitum a Nassa (A short description of the very noble lineage of the illustrious lords, the counts of Nassau) (1541) and Jan Orlers’ Geslacht-boom der graven van Nassau (Family-tree of the counts of Nassau) (1616). The first was written for William of Orange’s cousin René of Chalon (1519–1544) by Wilhelm Knüttel, a German secretary in service to the Nassau family. The second work was dedicated to William’s son, Count Maurice of Nassau (1567–1625). The third text is Orange’s Apology (1581), written by his chaplain, Pierre Loyseleur de Villiers. The question of whether the Nassaus returned the affection held for them by a grateful nation is a difficult one to answer. Genealogical texts may, of course, shape a family’s sense of history, or they may be a reflection of a pre-existing sense of history, but in what measure the genealogies of Knüttel and Orlers really represent the way René of Chalon and Maurice of Nassau thought about themselves is hard to say. It is hard to place Knüttel directly in René’s environment, and this is impossible in Orlers’ case. We know the texts were available at the contemporary Nassau courts and that the works were dedicated to René and Maurice, but this does not tell us whether the dedicatees actually read the works. The Apology should present us with less of a problem in this regard, but then this was a polemical work and the views expressed through it may be exaggerated. However, none of this should deter us from trying to sketch the outlines of Nassau family thinking between 1541 and 1616 as we find it in these texts. After all, genealogies (and other family histories) were important for noble families to justify their position of power in society, providing ‘a basis of self-definition and societal recognition’.11 Genealogies provided a link between a family’s history and its present condition — a link that was crucial, considering that history and heredity were the 6 LIESBETH GEEVERS dominant ways to legitimize power and status. The texts discussed in this essay — which seem to be among very few texts of this sort produced in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries — give us rare glimpses into the ‘self-definition and societal recognition’ of the Nassaus during a historical period that was absolutely crucial to their social and political power: their rise from Habsburg vassals to quasi-ruling princes of the Dutch Republic. I will start by showing how the Apology can be regarded as a family history. After discussing the main characteristics of this family history, I will compare it to Knüttel’s Epitome stemmatis and Orlers’ Geslacht-boom der graven van Nassau. Although all three texts differ considerably in their inception and character, comparing them will enable us to gauge first of all how exceptional the family history presented in the Apology was, and secondly how this shaped a future family history. All in all, we will be able to track the development of the Orange family histories against the background of the Dutch Revolt. The Apology as a family history The Apology of William of Orange (1581) was not primarily a genealogical work, but it does contain many references to the history of the Nassau family. This dynastic element in the Apology is even more interesting as Alastair Duke has argued that information on his own family was probably provided by Orange himself. They are therefore much more Orange’s own work instead of Orange’s court chaplain Pierre Loyseleur de Villiers’, who is credited with writing the work in response to Philip II’s Edict of Proscription.12 In this Edict, Philip had listed Orange’s crimes against the Habsburgs and the peace in the Netherlands, and promised a handsome reward to whomever would rid the King of his troublesome vassal. Orange responded by justifying his own actions and vilifying Philip in the process: today the Apology is considered one of the founding documents of the so-called ‘Black Legend’, accusing the Spanish nation and Philip II in particular of bigotry, cruelty, arrogance, and other fine character traits.13 Formerly, it has also been considered a pamphlet lauding Dutch liberties14 or the Calvinist true faith. Basically, the Apology was a direct refutation of Philip’s accusations, and some of these accusations carried personal and dynastic overtones — as is to be expected in a quarrel between a sixteenth-century liege-lord and vassal. The opening paragraph of the Edict of Proscription had reminded the reader of the many honours Orange had received from Charles V and Philip II, and that Orange had been obliged to be loyal to his lords.15 Philip also accused Orange of being a foreigner in the Netherlands. To refute these charges, the Prince would give his own account of his family’s history to radically re-interpret his obligation of loyalty to the Habsburg dynasty — he re-wrote his dynastic history. In the following, I will largely trace the dynastic arguments in the Apology. First, however, it seems necessary to stress that the Apology was a highly polemical piece of writing. We may therefore assume that the arguments presented are somewhat exaggerated to serve the purpose of defaming BEING NASSAU 7 Philip II. Even though we might hear the voice of William the Silent in these dynastic arguments, we must still take them with a grain of salt. Orange and Villiers answered the charge of disloyalty by turning the joint HabsburgNassau history on its head. Whereas Philip argued that Orange owed everything to him and his father, Orange would argue that the Nassaus had always been independent of the Habsburgs and that, in fact, the Habsburgs owed a lot of their position in the Netherlands to the Nassaus. How did Orange and Villiers go about this? What shape does this new dynastic history take? Orange and Villiers started out their new dynastic history by agreeing with Philip II that ‘nothing is so much to be condemned in this world, as a man defiled with these two stains, to wit ingratitude and disloyalty’.16 Philip, of course, had accused Orange of having done just this. Orange and Villiers therefore set out to argue that the Nassaus had done no such things. To do this, they answered all Philip’s charges, levelled both at Orange as an individual but also against his forebears. Philip claimed that the Nassaus should thank his father for being allowed to inherit the Orange title. It will be remembered that the German Nassaus had by the 1540s embraced the Lutheran faith, which made a German succession to the Breda Nassau patrimony in the Catholic Netherlands difficult. Charles had forced William’s father to give up his claim in favour of his young son and to send the boy to Brussels to receive a Catholic education.17 But Orange claimed that Charles V had only given the Nassaus their due by not taking away the inheritance that was rightfully theirs.18 While Philip clearly considered this to have been a favour to the Nassaus, Orange claimed that the Habsburgs had not been able to do such favours, as they had nothing to do with the Orange inheritance, ‘for I hold the same in a naked and absolute sovereignty of which few other lords can boast’.19 After setting the record straight on this matter, Orange proceeded to explain how much the Habsburgs were, in fact, indebted to the Nassaus: ‘[. . .] if, on the other hand, I should rehearse how greatly the house of Spain has been obliged to my predecessors (for I will say nothing as yet about myself) I would, I fear, be setting sail on a voyage that would require many months’.20 Here Orange’s forebears in the Netherlands started to play an important role. First, Count Engelbert (1451–1504) made his appearance, who, according to Orange and Villiers, had helped Archduke, later Emperor, Maximilian (1459–1519), Philip’s great-grandfather and founder of the Habsburg dynasty in the Netherlands, to maintain his position as regent in the Netherlands. Maximilian had married Duchess Mary of Burgundy (1457–1482), who ruled the Netherlands. After her death, Maximilian claimed the regency over his young son Philip the Handsome (1478–1506), but his position was disputed by the powerful cities of Flanders.21 Curiously, the Apology states that Engelbert was known to have given his blood, possessions, and even his sanity in order to support Maximilian.22 Recent research into the remains of Count Engelbert showed that he was an early sufferer of syphilis, which he may have contracted during the Italian Wars (1494–1559).23 Sacrifices, indeed. 8 LIESBETH GEEVERS The next Habsburg who owed a debt of gratitude to the Nassaus was Philip’s father, Charles V (1500–1588). Charles was elected to succeed Maximilian as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1519. About this election, Orange and Villiers claimed that No one can deny that in his lifetime no lord in all these lands laboured more in the service of emperor Charles than he [Hendrik III, LG]. In order not to dwell overlong on reciting what is so well known, I will only mention in a word that it was he who placed the imperial crown upon the Emperor’s head. He had so earnestly pursued this matter, even when the Emperor because of his youth and because of his absence (because he was in Spain) was unable to pursue the same that he persuaded the Electors to prefer the Emperor to the French King, who also contended for the said election.24 In short, Hendrik III managed the 1519 election in such a way that Charles could succeed his grandfather, and the Habsburgs should be grateful to the Nassau for their continuing possession of the imperial crown. These reversals of recent Habsburg-Nassau history were complemented by other arguments meant to reinforce the Nassaus’ position in the Netherlands relative to the Habsburgs. Philip had also claimed that Orange was a foreigner. To this accusation Orange and Villiers had a spectacular defence: in reality, they say, the Nassaus had held great titles and dignities in the Netherlands for hundreds of years, most notably in Guelders. Villiers and Orange claimed that the Nassaus had been lords (first as wardens, later as counts and dukes) of Guelders from 1039 to 1350.25 Orange and Villiers do not say when exactly Guelders became a duchy (in reality, it was in 1339). They do, however, state that the Nassaus ruled in Guelders when the Habsburgs were mere counts of Habsburg (they became dukes of Austria in 1282). It is unclear if they meant to imply that the Nassaus held higher titles in the Netherlands before the Habsburgs, but this certainly seems a possibility. It was certainly convenient for Orange to be able to claim as high a status as Philip II, as the King of Spain was also at most a duke (of Brabant and Guelders) in the Netherlands. Interesting here is that the Nassaus were never actually rulers of Guelders — it was a myth. However, the Nassaus had not invented this history themselves. Gueldrian chronicles of the late fifteenth century first mention the Nassaus as rulers.26 The reason for this invention may have been that the heraldic arms of Guelders featured the same lion and billets (oblong squares) as the Nassau heraldry.27 The accusation of being a foreigner was further refuted by emphasizing the Nassaus’ more recent forebears in the Netherlands. Orange’s direct predecessors in the Breda line, Engelbert, Hendrik III, and René, are mentioned particularly often, but also more distant relatives such as Otto of Nassau-Dillenburg (c. 1305–1350/51) ‘from whom I am descended in the seventh degree and whose eldest heir I am’28 and Engelbert I (c. 1370–1392) ‘from whom I am also descended in the direct male line in the fifth degree’.29 These ancestors were particularly important to argue that the Nassaus had long been powerful in the Netherlands, because with their marriages to Netherlandish heiresses they had laid the foundation of the Breda patrimony. Otto BEING NASSAU 9 and Engelbert I were crucial to Orange’s argument that he was a direct descendant of the Nassaus of Breda. The political activity and service to the Habsburgs of Engelbert II, Hendrik III, and René were meant to turn the ingratitude-charge back on Philip II. All in all, Orange is presented as Netherlandish through and through. German Nassaus mattered slightly less in this context, but there was one German family member that no Nassau genealogist could overlook: Adolf, King of the Romans. In the mid-thirteenth century, the Nassau brothers Walram and Otto partitioned their patrimony between them, forming what would be known as the Walramian and Ottonian lines.30 Although William of Orange was a scion of the Ottonian line, he paid some special attention to an early member of the Walramian line: Count Adolf of Nassau-Weilburg (c. 1255–1298). Although Orange’s direct connection to Adolf was very slight (they shared an ancestor who was born in 1180),31 this distant relative was important to all Nassaus, because Adolf had been elected King of the Romans in 1292. Only a papal coronation stood between him and the title of Emperor. Adolf therefore represented the highest honour ever enjoyed by any Nassau, which made him a particularly popular ancestor. He also provided the entire dynasty with imperial charisma for centuries to come: in a print of 1598/99 William’s youngest son Frederick Henry was described as ‘de stemmate natus cesario’.32 Orange and Villiers, therefore, did not forget to mention him, if only to boost the prestige of the Nassau family. Adolf was interesting for another reason as well. He had been elected to succeed Rudolf I of Habsburg, the first Habsburg emperor. Rudolf’s son Albert had wanted to succeed his father and did not accept Adolf’s election. He led a rebellion against Adolf which resulted in Adolf’s deposition and Albert’s election. In short, Habsburgs had rebelled against Nassaus in the thirteenth century. But Albert had not worked alone; he had been incited against Adolf by a pope (Boniface VIII) and an archbishop (of Mainz). The analogies with the Dutch Revolt must have seemed obvious, as Philip was also thought to be guided by popes and Archbishop Granvelle of Malines!33 Further analogies — for instance, that Orange represented legitimate authority instead of Philip — were not drawn. Orange and Villiers merely claimed that Orange’s revolt against Philip was exactly as Albert of Habsburg had done against Adolf of Nassau: what goes around comes around. In short, the Apology presents us with a decidedly Netherlandish family history of the Nassaus, characterized by their independence from the Habsburgs. Not only had they ruled independently in Gueldres, but they had also supported the Habsburg lords of their own volition and not because they were in some way indebted to them for their titles and honours. This view chimes well with contemporary depictions of Orange and his family. Not only was William seen as a pater patriae, but the commitments of his many brothers — three of whom would perish on Dutch battlefields — were also highly appreciated.34 The Nassaus’ commitment to the Dutch Revolt was therefore seen as a family affair, and not strictly Orange’s cause. 10 LIESBETH GEEVERS Knüttel’s Epitome stemmatis (1541) How typical was this sort of family history? Genealogies of the Nassaus are rather scarce before the seventeenth century, but Orange had one in his library: the Epitome stemmatis nobilissimi illustrium dominorum comitum a Nassa (1541).35 This work would be part of the Orange library until the Napoleonic Wars. Otherwise, the Nassau library (as far as it is possible to reconstruct it) seems to have held no genealogical works. Is it likely that Orange used this text to provide details on his family for the Apology? How does Knüttel present the family history? What was the possible historical basis for Orange’s sense of Nassau-self in 1580? This work was written by Wilhelm Knüttel (before 1510–1566), who dedicated it to René of Chalon, and signed as ‘Mgr Catzenelubog. secretaries’.36 It is not clear whether this means that Knüttel worked in Catzenelnbogen, but it is likely that he was based in Germany, because he worked for Count William of Nassau (René’s uncle and Orange’s father) as a councillor. Later, he worked for William of Orange, but it is not clear if he ever worked for René.37 Knüttel wrote at a time of hope for the future, as the world seemed to lie at René’s feet: his father Hendrik III had died only a few years before, leaving René in charge of the Netherlandish Nassau patrimony. René had also just started a family of his own, marrying Anna of Lorraine. He had, therefore, begun to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious father and a bright future seemed to lie ahead. The genealogy expressed the hope for a numerous progeny for René and Anna, but apart from a short-lived daughter the marriage produced no children before René’s early death in 1544. Apparently, Knüttel thought it a good moment to inform René of his family tree — that is, his Nassau ancestry, because no Chalons were mentioned, even though that is where the princely title of Orange came from. In at least two respects Knüttel’s history differs dramatically from the Apology: the construction of the family and the dependence on the Emperor. To start with the second element, the Holy Roman Empire plays a large role in Knüttel’s work. First of all, he uses the reigns of emperors as a chronological guide. At every turn we are informed in whose reign a certain event took place. This is probably an indication of Knüttel’s own German background. Secondly, he constantly credits the emperors with the Nassaus’ changing or growing status. This is especially important when discussing the Nassaus’ early history, when they served as military leaders for, for instance, Emperor Henry I the Fowler in his war against the Huns, Vandals, and Bohemians.38 These narratives are part of the ‘mythical origins’ section of Knüttel’s genealogy — a genre that was very popular among genealogists and princes, such as Knüttel’s near-contemporary, Emperor Maximilian I.39 Also in the mythical case of Guelders, Knüttel mentions the Emperors Henry III and Louis IV the Bavarian who bestowed the titles of count and duke of Guelders respectively.40 The family itself looks very different from the Apology’s narrow Breda-based lineage. In fact, Knüttel sets out to discuss all the different branches of the Nassau family, and because of the German preference for partible inheritance there were BEING NASSAU 11 very many. What is more, the partition treaties were an important source for Knüttel and may have steered his narrative in that direction. Knüttel mentions four such branches — Dillenburg, Beilstein, Weilburg, and Idstein — but these branches are only interesting as long as they lead to René.41 For this reason, the Weilburg and Idstein branches are left alone after Knüttel has discussed the partition between Otto (Dillenburg and Beilstein) and Walram (Idstein and Weilburg).42 Beilstein does not last much longer, after this branch is separated from the Dillenburg line.43 Emphasis is therefore heavily placed on the Dillenburg branch, which also produced the Nassaus of Breda. The exception is again King Adolf, who is mentioned as the successor of Emperor Rudolf I.44 Knüttel says that Adolf, ‘felicis memoriae’, was known at the court of his predecessor, Rudolf I of Habsburg, for his prudence. However, he remains silent on the Habsburg-led rebellion that cost Adolf his title, only referring to his death in battle at the hands of his unnamed successor.45 The emphasis on the emperors is rather striking, because it is generally assumed that the Breda Nassaus, like other aristocratic families in the Netherlands, owed their status mainly to the dukes of Burgundy.46 What role do Engelbert, Hendrik, and René play in this work? Knüttel does not give a lot in detailed information on his Nassaus. Usually he only mentions year of accession, marriage, and children, sometimes partitions, and embroilment in inheritance disputes with the rulers of Berg, Jülich, and Hessen. Engelbert does not merit any other attention, but Hendrik III is considered at some length. He is presented as a close confidant of Charles V, whom he served faithfully. In return he received the marquisate of Zenete (by marrying its heiress) and other presents.47 René himself is presented as a great promise for the Nassau dynasty.48 So, in this relatively short genealogy, which does not enter into any great detail when discussing individual Nassaus, we are presented with a dynasty with firm German roots, many different branches (mostly in Germany), and a close connection to the Emperor, especially Charles V. This may seem to contrast with the Nassau history evoked in the Apology, but it does not contrast sharply with what we know about William of Orange’s orientation in the 1560s and 1570s. In these years, the Prince only extended his ties in the Empire: he married a German princess, asked German princes to stand as godfather to his children, worked to create a network of princes and military commanders in the Empire, and even tried to gain his own German county, since Dillenburg was being ruled by his brother John.49 In line with the German emphasis in the Epitome stemmatis, the Burgundian benefactors of the Breda Nassaus are largely ignored. From Knüttel’s German perspective this might be understandable, but it is still a striking omission. The Nassaus built up their position in the Netherlands with the help up the Burgundian Dukes. Engelbert II was the first to enjoy high favour under Maximilian of Habsburg, but his ascent started during the reign of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy. Duke Charles accepted Engelbert into the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1473.50 It had been Engelbert’s father Jan who had already supported the Burgundians. Count Engelbert I of Nassau-Dillenburg (c. 1370–1442) — who acquired the lordship of Breda through 12 LIESBETH GEEVERS marriage — was already a councillor to the Burgundian Dukes of Brabant.51 In fact, the Burgundian dukes are known to have fostered a select group of families who formed a Burgundian aristocracy — and the Nassaus were among that group.52 However understandable Knüttel’s omission, it is a rather limited portrayal of the historical reality. The German-ness of the Nassaus in Knüttel’s genealogy seems therefore a deliberate construction. Less surprising is the absence of the anti-Habsburg and independent tone of the Apology from this earlier work, when Nassaus and Habsburgs still maintained a cordial relationship of mutual support. In the same vein, the propagandistic context of the Dutch Revolt can account for the rather more narrowly Netherlandish focus of the Apology with respect to the Epitome stemmatis. However, it will be interesting to see which of these two very different images lasted into the seventeenth century. Did the Nassaus revert back to their original German and Imperial imagery, or did the ‘nationalistic’ and independent image stick, as we would expect? Jan Orlers’ Geslacht-boom (1616) Jan Orlers (Leyden, 1570–1646) was part of a Leyden humanistic milieu. He worked as a printer and bookseller, before he entered the town government in 1618. Orlers did not serve the Nassaus directly, but he was a nephew of Jan van Hout, the distinguished humanist who had played a role in the siege of Leyden. He wrote a chorography of the town of Leyden, aided by prominent humanists such as Janus Dousa. He also held office in Leyden after 1618 — when Count Maurice of Nassau had changed the magistrate. Did Maurice promote Orlers’ career because of his Geslacht-boom published earlier? Orlers had dedicated it to the Count in his capacity as Admiral-general of the States’ fleet. The text is the oldest text mentioned by A. W. E. Dek, author of a more recent genealogy of the Nassaus.53 Orlers’ Geslacht-boom (1616), which had been published in French in 1615, was not his only work on the Nassaus. Earlier, he had published Der Nassauschen Laurencrans, ofte beschrijvinge en afbeeldinge van alle overwinningen, soo te water als te lande, die God Almachtige de edelen hoochmogende HH. Staeten der Vereenighde Nederlanden verleent heeft, door wijs en kloeck beleijd des Hooghgeboren vorste Maurits van Nassau (1610, ‘The Nassau laurel wreath, or description and depiction of all the victories, both at sea and on land, that God Almighty has bestowed on the noble high and mighty lords States of the United Netherlands, by wise and bold policy of the highborn prince Maurice of Nassau’). His Geslacht-boom was dedicated to Maurice in his capacity as Admiral-general. In fact, the work was dedicated to ‘the lords of the Admiralty’, of whom Maurice was the chief.54 As a good humanist, Orlers used as many sources as he could find and the Apology was one of them, judging from the many direct quotations from this text. He may also have been acquainted with a text similar to the Epitome stemmatis, because he refers to a text from 1525, written in German, which bears some similarity to the Epitome stemmatis in its content. This text had been written for Hendrik III.55 Obviously, being written BEING NASSAU 13 in German and quite some years before the Epitome stemmatis, it was not the same text, and Knüttel could not have written it because of his age, but the 1525 text might have been used by both Knüttel and Orlers as a source. There are no references to Knüttel’s Latin text. It seems safe to assume that Orlers’ work had found its way to the Nassau court in the seventeenth century. The Leyden University Library holds an edition of Orlers’ work that once belonged to a niece of Maurice, Juliana Catharina (daughter of Maurice’s sister Emilia and Emmanuel of Portugal).56 She may have inherited it from her uncle, who showed her some favour by granting her a pension and allowing her to use the title of Princess of Portugal in the Republic.57 Also, Constantijn Huygens, secretary of Maurice’s younger brother Frederick Henry, possessed the work, which was auctioned after his death.58 Let us look at the elements that we have also discussed for the Apology and Epitome stemmatis: construction of the family, relationship with the Emperor, the role of Engelbert II, Hendrik III, and René, and such dynastic highlights as the duchy of Guelders and King Adolf. Knüttel, writing in the first half of the sixteenth century, identified four main branches of the Nassau family, of which he treated the three that did not lead to the Dillenburg-Breda line rather cursorily. By the early seventeenth century, judging from Orlers’ text, the number of branches had risen to seven: the old four of Dillenburg, Beilstein, Weisbaden-Idstein, and Weilburg; and the additional lines of Saarbrücken, Orange (formerly Breda), and of course Guelders-Zutphen. Some of these lines were already defunct, such as Saarbrücken, a Weilburg offshoot from around 1350 to 1559, and of course Guelders, which had never actually existed at all. Clearly, in treating all these branches of the family, Orlers reverts to an overwhelmingly German family history for the Nassaus. But he does not treat all the branches equally. This can be demonstrated by looking at the number of pages devoted to the separate branches and the number of engravings used. The branches of most interest, Dillenburg and Orange, are allotted forty-five and thirty-two pages respectively. In contrast, Weisbaden-Idstein, Saarbrücken, Beilstein, and Weilburg are dealt with in fifteen, three, two, and four pages respectively. The mythical GueldersZutphen branch receives fifteen pages. A short overview of the use of engravings shows the same emphasis on the Dillenburg-Breda-Orange branches: these are really only used to depict Dillenburgers and the princes of Orange, with the (predictable) exception of the Weilburger King Adolf. The emphasis on Dillenburg and Orange does not mean that the family is depicted as more Netherlandish, because these two main branches had grown apart considerably. In the generation of William I of Orange, his brother had been the head of the Dillenburg line, but by 1616 the ties were less close, as both lines had produced heirs of their own. What is more, the Dillenburg line had produced considerably more offspring. All in all, the core of the Nassau family in Orlers’ view was a rather meagre Netherlandish Orange branch (only William I and his three sons) supported by a numerous German Dillenburg one. Orlers also mentions the number of electors the Nassaus produced.59 In fact, the first 14 LIESBETH GEEVERS thing Orlers says after the preliminary introductions and laudatory poem is that the Nassaus are and always have been one of the oldest and noblest lineages in Germany!60 So, the family as was presented in 1616 was again predominantly German, as it had been in 1541, but not in 1581. How was their relationship with the emperors interpreted? Again, we see a reversal to Knüttel’s position, rather than a continuance of the independent stance of the Apology. Orlers goes back to the Roman Empire to establish the early bond between Emperors and Nassaus. Julius Caesar and Severus had already used the Nassaus because of their military abilities.61 German Emperors Henry I, II, III, and IV had followed suit in the Middle Ages, while Maximilian I and Charles V are mentioned as the most contemporary emperors who had showered the Nassaus with favours. As one would expect Philip II is also mentioned, for granting government office and stadholderates to the Nassaus, and even Philip III because he had admitted Orange’s eldest son Philip William to the Order of the Golden Fleece.62 These kings of Spain are mentioned in the same breath as the imperial forebears. However, any reference to the Burgundian Dukes Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, who had facilitated the Nassaus’ rise in the Netherlands, is missing. Again, with respect to the rise of the Nassau dynasty, the (Roman and) German emperors are privileged over the rulers of the Netherlands. How did the Nassaus gain Guelders? Orlers repeats the story told by Knüttel, that a certain Otto of Nassau gained the territory by marrying its heiress. The marriage took place in 1061, but, according to Orlers’ calculation of the length of Nassau rule, Otto acceded to the government in 1065. This is still considerably later than the date given in the Apology (1039). However, Orlers does mention when Emperor Henry I the Fowler elevated the territory to a county, 1079, as a reward for Otto’s services in Henry’s wars against the Bohemians.63 Orlers also mentions that it was during Otto’s reign that the Emperor granted Guelders its new heraldic armorial, that of the Nassaus.64 In 1339 the county was promoted to a duchy. This was due to the heroic military feats of its then Count, Rinaldus II of Nassau, but also because the Guelders lineages had married frequently with royal lineages, so that a ducal title seemed to do justice to the family’s nobility. As Orlers says, Emperor Louis IV the Bavarian elevated Rinaldus II in the company of the Kings of England and France, his wife’s father and grandfather respectively.65 Unfortunately, Rinaldus II’s sons produced no heirs, so that the Nassau rule in Guelders ended in 1371, after 336 years. Orlers seems to present the Guelders episode as one that was particularly ennobling to the Nassau dynasty, because of the many fine marriages contracted. However, the competition with the Habsburgs had apparently cooled, because at no stage does he compare the early Nassau rule in the Netherlands, and the elevated titles they held, with the contemporary status of the Habsburgs, as Orange and Villiers did in the Apology. Again, the emperors are credited with elevating the Nassaus and a sense of independence from the Empire is entirely absent. This leaves us with King of the Romans Adolf. As I have mentioned already, King Adolf was the only non-Dillenburger or prince of Orange to be honoured with an BEING NASSAU 15 engraving. This in itself establishes his undiminished status as favourite Nassau ancestor. Orlers states that Adolf had served Emperor Rudolf I of Habsburg as a military commander, while his father Walram66 had also been a favourite of Rudolf’s. Adolf’s military exploits and his valour had endeared him so much to the Electors that he was chosen unanimously to succeed Rudolf. Orlers stressed the unanimity of the decision, although he quotes other historians who maintain that some electors had doubts as to Adolf’s ability to be emperor, due to his limited territorial powerbase. Rudolf’s son Albert was passed over, which, Orlers says with an understatement and between brackets, led to some trouble later on.67 The elector palatine had apparently opposed the election of Adolf, which led to a war between the two after Adolf gained power.68 Adolf waged other wars with German princes, which led him to lose the support of the electors — even of his uncle, the Archbishop of Mainz. It was Mainz who incited Rudolf’s son Albert against Adolf. Supported by a broad coalition, Albert defeated and killed Adolf and was elected Emperor himself in Mainz.69 However, God avenged Albert’s unjustified action (as he always does, according to Orlers) in 1600, when Adolf’s heir Maurice defeated Albert’s heir and namesake Archduke Albert at Nieupoort.70 Some differences with the Apology stand out. Orange and Villiers had not mentioned that the Archbishop of Mainz, who crucially withdrew his support from Adolf, was also his uncle. This turns Adolf’s defeat into a family squabble, instead of the early Nassau-Habsburg collision they make of it. Conversely, Orlers does not take the opportunity to connect the episode with the Revolt per se, but skips Orange’s conflicts with Philip II in order to allow Maurice to avenge the insult. Clearly, every generation had its own analogy for the glorious rise and treacherous fall of the Nassau emperor-elect. A generation after William the Silent, the analogy with the Revolt was already rather weak. In his text, Orlers devotes some attention to all his Nassaus, listing their titles, honours, marriages, offspring, and feats. About some he has more to say than others. The Orange line is treated quite extensively, especially Maurice. When discussing the Dillenburg line and the three key ancestors, Engelbert II, Hendrik III, and René, Orlers does not seem to give them too much preferential treatment. These men were part of the very relevant immediate past when Orange and Villiers worked on the Apology, but in the early seventeenth century their history was not as immediate and relevant anymore. In fact, when discussing them Orlers does little more than quote the Apology directly, notably leaving out the parts that accused the Habsburgs of ingratitude toward the three men.71 This practice of favouring only a few generations before one’s own fits in a sixteenth-century preference to chart family progress during a single lifetime.72 The (usually) three generations mentioned embody the ‘living memory’ of the contemporaries. The most important protagonists of Orlers’ genealogy are William of Orange himself and (first and foremost) Maurice. William was, of course, credited with leading the resistance against Alba to liberate ‘our Fatherland’ from his tyranny. For a detailed description of these exploits, Orlers refers to his Nassauschen Lauercrans 16 LIESBETH GEEVERS published a few years earlier.73 All in all, Orlers devotes some four pages to William, while Maurice (obviously the real star of the show) receives a whopping fifteen pages (despite the fact that Maurice’s great feats had also already been publicized in the Nassauschen Lauercrans). The key here seems to be that Maurice had been admitted to the Order of the Garter in 1612 — a fact which could not have been commemorated in the Nassauschen Lauercrans which was published before that time. In fact, Orlers devotes only a few pages to Maurice’s brilliant military career. But then he goes on to say he has brought great fame and honour to the entire Nassau lineage, and James I and VI of England had decided to reward such virtue with the honour of the Garter.74 The next eleven pages are devoted to the publication of James’ letters and description of the entry ceremonies.75 All in all, Orlers harks back to Knüttel’s vision of the Nassau dynasty in a number of surprising ways. Independence of the Empire is not projected as far back into history as it will go, as Orange and Villiers did in the Apology. Rather, the close connection to the emperors is again seen as the foundation of Nassau power and prestige. This is connected to the firm emphasis on the German-ness of the family. Not only its ancestors, but a lot of the contemporary Nassaus discussed are German. The Netherlandish Nassaus of Breda and Orange are given pride of place, but at no moment does Orlers present them as a dynasty of their own, apart from all the German branches. The more nationalistic approach is certainly present, although Orlers had made his point more forcefully in his non-genealogical Nassauschen Lauercrans. But what his genealogy really seems to be about is the justification of the elevation of Maurice of Nassau, culminating in his acceptance into the Order of the Garter. The acceptance of Maurice of Nassau into the English Order of the Garter can, in a way, symbolize the trajectory of the dynasty as a whole. The Garter was the prominent Protestant Order of Chivalry in early modern Europe and, when Maurice joined, international protestant heroes such as King Christian VI of Denmark and the Elector Palatine Frederick V were also members — both would play crucial roles in the Thirty Years War. Orlers makes quite a lot of the fact that Maurice took the spot left vacant by the death of Henry IV of France who had had a promising Calvinist career before becoming a Catholic.76 Maurice was, in short, accepted into the company of the leading Protestant princes of Europe. The Nassaus had arrived. This called for a genealogy celebrating the military exploits and accumulation of honours achieved by generations of Nassaus belonging to several branches. It seemed to call rather less for undignified mudslinging with the Habsburgs. The Nassaus had outgrown that rivalry, which had been the defining characteristic of the Apology, and Orlers’ genealogy was characterized by a much more positive approach. Conclusion The three different genealogical texts we have examined track the Nassaus’ emancipation from Habsburg tutelage: happily accepted by Knüttel, vigorously contested by BEING NASSAU 17 Orange and Villiers, and finally hardly mentioned at all by Orlers. However, this emancipation did not require a strictly Netherlandish genealogical base. Only when Orange and Villiers hotly contested the loyalty the Nassaus supposedly owed the Habsburgs do we see an emphasis on Netherlandish Nassaus. But, for Knüttel, Habsburg patronage was the same as imperial patronage, enjoyed by the dynasty in the Holy Roman Empire since time immemorial. Writing from his German base, he hardly mentioned the Netherlands or its Burgundian Dukes. Here we see the dynastic congruence of interests: both the Habsburgs and the Nassaus are presented as German dynasties that happened to have interests in the Netherlands. These identical interests could only make the cooperation between the two families run more smoothly. Orlers confronts us with a dynasty that is international in scope — Germany looms large, but James I elevates the family to an even higher and more European level. A strictly Netherlandish genealogical base could not provide the lustre that all the Nassau branches combined could. However warmly the individual princes of Orange were lauded for their efforts for the Dutch nation, they were still part of a transnational community of Nassaus. Acknowledgements This paper started life as a dual presentation on the Apology as a family history, which I presented with Dr Roeland Harms in Utrecht, 23 January 2010. I would like to thank Roeland, Dr Yolanda Rodríguez Pérez, and the members of the Utrecht Centre for Early Modern Studies for allowing me to take a new look at the Apology. I would also like to thank my colleague Edwin van der Veldt (Utrecht University), for critically reading an earlier draft of this paper. Notes 1 2 3 4 Peter Arnade, Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots. The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt (Ithaca and London, 2008), pp. 262, 272–80. Daniel R. Horst, ‘“Deur Gods genade vroom in zijn daad”. Het beeld van prins Willem I in propagandaprenten uit de eerste jaren van de Opstand’, in Stadhouders in beeld. Beeldvorming van de stadhouders van Oranje-Nassau in contemporaine grafiek 1570– 1700, ed. by Sabine Craft et al. (Rotterdam, 2006), pp. 15–33 (pp. 31–32). S. Groenveld, ‘“Natie” en “patria” bij zestiendeeeuwse Nederlanders’, in Vaderland. Een geschiedenis van de vijftiende eeuw tot 1940, ed. by N. C. F. van Sas (Amsterdam 1999), pp. 55–82(pp. 77– 79). Mieke B. Smits-Veldt, ‘“Het vaderland” bij Hollandse rederijkers, circa 1580–1625: grondgebied en identiteit’, in Vaderland, pp. 83–108 (pp. 87–89); Anne de Snoo, ‘Maurits bespot of geprezen? Beeldvorming van Maurits in de spot-en zinneprenten van het Bestand (1609–1621)’, inStadhouders in beeld, 5 6 7 8 pp. 51–67 (pp. 64–65); Elmer Kolfin, ‘Voor eenheid, victorie, vrede en welvaart. Beeldvorming van Frederik Hendrik in contemporaine Noord-Nederlandse grafiek ca. 1600–1650’, in Stadhouders in beeld, pp. 69–107 (p. 101). Alastair Duke, ‘William of Orange’s Apology (1580): A New Annotated English Translation with a Brief Introduction’, Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies 22 (1998), 3–96 (p. 6). Olaf Mörke, Willem van Oranje (1533–1584): vorst en ‘vader’ van de Republiek (Amsterdam, 2010). This is a translation of the German original published in 2007, which I have used for literary references. Susan Broomhall and Jacqueline van Gent, ‘In the Name of the Father: Conceptualizing Pater Familias in the Letters of William the Silent’s Children’, Renaissance Quarterly 62 (2009), 1130–66. Broomhall and Van Gent, ‘In the Name of the Father’, p. 1132. 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LIESBETH GEEVERS Broomhall and Van Gent, ‘In the Name of the Father’, pp. 1136–37, 1144. This difference was clearly marked in the funeral processions for the Orange stadholders. See Geert H. Janssen, ‘Political Ambiguity and Confessional Diversity in the Funeral Processions of Stadholders in the Dutch Republic’, Sixteenth Century Journal 40 (2009), 283–301. Catherine Grace Canino, Shakespeare and the Nobility: The Negotiation of Lineage (Cambridge, 2007), p. 4. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 4. For the quotations in this essay I have used Duke’s translation (see note 6). I have based my conclusions on the best Dutch edition of the Apology, P. Loyseleur de Villiers, Apologie ofte verantwoordinge van den Prince van Orangien, ed. by M. Mees-Verwey (Santpoort, 1942). W. Thomas, ‘1492–1992: heropleving van de “Zwarte Legende”?’ Onze alma mater 44 (1992), 394–414. P. J. Blok, Willem de Eerste, Prins van Oranje, ii (Amsterdam, 1933), 158; Martin van Gelderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt 1555–1590 (Cambridge, 1992), p. 152. ‘Ban en edict by forme van proscriptie by den conink van Spangien gedaen tegen den prince van Orangien’, <http://dutchrevolt.leiden.edu/dutch/bronnen/ Pages/1580%2003%2015%20ned.aspx> [accessed 22 October 2010]. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 15. Olaf Mörke, Wilhelm von Oranien (1533–1584): Fürst und ‘Vater’ der Republik (Stuttgart, 2007), pp. 25–27. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 16: ‘when the Emperor therefore gave judgment in my favour, what did he do for me but give me justice and refuse to deny me what the laws, reason, and nature itself gave me?’. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 17. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 20. W. Blockmans and W. Prevenier, De Bourgondiërs. De Nederlanden op weg naar eenheid 1384–1530 (Amsterdam, 1997), pp. 221–26. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 20, translates ‘sinnen ende verstandt’ in the original Dutch as ‘intelligence’, although the Dutch carries more connotations of ‘soundness of minde’. For the Dutch version, see Loyseleur de Villiers, Apologie, p. 36. G. J. R. Maat, G. van den Eynde, and R. W. Mastwijk, ‘De eerste Nassaus in Nederland: identificatie van en paleopathologische bevindingen bij de voorouders van Willem van Oranje, begraven in de Grote of Onze Lieve Vrouwe Kerk te Breda’, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 141 (1997), 2501–13 (p. 2507). Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 21. Duke, ‘Apology’, pp. 31–2. A. Noordzij, Gelre. Dynastie, land en identiteit in de Late Middeleeuwen (Hilversum, 2009), pp. 247–48. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Noordzij, Gelre, p. 83. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 30. Duke, ‘Apology’, p. 31. Dek, Genealogie, p. 13. Dek, Genealogie, p. 13. Kolfin, ‘Voor eenheid, victorie, vrede en welvaart’, p. 70. See, for instance, Van Nierop’s description of the contemporary engraving Alva’s throne: H. F. K. van Nierop, ‘Alva’s throne — Making Sense of the Revolt of the Netherlands’, in The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt, ed. by G. Darby (London and New York, 2001), pp. 29–47 (pp. 29– 30). Arnade, Beggars, p. 279. I have consulted the copy held by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The Hague, 78 H 35. A. S. Korteweg, De boeken van Oranje-Nassau.De biliotheek van de graven van Nassau en prinsen van Oranje in de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw (Den Haag, 1998), pp. 43–4, 48. Wilhelm Knüttel, Epitome stemmatis nobilissimi illustrium dominorum comitum a Nassa (1541), KB 78 H 35, fol. 3r. M. A. Delen, Het hof van Willem van Oranje (Amsterdam, 2002), pp. 116–17. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 5r–5v. See, for instance, Evemarie Clemens, LuxemburgBöhmen, Wittelsbach-Bayern, Habsburg-Österreich und ihre genealogischen Mythen im Vergleich (Trier, 2001); Larry Silver, Marketing Maximilian: The Visual Ideology of a Holy Roman Emperor (Princeton, 2008), esp. ch. 2. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 7r. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 8r. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 8r. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 10v. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 9r. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 9r. Ethan M. Kavaler, ‘Being the Count of Nassau. Refiguring Identity in Space, Time and Stone’, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 46 (1995), 6–51 (p. 11); Hans Cools, Mannen met macht. Edellieden en de moderne staat in de BourgondischHabsburgse landen (1475–1530) (Zutphen, 2001). Epitome stemmatis, fol. 18r. Epitome stemmatis, fol. 19v. Liesbeth Geevers, ‘Family Matters: William of Orange and the Habsburgs After the Abdication of Charles V (1555)’, Renaissance Quarterly 63 (2010), 459–90. Cools, Mannen met macht, pp. 269–72. Dek, Genealogie, p. 67. Cools, Mannen met macht, p. 65. A. W. E. Dek, Genealogie van het vorstenhuis Nassau (Zaltbommel, 1970), p. 7. Geslacht-boom, ‘Toe-eygen-brief’, unfoliated. Geslacht-boom, p. 2. BEING NASSAU 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Plaatsingscode THYSIA 1470. I have used another edition held by the Leiden University Library, 1158 B 11. Paul Hoftijzer, ‘Boeken van “freule Juliana” in de Bibliotheca Thysiana’, Omslag. Bulletin van de Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden en het Scaligerinstituut 3 (2008), 1–3. Catalogus der bibliotheek van Constantijn Huygens verkocht op de Groote Zaal van het Hof te ’s Gravenhage 1688, ed. by W. P. van Stockum and Zoon (Den Haag, 1903), p. 29. Geslacht-boom, p. 8: he mentions five spiritual electors: four archbishops of Mainz and one of Trier. Geslacht-boom, p. 1. Geslacht-boom, pp. 2–4. Geslacht-boom, pp. 8–9. James I and VI of England and Scotland was also mentioned for heaving admitted Maurice to the Order of the Garter. 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 19 Geslacht-boom, p. 71. Geslacht-boom, pp. 71–2. Geslacht-boom, pp. 80–1. Orlers calls Walram ‘Walraven’. Geslacht-boom, p. 88. Geslacht-boom, p. 90. Geslacht-boom, pp. 90–1. Geslacht-boom, pp. 92–3. Geslacht-boom, p. 93. Geslacht-boom, pp. 29–34. Kavaler, ‘Being the Count of Nassau’, pp. 19–20, notices this tendency in the funerary monument Hendrik III erected for his uncle Engelbert II and in a funerary monument erected for Emperor Charles V. Geslacht-boom, p. 111. Geslacht-boom, p. 122. Geslacht-boom, pp. 123–32. Geslacht-boom, p. 122. Notes on contributor Liesbeth Geevers is an Assistant Professor of Political History at Utrecht University. She holds a PhD from the University of Amsterdam on the integration of Orange, Egmont, and Horn in the Spanish-Habsburg monarchy (1559–1567). Her current research interests include early modern diplomacy and dynastic identities. Correspondence to: Liesbeth Geevers, Utrecht University, Drift 10, NL-3512 BS Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: E.M.Geevers@uu.nl.