Punishing dissidence

The punishments of the convicted group of parishioners accused of image-breaking and gheuserie varied. Some were executed, others were banished and their goods confiscated.

One group of iconoclasts was already captured in the first two weeks after iconoclasm.²⁵⁶ A large group fled Ghent before the end of the Wonder Year and never presented themselves before the court. Most of them were banished by the Council of Troubles and lost all their possessions to the government. The son of the iconoclast Jacob de Pruet, Jan de Pruet, was imprisoned for participating in the image-breaking, but was later released and forced to remain in the city of Ghent for six years.²⁵⁷ His father Jacob de Pruet escaped being apprehended by fleeing across the roofs of houses.²⁵⁸ Gyselbrecht Cools was hanged at the Korenmarkt as early as September 1566²⁵⁹, while Matteus de Vlieghere, Pieter Zoetins and Frederick de Buck were beheaded in 1568.²⁶⁰ Gillis Coorne and Jacob Crispijn were hanged at St Veerleplein that same year.²⁶¹ The iconoclast Jan van der Riviere was beheaded at the beginning of 1569. Pieter de Bellemakere, Gooris van den Boomgaerde, Jan van Evenackere, Lievin Henricx, Marc de Mil, Charles Oetghier, Jan Pijls, Christoffel Uutwaes and Jacob de Pruet were banished after they fled. A few men were relatively lucky. After a short imprisonment, Liefkin van der Vennen, Jan Martins, Joos Meijeraert, Jacques de Vlieghere, his father Lievin de Vlieghere and Lievin's wife were set free. It is not clear what happened to the daughter. When Lievin and his wife were already free, she was still in prison.²⁶²

The punishment depended on the impact of the crime on the "social body" and the community. In order to cure the body, the infected part had to be amputated.²⁶³

256 Scheerder, 118–19.

257 Scheerder, ‘Documenten in verband met confiscatie van roerende goederen van hervormingsgezinden te Gent (1567-1568)’, 130.

258 Scheerder, ‘Het Wonderjaar Te Gent, 1566-1567’, 116.

259 Scheerder, 220; Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 226-227 (I).

260 Scheerder, ‘Documenten in verband met confiscatie van roerende goederen van hervormingsgezinden te Gent (1567-1568)’, 207, 221.

261 Scheerder, ‘Het Wonderjaar Te Gent, 1566-1567’, 222; Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 304-310 (III).

262 Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 61–65, 272–79, 281–82, 303-305 (III), 14-16 (IV); Scheerder, ‘Documenten in verband met confiscatie van roerende goederen van hervormingsgezinden te Gent (1567-1568)’, 129, 130, 207, 208, 211, 220, 221; Verheyden, Het Gentse Martyrologium (1530-1595), 1945:40–41.

263 Pieter Spierenburg, The Spectacle of Suffering. Executions and the Evolution of Repression: From a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 5–6; Danielle M. Westerhof,

Depending on the crime, the convicted were treated differently, and the attitude of the person sentenced to death and the form and execution of the punishment influenced how bystanders reacted to an execution. In his chronicle, Van Vaernewijck describes the reactions to many of the executions in Ghent. As only a small proportion of Ghent citizens underwent this fate, some descriptions of the punishments of people from outside St James are also discussed below. This can help us to understand what these "heretics"

believed and how their neighbours and especially Van Vaernewijck assessed them and their punishments. Koen Lamont has argued that Van Vaernewijck’s chronicle reflects a critical attitude towards the persecution of heresy, but many passages also show his approval for punishment of heresy. Vaernewijck had been schepen van the Keure in 1564 and thus must have been directly involved in the persecution and punishment of heretics.

On the other hand, he was also personally involved with and knew many citizens of Ghent and their opinions.²⁶⁴

The cases he describes also illustrate that the convicted had a diverse range of ideas.

On 30 March 1568, the attorney Willem Rutsemeelis was hanged. His confessor was the Dominican Lievinus Van den Bossche, who later declared that Rutsemeelis had died as a good Christian, according to the faith of the Holy Roman Church.²⁶⁵ Whether or not he really had confessed to being a Catholic and his beliefs followed the official Catholic doctrine will remain unknown. Whatever his ideas might have been, his confession to the priest seems to have been enough to reconcile him with the Church. Van Vaernewijck and other bystanders who witnessed his execution were convinced that this person died as a Roman Catholic. An entirely different case involved the roof worker Jan Rooze, who did not say a word and seemed emotionless before he was hanged, even though the Franciscan monks begged him to confess the Catholic faith.²⁶⁶ In contrast to Rutsemeelis, Rooze was not buried in consecrated ground.²⁶⁷

Some descriptions of the executions give more detailed information on the ideas of the convicted. Lieven De Smet was a prominent Calvinist who had brought several preachers to Ghent.²⁶⁸ He used the execution platform to confess his faith. He clearly stated that he did not believe specific dogmas of the Catholic Church and denied, for example, the existence of purgatory and the need to pray for the dead. Interestingly, Van Vaernewijck

‘Amputating the Traitor: Healing the Social Body in Public Executions for Treason in Late Medieval England’, in The Ends of the Body. Identity and Community in Medieval Culture, ed. Suzanne Conklin Akbari and Jill Ross (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2013), 180–85.

264 Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 81, 257.

265 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 303, 304 (III).

266 Van Vaernewijck, 305 (III). “Deze en liet gheen sprake uut hem ghaen vanden eersten totten laetsten, ende hadde Fremenueren, die hem tgheloove anriepen, maer hij en andtwoordde haer niet, ende bleef alzoo onberoerlic als oft hem niet angheghaen en hadde, ende wart alzoo ghehanghen.”

267 Van Vaernewijck, 312, 313 (III).

recorded this, but felt the need to add why De Smet’s ideas were wrong. His counterarguments referred to the first disciples, the Holy Scripture and the long tradition of the Church. These insertions prove Van Vaernewijck’s wish to defend his faith and gives his account a polemic character. The reader is left in no doubt about what Van Vaernewijck believed was the right faith or on whose side he was. Nevertheless, his descriptions seem rather detailed and truthful. Although Rutsemeelis, Rooze and De Smet had aberrant ideas about Christianity, they were still treated differently from the four Anabaptists who were burned at the stake after them. During their execution, soldiers forced the people present to move back in order to prevent them from hearing what the Anabaptists were saying. Van Vaernewijck found this justifiable as he thought that their words were so appealing and contagious that they would seduce the poor.²⁶⁹ Indeed, the heresy of Anabaptism was considered more dangerous and seductive than other forms of Protestantism because it was also linked to social rebellion.²⁷⁰

In April 1568, another three young men were hanged. They clearly showed remorse and Van Vaernewijck related in an emotional tone how all the bystanders witnessed the convicted fall piously on their knees and passionately beg God for forgiveness, confessing their mistakes. They claimed to understand the crime they had committed against the Holy Christian Church and against the government and admitted that they deserved to die.²⁷¹ This dramatic confession had a strong impact on the spectators. One of the men asked the bystanders to pray for his poor soul with a paternoster and an Ave Maria, which they did with compassion. Van Vaernewijck approved of this reaction and stated that

269 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 310 (III). “wel ende rechtelic daerinne doende, mits dat haer woorden zoo antreckende zijn ende besmettende, om taerme ghemeene volc voetsel uut te zughen”.

270 Duke, Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries, 90–97; Guido Marnef, ‘Multiconfessionalism in a Commercial Metropolis: The Case of 16th-Century Antwerp’, in A Companion to Multiconfessionalism in the Early Modern World, ed. Thomas Max Safley, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 28 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011), 75–78; A.L.E. Verheyden, ‘De Doopsgezinden Te Gent (1530-1630)’, Bijdragen Tot de Geschiedenis En Oudheidkunde 1943 (n.d.): 97–130; Verheyden, Het Gentse Martyrologium (1530-1595), 1945:X–XII; Hermina Joldersma and Grijp, eds., Elisabeth’s Manly Courage. Testimonials and Songs of Martyred Anabaptist Women in the Low Countries, Women of the Reformation Series 3 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), 9–13. Marnef also explains the stricter repression of Anabaptists by pointing to their more marginal background. As they played a less important role in Antwerp's economy, the repression of heresy in Antwerp focused more on Anabaptists.

Verheyden has given concrete numbers for their persecution in Ghent during the 16^th century: of the 252 people who were executed because of their faith, 146 were Anabaptists. Apart from 50 iconoclasts, there were also 30 Calvinists and two Lutherans. The beliefs of the others were not known.

271 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 19, 20 (IV).

“want die haer zaghen verwijsen zegghen, hoe minlic zij vielen over beede haer knien, ende hoe hertelic dat zij heere ende wet vergheffenesse baden, belijdende voor alle de weerelt haer abusen ende mesgrijpinghe, hoe dat zij jeghen die Helighe Christen Keercke, ende jeghen die overheijt grootelic mesdaen ende wel de doot verdient hadden. […]”

these men “did not die as heretics or criminals but as sincere, Christian and virtuous men of whom he could only write in tears of gratitude towards God and compassion towards his fellow men”.²⁷² The deep emotional involvement of Van Vaernewijck and the bystanders with the “conversion” of their fellow citizens is remarkable. The reconciliation of these “misguided” townsmen seems to have been viewed positively by everyone, and despite the fact that compassion was shown and tears were flowing, Van Vaernewijck did not question the execution itself. Executions remained a necessary part of the justice system.²⁷³ In his diary, he mentioned that this was in agreement with the edict (bloedplakkaat) that stated that heretics who repented also had to be executed.²⁷⁴

There is no strong differentiation in his approach to iconoclasts and those convicted for heresy, as De Boer has made. In his account, Van Vaernewijck even gave six separate points for justifying the death penalty for heretics, proving he was not a moderate Catholic.²⁷⁵ In particular, those guilty of spreading heresy deserved capital punishment.²⁷⁶ Of course, the fact that he extensively defended the execution of purely religious dissidents can be interpreted as meaning that he felt most people did not agree with this approach to heresy and therefore he had to give arguments to defend it. Indeed, when defending the punishments he sometimes explicitly referred to the people who opposed the harsh sentences for heretics: “de ghene die zouden willen zegghen, dat zij

272 Van Vaernewijck, 18-21 (IV). “Een van de mannen vroeg de omstaanders dat zij zouden willen over zijn aerme ziele over haer knien eenen Paternoster ende Ave Maria lesen, dat welcke tvolck met compassien beweecht zijnde, zoo wel Spaensche soldaten als andere, alzoo ghedaen hebben, vallende up haer knien up de maerct oft kelsije, dwelc zeer eerlic ende goddelic ghedaen was, [...].ende elc omme gheghaen hebbende up tschavot, en zijn niet als bouven oft heretijcken, maer als zeer christelicke ende duechdelicke mannen ghestorven, dat welcke ic zonder tranen niet en hebbe connen scrijven, van dancbaerheijt tot Godt ende compassie tot mijnen even naesten beweecht zijnde.”

273 Spierenburg, The Spectacle of Suffering. Executions and the Evolution of Repression: From a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience, 54–55, 81–109. Executions, of course, were never considered pleasant, but rather as something edifying, an example. In that sense, executions were regarded as positive.

274 Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 258.

275Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 24-25 (IV).

“zoo dat zij bij dien ende bij ghoddelicke ende weerlicke rechten, som wel in VI pointen

die doot verdient hadden. Om dit te prouven, zoo willen wij daer toe nemen hem die scheen de eerlicste te zijne vande bovenghenoumde, te weten Lievin De Smet”.

276Van Vaernewijck, 5–6, 7, 17–18, 19, 21, 24-26 (IV); Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 257–68. Lamont has discussed Van Vaernewijck's nuanced but strict views on heresy in detail. Van Vaernewijck writes: “Tes ooc groote blamacie ende ingurie een ketter zijn”, “hij starf om tvervalschen vanden woorde Godts, ghelijck een valsch muntenare sConincx munte conterfeijt ende corrumpeert”, “Wij mochten willen, dat die nieu predicanten in pasteije vleesch ghecapt hadden gheweest, dan dat zij zoo menighe ziele verleet ende bedorven hebben, die nemmermeer om winnen oft om bekeeren en zullen zijn”, “zoo dat naer alle redenen ende rechten wel moet ende zal den mont ghestopt werden vande ghene die zouden willen zegghen, dat zij ontschuldich oft onnooselic steerven, ende dat men over hemlien de doot andoende tijranniseert”.

ontschuldich oft onnooselic steerven, ende dat men over hemlien de doot andoende tijranniseert”.²⁷⁷ He also explained that it was necessary to obey the government and referred to a text by St Paul to prove it.²⁷⁸ This polemical side and strong aversion to Protestantism was not unique to Van Vaernewijck. Many other Catholics who recorded the events or troubles in their diaries wrote accusations, mocked the Reformed religion and opposed the spread of Reformed ideas. Pollmann has mentioned, among others, Nicolas Soldoyer, Katherina Boudewyns, Anna Bijns and the Ghent cloth merchant Cornelis van Campene, whose account will be used in this study as well.²⁷⁹

However, other parts of his account clearly show that Van Vaernewijck and many other townspeople found that the ghuesche troublemakers or sectarians were being punished too harshly.²⁸⁰ The persecution and rising number of executions persuaded many people of Ghent, including priests, to demand that no more names of gheusen be given to the higher authorities. This was also for the sake of the city’s name, which would be discredited by these events.²⁸¹ Clearly, Van Vaernewijck himself and many other burghers of Ghent had a high regard for the good name of the city and civic peace.

Furthermore, he used the phrase “onghesnoerde tonghen” (blabbermouths) for those who denounced fellow citizens to the higher authorities, which indicates that he believed that not everyone who had been involved needed to be punished. Van Vaernewijck thus also

277 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 24-25 (IV).

“those who would want to say that they [heretics] died innocently and that they were terrorized to death”.

278 Van Vaernewijck, 200 (II). “Want heeren zullen ende moeten heeren zijn, als bouven bouven zijn. Die een ghemeente dient en dient niemant. In de weerelt moet een oorden ende beschick zijn. Daerom zecht wel Paulus:

die de hoverheijt wederstaet, die wederstaet die ordinancie Godts.”

279 Pollmann, ‘Countering the Reformation in France and the Netherlands: Clerical Leadership and Catholic Violence 1560-1585’, 93–94; Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1520-1635, 61–66, 122.

280 Scheerder, ‘Het Wonderjaar Te Gent, 1566-1567’, 121; Pollmann, Catholic Identity and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1520-1635, 18, 19. Pollmann has also analysed this more moderate side of Van Vaernewijck.

281 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 15 (IV).

“[…]want ziende die groote vervolghijnghe ende bloetsturtijnghe over die ghuesen, zoo werden veel priesteren ende gheestelicke mannen beweecht ende ooc veel weerlicke catholijcque, om meerder bloetsturtijnghe te mijden, zoo dat zij (al wisten zij wel wie daer inne beschuldich hadden gheweest) niet openbaren noch noumen en wilden, ende verboden sommighe costers ende keerckendienaers, die onghesnoerde tonghen hadden, die sommighe personen, die haer mesgrepen hadden, noumende waren, dat zij zulcx niet meer doen en zouden;

want schepenen en sochten ooc niet die groote multitude van tanbringhen van zulcke mesdadighe, die stadt warter ooc bij gheblameert.” See also pp. 5-6, 17-18, 19-21, 24 (IV): “maer vele dochten, dat zij veel redelicker ghedaen hadden, dat zij metten verdoolden meinsche compassie ende medelijde ghehadt hadden”, “tVolck vander stadt ghijnck dees deerlicheijt zoo naer, dat zijt niet zeer en begheerden te ziene”, “zoo werden veel priesteren ende gheestelicke mannen beweecht ende ooc veel weerlicke catholijcque, om meerder bloetsturtijnghe te mijden, zoo dat zij (al wisten zij wel wie daer inne beschuldich hadden gheweest) niet openbaren noch noumen en wilden”.

made a plea for compassion for certain wrongdoers.²⁸² He was defenitely not the only one.

It was clear that many people abhorred the cruelty of the Spanish soldiers in their treatment of the prisoners who were being executed, especially after the arrival of Alva.²⁸³

Already before iconoclasm, the idea that heresy was being punished too harshly had gained popularity, both among ordinary people and local political figures.²⁸⁴ When the magistrate of Ghent was trying to form the guard in the weeks before iconoclasm, Van Vaernewijck heard similar criticism. Men refused to contribute to the guard and one of the reasons for their refusal to protect the clergy was de “tijrannije over de onnoosele ende onbeschuldighe, die haer gheerne vander weerelt vervremden ende aftrecken zouden ende den nauwen wech (die Christus leert) inneghaen”.²⁸⁵ Although the Beeldenstorm complicated matters and crimes other than heresy had to be punished, there was a continuity between the protests before and after iconoclasm.

Despite the fact that Van Vaernewijck was a proponent of the death penalty for obstinate heretics, he strongly opposed cruelty.²⁸⁶ He was relieved when prisoners were freed²⁸⁷ and made pleas for compassion for those who were to be executed for heresy.²⁸⁸ This plea for compassion, consisting of about 20 arguments, was even more extensive than his plea for the execution of heretics. Van Vaernewijck stated, among other things, that these heretics had been Christians like them and they were defective just like all of Adam’s children, but they had been misled by Satan dressed as an angel of light. Although they had been misled they were often more passionate and diligent in their godly service (even though it was false) than many Catholics. Furthermore, the bad state of the Church and the behaviour of many clerics had pushed them into heresy and the fact that many members of the elite were in favour of Protestantism had also added to its attraction. The

282Van Vaernewijck, 24 (IV); Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 261–68.

283 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 311-312 (III).

“dwelck tvolck niet gheerne en zach”.

284 Van Bruaene, De Gentse Memorieboeken Als Spiegel van Stedelijk Historisch Bewustzijn (14de Tot 16de Eeuw), 236. Here you find the example of criticism of the Catholic rhetorician Joos vander Stoct on the execution of a mother and daughter in 1564.

285 Van Vaernewijck, Van Die Beroerlicke Tijden in Die Nederlanden, En Voornamelick in Ghendt, 1566-1568, 60 (I). “their tyranny over simple and innocent people who only wanted to leave the world in order to walk the narrow path as Christ had taught”.

286Van Vaernewijck, 311, 313 (III), 1, 2, 5–6, 15, 16–17, 18 (IV).“die aerme pacienten”, Welck eenen weermoet dat haer overquam mach elck wel dijncken!”, “twaren sommighe Spaensche soldaten te Ghendt diet upghaven, die tijrannich van herten waren ende moghelic zulcke wreetheijt gheerne ghezien hadden”, “dwelc ghruwelic om zien was”, “dattet gruwelic om horen es”.

287Van Vaernewijck, 15–16, 22 (IV).“Up den voornoemden dach werden te Ghendt (Ghode lof!) zes mannen, die ter causen van tbreken ghevanghen waren, ontsleghen”.

288 Lamont, Het Wereldbeeld van Een Zestiende-Eeuwse Gentenaar Marcus van Vaernewijck, 265–68.