In this chapter I focuss on the specific case of the Duchy of Jülich. A war of succession at the early seventeenth century had led to considerable turmoil: the emperor did not recognise Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm as a legitimate heir. As de facto ruler, the duke attempted to protect his inhabitants by establishing an army. Conducting war was a considerable financial burden. As long as the war lasted the financialpressure on the principality increased and criticism grew. The nobility’s cry for help was voiced in invitations to join in an assembly in the Free City of Cologne to discuss the welfare of the fatherland. All loyal patriots were invited. During these meetings, the patriots drafted pamphlets to inform both German and Dutch speaking readers about the turmoil they faced and about the possible misuse of power by the duke. It was only after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that the duke acknowledged the nobilities best intentions for the not their(!) fatherland.
In the early months of 1645, the nobility of the German principality of Jülich assembled in a convent in Cologne. They wanted to discuss what they perceived to be an abuse of sovereign power by Wolfgang Wilhelm, Count Palatine of Neuburg, Duke of Jülich and Berg. They accused Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm of excessive taxation and attempting to implement an absolutus Dominatus in their principality.Footnote 1 The duke could not prevent this assembly because Cologne was outside his jurisdiction.Footnote 2 The attending nobility considered themselves patriots, and claimed to act out of patriotic affection for their beloved fatherland and its inhabitants.Footnote 3 They referred to themselves, explicitly, as loyal patriots.Footnote 4 The use of this terminology implied that the nobles saw themselves as acting for the greater good of the fatherland. As such, they shifted the focus to their deeds, rather than the duke’s perceived misbehaviour. The Catholic Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm was not born in the principality, nor was he officially recognised by the emperor as ruler over Jülich. The nobles’ statement implied that they considered the duke to be but a temporary ruler who had come to power as a result of the war of succession (1609–1614).Footnote 5 As an already contested duke, the nobility considered his overstepping of boundaries an even greater offence than if he had been a de jure ruler.
The above example illustrates how the nobility of Jülich reacted to the ongoing warfare due to the severe threat it was perceived to pose to the inhabitants, the dominant position of the nobility, and the means of existence within the principality. The small German Duchy of Jülich was situated at the western border of the Holy Roman Empire. The principality was rich in resources, had a population of just 215,000, and only a few nobles.Footnote 6 Like in the other Lower Rhine principalities, most people in Jülich were Catholics, with about 25% of the inhabitants adhering to one of the protestant religions. The Niederrhein principalities were involved in agriculture, mining (coal and iron), and the textile industry.Footnote 7 As such, the area was an essential granary for the region.
The Lower Rhine principalities, including Jülich, were involved in a war of succession between 1608 and 1614. The provisional Treaty of Xanten (1614) failed to resolve the succession issues, only postponing the decision. Neither the inhabitants of Jülich nor the emperor accepted Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm as the new ruler of Jülich. Throughout the Thirty Years’ War, this unresolved succession caused tension and conflict. The duke wished to protect ‘his’ principalities Jülich and Berg, but he faced severe difficulties and opposition when endeavouring to obtain the consent of the nobility. He attempted to remain neutral by buying off armed forces. Unfortunately, this policy resulted not only in soaring costs but also in attracting soldiers in search of money. The longer the war lasted, the more difficult it became for the troops to acquire enough food and money, and for the armies to recruit fresh troops. The nobles felt the duke’s actions harmed the principality; they objected to taxation without their prior consent. These actions all added to their fear that the duke sought to extend his power at their expense. The deteriorating situation had four causes. Firstly, Jülich and Berg were obliged to pay 36,000 and 24,000 Reichsthaler respectively, each year.Footnote 8 Secondly, in 1642 Emperor Ferdinand III (1608–1657) believed that both principalities needed the imperial troops’ defensive presence—at their own expense.Footnote 9 Thirdly, taxes, billeting soldiers, and theft burdened the subjects of the principalities heavily.Footnote 10 When such payments were not made in full, or were simply late, noblemen were held hostage until full payment had been received. Lastly, the nobility of Jülich and Berg objected to the duke’s policy and blamed him for causing trouble.
Consequently, the nobility met to discuss the welfare of their principality. They claimed that Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had caved in to the demands of the Hessian landgravine, forcing ‘his’ people to pay the price and suffer the consequences. Referring to the war of succession (1609–1614), during which Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had taken control of the principalities of Jülich and Berg and became their de facto ruler, the Imperial commander Lamboy pointed out that the duke may not have been acting in the best interest of the inhabitants of his principality.Footnote 11 The nobility used historical examples specific to Jülich to counter the harmful policy of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm. The new duke had started on the wrong foot, which three examples can illustrate. Firstly, he inherited the duchies and only became a de facto ruler as Emperor Matthias (1557–1619) did not acknowledge the succession. Secondly, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm converted to Catholicism shortly before accepting governance over the principalities of Jülich and Berg, where the population was predominantly Lutheran. Thirdly, the duke was forced to allow soldier billeting, from which he extracted large sums of money as well as food from the population. This combination of factors elicited an angry response from the nobility.
The invitations to nobless assemblies, and the pamphlets written at these events referred to participants as loyal patriots. They were called to assembly to discuss protecting the welfare and prosperity of the fatherland. Salient to the argumentation of the nobility was that the illegal taxes seriously harmed the inhabitants of Jülich. Although not all amounts are known, the perceived impact was enormous. The population decreased, and material damages as well as the costs of the billeting of soldiers added to this perception. As payments had to be prompt, for example, needing to be delivered within a few days, a lot of pressure was placed upon the inhabitants as a result, as impatient soldiers demanded their earnings. The pamphlets and letters show that there was not much room to negotiate any delay in payment. Despite the nobility’s protests, troops poured into the duchy, setting up camps and billeting soldiers in houses. With the exception of billeting soldiers, these activities had been common practice during the first part of the Thirty Years’ War. However, from 1640 onwards, military activities intensified and were scaled up. By the autumn of 1640, the living conditions in Jülich had deteriorated enormously. Imperial Commander Guillaume de Lamboy (±1590–1659) had stationed his troops in the south, while the Hessian troops had settled in the north with the support of the French.Footnote 12
In this chapter, I provide an overview of the discussions and deploy the above-sketched argumentation the nobility of Jülich had. The pamphlets and letters from the nobility will play a pivotal role in explaining their focus. Rainer Walz has studied the activities of the Landstände , but he did not specifically focus on their use of terminology. He did notice that the nobility did not eagerly accept Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm’s policy and did object. To understand the tensions between the nobility and the duke, I discuss the dynastic lineage and the history of the principality from the sixteenth century until the 1650s. This overview allows the contextualisation of the archival sources.
1 Jülich’s Early History Until the War of Succession (1609–1614)
The dynastic agglomerate Jülich-Guelders fell apart shortly after the death of heirless Duke Rainald of Jülich-Guelders (c.1365–1423). Duke Adolf (c.1370–1437) succeeded in gaining control over Jülich and Guelders and merged them with the Duchy of Berg, and the County of Ravensberg in a personal union in 1423.Footnote 13 After Adolf’s death, these principalities were separated and redistributed among various heirs. During the Third Guelderian War of Succession (1538-1543) Wilhelm V, ‘the Rich’, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg, (1516–1592) attempted to regain Guelders and unite the entities again. His Landstände and those of Guelders and of Zutphen welcomed this attempt.Footnote 14 This way, conversions to Catholicism could be averted.Footnote 15 However, the other claimant—Emperor Charles V (1500–1558)—besieged the city of Düren (in Jülich) in 1543 to ward off the claims of Wilhelm V. An army of 30 to 40,000 men pillaged and burned the city. Wilhelm V was eventually forced to sign the Treaty of Venlo (7 September 1543).Footnote 16 With this treaty, authority over Guelders passed to Charles V.
Wilhelm V maintained control of his other principalities for 52 years, until his death in 1592. His only surviving son Johann Wilhelm (1562–1609) succeeded him. In 1585, Duke Johann Wilhelm of Jülich-Cleves-Berg (1562–1609) married Jacoba of Baden-Baden (1558–1597). Five years into a childless marriage, the worried nobility started to look for potential successors. The nephews of the duke were probable heirs.Footnote 17 The nobility openly discussed the possibility to ask the duke to annul the current marriage and remarry.Footnote 18 However, any divorce would have met with strong opposition from the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II (1552–1612), as well as the curie. The problems surrounding a divorce were resolved when Jacoba suddenly passed away in 1597, under suspicious circumstances.Footnote 19 The negotiations to conclude a new marriage soon commenced.Footnote 20 In 1599, Duke Johann Wilhelm married Antonia of Lorraine (1568–1610). Unfortunately, this union did not result in any offspring either (Map 3.1).
Claimants to the enfeoffment of the Lower-Rhine Area presented themselves to Emperor Rudolf II even before Duke Johann Wilhelm’s death on 25 March 1609. Among them were Johann George I. Prince-Elector of Saxony—based upon an old agreement—and the duke’s close relatives (see below): the houses of Brandenburg, Palatinate-Neuburg, Palatinate-Zweibrücken, and Burgau. In addition, the various Habsburg families expressed an interest in the regional developments, as did the Dutch Republic, France, England, Denmark, and Sweden.Footnote 21 Furthermore, several diets, curies, and both the Protestant and Catholic leagues, closely monitored the course of events (Fig. 3.1).Footnote 22
This broad political interest in the Lower-Rhine succession was due to the economic strength and geographical position of its principalities, which bordered on Spanish and Dutch provinces as well as on the river Rhine.Footnote 23 The Dutch Republic felt seriously threatened by the idea of a potential Catholic ally of the emperor ruling a neighbouring principality and sided with the Protestants. Since the Lower-Rhine Area was bordering the Republic’s most vulnerable river-area, it was considered risky for it to be ruled by a pro-Spanish Catholic prince.Footnote 24 A river-entry had been made by the Spanish commander Ambrogio Spínola Doria, Marquis of the Balbases (1569–1630), in 1605-6, when he invaded the Republic. As such, the Dutch had legitimate cause for concern.Footnote 25
Three different legal justifications formed the basis of the claims held by relatives of the late duke and by the House of Saxony to inherit the Lower Rhine principalities.Footnote 26 Firstly, a claim based upon an old privilege. In 1483, Albrecht III (1443–1500), Duke of Saxony, had gained the right to inherit the Lower-Rhine principalities. Emperor Friedrich III (1415–1493) had granted this privilege, and Maximilian I as King of the Romans (1459–1519) confirmed it in 1486 to both Duke Albrecht III and Elector Ernst of Saxony (1441–1486). The right to inherit the principalities had never been revoked, though arguably, this particular right applied solely to the Albertine dynasty and not to the Ernestine line of the House of Saxony. It was, therefore, generally considered to be a relatively weak claim.Footnote 27
Much stronger claims could be based upon a privilege granted by Emperor Charles V to William ‘the Rich’ in 1546, the Privilegium Successionis (Eng: Succession Privilege). This privilege stipulated that any male child of the eldest sister’s family line would be considered to be heir to the principality when the male line had died out. However, two different interpretations—and thus justifications—of this privilege exist. The first interpretation reads that if the first possible female line lacked male heirs—whether they be sons or grandsons—another sister’s sons would become eligible. The husband of Johann Wilhelm’s niece Anna, Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg (1572–1619), considered that his son fulfilled this requirement. This son, Georg Wilhelm, (1595–1640) was the great-nephew of the deceased duke and secured the future succession. According to this argument, it was important that the eldest sister had male offspring; however, it did not matter whether this was a son or a grandson—as would be the case of the House of Brandenburg. The second interpretation of this same privilege reads that the eldest nephew of the late duke should be considered to be the next in line to inherit the fief. Consequently, no claims could be made by a grand-nephew as only nephews were eligible. This interpretation excluded the House of Brandenburg and offered Wolfgang Wilhelm the possibility of claiming his late uncle’s fief.
In addition to the Succession Privilege, the Privilegium Unionis (Eng: Unification Privilege) had been bestowed on the principalities by Emperor Charles V in 1546. Such a Unification Privilege prevented the separation of the principalities without the emperor’s consent in case of succession. Due to these various rules, privileges, and treaties, the succession became a highly complicated matter with many stakeholders.
In June 1609, Landgrave Maurice of Hesse-Cassel (1572–1632) arbitrated in Dortmund between the two Lutheran princes of Brandenburg and Neuburg, and an agreement was reached concerning the succession.Footnote 28 The result was a treaty which allowed a joint government overall Lower-Rhine principalities.Footnote 29 With 75% of the total population of the combined principalities being Catholic, changes towards Lutheranism were deemed unlikely.Footnote 30 The treaty, therefore, stipulated the guarantee of the religious status quo. Despite the quick outcome and otherwise peaceful conclusion, Emperor Rudolf II (1552–1612) objected to the Dortmund Treaty. At Rudolf’s request, Archduke Leopold V of Further Austria (1586–1632) occupied the town of Jülich, and forces were drawn to the borders of the Palatinate as the emperor wanted to favour other claimants.Footnote 31 Military tensions rose, as the two Lutheran princes could rely on the support of the Dutch Republic, England, and France.Footnote 32 Religion seemed to have become the focal point of—what later became known as—the first crisis in the war of succession.Footnote 33 Shortly after the Treaty of Dortmund, Landgrave Maurice of Hesse-Cassel was reminded of an ancient heritage-oath (Erbeinigung).Footnote 34 This alliance, which had been passed down for generations, was meant to protect ruling families from fighting and harming each other’s interests.Footnote 35 Houses of Hesse, Saxony, and Brandenburg had concluded this heritage oath. It collided with this treaty of Dortmund, and it endangered the alliance between the Protestant dukes.Footnote 36 As a result, Landgrave Maurice was forced to withdraw his support and keep his distance. With three possible successors—the Houses of Saxony, Brandenburg, and Neuburg—each referring to a different privilege, it was painful to (re-)establish an uncontested peace.
On 11 February 1610, just months before to the murder of King Henry IV of France (1553–1610), the Treaty of Hall (in Swabia) was signed.Footnote 37 The treaty aimed to secure the claims of the Houses of Brandenburg and Neuburg. To secure the princes’ government, other parties—such as the Dutch Republic, England, and France—discussed military involvement.Footnote 38 The unexpected death of Henry IV, in May 1610, did not undermine French involvement in the conflict, but France’s ability to act decelerated as a result of the loss their inspiring force and financier.Footnote 39 The truce with Spain muted the Dutch, too, in defending the interests of the Houses of Brandenburg and Palatine of Neuburg. Helping the Protestant princes just across the Republic’s borders by providing a supporting force of 12,250 men could result in the Dutch having to fight Spanish Habsburg troops and potentially breach the truce.Footnote 40 Although it was not certain that any fighting would occur, it became more likely when Archduke Leopold went to Prague to claim the principalities on behalf of Emperor Rudolf II.Footnote 41 The Dutch, with French assistance, regained the fortress of the city of Jülich, while the Spanish troops occupied the city of Wesel, in the Duchy of Cleves.Footnote 42 Although the emperor had not provided the archduke with military forces, it was clear that the archduke had his consent.
In the meantime, Johann George I, Prince-Elector of Saxony wished to collaborate in governing the Lower-Rhine Area. Negotiations with Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg had been successful, and the two princes had drawn up a revision of the Hall Treaty. This revision is known as the Treaty of Jüterbog (March 1611), which now had to be ratified by the third party directly involved: the House of Palatine Neuburg.Footnote 43 Neither the emperor approved of it, nor did Philip Louis, Count Palatine of Neuburg (1547–1614), father to Wolfgang Wilhelm, agree to the alterations of the Hall Treaty.Footnote 44 Subsequently, Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg withdrew his initial support to the Jüterbog proposal. However, it was too late, as he had lost much of his credibility by negotiating in the first place.
Nevertheless, the House of Wittelsbach—to which Count Palatine of Neuburg belonged—was left to explain to its international allies why it had not assented to the Jüterbog plan in the first place, it having been designed to lead to peace. The allies stressed the importance of reopening the negotiations. However, the emperor beat them to it by initiating a neutral committee to prepare a cordial agreement with all principal claimants.Footnote 45 Both the Catholic League and its Protestant counterpart then attempted to strengthen their positions by luring the Prince-Elector of Saxony into their camp. At the same time, the emperor attempted to reform the Catholic alliance to benefit the interests of all princes, in a similar attempt to woo the House of Saxony.Footnote 46 This tug-of-war lasted until 1614.
Wolfgang Wilhelm of Neuburg converted to Catholicism on 19 July 1613.Footnote 47 He was perhaps prompted by anxiety that Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg might acquire the principalities for his son, or perhaps because he feared that another Catholic prince—other than one of the previously mentioned claimants—might be favoured. His interests in the Catholic princess Magdalena of Bavaria (1587–1628) certainly also contributed to the religious change. His conversion was kept a secret—even from his father—until 25 May 1614. From this date on, inhabitants of newly founded convents arrived in Jülich and Berg.Footnote 48 Protestant believers in Jülich and Berg received a reassurance: as fellow-Christians, they needed not to convert.Footnote 49 Catholic princes united together, with the backing of Spain and Austria, to support Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm. At the same time, Georg Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg, changed his religious preference to Calvinism. This conversion ensured his alliance with England and the Dutch Republic, as well as with other Protestant principalities, e.g. the Palatinate.Footnote 50
The tension increased in early 1614, and the threat of another war was imminent. The Northern Netherlands preferred to see peace restored at its border. Military governor Frederik van Pithan (1552–1632) of the Dutch forces felt the need to request more troops on 5 May:Footnote 51 a second crisis started. The movement of Dutch troops was interpreted as an act of aggression, despite explanatory letters sent to both the Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector Brandenburg and the Duke of Neuburg. The Republic was, after all, helping the Calvinist pretender, and even expelled the Catholic contester from Düsseldorf.Footnote 52 In August, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm requested the help of 15,000 soldiers from the Habsburg Netherlands to secure his control.Footnote 53 Finally, under the supervision of France and England, the truce was ratified in November.Footnote 54
The Treaty of Xanten of 12 November 1614 concluded the war of succession and warfare finally ceased. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm and Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg were both acknowledged to be heirs of the land, but not accorded the status of de jure rulers.Footnote 55 The treaty itself was a provisional agreement dividing the government over the lands; it did not divide the dynastic agglomerate, as this would go against the imperial Privilegium Unionis of 1546.Footnote 56 This arrangement was meant to avoid more conflict but failed, as the religious disputes did not end. The prince-elector wanted freedom of religion, whereas Wolfgang Wilhelm did not.Footnote 57 It all came down to a conflict of interest, over how best to govern principalities and their churches, especially since both possessors had changed faith. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm accepted the influence of the bishops, whereas Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg did not.Footnote 58 The bishops’ influence would be accepted until 1624—the year of additional provisional agreements on religious matters.Footnote 59 From that year onwards, Protestant meetings were forbidden; 4 years later, the Protestant Latin School in the principality of Jülich closed.Footnote 60
2 Jülich Until the Peace of Prague (1635)
Despite the Provisional Treaty of Xanten, the inhabitants of the principalities had difficulty accepting either Johann Sigismund, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg, and his successor Georg Wilhelm, or Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm. Failure to honour existing privileges and to obtain the nobility’s consent in matters of taxations contributed to the tense relationship. The emperor did not accept the two princes as legitimate heirs either.
In 1621, Spínola sent 10,000 men to the town of Jülich in order to secure the land west of the river Rhine. As the Spanish-Dutch truce had ended, the principality of Jülich was seen as an advantageous base of operations. The nobility of the nearby Duchy of Berg protested against the presence of Dutch garrisons stationed in its principality. In addition, the two de facto rulers Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm and Georg Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg opposed each other’s religious policies.Footnote 61 The Spanish soldiers extorted the inhabitants of the principality of Jülich. The Dutch tried to influence policy by way of catching and stretching (Germ.: Fangen und Spannen) hostages, especially clergymen.Footnote 62 In response, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm raised an army of 2500 men to protect both ‘his’ principalities, and he even managed to control the County of Ravensberg in 1622 temporarily.
In 1624, this was the first Landtag since the assembly of 1611. Many grievances were put forward, caused by the problematic situation. The nobility eventually consented to the requested taxation but only for defensive military purposes.Footnote 63 However, more was levied than previously agreed. This discrepancy led to opposition from the nobility, as the money was spent on an army to fight the Georg Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg. A new Landtag convened in 1625. It seemed that the duke attempted to gain the upper hand during this meeting, while the nobility emphasised their privileges. These privileges included the right to organise assemblies without the duke’s presence, as part of the ‘landständische’ freedom (ständische Freiheit), and subsequently, they organised just such an assembly.Footnote 64
As a consequence of the unauthorised increases in taxation in 1624 and 1625, the nobility lodged a complaint at the Aulic Court in 1626, hoping to obtain a verdict concerning the violation of their privileges.Footnote 65 Indeed, in 1627 a Pönal mandat (Engl.: penal mandate) was issued to prevent taxation without the necessary consent of the nobility.Footnote 66 This Mandatum cassatorium et inhibitoriumFootnote 67 stated that Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm would be fined 100 Goldmark if he ignored the nobility’s privileges again. The duke’s presence in court caused a suspension of the ruling; however, this did not mean that his actions were accepted. The emperor himself vouched for the nobility’s safety and their protection.
A year later, imperial military victories threatened the position of the duke. These successes reaffirmed that the emperor could reclaim and regain the Lower-Rhine Area by force. The duke undermined his position even further by—again—requisitioning taxes without consent. The emperor had guaranteed the safety of the nobility, and a new legal complaint was filed. During the long Landtag (Sept. 1628-April 1629) the Prince-Electors of Bavaria and Cologne mediated.Footnote 68 On the agenda were: (1) the duke’s willingness to participate in warfare; (2) the levying of taxes without consent; and (3) the exercise of office by foreign employees. They reached a compromise on 25 March 1629, in which neither of the complainants gained the upper-hand.Footnote 69 The Landstände sought the emperor’s recognition of this compromise. However, if they did not succeed, they could go to the Aulic Court to pursue legal recognition and enforcement of the compromise.Footnote 70 At the next Landtag in 1631, it became clear that both the Landstände and the duke had accepted the compromise.
Between 1629 and 1631, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm and Georg Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg made an agreement not to dispute each other’s claims for 25 years, which should prevent them from losing the Lower-Rhine principalities.Footnote 71 Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm also concluded a neutrality pact with both the Spanish and the Dutch, with the required consent of the emperor himself.Footnote 72 Emperor Ferdinand II had allowed Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm to pursue this in 1630 and accordingly acknowledged the successful agreement (1635).Footnote 73 Despite the acclaimed neutrality, troops continued to march through the principality as a result of its ideal geographical location.Footnote 74
In 1632, foreign troops started plundering the principalities of Jülich and Berg once again. First the Swedish armies, then the imperial forces, and later on the Hessian troops all passed through the Lower-Rhine Area, leaving destruction in their wake. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm struggled not to enter the war, but peculiarly enough, it was the emperor himself who caused problems when it came to maintaining the precarious balance.Footnote 75 Firstly, the emperor used the principalities of Jülich as the assembly point for his troops. Secondly, the emperor seemed to assume that long-term billeting would not cause any problems.Footnote 76 Thirdly, the imperial army had to be financially supported by the inhabitants, even after the Peace of Prague (1635). Fourthly, the burdens of war—such as arson, damage to houses and fruit trees by soldiers, the severe disruption of trade, and extortion—were seen as unavoidable, and generally took place with impunity.Footnote 77 The emperor did not consider any of these issues to impede the neutrality of Jülich.
In 1633, the nobility did not attend the Landtag altogether in protest. Their absence meant that it was impossible to obtain approval for taxations. As a result, the duke’s levying of taxes became illegal.Footnote 78 However, between 1635 and 1649, the nobility established their system to tax the commoners, concerning their traditional privileges.Footnote 79 Unable to communicate with the duke’s council, the nobles assembled in 1634 without notifying him, pointing to their right to organise assemblies.Footnote 80 While gathered, the nobility criticised princely politics. This critique focussed on two main issues: (1) that the nobility had not been consulted; and, (2) that the duke’s armed forces remained present in the principality.
2.1 Until the Peace of Westphalia (1648)
In January 1636 a pamphlet was distributed in the Duchies of Jülich and Berg announcing the imperial request to provide 2000-foot soldiers as well as 300 horses.Footnote 81 The request could not be refused, despite the expressed understanding that this would burden the principalities. The pamphlet stressed that the contribution was necessary to provide the principality’s defences. The situation in Jülich-Berg and Cleves-Mark deteriorated even further from 1639 onward: armed forces from Hesse-Cassel invaded the Lower-Rhine Area in need of resources and recruits.Footnote 82 These troops successfully applied pressure on Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm, resulting in monthly fees totalling 60,000 Reichsthaler per year: 36,000 Reichsthaler for Jülich, 24,000 for Berg.Footnote 83 The duke had hoped that these payments would result in the withdrawal of troops, but instead, they attracted more foreign troops who hoped to extract money. These included imperial forces in 1642, who claimed that they constituted a protective presence, since neutrality was impossible.Footnote 84 Consequently, the people of Jülich and Berg paid higher taxes and experienced an increase in the billeting of soldiers.Footnote 85 The nobility blamed the deterioration of affairs on the duke’s policy, which the nobility had previously objected.
In mid-January of 1642, the town of Uerdingen was besieged.Footnote 86 The presence of the various armed forces resulted in the only battle fought in the Lower-Rhine Area during the Thirty Years’ War, the battle at St. Tönis-Haide near the town of Kempen.Footnote 87 Catholic armed forces of Cologne and the emperor’s army clashed with the joined forces of France, Weimar and Hesse-Cassel . As Hesse-Cassel outnumbered the imperial forces, they decided to attack before the arrival of the Catholic reinforcements. Imperial Field Marshal, Melchior Graf von Gleichen und Hatzfeldt (1593–1658) led these troops and was en route to assist Guillaume de Lamboy’s army. Outnumbered and lacking the protection of a strategic position, the Imperial-Cologne forces were defeated.Footnote 88 Their Supreme Commander Lamboy was imprisoned, together with many officers, and approximately 4000 ordinary soldiers. The remainder of the army fled, and some joined the army of Imperial Field Marshal, Hatzfeldt.Footnote 89 Roaming soldiers posed a significant threat to stability, peace, and well-being. The troop movements continued, and many people fled the Lower-Rhine Area to escape the horrors of war. They went into hiding in cities, forests, and across the borders, especially in the Dutch Republic.Footnote 90 In September 1642, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm informed the city of Jülich that it would be receiving 300 ‘guests’. These soldiers would arrive through the Jülich or citadel gate under the command of Imperial Field Marshal Hatzfeldt and General Von Blumenthal.Footnote 91 The town’s residents were much displeased.
When imperial commander Hatzfeldt left, the Lower-Rhine Area became, militarily-speaking, less attractive to the emperor. Hatzfeldt was in pursuit of Jean Baptiste Budes, Count of Guébriant (1602–1643), who fought under French command. Shortly after the departure, the nobility organised an assembly.Footnote 92 They met on Saturday 8 November in the Dominican convent of the city of Cologne.Footnote 93 Here, they intended to talk about their beloved fatherland’s hardships, and the Landstände considered it their duty to do whatever they could to protect it.Footnote 94 The nobles planned to discuss the duke’s expenses, which he expected the commoners to pay. These were a high burden, and the nobility believed that they oppressed the fatherland. Those invited were urged to attend and reminded that a discussion of the problematic contributions to the Hessian army was scheduled.Footnote 95 During this November meeting, the nobles of Jülich appointed a syndic. Sigismund Mockel would represent them and safeguard the nobility’s interests after that.Footnote 96
In 1643, the city of Düren was damaged, and everyday life obstructed. The nobility discussed these problems, and they agreed to reduce the burdens of Düren.Footnote 97 Debating the destitution and prosperity (Germ.: Wollfahrt) of ‘our beloved Fatherland’Footnote 98 was on the agenda for the next assembly in Cologne, on 2 May 1643.Footnote 99 The subject of the debate was how prosperity could be improved.Footnote 100 Following this assembly, the nobility published a pamphlet containing its grievances regarding the duke’s behaviour. The pamphlet mentioned that on 29 November 1642 and on 28 March 1643, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had requisitioned taxes and duties.Footnote 101 The nobility wrote that they were dismayed at not having been consulted on the issue, despite their required consent. They were incensed by the duke’s cold-heartedness when they described the desolate situation of their lands, which were subjected to pillaging, theft of resources, plundering and looting of towns, castles, and villages. The poor inhabitants were impoverished. Many people left hearth and home, hoping to escape these perils of war and entrusting their lives to foreign princes.Footnote 102 The nobility’s outcry is a means of critiquing princely policy—in the light of Althusius’ ephors who wanted to redirect policy rather than overthrowing the prince.
When the nobles wrote their critique, they bore the most recent illegal taxations of March in mind. These yielded at least 1000 Reichsthaler in both duchies. Their main arguments, presented in their letter of 6 May 1643, were based on previously obtained legal verdicts. The case of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm overstepping boundaries had been thoroughly investigated.Footnote 103 It led to a verdict in the form of a Mandatum poenale cassatorium, meaning it was a mandate with a penalty clause, with protection from prosecution for the claimants. Both rulings on behalf of the emperor Ferdinand II had restrained Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm when it came to the requisitioning of taxes, a reminder which he duke did need. The situation, on the whole, was remarkable, since the nobility had not approved of any taxation at all since 1632. The duke did not receive permission to levy tax until 1649. The duke’s requests during this period, despite the lack of approval of the nobles, indicated his despair.Footnote 104
Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had seriously violated the notions of freedom, noble privileges, law, and justice, according to a pamphlet issued in 1643.Footnote 105 Through this pamphlet, the nobility not only objected to these violations but also made them publicly known. Since the requisition of taxations was perceived as illegal, the nobility argued that nobody should collect them, nor need anyone pay.Footnote 106 In the summer of 1643, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm expressed his commitment to the principality and its inhabitants, not only because of his lineage but also by written traditions.Footnote 107 His obligation was to take care of his lands with ‘fatherly’ precautions.Footnote 108 How this pledge was received is unfortunately unknown, though the years following the duke’s renewed commitment show that there was little change in his behaviour.
The nobility used a ruling in the case of the Landstände of the principality of Berg against Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm. This text issued by the emperor in 1644 in Speyer was called ‘Copia Mandati Poenalis sine Clavsvla. In Sachen Bergischer Ritterschaft Contra Pfalz Neuburgs 1644’. This text contained Emperor Ferdinand III’s ruling on taxation matters of the Duchy of Berg:Footnote 109 restoring the rights of the dear and loyal Landstände and reprimanding Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm for his illicit activities in Berg. It even made a reference to a—for the time being—restricted succession to both Jülich and Berg.Footnote 110 Even though the imperial verdict applied solely to the Duchy of Berg, the nobility of the Duchy of Jülich felt encouraged as well, as they expected the same rules to apply to Jülich. After all, they shared the same unlawful taxations. However, 4 days later, the Lower-Rhine-Westphalian Circle and the Imperial Council met and quickly sent out a signed letter concerning specific taxes in Jülich. Contrary to what the nobility of Jülich had expected, the taxes requested by the duke over the past 4 months had to be paid with only a few days’ notice, since the officers of the garrisons depended on them.Footnote 111 The fact that the requests for taxes had to be complied within several days increased the burden experienced.
The nobility received aid from those who had sworn to uphold the Provisional Treaty of Xanten, and who were soon sending letters to Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm. On 19 June 1644, a letter from France arrived, 10 days later another one from the Dutch Estates General, with the acknowledgement of the Prince of Orange.Footnote 112 Both letters addressed to the duke, drawing attention to his malpractices and the need to improve his behaviour towards his subjects.
Later that year, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm requested another 1,000 Reichsthaler from the inhabitants of Jülich—despite all he should have learned about the nobility’s zeal to uphold their privileges.Footnote 113 The nobility turned to Emperor Ferdinand III, who applauded them for turning to him for advice, as well as for filing another formal objection concerning the duke’s abuse of their rights. By his ruling—the penal mandate concerning Berg—the emperor’s decision on Jülich read that the tax collectors should not execute the task the duke had given them, and that those who had already paid must be reimbursed.
The nobility met and debated issues arising from the war, on 9 August. The dominant issue this time was not the illegal taxation levied by the duke, but how to decrease the burden of billeting of Düren. It was considered necessary to have sufficient revenues, but also to relieve the inhabitants of that city. Therefore, an alternative was suggested: should the clergy be made to pay tax, and perhaps the nobility as well?Footnote 114 Many people had already fled the principality of Jülich due to the violence incurred. The link between violence and the mass emigration was pointed out in a document published on 12 September 1644.Footnote 115 After losing everything, some people enlisted—supposedly because they had nothing left to lose. The depopulation and abandonment of farmland troubled the nobility of Jülich tremendously. Although they commended taking up service in defence of the Holy Roman Empire, the nobility felt that people had to be deterred from making this choice. An envoy was sent to the Imperial War Council to explain the situation, assuming that the council would understand that damaging daily life by extracting necessary workforce would be detrimental to the empire as well. On 13 August 1644, the nobility presented an account of what the disgruntled and distressed inhabitants. They were burdened with problematic taxations: unconsented and thus illegal, high, and forcefully requisitioned.Footnote 116 On this same date, they made a reference to soldateska rather than soldiers.Footnote 117 The term soldateska had a violent and negative connotation and referred explicitly to lawless soldiers.Footnote 118 Commanding officers were asked to step in and prevent soldiers from harassing the treasurer and exert control over their soldiers.
A field marshal of the Imperial Forces stated in early January 1645 that he had received some complaints regarding his soldiers, referring back to the accusations in the previous August.Footnote 119 With this choice of words, the marshal implied that his forces consisted of disciplined, not disorderly men.Footnote 120 All of the complaints, he noted, were caused by actions which occurred during the collection of monthly contributions of about 3145 Reichsthaler Footnote 121 rising to 5000 Reichsthaler later that year, during which time several soldiers had allegedly extorted money and goods from local inhabitants. The malefactors had allegedly received a punishment, and the other soldiers were ordered to leave the people, their lands, and their goods in peace. Of course, the collection of the monthly fees would still proceed.
At an unknown date in early 1645, a ManifestFootnote 122 against the policy of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm was written on behalf of the Landstände of Jülich and Berg.Footnote 123 Appraisal of the duke’s policy led to the conclusion that he ignored previous Imperial Rulings and that, seemingly as a consequence, the principalities were now struggling to overcome the presence of the soldateska. The requisitioned money led to the accusation that he was pursuing an ‘absolute [sic] Dominatus’.Footnote 124 As a consequence, the loyal Landstände met out of loyalty and patriotic affection for the beloved fatherland and its inhabitants. The fatherland’s prosperity was said to be severely damaged by the presence of soldateska and the—obligatory—payment of monthly fees.Footnote 125 Unfortunately, the duke had ignored the complaints of the Landstände so far.Footnote 126
On 3 March 1645, a pamphlet was printed in the city of Cologne.Footnote 127 Before treating the content of the pamphlet, it should be noticed that the nobility organised the printing of the pamphlet. Among the cases studied in this work, this is a unique situation, as it made the complaint publicly known; something the nobility of Hesse-Cassel would usually avoid. Content-wise it seems to be an elaboration on the previously discussed Manifest; but it is not an exact copy. The hand-written version of the pamphlet happens to be available in the Akten Jülicher Landständen as well.Footnote 128 It was a collective endeavour of the Landstände of Jülich and Berg, and the text referred explicitly to the tense relationship between the duke and the Landstände . This specific pamphlet dealt with two issues in particular: the matter of taxation without the consent of the nobility, and the assumed motives of their duke. In February of 1645, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had once again requisitioning taxes without consent. As in the past, the nobility addressed the duke’s perceived illegal behaviour, quoting the imperial rulings that made specific references to their privileges. The nobility expressed irritation at the continuous violations of their privileges, and therefore wrote in the pamphlet that the duke had used false pretexts to enable the levying of taxes to which they had not agreed in advance.Footnote 129 In addition to the unlawful nature of the taxes, and the coercion to pay them, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm was accused of repeatedly contravening imperial decisions and severely harming the interest of the principality and its inhabitants. Evidently, the requisitioning went beyond what the Landstände could condone. The claimants stated that the duke used the soldiers in order to exact payment from his subjects.Footnote 130 These harmful actions troubled the nobility. Hence, out of patriotic feelings and affection for the fatherland, they asserted the need to speak out against the duke’s politics—which seemed to be in line with Althusius’ ephors.Footnote 131 As a result of these feelings, the nobility felt the need to protect their beloved fatherland, and to mention that the duke had inherited the duchies (Posterität).Footnote 132 However, it seems that by repeating this phrase, they only recognised him to be their de facto ruler as he lacked the imperial recognition, which would make him the de jure ruler.Footnote 133 Since the nobility regarded the duke as a possessor who violated traditions, procedures, and agreements which had been made by his ancestors, they eventually attacked Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm on a far more personal level and questioned his motives. They went so far as to articulate the belief that the duke’s actions constituted an attempt to establish an absolutus Dominatus.Footnote 134 They claimed that the duke held the ambition of becoming an arbitrary ruler over the principalities. To be able to reach that ambition, he was using officeholders to harm his subjects. The situation as experienced with Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm who risked becoming a tyrant justified the defence of the patria.Footnote 135 The nobility of Hesse-Cassel—we will see—experienced a similar situation.
By the end of 1646, the Landstände deemed it necessary to assemble. According to the summons for this particular meeting, they needed to discuss the presence of enemy troops and the heavy burdens that accompanied them.Footnote 136 These burdens had been enumerated earlier that year.Footnote 137 This earlier pamphlet, published by the Emperor’s War Council on 26 November in Siegburg, clarified what the origin of the tension was, explaining that soldiers and other military men should be content to sleep in houses; they were not to requisition more.Footnote 138 The commoners of Jülich paid monthly amounts of Reichsthalers —which could vary per month—to support the officers of the imperial troops. All these aggravating circumstances, combined with the presence of the army, constituted a burden too heavy to bear. For this reason, it was the most important topic on the agenda during the nobility’s deliberations on 8 January 1647.Footnote 139
On 16 January 1647, a 14-page text appeared, issued in the principality of Cleves.Footnote 140 In it, Georg Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg expressed his understanding of the trouble, and the substantial contributions paid. Moreover, he addressed the Landstände as loving patriots.Footnote 141 The exact meaning of this text remains unclear, though the letter seemed to undermine the policy of his cousin. On 18 February 1647, the nobility of Jülich and Berg met in Cologne to prepare before meeting the duke in a joint assembly.Footnote 142
A mere 10 days after the issuance of the invitation, another pamphlet, referring to the unification of the Duchies of Jülich, Cleves , Berg, Mark, and the county of Ravensberg, was printed.Footnote 143 Curiously enough, it was written in Dutch, and not in the German dialect of the area. The pamphlet referred to the year 1496 when the Lower-Rhine Area was united, a move accepted by Emperor Maximilian I. The pamphlet used this context to explain that the current duke acted in violation of the nobility’s privileges. It mentioned that in the past, all parties involved respected these privileges and their responsibilities. These ancient rights were considered to be beneficial and indispensable. The text referred to the unification of the Landstände of the various principalities, who had pledged themselves to cooperate. The text stresses that this union was renewed on 15 February 1647: the date of the pamphlet. It seems reasonable to assume that there must also have been a German version of the text, though this has not yet been traced. The text seems to have been written to portray the Dutch as the nobility’s sworn ally and to encourage them to uphold the Treaty of Xanten (1614). Based on other pamphlets from Spain, France, and Naples, which, as historians have concluded, were used as a desperate attempt to involve allies in internal politics, we may argue that this pamphlet probably functioned similarly.Footnote 144 In these non-German cases, no appeal was possible at the Aulic or Imperial Chamber Court, which did alter the dynamics. In Jülich, however, a seemingly deliberate choice was made not to go to court, but to press the matter by publishing pamphlets.
On 20 April 1647 a pamphlet voicing discontent with the duke’s politics was printed in the Dutch Republic.Footnote 145 This pamphlet focussed on two arguments. The first argument was that the duke had violated existing agreements, and noted that the Imperial Chamber Court had highlighted this fact as well. A supporting argument could be found in the claim that the Duke of ‘Nieuborgh’ (Neuburg) had not called an assembly with the Landstände of his principalities. The absence of consultation was a violation of existing treaties. The text referred to the years 1609 and 1627. In 1609, the Dutch Republic had helped the two Protestant princes conclude the Treaty of Xanten. In 1627, a quote from the Mandatum poenale (a penal mandate) was used to illustrate that the duke had violated his prior agreements. The Dutch pamphlet scrutinised the mandatum and pointed to instances of the duke violating existing agreements. The second argument was that the Remonstrants did not enjoy religious freedom. Religion was becoming an issue once more, caused by the succession of the Protestant Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg (1620–1688) in the principalities of Cleves and Mark in 1640. This young Protestant ruler had fixed ideas about the obligation to protect his fellow-believers and actively courted the Dutch Republic for aid.Footnote 146 For all the reasons discussed above, and primarily because of promises made to uphold the Treaty of Xanten, the Dutch Republic readied its garrisons in the cities of Wesel, Emmerich, Rees, Rheinberg, and Orsoy.Footnote 147 Half a year later, the Dutch States-General were still not convinced that the duke was living up to the agreements made.Footnote 148 In addition to the first troops deployed earlier that same year, the Dutch now placed their troops in Gennip, Ravenstein, Schenkenschans, Nijmegen, Bredevoort and Grol (Groenlo) in the highest state of alert.
Early in 1647, the nobility issued a text articulating the four main points they wished to pursue.Footnote 149 Although the original text does not seem to have survived, these censorious points were quoted in another text on 27 May, to which the duke responded. The first of the nobility’s demands was to have their old privileges honoured. Secondly, they demanded that office-holders should be born in either Jülich or Berg. Thirdly, financial resources could not be requisitioned without the necessary consent of the Landstände .Footnote 150 The nobility requested that the various foreign armies to leave the territory, and lastly, they requested that minutes of meetings would be made available upon request.
A copy of a letter from Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm is found among the Landständische Akten, concerning the assembly of the Landstände in Cologne. It was written on 20 June 1647.Footnote 151 It commented on the debates about the prosperity of the fatherland and conservation.Footnote 152 The duke was displeased that assemblies were taking place outside his jurisdiction while such vital issues were discussed and made preparations for a Landtag with the Landstände. The duke felt the situation needed to change, as the nobility published a pamphlet concerning a ducal invitation a Landtag in July 1647.Footnote 153 Though the original invitation seems lost,Footnote 154 a verbatim rendition was added to the pamphlet. The nobility, first of all, expressed their joy that the Landstände of both Jülich and Berg were invited. The text of the pamphlet emphasises that the assemblies in Cologne were organised to express concern about the beloved Fatherland. It stresses that the extended invitation invites all with honourable, patriotic intentions.Footnote 155 The Landstände were most willing to come to an official assembly, mainly to obtain a more detailed answer to their four requests.Footnote 156 The Landstände tried to meet the duke’s wishes with these remarks. The duke’s invitation also referred to the contacts with the Dutch Estates -General and the assemblies in Cologne. It stated that he, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm, could not have defended his principality without money and that he had in fact attempted to honour the fatherland’s privileges.Footnote 157 In order to act swiftly, he had needed to rely on his power and authority and had not intended to harm the beloved fatherland’s liberties.Footnote 158
The Dutch sent a neatly written note on the 23 May 1647, again pledging their help as and when requested; however, they stressed that peace was the most desirable situation to pursue.Footnote 159 The Dutch Republic closely monitored the situation. Several texts stressed the Dutch alliance with the nobility of Jülich, emphasising that Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm needed to put an end to the financial harassment of his subjects.Footnote 160 On 1 June 1647, a letter was sent on behalf of the Dutch Estates-General to the Landstände of Jülich expressing abhorrence that the duke was pursuing his incorrect and illegal procedures.Footnote 161 In October and December, the nobles assembled in Cologne.Footnote 162 The nobles themselves had attended in order to discuss the presence of the marauding Hessian army. The invitation called ‘patriots’ to attend, as the well-being of the fatherland was at stake. Here, explicit use of the word fatherland seems to signify the importance of both the meeting itself and the presence of the nobility therein. It is striking that the nobility stressed the well-being of the fatherland and the threat posed by foreign troops. At the same time, they did not discount the possibility of assistance from the Dutch Republic, which would have entailed the presence of even more troops. Although the nobility did not request its support, it did not actively reject its interference either. In order to fulfil their office of a patriot, they would accept whatever help was required. The contributions to be paid to the Hessian—and imperial—armies, were a frequently discussed concern that recurred throughout the year.Footnote 163
On 18 May 1648,Footnote 164 another invitation of the nobility to join in an assembly on 8 June extended to all loyal patriots.Footnote 165 The purpose of this meeting was to confer about the imperial commission, which had assembled to inspect the area. A brief pamphlet in October then informed the participants that the commission would send representatives to their upcoming meeting on November 4.Footnote 166 On 21 November, a notice stating that the Landstände were relieved was issued, as a peace treaty had finally been reached in Munster, ending the Thirty Years’ War: the Treaty of Westphalia.Footnote 167 This Treaty brought peace and tranquillity in many parts of the empire, and also prevented other wars to regain lost lands form breaking out. Rulers were thus forced to focus on their fiefs, (re)establish balance, and create a new modus Vivendi that would respect the balance between the different groups.Footnote 168 The various princes of the Holy Roman Empire acknowledged and restored the old privileges of the Landstände .Footnote 169 The nobility of Jülich understood that the Swedish and Hesse-Cassel army needed payment. Nonetheless, they were content with the peace treaty, as it was generally beneficial to their fatherland.Footnote 170 At their next assembly, they would discuss the consequences of the Peace of Westphalia.
The taxes that have been mentioned above and below make it possible to calculate how hard the crisis of the Thirty Years’ War hit Jülich.
Table 3.1 certainly present an incomplete image of all the financial burdens Jülich had to cope. Nevertheless, it shows an increase of the burden the people had to pay, in the course of only a relatively short space of time. The increase was likely perceived as enormous and threatening as people faced warfare and the presence of a multitude of hostile foreign soldiers. In order to understand this financial burden, ‘food insecurity’, expressed in kilocalories, can be calculated, in order to determine how the inhabitants of the troubled regions must have perceived their ability to provide enough food for their families. This factor is set at 2100 kcal per person by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).Footnote 171 Based on the grain prices found by Thomas Rahlf, it is possible to calculate the purchasable amount of grain with silver.Footnote 172
The price of wheat could differ per year and with it the hectolitres of grain that could be bought with the silver (second and third column of Table 3.2). One kilogram of (organic) wheat has been set at 1680 kcal, although the amount may have varied, depending on the soil’s fertility. Food insecurity is measured by the amounts of kcal in the total amount of organic wheat and dividing that by the food insecurity measure developed by the FAO of 2100 kcal per person/per day. By dividing the outcome by the number of inhabitants, it is possible to calculate the days of food insecurity expressed in kcal. For Jülich the number of 215,000 inhabitants has been applied.Footnote 173 In 1642 the tax-burden equalled nearly four and a half days of food insecurity or hunger, rising to nearly 31 days of hunger in 1646.
3 Hostile Occupation: Hessian Troops
Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm was pleased with the outcome of the negotiations of Westphalia and wrote in early December that ‘the war was officially over’.Footnote 174 The end of the war meant that the internal tensions would soon be over, since the foreign armies were about to leave. However, the peace treaty stipulated that Jülich and Berg had to pay at least six times 100,000 Reichsthaler between them before the Hessian and Swedish troops would leave. A treasurer was commissioned to provide these funds. The duke seemed to realise that, despite the peace treaty, his subjects would be disappointed about having to pay for the troops to leave and would not be keen to contribute. Taxation had caused tensions and fuelled heated dissent throughout the war, and taxation to end the war seemed paradoxical. Furthermore, the war had taken its toll, and the population had shrunk by roughly one-fifth (21.8%) from 275,000 inhabitants in 1618 to 215,000 inhabitants in 1648, leaving far fewer people to bear the financial burden.Footnote 175
On the one hand, the duke understood the delicate nature of demands for taxes; but on the other hand, he needed to pay off the foreign troops. In January 1649, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm expressed his sincere regrets that his god-fearing loyal subjects would have to suffer a bit longer.Footnote 176 Timely payments were essential, or the Hessian army would extend their stay.Footnote 177 The Swedes would leave as soon as payments started to arrive, according to two pamphlets written in April and May 1649.Footnote 178 Since hostilities had ended, the Landstände expressed their hopes that the inhabitants would not suffer too much from these new taxes. These sufferings may have caused the duke to attempt reconciliation with the nobility. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm acknowledged that the Landstände had focussed on the well-being and prosperity of Jülich, and wanted to discuss these matters.Footnote 179 In the case of Hesse-Cassel , such a genuflection would not occur. The duke humbly requested them to attend an assembly of February, in order to advise him on what to do to improve the fatherland’s prosperity.Footnote 180 The duke’s altered attitude is a significant development because he seemed to acknowledge the sincerity of the motives and actions of the Landstände, and their choice of words to pursue their aims.
In the meantime, the presence of foreign forces and monthly contributions still burdened the inhabitants of Jülich. A pamphlet was distributed, emphasising that if the inhabitants neglected the payments, it would result in severe penalties.Footnote 181 Imperial Marshall Lamboy received letters expressing grievances about the misbehaviour of soldiers. Lamboy promised to resolve this problem in return for the regular contributions.Footnote 182 Three days later, a letter informed the inhabitants of the Lower-Rhine principalities that Lamboy had attempted to oust the Swedish army, or had at least tried to remove some of the Swedish forces in order to decrease the burdens.Footnote 183 The inhabitants of the Dutch Republic noticed financial trouble in Jülich. Here, a very considerate trader, who was supposed to collect a debt of 300 Gold guilders, noted in a letter that he had become aware of the enormous war-related destruction which made him decide not to demand payment at this particular time.Footnote 184
It was not until 4 August 1649 that the first Landtag of Jülich in over a decade convened, in the presence of their duke, and there the nobility presented their substantial grievances.Footnote 185 In order to prevent disruption and delays, complaints had to be prepared and submitted in advance of the next Landtag (scheduled for 1651). The nobility complied and sent their grievances in writing. These accounts stated that some office-holders had appropriated extra money while collecting taxes. It was agreed that if soldiers had plundered subjects, this would be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, nobles were asked to share in the present financial burden, but strictly on a voluntary basis. With that, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm seemed to have become more considerate concerning people’s hardships and the privileges of the nobles. The Landstände of both Jülich and Berg were invited to an assembly in the open fields on August 30.Footnote 186 The Landstände met 4 days in advance in Cologne to discuss their affairs. The contributions troubled them, as is shown in the Prothokollen on the assembly of 30 August 1649.Footnote 187 Specifically, the assembly noted that the armed forces present in the principality extracted resources on their account, burdening the inhabitants, and leading to the desolation of the lands.Footnote 188 The Landstände, especially the nobility, sorely regretted this situation as it harmed their beloved fatherland.Footnote 189 Nevertheless, on 30 August 1649, a pamphlet printed on both sides was published on behalf of the duke.Footnote 190 It requested the cooperation of the inhabitants of Jülich regarding the imperial contributions due to payment in 8 days.Footnote 191
Texts of the experiences and observations of the nobility—frequently referred to as the Collegio Nobilium—are available from March 1650 onwards.Footnote 192 These mainly concern troop movements and the payment of contributions, though another subject was the that the duke ignored the nobility’s ancestry and their position in society. The latter went against their special privileges of the patria .Footnote 193 Another complaint, voiced on 21 April 1650, was that protocol demanded the consultation of the nobility but observed that no approval had been sought concerning the status patri. Hence, the Landstände could not protect the prosperity of the fatherland and its inhabitants, though they were willing to show their minutes.Footnote 194 These two complaints led to the voicing of grievances.Footnote 195 However, the duke did not listen to the patriots who had the best interest of the fatherland at heart.Footnote 196 The transcripts of 22 April 1650 mentioned that the patriots wanted to meet and discuss the issues concerning the fatherland and its prosperity amongst themselves.Footnote 197 Here it is crucial to note that within the nobility’s reports, fatherland terminology was applied. However, these texts seem not to have been intended for widespread distribution. The terminology was not only used in the Landstände’s external communication, or communication that could be read by others – as would be the case with the printed invitations—but was something they ardently believed in and consistently applied.
On 27 June 1650, a one-page pamphlet was published announcing that a Landtag , essential for the fatherland, would take place in Steinen on 4 July.Footnote 198 Both the Landständen of Jülich and Berg were invited to attend. This pamphlet also invited members to join a preparatory meeting in the Franciscan Convent on 3 July.Footnote 199 It is unclear whether the Landstände went to the Duke’s Landtag , as their documents make no mention of it.Footnote 200 The Akten of the Landständen do contain an invitation for an assembly on the 24 January 1651 and make it entirely clear that everyone concerned about the Fatherland—the beloved, worthy ‘Posterität’ (heirloom)—should come. It explicitly says that no loyal patriot should be restrained or stopped, and that they should arrive at the set term.
At last, the Landstände report about ongoing debates regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops that were going on in Nuremberg.Footnote 201 The troops would leave on condition that the contributions were paid. Eager to be relieved of the burden of foreign troops roaming their lands, subjects of the principality were requested in order to deal with the expenditure swiftly, and to pay tax at short notice. The thesaurus of Jülich was asked to oversee the procedure.Footnote 202
On 3 April 1651, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm agitatedly remarked that the Dutch Republic and some reformed people had threatened and abducted Catholic clergymen.Footnote 203 The duke was not pleased with these actions and feared for the well-being of his Catholic subjects—especially the clergy. He considered the non-Catholics of Jülich agitators because they were associated with reformed soldiers who had disturbed local masses. That religious troubles sprouted again, became evident on 13 June as a pamphlet was published claiming to be a translation into Dutch from a German original. Its title was a reference to the question of why the Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg had invaded Jülich and Berg, and occupied several towns. The invasion itself took place a few days later. The document was a response to two earlier texts issued by Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm and explained the motives for the invasion.Footnote 204 Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had agreed to respect the Protestant religion when he signed the Treaty of Xanten but had not upheld this promise.Footnote 205 Instead, he had imprisoned pastors, taken money away from churches and violated treaties regarding religion.Footnote 206 Such accusations were published in several texts, translated, and consequently distributed in the Dutch Republic.Footnote 207 It turned into a pamphlet polemic, in which texts written on behalf of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm defended his case.Footnote 208 The emperor also joined in as he wanted to prevent another full-blown war.Footnote 209 Von Looz-Coozwarem has characterised this as a revival of the War of Succession, as the provisional treaties had not resolved the original dispute. The emperor had also left the Privilegium Unionis intact, and failed to propose an alternative solution.Footnote 210
On 14 June 1651, under the pretext of protecting ‘his’ fellow-believers, Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg (1620–1688), ruler over Cleves and Mark, invaded the principalities of Jülich and Berg.Footnote 211 The Prince-Elector’s disappointment with the Treaty of Westphalia prompted his actions: Catholics had gained ground since 1609 and 1612.Footnote 212 He had questioned the right of succession of his distant relative ever since his acceptance of the fief in 1640.Footnote 213 Furthermore, the Treaty of Westphalia gave the Catholic Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm occasion to question whether Protestants could inhabit his principalities.
Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had shown his good intentions in some respect. On 29 May 1651, he issued a one-page invitation to assemble on 16 June 1651. The agenda read a discussion of the needs of the fatherland.Footnote 214 Whether this Landtag ever took place is unclear. In their ‘Prothocollen’, the sole topic the Landstände mentioned was an invasion that took place on June 17.Footnote 215 The competition between the two princes was not appreciated as the safety of the patria was at stake once again.Footnote 216 The nobility wrote a pamphlet on behalf of the joint Landstände of Jülich, Berg, Cleves, and Mark. They indicated their displeasure and stressed the need to preserve their privileges and complained about the war.Footnote 217 The second version of this pamphlet was twice as long.Footnote 218 In addition to the 4°-pamphlet, the Dutch 8°-pamphlet emphasised the promises made during the Treaty of Xanten (1614). The extended pamphlet was signed and reprinted—probably as a reminder. Interestingly, the German version (probably the original) is a one-page print containing only the text that had been printed in the Dutch 4°-pamphlet.Footnote 219
The Jülich-war did not last long, ending in October. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had pawned the cities of Millen and Born to ensure the help of 4000 Lorraine soldiers;Footnote 220 his son Johann Wilhelm visited the Estates-General in The Hague, successfully requesting the Dutch Republic to refrain from interference.Footnote 221 The Landstände did not appreciate the military presence of the Lorraine troops, and feared for more threats to the fatherland, stating that their presence would ruin the lands.Footnote 222 By 27 July the Landstände deliberated and mentioned that the patria depended upon the return of peace.Footnote 223 It was now clear that religion could still be a cause for war, a casus belli—or could at least give rise to a pamphlet polemic—despite the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector von Brandenburg issued several documents and pamphlets claiming he was protecting the Protestants. He based his right to interfere upon the Treaty of Xanten (1614). Both princes – Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector von Brandenburg and Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm—were official administrators of the principalities. Hence, the Treaty of Xanten meant that the ‘cujus regio, ejus religio’-rule protected both Calvinists and Catholics, leaving the Lutherans without rights.Footnote 224 However, according to contemporary pamphlets, the inhabitants of Jülich were being threatened and murdered by their Catholic duke. Such violence was the perfect excuse to wage war, and so Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg renewed the War of Succession with the hope of expanding his principalities.
In Vienna, the emperor responded fiercely, and a pamphlet was circulated in which an imperial critique of the deeds of Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was made. In August, the emperor decided that Count Melcioren of Hatzfeldt would help to restore peace in the Lower-Rhine Area and, if necessary, would contact the Imperial Circle for help.Footnote 225 However, as its coffers were empty, the Circle debated whether or not they would help. Paderborn and Osnabruck, as well as some other Catholic areas, were in favour of helping. Cologne, for its part, felt intervening could only bring trouble. Before the Circle could reach a decision, the Neuburg-Lorraine Coalition ended the renewed War of Succession. It was clear that the conflict could easily divide the members of the Circle.Footnote 226 According to the letter, written in the city of Cleves on 11 October 1651, a commission to study the situation was composed of impartial Prince-Electors, Princes, and Landstände of both religions.Footnote 227 Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince-Elector of Brandenburg, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm, and Emperor Ferdinand III all agreed on this composition of the commission.
The so-called War of the Cows or Jülich War had been about opposing Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm and defending the fatherland.Footnote 228 However, Duke of Lorraine helped Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm to regain control. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm stated in October that he had signed a treaty with Cleves-Mark. He requested his subjects to come forward within 4 weeks if they had wrongfully benefitted from this conflict, returning obtained horses and possessions.Footnote 229 In March 1652, the duke sent an invitation to the Landstände requesting them to attend a meeting on 15 April. The agenda of the meeting read that the beloved fatherland’s unpleasant peril and welfare demanded their attention.Footnote 230 Strikingly, the duke used the word ‘the’ (deβ) instead of your (Euch) fatherland. This choice of vocabulary could be interpreted as indicating that he was now counting himself in, or at least did not exclude himself from, the fatherland. In Hesse-Cassel , the landgravine’s lawyers used similar expressions. Following the Landtag , a text was issued to stress that the duke considered the Landtag a success.Footnote 231 He did not want to dismiss the Landtag’s grievances as being unimportant, but Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm stressed that they had dealt with the disobedience of the Landstände, the fatherland’s peril, and its security.Footnote 232 Here we can see similarities to the argumentation that is found in Hesse-Cassel as well as in Brittany.
Another text was printed on 6 May, in which the duke focussed on pressing matters. He first assembled with the Bergische Landstände , but, the Landstände of Jülich needed to vote on behalf of their loyal, beloved subjects, too. Therefore a preparatory meeting was scheduled to find out who was to blame for the peril the fatherland.Footnote 233 The text explicitly identified the burdens in question. The duke recognised that there was a need to cooperate with his nobility and acknowledged that he should have behaved more like a father, and that he should have been more aware of their loyalty.Footnote 234 He referred to the year 1649 when the nobles had proceeded to address the matter of the fatherland’s peril, which he should have appreciated more.Footnote 235 The duke switched back and forth between your (euer) fatherland to the (deβ) fatherland. With all these apologies and promises, he steered towards acceptance as a true lord. The clergy also wished to be given a hearing in Hambach at the next Landtag of Jülich, since they were opposed to specific plans regarding the taxation of their lands and goods.Footnote 236 In early September, the Syndici of both Jülich and Berg informed the duke that the Landstände would assemble in Cologne. They wanted to discuss matters with their supporters from both principalities before any other meeting. This assembly was the key; there was little use in calling a Landtag of loyal patriots without it, as there would be little support for the duke’s plans—plans which applied to both principalities.Footnote 237
On 26 September 1652, a letter was written in Cologne and sent to Philipp Wilhelm of Neuburg (1615–1690), the new duke. The letter was meant to inform him that his suggested date for the meeting with the Landstände was not convenient, and it explained that the committee which had studied the perilous situation of the principality would report back to the nobility, and would do so in Cologne.Footnote 238 Discussions both about the danger to, and potential consequences for, the fatherland were necessary.Footnote 239 As a consequence, they rescheduled the meeting to a later date. It was uncertain whether the new duke, the Catholic Philipp Wilhelm of Neuburg could be accepted as de facto ruler of Jülich and Berg, as his legitimacy was just as contested as his father’s had been.Footnote 240 It took several treaties to resolve the remaining issues resulting in an official addition of, the principalities of Jülich and Berg to the Neuburg dynasty.Footnote 241 In 1665, the Treaty of Dorsten was accepted, downplaying the religious divisions of the period between 1612 and 1624. Moreover, the rights of the Protestants were clarified, thus resolving the 1647 religious matters.Footnote 242 Most importantly, in 1666–1672, agreements were reached that dealt with the succession.Footnote 243
The nobility of Jülich perceived a severe threat to the welfare of the principality they inhabited. Those who felt compelled to call themselves patriots met in Cologne to discuss their perceived peril and despair. Surely their perception must have been close to the reality as the depopulation of Jülich due to warfare, extortion and taxations must have been visible. Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm failed to protect Jülich as his policy was counterproductive: he attempted to pay off foreign troops, but instead, this drew in even more payment-seeking soldiers. These money requests may explain the significant fluctuations we find in the available information on taxation. This data only concerns the exact amounts and not the damages caused by warfare to crops, plundering, billeting and other atrocities. These perceived threats to welfare likely caused the decline in population, for example, by causing people to flee the principality. The per capita taxation demanded by the Hessian troops may not have been high when calculated in grams of silver or kilocalories. However, because these resources had to be delivered on short notice, this would have increased the—perceived—burden.
The invitations, pamphlets, and letters of the nobility show their proclaimed compassion towards the impoverished inhabitants, and expose their fear that the area might become uninhabitable. With that, it touches upon their interest as their tenants suffered. The nobility met in Cologne outside the jurisdiction of the duke to discuss the ordeal. Such meetings, in themselves, were a very well thought through course of action. Their arguments, however, were not sophisticated. Their basic attitude questioned the legitimacy of any decision made by the de facto duke. All actions were placed under the microscope, especially when he failed to call the nobility to assemble. However, when he did call for them to meet, they frequently failed to show up, and consequently, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm could not obtain the necessary consent to levy taxes. The question arose whether he was given a fair chance to explain his need, as the Landstände were not keen to favour any ducal appeals. Seeking means to influence Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm’s policy and protect the fatherland, those calling themselves loyal patriots opted to send out political pamphlets to their Dutch allies. Opting for persuasive texts was on the one hand motivated by their geographical position on the outskirts of the Holy Roman Empire and the proximity of their ally. However, on the other, it was likely caused by their severe disappointment with the imperial court’s ruling in 1627.
The behaviour of the nobility’s in Jülich can be summarised in five main points. Firstly, the nobility met outside the jurisdiction of the principality, in the Free City of Cologne.Footnote 244 There are two explications of this. On the one hand, the nobility avoided having to invite the duke. On the other, they avoided a ban on their meetings, which would have been likely if there had been so much as a hint that they undermined the government. Secondly, the invitations to the assembly stated that patriots were invited to discuss the welfare of the fatherland. The invitees were aware that war threatened their fatherland and that their presence was therefore needed: explicit references were made to ‘our fatherland’.Footnote 245 The duke, later on, adopted this fatherland terminology in his 1651 invitation to assemble, gradually shifting from a discussion of ‘your fatherland’ to ‘the fatherland’.Footnote 246 He eventually even acknowledged that he should have valued the loyalty of the nobility more than he had. Thirdly, the invitations and reports always referred to the loyalty of the invitees. This strong emphasis on the word ‘loyalty’ helped the nobles to avoid association with rebellious actions.Footnote 247 Although not explicitly mentioned, an influence of Althusius seems perceivable in this approach. Fourthly, the nobility used printed texts to spread invitations and express their concerns following an assembly. The use of printed texts seems unique, at least in comparison to the other two studied cases here, as it seems to constitute a balancing act between finding allies and open rebellion. Fiftly, although a legal case had been won in 1627, claiming that taxation without consent was illegal, the nobility of Jülich did not continue to challenge violations of their privileges in court. This may seem surprising, given the fact that they had already obtained a favourable ruling. However, ongoing peace negotiations meant that they might have deemed a legal suit inappropriate and potentially too time-consuming. Also, the de facto ruler of Jülich—Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm—could be replaced by any ruler who may have had far worse intentions with the principality. By not pursuing their case in court, the nobility seems to have left the possibility of communication open. Alternatively, perhaps they had simply lost faith in the Imperial Chamber Court and appealed to other principalities for aid.Footnote 248 The nobility’s appeal to others was also strengthened by previous agreements—for example, those between the French and the Dutch Republic—to uphold the provisional treaty of Xanten (1614).
Ad hoc reactions to perceived threats, searching for the appropriate vocabulary and motivating allies to act, show the nobility’s learning curve in dealing with the duke’s failure to protect the fatherland. Each of these steps took a little bit more time than the previous and seemed to have been motivated by a mixture of despair, fear, and a spark of hope. The published texts were not written by lawyers or academics, as no references are found. Hence, it is interesting to see how paid servants that wielded a pen for money dealt with similar matters. The Hessian nobility may have been the ones in conflict with their landgrav(in)e; it was their paid advocates that wrote down the argumentation. The use of the terms fatherland and patriot seemed to have functioned as a key to mobilise those who felt that change was necessary. Furthermore, they signalled that only those who experienced the trouble first hand should attend. In Jülich, it was a terminology initially used by the nobility, though shortly after the end of the Thirty Years’ War, these terms appeared to be accepted by the duke as well.
JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 6.
Importantly, Cologne was known for its unique position with regard to freedom and liberty. See: Bellingradt (2011), p. 41.
JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 6.
Translations have been made by the author, unless stated otherwise.
JL 44, 18 May 1648. The German phrase here used is: ‘getrewer Patriot’.
Tornow (1974), p. 5.
Smolinsky (1993), p. 89.
Engelbert (1959), p. 69.
For comparative reasons, this would be worth 935,280 grams of silver for Jülich. 1 Reichsthaler being 25.98 g of silver; according to Christmann (2002), p. 213. This amount can be expressed in kilocalories that would become available if for example grain were to have been bought with this money. This can be used to compare the areas with each other.
Engelbert (1960), p. 38.
Engelbert (1959), p. 76.
Ibid., p. 68.
Ibid., p. 69.
The Estates of Jülich and Berg did not integrate; they retained certain bureaucratic privileges. Each of the estates was made up of two curies: the nobility and the main cities. There was no representation of the clergy within the estates. Janssen (1984), pp. 18, 22. Jülich had become a Duchy in 1356; Berg in 1380; Cleves followed in 1417.
Hantsche and Krähe (2003), p. 36.
Janssen (1997), pp. 189–192.
Braubach and Schulte (1925), p. 206.
Janssen (1997), pp. 189–192.
Bergerhausen (2011), p. 56.
The Niederrhein principalities were involved in agriculture, mining (coal and iron), and the textile industry. See: Smolinsky (1993), p. 89.
Israel (1998), p. 407.
Anderson (1999), p. 249.
Ibid., p. 250.
Janssen (1984), p. 35.
Israel (1998), p. 407.
In 1646 the Erbeinigung (heritage-oath) is (again) mentioned in a Hessian document: Nothwendiger Bericht, darauß zu sehen, Daß nicht allein die, von Hessen-Cassel erlangte (S.I. 1646) 3.
Anderson (1999), p. 59.
Ibid., p. 59.
Trim (1999), p. 339.
Lünig (1713), pp. 76–78.
Asch (2005), p. 30.
Ibid., p. 31; Trim (1999), p. 340.
Asch (2005), p. 31.
Anderson (1999), p. 139.
Ibid., pp. 139–147.
Ibid., pp. 142–143.
Asch (2005), p. 32.
Petri and Droege (1976), p. 107.
Considering the 1609 struggle as the first crisis.
Anderson (1999), pp. 152–155, 163–170.
Parker (1997), pp. xvi–xviii, 25.
Ibid., p. 27.
Lünig, Das Teutsche Reichs Archiv, 82–86; von Looz-Corswarem (2014).
Engelbrecht (1994), p. 155.
Jaitner (1973), pp. 69–76.
Wilson (2010), p. 331.
Walz (1982), pp. 43, 146–149.
Ibid., p. 59.
Ibid., p. 63.
Ibid., p. 43.
Neu (2013), p. 43.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 44.
Engelbert (1959), p. 67.
Kaiser (2002), pp. 182–188.
Walz (1982), p. 45.
Kaiser (2002), pp. 182–188.
Ibid., p. 193.
Walz (1982), p. 61.
Ibid., pp. 112–118.
Ibid., p. 47.
JL Akten 47, 7 Januari 1636: 297 v°-298 r°.
During previous years, soldiers had been billeted in the Jülich-Berg principalities, but not on such a large scale. See Walz (1982), p. 47.
Engelbert (1960), p. 38.
Engelbert (1959), p. 76.
The town was already besieged by the end of December 1641, according to imperial writing: JL Akten 38, 21 December 1641 (printed): Kayserlich Schreiben an Gülische Landt-Standt abgegangen Ferdinandt der Dritte von Gottes Gnaden, Erwohlter Römischer Kayser zu alten Zeiten (p. 466 r°–467 v°).
Reichmann (2009), pp. 186–187.
Engelbert (1960), p. 78.
JL Akten 39, 23 September 1642.
Engelbert (1960), p. 57.
This seems to be the Predikercloister on Arnold Mercator - Kölner Stadtansicht (1571). This map was drawn of the city of Cologne in 1571. The convent burned down 2 March 1659. See for more information the website of the Archbishopric Cologne: Geschichte der Dominikaner in Köln.
JL Akten 39, 29 October 1642 (one-page leaflet, printed): Demnach bey jetzigem zustant wegen unterschiedlich eingefallenen Ursachen, auch auff gutbefinden der hochlöblichen generalitet der Kayserlichen KriegsVolckern, die hohe notturfft erfordert, das beyder Fürstenthumb Gülich und Berg herrn Landtstände förderlichst zusammen beschrieben werden, umb ober deβ lieben Vatterlandts obligen zu deliberiren und die notthurfft vorzustellen: und dan mir so woll vermög vor diesem gemachten Landtags conclusis als sonsten ex speciali commissione auffgeben worden, das auch bey abgang deβ Gülischen Syndici auff erforderten nothfall die Herrn Landtstände obgemelter beyder Fürstenthumben einbeschreiben solte, gestalt Sambstag der 8. negst einstehenden Monats Nouemb[e]r hieselbst in Cölln in der Herrn Dominicaner Closter zu erscheinen anbestimbt worden.
Alβ wollen Ew. G. sich gefallen lassen gegen jetzt gemelten tag an besagtem ort deβ vormittags umb 9. uhren zu erscheinen, noch sich daran nicht behindern lassen, damit auch bey diesen ohne das fast beschwerlichen leufften, nit die im gemelten termino erscheinende mit vieler zeit, und vergeblicher kösten verlierung, auff die andere spätter einkommende sich verdrietzlich auffzuhalten gemüssiget, und die nöhtige deliberationes dardurch verzogen werden. So wirdt ein jeder hiemit fleisigst erinnert, das daran sein wolle, das in bemeltem termino sich einstelle und die notturfft mit vorgehender reisslicher deliberation trewlich nach beschaffenen sachen einrahten helffe, und sintemalen wegen jetzigen Kriegs unwesen gar schwerlich diese auβschreibens einem jeden Ritterbürtigen können eingeliefert werden, so wollen die jenige so hiemit angelangt werden, dern benachbarten welchen vieleicht dieses auβschreiben nit zukommen würde dieser conuention erinnern, unnd gleich daran dem Vatterlandt bey diesen zerrütteten zeiten unnd Kriegs unwesen ein mercklicher dienst erwiesen wirdt, also versehet man sich es werde auch ein jeder hiehin zu erscheinen sich kein bedenckens machen. Sign. Cölln den 29. Octobr. [October] Anno 1642. Ex Commissione DD.
JL Akten 39, 9 November 1642.
JL Akten 39, 9 November 1642.
Part from: JL Akten 39, 8 January 1643: ‘Demnach bey versamblung der Gülicher Landtstände in Cölln zu erleichterung deβ gemeinen Mans bey diesem beschwerlichen Kriegswesen, die In- und auβwendige Geistliche von deren Jährlichs einkommenden Renten Pfachten und gefällen, vom hundert ad zehen anzuschlagen beschlossen und verabscheidt worden, dabey dan die Früchten ad Dürener maβ zu reduciren, unnd daβ Malter schwarer Früchten ad zween und lichter Früchten ad einen Reichstaler zurechnen. So wollen die herrn Beambten in dern anbefolenem Ambt daran sein das selbige Geldere wie von altersherkommen umbgesetzt, erhaben, und dem verordneten Einnemeren Johannen Hontheimb in Cölln vor S. Agathenkirchen inwendig dreyen wochen richtig eingelieffert werden.’
JL Akten 39, 18 April 1643 (printed): ‘Demnach einige Sachen bey diesem unseres lieben Vatterlandts betrübten, und armseligen zustand vorgefallen, darumb die hohe unum[m]gengliche notthurfft zu sein erachtet worden, daβ die Gülische herzen LandtStände, von Ritterschafft und Stätten sonderlichst zu sa[m]men beschrieben würden, massen mir alβ dem Syndico auffgeben worden dieselbe gegen Sambstag den zweyten einstehenden Monats Maij in der Statt Cölln zu erscheinen, einzuladen.
So wollen Ew. G. sich belieben lassen, zu besagten tag unnd Wahlstatt, vormittags umb 9. uhren in der Herren Dominicaner Kloster zu erscheinen, umb daheselbsten auff den beschehenen vortag, unnd sonsten, sambt denn obrigen anwesenden herren LandtStände[n], die bevorstehende notthurfft beratschlagen, und darüber schliessen zu helffen, wie unseres lieben Vatterlands wollfahrt es erfordern wirdt. Signatum Cölln den 18. Aprilis 1643. Ex Commissione &c. Sigismund Mockel.’
JL Akten 39, 18 April 1643 (printed).
JL Akten 39, 18 April 1643 (printed).
JL Akten 39, 6 May 1643, p. 1 (printed). ‘Abermalige Protestirliche Contradition, und Erinnrung der Gülich- und Bergischer Land-Stände, u[sw]. Wider Ihro Fürstliche Durchleucht Pfalz-Newburg sub Dato den. 29. Nouembris [Novembris] 642 so dan[n] den 28. Martij 643 Jahrs uneingewilligte und den Priuilegijs zuwider außgeschriebene Stewr- und Licent-Geldere. Getruckt im Jahr Christi, 1643.’
Part from: JL Akten 39, 6 May 1643, pp. 2–3: ‘Demnach Wir Gülich- und Bergische Landstände, von Ritterschafft und Stätten, mit höchstem unserm Leydwesen und Wehemuth vernehmen müssen, daβ der Durchleuchtigste Fürst und Herr, Herr Wolfgang Wilhelm, Pfaltzgraff bey Rhein, in Bayern, zu Gülich, Cleve und Berg Herzog, u[sw.] Unser gnädigster Herr, u[sw.] bey diesen ohn das empörlichen und höchst verderblichen Kriegsleufften und Zeiten, da die arme eingesessene Underthanen zu grund und boden durch die vorgangene, sowol von Freund als Feinden erlittene und auβgestandene Raub, Nahm, Plünderung, Ranzionierung, Brandschatz- und Einäscherung vieler Stätt, Flecken, Schlöss- und Dörfferen, und dergleichen unzählig verübte Kriegs Dressuren und Drangseln, wie dan auch beharzlichen von Jahr zu Jahren continuirende Einlägerungen, Stewrn und Contributionen dermassen zugerichtet und ruinirt, daβ schier meistentheils derselben von Hauβ und Hoff verlauffen, und im Elend sich kümmerlich in frembder Herren Landen auffzuhalten bemüsigt werden: Andere auch gutentheils auβ lauterer Betrübnuβ und Armseligkeit jämmerlich verstorben: Die dritte, so noch obrig blieben, das liebe drucke Brod, umb deren Weib und Kinder beym Leben zu erhalten, nit haben können, u[sw]. Dessen alles aber unangesehen, under Dato Düsseldorff den 29. Novembris 642. Jahrs etlich viel tausent Reichsthaler in beyde Fürstenthumb Gülich und Berg , unser geliebtes Vatterland, vermeintlich ohn vorgangene Einwilligung unser der Landstände auβgeschrieben, u[sw]. Item, sub Dato Düsseldorff [d]en 9. Martij scheinenden 643 Jahrs.’
Lat.: cum plenissima causae cognitione.
Walz (1982), p. 90.
JL Akten 39, 6 May 1643, p. 6.
JL Akten 39, 6 May. 1643, p. 7.
JL Akten 39, 2 August 1643 printed in Cologne (printed, 2-side leaflet).
JL Akten 39, 2 August 1643 printed in Cologne (printed, 2-side leaflet).
JL Akten 40, 16 January 1644.
JL Akten 40, 16 January 1644, p. 6.
JL Akten 40, 20 January 1644.
JL Akten 40, 19 July 1644, Letter in French to the duke (French signature is unreadable); JL Akten 40, 29 June 1644: Letter in Dutch of the Estates General to Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm of Pfalz-Neuburg.
JL Akten 40, 11 July 1644: one-page leaflet (print).
JL Akten 40, 9 August 1644.
JL Akten 40, 12 Augustus 1644: one-page leaflet (print) of the Imperial Chancellery inviting people to defend the Holy Roman Empire.
JL Akten 40, 13 Augustus 1644, one-page leaflet (print) reaction of the Landstände of Jülich concerning the Imperial request—written and signed in Cologne.
JL Akten 40, 13 Augustus 1644.
Wilson (2010), p. 623.
JL Akten 40, 4 January 1645.
Wilson (2010), p. 623.
JL Akten 40, no date: ‘Extract Assignationem de Anno 1644’ stated that each month 3145 Reichsthaler had to be collected, amounting to a total of 18349 Reichsthaler that year, including January 1645.
This is the name given to the document by the author, this assumption is based upon the observation that the ‘Manifest’ is written in the same hand as the rest of the text.
JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: ‘Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg […]’.
JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: ‘Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg […]’., p. 5.
JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: ‘Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg, p. 7. This complaint is repeated on page 26 and 28.
JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: ‘Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg, pp. 28–29.
JL Akten 40, (pamphlet) Wiederholte Getreue Warnung Der Gülich: und Bergischer Landtstände Wieder Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfalz Newburg sub dato Düsseldorff 4. Februarij oneingewilligte einfettig auβgeschriebene anmaβliche Steuer Geldere. Im Jahr 1645 (Cologne, 3 March 1645).
JL Akten 40, (handwritten) Wiederholte Getreue Warnung Der Gülich: und Bergischer Landtstände Wieder Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfalz Newburg sub dato Düsseldorff 4. Februarij oneingewilligte einfettig auβgeschriebene anmaβliche Steuer Geldere. Im Jahr 1645 (Cologne, 3 March 1645).
Section from: JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, pp. 3–4: ‘Bevorab den punctum collectandi oder Steuer, Accisen, Licenten, Zöll, und dergleichen auβschreib- und erhebung betreffend, endtlichen abgeortheitet, auch dieβfahls zu wiederholtem mahl durch Poenalia mandata, Inhibitoria & restitutioria allergnedigst befohlen, Nemblich daβ höchtgemelte Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfaltz Newburg unter keinerley Schein oder praetext bemächtigt seyn sollen, einige Steuergeldern, Accisen, Licenten, Zöll, oder dergleichen Aufflagen, wie die auch Nahmen haben mögen, welche dero Gülich- unnd Bergische Landständte auff einem gemeinen auβgeschriebenen Landttag nicht per maiora zuvoren eingewilliget, auβzuschreiben, umbzulagen, viel weniger aber von den armen Underthanen zu erzwingen un[d] abzunötigen, sondern viel mehr gehalten seyn, was der gestalt gegen der Rom. Kayserl . Mayest. allergnedigsten definitiff Urtheilen, Decisiones, Rescripta, und Mandata durch die Beambten abgepresset, solches widerumb zu restituieren, alles mehreren inhalts jetzt angeregten oben angezogenen Kaiserlichen Eudturtheilen [sic: Endurteilen], Decreten, Rescripten, Resolutionen und Mandaten.’
Section from: JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, pp. 7–9: ‘Ob nun wol Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. in dero einseititigem [sic] Auβschreibens diese Schein Ursache vorwenden, daβ all solche Geldere zu Unterhaltung dero Soldatesca müssen hinverwendet wirden: So kan doch selbiges mit bestendtgem grundt nicht bewehrt, noch bewiesen werden, zu mahlen die Gülich- und Bergische Landständte den jüngster abhandlung wegen Monatlicher Unterhaltung der Kayserlichen Kriegs Völckeren in beyden Fürstenthumben Gülich und Berg, mit dero Röm. Kaiserl. Mayest. in Cöllen letzt anwesenden hochansehenlichen herren Gesandten den hoch wolgebornen Herren Herren Ernsten Herr von Traun u[sw]. so dann der hochloblichen Kaiserl. KriegsGeneralitet (unter anderen auβtrucklich mit einbedingt und vorbehalten worden) daβ auβ all solchen Monatlichen Gelderen den Pfaltz Newburgischen Volckeren auff die von Ihrer Kaiserl. Mayest. vorlängst reducirte Anzahl deren 800. Mann zu Fuβ und 100. zu Roβ gleichfals dero Monadtlicher Underhalt solte mit angewiesen werden, massen darauff auch erfolgt, daβ nicht allein durch beyder Landtschafften Syndicos auβ Befelch der Landtstände, in macht der Käyserlichen allergnedigsten Verordnungen, die veraccordirte Geldere in beyde Fursthenthumb repartirt und auβgeschrieben, sonderen auch durch Ihrer Käyserl. Mayest. ReichshoftRaht und deβ löblichen Westphalischen Creytz General KriegsCommissarium den Wol Edelgebornen unnd Gestrengen Herren Joachim Friederichen von Blumenthall auff gemeldte Newburgische Völckere vergleichener massen assignirte und angewiesen worden, die weniger aber nicht ober obgemeltte Anzahl denen vorlengst Ihrer Furstl. Durchl. von deβ Herren General Veldmarschallen Graffen von Hatzfeldt Excell. oberlassener Soldatesca auch anderwerts dero Monatlicher Underhalt gleichfals angewiesen, und damitten von Augusto nechstlitten biβhero in den Februarium inclusiuè continuiret worden, gestalt Ihre Fürstliche Durchl. keine befugte Ursach haben, unterm Schein und Praetext dero Soldatesca die verarmbte Eingesessene und Unterthanen ferners zu grauiren, und mit unerzwinglichen Contributionen unnd Exactionen (wie leyder seyter etliche Jahren gar zu offt geschehen) onmild eiglich und dubbelt zu beschweren.
Daβ sonsten dem auβgeben nach, die Landständte auff beschriebene Auβschreibung zu den LandtTagen nicht erschienen, oder doch ohne Ihrer Durchl. In deren Postulatis zu mitfahren von den LandTagen zuverreysen genöiget Orth vor diesen Remonstrirt, auch die gepflogene Handlungen in den Prothocollis mit mehrerem nach fahren.
Weilen dann auβ oben angezogenenen erheblichen Gründen unnd Ursachen verhoffentlich zu gnüge erhellet, daβ Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfaltz Neuburg keines wegs befugt beyder Fürstenthumben Gülich unnd Berg Eingesessene und Beerbte der gestalt einseitig und eigenthatlich bey diesen ohne deme höchst verderblichen Kriegszeiten mit Steuren zu belegen, viel weniger dieselbe durch deren Beambten von deren verarmbten und meistentheils zu Bettelstab getriebenen Underthanen unmildtiglich zu pressen, Und die ohne daβ zu hoch beschwerte beträngte arme Underthanen mit noch weiteren Drangsalen zu beschweren und zu beleydigen. So wirdt ein jedweder deren so wol in den Natürlichen als gemeinen beschriebenen Geist- unnd Weltlichen Rechten erlaubten und angelassenen Mitteln gegen vergleichen unbillige und widerrechtliche zunötigungen sich zugebrauchen, und deren sich zu entwehren wissen, auch von den jenigen Beambten, Steuerhebern und Executoren, oder welche darzu quouis modo cooperiren unnd durch ZwangsMittelen etwas abgepresset, oder hinfüro abpressen werden, durch ArrestBeschläge, und andere zulässige wege auff deren Person und Gütere, wo dieselbe anzutreffen, zu betretten, und gelegen, die wieder erstattung oder Restitution zu suchen wol befugt seyn, unnd derselben Mittel sich wol bedienen können unnd mögen Darnach sich ein jeder zurichten, und selbsten vor schaden und gefährlicher Consequentz zu hüten wissen wirdt, deβhalben diese Abtruck zu Jedermans Nachrichtung zu publiciren für eine unombgängliche Notturfft zu seyn befunden worden. Gegen Cöllen den 3 Martij, 1645.
Gülich- und Bergische LandeStande.’
Section from: JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, pp. 4–7: ‘Dennoch weiln die Gülich: un[d] Bergische Landständte mit dero hochstem leydtwesen ober alle zuversicht und verhoffen vernehmen müssen, daβ höchstgedachte Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfaltz Newburg mit höchst verkleiner: und straffbarlicher hindansetzung allerhöchst gemelter Ihrer Kaiserl. Mayest. als dieser Fürstenthumben und Landen Ober- und Lehenherren Verordnungen und Befelchen unterm praetext oder schein der Underhaltung deren geworbenen Soldatesca, in beyde Fürstenthumb Gülich und Berg eine grosse GeltSumma gegen deβ Vatterlandts wol herbrachte kundbare Priuilega, Freyheiten, alt herkommen Recht und gerechtigkeiten, unter dato Düsseldorfs den vierdten nechst abgangenen Monats Februarij ausgeschrieben, und allsolche einseitig angelegte Contributiones von denen ohne daβ auss Marck und Beyn, auβgesogenen, verarmten, und noch wenig obrigen Unterthanen ohn einige mildte oder reflexion auff dieser Landen elendigen zustandt, nebenst den vorhin gleicher gestalt auβgeschriebenen und uneingewilligten unerzwinglichen Geltsteueren, noch weiters zu erzwingen und abzupressen dero Beambten ernstlich anbefohlen. Und dass diese höchstgemelt. Ihrer Furstl. Durchl. Proceduren und Verfahrungen von dero hochgeehrte[n] Vorfahren Herzogen zu Gülich und Berg Christseligsten andenckens, niemals gesehen, gehört, oder in Historijs dieser Fürstenthumbe[n] (unangesehen derselbe[n] Ständt und underthanen seyther Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. anwesenheit in dieser Lande[n] derselbe[n] mehr, als bey allen vorige[n] ungezweiffelten Landsfürsten geschehen, nach und nach unter die Arm gegriffen) gelesen worden gestalt es kein ander ansehen oder nachdencken verursach, als d[iese] Höchstg[e]d[achte] Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. durch diese, und deren vorhin nun etliche Jahren hero zugefügte Pressuren und Exactionen, Angarias & super-angarias nur allein dahin zielen, als wie sie der Gülich und Bergische Landtständte, so dann Geist- unnd Weltliche Eingesessene zuforderst enerviren, deren noch wenig obrigen Lebensmitteln entblösen, folgendts dieselbe untertrucken, gleichsamb zur Schlaverney und Knechtschafft bringen, und also den lang vorgehabten zweck eines absoluti Dominatus in diesen landen einführen, und stabiliren mogen.
Sohaben wolg[efa]l[ene] Landtständte eine notturfft zu seyn ermessen, zu bezeigung Ihrer biβ dahero getragener, und noch biβ in die Grube zu beharzlicher und continuirender trewer auff richtiger redlicher und patriotischer zuneigung un[d] affection gegen dero geliebtes Vatterland, und dessen Eingesessene und Beerbte Geist- und Weltliche, Adliche und Unadliche, auch jeder, männiglich fürstlich etwa den ungrundt deren in bemeldtem Furstl. Auβschreiben begriffenen narraten zu entdecken, der gebühr (vorbehaltlich doch in alle wege Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. geziemenden hohen Fürstl. Respects) zu hindertreiben, unnd zu remonstriren. Warumb vielgemelte Eingesessene und Beerbte all solche von Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. auβgeschriebene, von den Landtständten aber nicht eingewilligte Steuergeldere abzurichten oder zu zahlen nit schuldig oder verpflichtet, sondern viel mehr solcher unbefugter und unrechtmässiger abnötigung sich bester gestalt zu entwehren und zu wiedersetzen gute fueg und macht haben, auch in ihrem Gewissen der wertheu Posterität und gefährlicher consequentz halber, obligirt und verbunden seyen.’
JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 7.
JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 5.
JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 6.
Schmidt (2007), p. 67.
JL Akten 41, 23 December 1646.
JL Akten 41, 26 November 1646.
JL Akten 41, 26 November 1646.
JL Akten 41, 23 December 1646.
JL Akten 42, 16 January 1647 (handwritten).
JL Akten 42, 16 January 1647: p. 3 v°.
JL Akten 42, 5 February 1647.
JL Akten 42, 15 February 1647; Erf-Vereenige der Landtstenden uyt Ridderschap ende Steeden der Hartogdommen Gulick, Cleve, Berge, ende der Graefschappen, Marck ende Ravensperg (Knuttel 4211, n.p. 1647).
Villari (1994), pt. Afterword Two: Political and Conceptual Points of Contact Between the Seventeenth-Century Revolutions: Naples and Europe.
JL Akten 42, 20 April 1647; Aenmaning schrijvens van de Hooghmogende Heeren Staten Generael der vereenigde Nederlanden. Aen den deurluchtigen heer hartog van Nyborgh, &c (Knuttel 4302, ‘s-Gravenhage 1647); also in German JL Akten 42, 20 April 1647: Abdruck deβ Intercessional- und Warnung- Schreibens, So die hochmögende herren Staten General der Vereinigten Niederlanden, an Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. PfalzNewburg, u. Auff gebührliches Ansuchen der Erbvereinigten LandtStänden der Herzogtumben Gülich- Cleve und Berg , wie auch beyder Graffschafften Marck und Ravenβberg, u[nd] Die uneingewilligten GeldtStewren in jetztgemeldten beyden Fürstenthumben Gülich und Berg betreffend, haben abgehen lassen. Mit angehengter Erinnerung wolgedachter herren LandtStanden an alle Beambten, Vögte, Dingere, Schultheissen und Einnehmere, u. Gedruckt im Jahr nach der Geburt Christi, 1647 (n.p. 20 April 1647).
Richter (2010). Note: with the death of Stadtholder William II (1626–1650), and the commencement of the “True Freedom”, these plans to help Brandenburg were put on hold until the year 1655.
JL Akten 42, 20 April 1647; Knuttel 4302, Aenmaning schrijvens van de Hooghmogende Heeren Staten Generael der vereenigde Nederlanden. Aen den deurluchtigen heer Hartog van Nyborgh, &c (‘s-Gravenhage 1647), p. 6; also a handwritten version available in JL Akten 42, 20 April 1647; and as a German pamphlet: JL Akten 42, 20 April 1647: Abdruck deβ Intercessional- und Warnung- Schreibens, So die hochmögende herren Staten General der Vereinigten Niederlanden, an Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. PfalzNewburg, u. Auff gebührliches Ansuchen der Erbvereinigten LandtStänden der Herzogtumben Gülich- Cleve und Berg, wie auch beyder Graffschafften Marck und Ravenβberg, u. Die uneingewilligten GeldtStewren in jetztgemeldten beyden Fürstenthumben Gülich und Berg betreffend, haben abgehen lassen. Mit angehengter Erinnerung wolgedachter herren LandtStanden an alle Beambten, Vögte, Dingere, Schultheissen und Einnehmere, u. Gedruckt im Jahr nach der Geburt Christi, 1647 (n.p., 1647).
JL Akten 43, 28 September 1647; Dutch National Archief 1.01.02 file 3253, p. 543; Dutch National Archive 1.01.02 file 98.
JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.
JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.
JL Akten 43, 20 June 1647.
JL Akten 43, 20 June 1647.
JL Akten 43, 17 July 1647 (pamphlet) Nachrichticher Abtruck Der Gulich: und Bergischer Landtstanden underthanigsten Antwort Schreibens in Ihre Furstl. Durchl.Pfalz Newburg, u[nd] sub dato den 17. Julij nechstlitten abgangen. Betreffend Ihrer Furstl. Durchl. Erklarung auff die 4.HauptBeschwarden, und das erscheinen zum Neweraugeschriebenen Landtag (n.p. 1647).
The text differs greatly from the text previously mentioned, written on the 20 June 1647 by the Duke; which leads to the conclusion that it must be a different text.
Section from: JL Akten 43, 17 July 1647 (pamphlet), 4–5: ‘Als ist für eine unumbgängliche Notturfft befunden, unnd bey ernendter Gülich- unnd Bergischer LandtStändt letzt gehaltener Versamblung hieselbsten binnen der Stadt Cöllen beschlossen worden, zu jedermans, sonderlich aber zu der Gülich und Bergischer Underthanen, Eingesessenen und Beerbten Nachrichtung, durch diesen offenen Truck kundt unnd wissend zu machen, auβ was beweg- und erheblichen Ursachen mehrgemelte Gülich- und Bergischer LandtStändte vor dieβmahl zum Landtag zu erscheinen, und mit höchstgedachter Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. Erklärung auff die 4. Hauptpuncte zu acquiesciren in ihrem Wissen und Gewissen sich beschwertet befinden, inmassen auβ nachfolgendem an Ihr Fürstl. Dürchl. von offtbesagten, Gülich und Bergischen LandtStändten dessentwegen Underthenigst abgangenem Schreiben mit mehreren zu vernehmen ist- warauβ dann ein jeder unpassionirter leichtsamb der Gülich- und Bergischer Landständt sorgfalt, und deroselben zu dem lieben Vatterlandt, wie auch zu der werther Posterität tragende auffrichtiger Patriotische Intention, wirdt vernehmen und aburtheilen können, jedoch mit Vorbehalt Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. Hohen und Fürstlichen Respects.’
See above, and in: JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.
Section from: JL Akten 43, 17 July 1647 (pamphlet), 8-9: ‘So können Wir nicht absehen, was für hoffnung seye, daβ Ewer Fürstl. Durchl. so wol in dem puncto Collectandi, als anderen vielfältigen Grauaminibus die geringste satisfaction zu geben gesinnet seyn sollen, umb so viel mehr, daβ in dem Schreiben, so Ewer Fürstliche Durchl. unter Dato den 24. Maij nechstlitten, an die Herren General Staten der Vereinigten Niederlanden haben abgehenlassen, vermeldet, daβ Sie Uns zum offtermahlen zu dem LandTägen einbeschrieben, umb auff, Wege und Mittel zudencken, wie von Ewer Fürstl. Durchl. praetendirte un[d] geforderte Gelder umbzusetzen, und von den Underthanen zu erheben seyen, da doch vermittelst deβ Vatterlandts Privilegien, und vermög alten Herkommens, vor das Erste, Ob? Zum zweyten, wieviel?
Section from: JL Akten 43, 17 July 1647 (pamphlet), p. 9-10: ‘Drittens: Welcher gestalt die Underthanen mit Stewren zu belegen seyen? Muβ und solle erwogen und beschlossen worden. Weilen aber Ewer Fürstl. Durchl. dardurch nicht dunckel zu verstehen geben, daβ die zwey ersten Fragstücke gleichsamb Uns abzunehmen, und für sich allein auß eigener Macht unnd Authoritet zu decidiren, und sich vermeintlich vorzubehalten gesinnet: Solches aber Wir keines wegs deroselben zu Praejuditz und Nachtheil Unsers lieben Vatterlands Freyheiten nachgeben können. So wird Uns desto schlechter hoffnung zu der vertrösteten Satisfaction gegeben, bevorab Ewer Furstl. Durchl. in dero Befehl Schreiben, so Ste unter Dato 24. Junii, und also zwey Tag nach dem Landtags Auβschreiben, an dero Beambten haben abgehen lassen, auβtrucklich mit einrücken, nachfolgendem Inhalt: In allen wegen die Underthanen ernstlich zu erinneren, daβ Sie zu verhütung fernerer Ungelegenheit oder Executionen, ihr Contingent der von Ewer Fürstlichen Durchl. unvermeidtlich auβgeschriebener Stewren so, baldt der Arnd so weit fortgesetzt seyn würde, daβ sie es darauβ zu erheben, unweigerlich bezahlen, unnd sich daran nichts behinderen lassen sollen, u[sw.].’
JL Akten 43, 23 May 1647 (Dutch letter, signature unreadable).
JL Akten 42, Pamphlet 1647: Abdruck deß Intercessional und Warnung: Schreibens, So die hochmögende herren Staten General der Vereinigten Niederlanden, u. an Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Pfalz Newburg, u. Auff gebührliches ansuchen der Erbvereinig-ten LandtStänden der Herzogthumben Gülich: Cleve und Berg , wie auch beyder Graffschafften Marck und Ravenßberg, u. Die uneingewilligte GeldtSteweren in jetztgemeldten beyden Fürstenthumben Gülich und Berg betreffend, haben abgehen lassen. Mit angeengter Erinnerung wolgedachter Herren Land-Ständen an alle Beambter, Vögte, Dingere, Schultheissen und Einnehmere, u[sw.] (Proverbiorum: N Fructus Hominis Ivsti Lignum Vitae, n.p. 1647).
The first part is signed by Sigismund Mockel, dated 2 June 1647, with a printed reference to the text of 20 April 1647; and JL Akten 42 Klaer bewys dat de Ho: Mo: Staten Generael gherechtight ende verbonden zijn tot de garantie ende maitenüe vande privilegien, vry ende gerechtigheden der Landt-stenden inde landen Gulick, Cleve, Berge, Marck ende Ravensbergh (Knuttel 4215, n.p. 1647). Another Dutch letter, again, points out the need to obey the agreements: JL Akten 43, 8 Juni 1647 (Dutch letter), it warns that if they Landstände decide to act offensively, the Dutch forces will help.
JL Akten 43, 1 June 1647.
JL Akten 43, 1 October 1647; JL Akten 43, 7 December 1647.
See for example: JL Akten 43, August 1647; JL Akten 43, September 1647, both have calculations on how to reach 10,600 Reichsthaler; JL Akten 43, 16 December 1647: discussing the contributions of 1648; JL Akten 43, December 1647, reaching 10,600 Reichstalers.
Walz (1982), p. 114.
JL Akten 44, 18 May 1648: ‘Alβ werden zu allerunderthänigsten ehren aller hochst ged[achten] Käys. Mayest. Ew. G. sich darnach zu bequemen, und alhie in angestelten termino obeng[eme]l[ten] der gebuehr nach einzustellen wissen, und sich daran, alβ ein Getrewer Patriot, auβerhalb ehrenhaffter Ursachen nicht behinderen lassen.’
JL Akten 44, 14 October 1648.
JL Akten 44, 21 November 1648.
W Isaacson (1933), p. 9.
Ibid., p. 11.
JL Akten 44, 21 November 1648.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/011/i0515e/i0515e23.pdf. Accessed 12-12-2014.
Ibid., p. 22.
JL Akten 44, 4 December 1648.
Tornow (1974), p. 22.
Part from JL Akten 45, 24 Januari 1649: ‘Und weil also vorgemelte unnd andere viel wichtigere Puncte, daran unser auch Ewer und aller unser getrewer und gehorsamer lieber LandtStende unnd Underthanen zeitliches heil und wohlfahrt bestehet, und wie eins und anders am besten anzustellen reisslich zu deliberiren und abzuhandlen nötig: So haben wir eine unumbgengliche noturfft erachtet, Euch unnd andere unsere gehorsame und getrewe liebe LandtStende von Ritterschafft und Stätten anhero zum Landtag zubeschreiben, euch hiemit gnedigst befehlend, daβ ihr Euch gegen Dienstag den 16 des künfftigen Monats Februarij anhero unfehlbarlich verfüget, unsere gnedigste proposition und waβ wir Euch zu des Vatterlants wolfahrt und besten werden vorbringen laβen, vernehmet, darüber die noturfft deliberiret, und mit unβ entschlieβet, auch umb obgemelten gemeinnutzigen Intents willen Euch hiran auβer Gottes gewaldt nicht hinderen laβet: Versehen unβ also unnd seint Euch mit gnaden gewogen. Geben zu Düβeldorffs [d]en 24. Januari Anno 1649. [Wolfgang Wilhelm].’
JL Akten 49, 26 April 1649; JL Akten 49, 31 May 1649 (printed).
JL Akten 45, 24 January 1649.
JL Akten 45, 24 January 1649.
JL Akten 49, 26 April 1649.
JL Akten 45, 5 May 1649.
JL Akten 45, 8 May 1649.
JL Akten 46, 16 November 1649.
JL Akten 49, 6 January 1651 (printed).
JL Akten 46, 16 August 1649: p. 49 r° and JL Akten 47, 16 August 1649: p. 248 r°. This printed leaflet, consisting of one page is available in both JL Akten: it seems identical.
JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r°–42 v°.
JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r°; JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 v°.
JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r°.
This to distinguish it from the “Einzelblatt”, a ‘pamphlet printed on one side’. The German term ‘Flugblatt’ (leaflet or flyer) has earned itself a far more negative connotation than the pamphlets numbering more pages; moreover, the ‘Flugblatt’ could hold a big image to illustrate matters in combination with text. See: Harms (1985), pp. VII–VIII.
JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 573 r°. Unfortunately, the amount has not been filled out.
For example JL Akten 48, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 52 v°.
JL Akten 48, 30 March 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 4 r.
JL Akten 48, 21 April 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, 22 v°-23r° ‘Sondern weilen daßelbe herkommen und die Prothocolle es also mit sich bringen thäten, daß die Räth von nihi vocati beij der Ritterschafft erschienen sonders wahren dieselbe beij welchst verblieben und hatten der selber mit ihren und ihnen Gütsachern assistirt, und beij gestanden alß welchen status Patria ohne besten bekundt und die wohlfahrt des Vatterlandts alß Patrioten sich mehrens also undern würdest zu hertzen gehen laßen, zu geschwungen daß der Landen privilegia eß auch also nach führtens daß zu den Landtags handlungen kann andern alß Landstanden von Landtsfürsten gebraucht werden solten.’
JL Akten 48, 21 April 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 23v°.
JL Akten 48, 21 April 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 24r°.
JL Akten 48, 22 April 1650, Prothocollu de Anno 1650, p. 26r°.
JL Akten 48, 27 June 1650: ‘Demnach der Durchleuchtigste Fürst und Herr, Herr Wolfgang Wilhelm Pfaltzgrave bey Rhein, in Bayeren, zu Gülich, Cleve und Berg . Herzog u[sw], Unser gnädigster Herr, die Gülich und Bergische Landständ gegen den 4. Julii in dero Dorff Steinen zum Landtag gnädigste beschrieben; Und aber die zu der von Ihrer Fürstl. Durchl. höchstgemelt. zwischen dero gemelten Landtständen gnädigst vorgeschlagener gütlicher Conferentz specialiter benente Deputirte ober das jenige, was zu Düsseldorff bey solcher Conferentz newlich vorgelauffen, dem corpori gebührend zu referieren, und sonsten anderer erheblicher ursachen halber, daran dem lieben Vatterland mercklich gelegen, sich allhie zu forderst zu unterreden, vor nötig erachtet.
Als wollen Ew. G. gegen den dritten künfftigen Monats Julii allhie einkommen, und folgenden Morgen zu acht Uhren in der Minnebrüder Closter bey der Versamblung sich einstellen, auch daran ausser Gottes Gewalt sich nichts behinderen lassen, Signatum Cölln den 27. Junii 1650. Ex Commissione. [von Mulheim].’
JL Akten 48, 27 June 1650.
JL Akten 48, 4 July 1650: Prothocollum de Anno 1650.
JL Akten 49, 20 August 1650 (printed).
JL Akten 49, 20 August 1650.
JL Akten 49, 3 April 1651.’
Kort Bericht, waerom Sijn Cheurfursteleijke Doorluchticheyt van Brandenburgh is bewogen ende veroorsaeckt worden, eenighe Plaetsen inde Vorstendommen Gulick ende Bergh in te nemen (Knuttel 6968, n.l. 1651).
Kort Bericht, waerom Sijn Cheurfursteleijke Doorluchticheyt van Brandenburgh, 3.
Kort Bericht, waerom Sijn Cheurfursteleijke Doorluchticheyt van Brandenburgh, 4-5.
Kort Vertoogh In plaets van een Manifest. Waerom Sijn Cheurvorst: Doorluch: tot Brandenburgh, eenige plaetsen in de Vorstendommen Gulick en Bergh in te nemen, bewogen en veroosaeckt geweest is. (Knuttel 6969, Dordrecht 13 June 1651); Dero Chur: Brandenburgisch. Fürstlich. Durchl. De dato den 13. Iunij abgelassene kurze Anzeig anstatt Manifests unnd darauff Ihrer Fürstlich. Durchl. PfalzNewburg außgefertite Bestendige Widerlegung, zu mehrer Instruction, also beyeinander in Druck gegeben (VD17 23:308525B/ HAB: M: Gm 3621 (2), n.p. 1651).
Vorstelijck Palts Niewbvrgse Fundamentele Wederlegginge, Tegen’t ongesondeerde Kort Bericht, Waeromme Sijn Cheur-Vorstel. Doorl. van Brandenburgh, is bewogen eenige Plaetsen inde Vorstendommen van Gulick ende Bergh in te nemen, zijnde alleen die daerinne so specieuse voorgestelde Relgie, een deck-mantel van de voorghenomene gheweldadige invasie door de Troupes van gemelte Cheurv. Doorl. begaen. Ghetranslateert uyt het Hooghduyts (Knuttel 6970, n.p. 1651); Placcaet Van Wegen Sijne Vorstelijcke Doorlucht. Den Heere Hertog van Nieubvrg, Teghen ’t gene dat den Heere Cheur-Vorst van Brandenborgh heeft laten affigeren den 13. Iunij 1651. tot verschooninge ende verbloeminghe vande onghefondeerde ende gewendadige invasie inde Landen van Gulick ende Bergh (Knuttel 6971, Leiden 1651).
Mandement van sijne Roomsch Keyserl. Majesteyt, tot Cassatie ende Annullatie van ’t Cheur-Brandenburghsche voor desen Affigeerde Placaet, aen de respective Standen der Vorstendommen Gulick, ende Bergh (Knuttel 6972, n.p. 1651); Missive van Sijne Roomsch Keyserl. Majesteyt aen de Heere Cheur-vorst van Brandenburg, Improberende die inde Vorstendommen van Gulick ende Bergh ghedaene Invasie, vermanende ende bevelende den selvede Wapenen neder te leggen (Knuttel 6973, n.p. 1651).
Jaitner (1973), p. 91.
The text is in response to 7 March 1651 and 3 April 1651. Richter (2010).
JL Akten 49, 29 May 1651 (printed).
JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p.5 r° and 7 v°.
JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p.8 r°.
Placcaet Gepubliciceert By ende van wegen d’Erf-vereenigde Lantstanden. Uyt de Ridderschap ende Steden der Lantschappen Cleve, Gulick, Berge, ende Marck tot Conservatie van haer Privilegien (HAB: 258.20.15 Quod 4°, n.p. 1651).
Placcaet Gepubliciceert By ende van wegen d’Erf-vereenigde Lantstanden. Uyt de Ridderschap ende Steden der Lantschappen Cleve, Gulick, Berge, ende Marck tot Conservatie van haer Privilegien (HAB: A: 32.38 Pol. 17, 8°, n.p. 1651).
Wir Landtstenden auß Ritterschafft und Statten der Erbvereinigten Landtschafften und Herzogtumen, Gülich, Cleve, Berg , und Graffschafft marck u. (HAB Gm 3621 (8), n.p. 1651).
JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p. 15 r°.
JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p. 15 r° (2 July 1651).
JL Akten 50, 27 July 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651.
JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.
W Isaacson (1933), p. 26.
JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.
JL Akten 49, 14 November, 1651.
JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.
Part from: JL Akten 51, 29 March 1652: ‘Liebe Getrewe: Waβmaβen wir Euch, und andere unsere getrewe liebe von Ritterschafft und Stätten, gegen den zwölfften nachlauffenden Monats, anhero zum Landtag beschrieben, dessen wisset Ihr Euch zuerinneren: Nun hetten wir unβ gnedigst versehen, Ihr würdet Euch darauff gehorsamblich eingestelt haben: Die weil aber solches nit geschehen, gleichwohl die Sachen, darumb wir Euch beschrieben, und Immittelβ noch ferner vorgefallen seint, also beschaffen, daβ nit allein unser, sondern auch, deβ lieben Vatterlandts unumbgängliche notturfft und wolfahrt erfordert, daβ darüber schleunig (Will man nit alles über und über gehen laβen) deliberirt, und maβ nötig, vorgestellt werde.’
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652.
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, p. 3: ‘Alβ haben wir Euch auch allen unseren Landtstanden solches hiemit gnädigst verstendigen wollen, mit dem abermahligen gnädigsten befehl, daβ Ihr zu reassumir- und fortsetzung der angefangenen Landtags handtlung, off Mitwoch den 22. dieses nacher Deuren [Düren] wider erscheinet, off unsere proposition, unnd darin begriffene nötige puncten, neben anderen unsern Landtstenden, von Ritterschafft und Stätten, deliberieren, unnd mit unβ die Notturfft erheischender helffet, deβen wir anβ also gänzlich versehen, inmaβen Ihr dan sonst leicht zuermeβen, daβ wan Ihr und andere unsere Landtstende, wie Im Jahr 1649 verglichen, Euch nit gehorsamblich einstellen, auch unser, und deβ Vatterlandts notturfft und sicherheit bedencken, und darüber die notturfft schlieβen helffen werdet, wir alβdan das Jenige waβ sich gestalten sachen und deβ Vatterlandts obligen nach, gebührt, für unβ selbsten werden resoluieren und verordtnen müβen, und werdet Ihr unβ auch Immittelβ nit verdencken, sonderen der sachen unumbgenglicher nothwendigkeit zuschreiben, daβ wir auch noch vorhero (weil die von der Ritterschafft zu Deuren, so gahr urplötzlich verreiset, und nichts geschloβen, also auch die Bergische unangesehen wir gleich folgenden Tags unβ zu Mülheim Persohnlich einzustellen erklehrt, und Sie unsere ankunfft zuerwartten, durch unsere dahin verordtnete Rhäte haben erinneren laβen, solche unsere Landtfürstliche ordtnung so weit niet respectiert, daβ Sie unser erwartet hetten, sonderen gleichergestalt wie die Gülische, in falutato hospite, Alβ man Sie unsers Ihres getrewen Landtsfürsten angesicht flichen theten, davon gezogen) für unsere Soldaten, daβ unentbehrliche Brodt habe auβschreiben müβen, daβ wir auch wan Ihr Euch zur Landtagr [sic] handlung nit einstellet, und solche fortsetzen helffen werdet, waβ die unumbgengliche Notturffterforderen würde, noch darzu auβschreiben und beyspringen laβen werden, deβen underlaβung wir auch, weder bey Gott, noch dem geliebten Vatterlandt, und der posteritet zu verantwortten unβ getrawten, Wan wir händ unnd füeβ sincken, alles über ein hauffen fallen unnd zu grundt gehen laβen, auch unβ unnd unsere geliebte angehörige Menniglichen zu Ihren willen prostituiren: War nach Ihr Euch zurichten, und wir seint Euch auff den fall gehorsamer bezeugens mit gnaden gewogen. Düβeldorff den 6. May 1652.’
Section from: JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652. (A second letter on the same date.) ‘Obwohl wir zu Euch und andern unsern Bergischen Landtstanden von Ritterschafft und Stätten gnedigst versehen gehabt, Ihr würdet neben denselben bey Jüngster versamblung zu Mülheimb und dorthin von unβ auβgeschriebenen Landtag, auff die in unseren nahmen von unseren Rhäten proponirte puncta, welche ein Jeder unpassionirten, auch un praeoccupirten gemüts, daβ Sie zu unser auch unser Landt und getrewer Lieber Underthanen conservation und bestem, ehist [illigible] zu resoluiren, unnd zu Werck zu stellen, nötig auch unumbgenglich seyen erkennen muβ, dem herkommen und der schuldigkeit gemeeβ die notturfft mit deliberirt, und darauff mit unweigerlicher einwilligung Ewere underthenigste devotion und bereitwilligkeit gegen unβ, auch Ewere schuldige lieb gegen Ewerem Vatterlandt in der that erwiesen und resoluirt haben.’
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, pp. 1–2. (A second letter on the same date.): ‘Nachdem aber unβ der gantz unvermuthete Bericht zu Deuren [Düren] einglangt, daβ Ihr und andere unsere zu Mülheim gewesene Bergische Landtstandt, von Ritterschafft und Stetten ungeachtet daβ wir unβ erbotten, gleich folgenden Tags in der Persohn unβ zu Mülheim einzufinden, unnd über ein unnd anders Persöhnlich mit Euch zu tractiren: Euch durch zween Deputirte von unser Gülischer Ritterschafft, und deren Gülischen Syndicum durch Ihr, allem vermuthen nach, unerfindtliches angeben, auch ehe Ihr die gewiβheit erlangt, ob dem also, unnd was wir dagegen einzuwenden, Euch habt verleiten laβen, unerwartet unser Persöhnlicher gegenwahrt davon zu ziehen, da Ihr doch vielmehr, wan Ihr die biβher nunmehr oder die 43. Jahr ungeachtet aller Leib und Lebens gefahr, auch anwendung etlicher Millionen golts Euch in der that vielfeltig erwiesenen FürstVätterlicher sorgfalt und trew, auch Gnaden unnd guetthaten betrachtet, und hinwider der danckbarkeit gleicher Gestalt ein undertheniges guts herz zu unβ getragen, Euch für ein fremdt sollet geachtet, vand von herzen verlangens getragen haben, unβ in unserem Gottlob mit ehren erlebten Alter noch einmahl zu sehen, und unβ auff zuwarten.’
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, p. 2. (A second letter on the same date.): ‘Alβ haben wir solches Euch und andern unsern Bergischen Landtstenden hiemit verstendigen wollen: Und befehlen Euch darauff hiemit gnädigst, daβ Ihr zu reassumirung und fortsezung der angefangenen Landtags handtlung, auff Mittwcho [sic] den 22. dieses zu Mülheimb unfehlbahr wieder erscheinet und neben anderen unseren gehorsahmen Landtstenden unsere proposition, und dabey begriffene nötige puncta deliberieren, unnd die Notturfft entschlieβen helffet, deβen wir unβ also gänzlich versehen: Inmaβen Ihr dan sonst leicht zu ermeβen, daβ wan Ihr und andere unsere Landtstande, wie Im Jahr 1649. verglichen, Euch nit gehorsamblich einstellen, auch unser, und deβ Vatterlandtsnotturfft und sicherheit bedencken und darüber die notturfft schlieβen helffen werdet, wir alβdan das jenige maβ sich gestalten sachen und deβ Vatterlandts obligen nach, gebührt, für unβ selbsten werden resoluieren und verordenen müβen, und werdet Ihr unβ auch Immittelβ nit verdencken, sonderen der sachen unumbgenglicher nothwendigkeit zuschreiben, daβ wir auch noch vorhero (weil die Gülische von der Ritterschafft zu Deuren, so gahr urplötzlich verreiset, und nichts geschloβen, also auch Ihr und andere unsere Bergische Landtstende von Ritterschafft und Stätten, unangesehen wir gleich folgenden Tags unβ zu Mülheim Persöhnlich einzustellen erklehrt, auch Euch und Sie unsere ankunfft zuerwartten, durch unsere dahin verordtnete Rhäte haben erinneren lassen, solche unsere Landtfürstliche ordnung soweit nit respectirt, daβ Sie unser erwartet hetten, sondern daβ Ihr und sie gleichergestalt wie die Gülischer, insalutato hospite, Alβ wan Sie unsers Ihres getrewen Landtsfürsten angesicht flichentheten, davon gezogen) für unsere Soldaten, daβ unentbehrliche Brodt haben auβschreiben müβen, daβ wir auch wan Ihr Euch zur Landtage handlung nit einstellet, und solche fortsetzen helffen werdet, waβ die unumbgengliche Notturffe erforderen würde, noch darzu auβschreiben und beyspringen laβen werden, deβen underlaβung wir auch, weder bey Gott, noch dem geliebten Vatterlandt, und der posterirter zu verantwortten unβ getrawten, Wan wir händt unnd füeβ sincken, alles ober ein hauffen fallen und zu grundt gehen laβen, Auch unβ und unsere geliebte angehörige Menniglichen zu Ihren willen prostituiren wollen: Warnach Ihr Euch zurichten, und wir seint Euch auff den fall gehorsamen bezengens mit gnaden gewogen.’
JL Akten 51, 31 August 1652.
JL Akten 51, 5 September 1652.
JL Akten 51, 26 September 1652: ‘Nach de[m] Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. Unser Gnädigster Fürst und Herr, Beyder Fürstenth[umben] Gülich unnd Berg[ische] Landtständt von Ritterschafft und Stätten, in dero residentzstatt Dusseldorff, gegen den 7[.] deβ bevorstehenden Monatβ Octobris zum Landthag zu erscheinen, von nemen Gnädigst beschrieben.
Alβ werden E. G. nach anlaβ deren, beyden Syndicis newlich auffgetragener Special Commission, gegen den 4[.] gemelten Monats Octobris anhero zu kommen, und folgenden morgens umb 8. uhren in der Minnenbrüder Closter sich einzufinden, krafft dieses Citirt, und eingeladen, gestalt derjenigen (welche Hochstg. Ihre Fürstl. Durchl. die ursachen deroselben Ständt damahligen nicht erscheinens zum Landthag underthänigst zu hinterpringen, von de[m] Corpore dieser thagen auff Mulheimb deputirt gewesen) relation über ihre gehabte Verrichtung züforderβ anzuhören, unnd diesfalβ, sowoll alβ auchsonsten anderwertiger, dem Vatterlandt hochstangelener incidentien halber, mit und nebenβ denen obrigen erscheinenden mitgliedern, sich der notturfft nach zu underreden, warzu jedermänniglich, so es mit dem Vatterlandt wollmeine thut, habender zuversicht nach, sich unweigerlich accommodiren, und hindangesetzet aller verhinder nuβen Gottes gewaldt allein auβgenommen praecise in termino dies orths unfehlbar einkommen wirt. Sig. Cölln den 26. Sept. 1652. Ex Commissione Speciali DD. [von Mulheim].’
JL Akten 51, 26 September 1652.
Jaitner (1973), p. 36.
Ibid., pp. 193–311.
Ibid., pp. 179–180.
JL Akten 39, 29 October 1642.
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652. (A second letter on the same date.).
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, p 1-2. (A second letter on the same date.).
JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652. (A second letter on the same date.).
Villari (1994), chap. Afterword Two: Political and Conceptual Points.
Ackermann H (2004) Die evangelischen Gemeinden in Düsseldorf unter Pfalzgraf Wolfgang Wilhelm. Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 75:81–108
Anderson AD (1999) On the verge of war: international relations and the Jülich-Kleve succession crises (1609-1614). Humanities Press, Boston
Asch RG (2005) The thirty years war: the Holy Roman Empire and Europe, 1618-1648. Macmillan, Basingstoke
Bellingradt D (2011) Flugpublizistik und Öffentlichkeit um 1700 Dynamiken, Akteure und Strukturen im urbanen Raum des Alten Reiches. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
Bergerhausen HW (2011) Der Jülich-Klevische Erbfolgestreit: Diplomatische Verhandlungen und Verträge. In: Groten M, von Looz-Corswarem C, Reininghaus W (eds) Der Jülich-Klevische Erbstreit 1609: seine Voraussetzungen und Folgen : Vortragsband. Droste, Düsseldorf, pp 55–68
Bers GE (1970) Wilhelm Herzog von Kleve-Jülich-Berg (1516-1592). Beitrage zur Jülicher Geschichte 31:2–18
Braubach M, Schulte A (1925) Tausend Jahre deutscher Geschichte und deutscher Kultur am Rhein. L. Schwann, Duesseldorf
Christmann HT (2002) Die Reichsmünzordnungen und deren Umsetzung durch die Reichskreise. In: Cunz R (ed) Währungsunionen: Beiträge zur Geschichte überregionaler Münz- und Geldpolitik. H. Gietl, Hamburg. [i.e. ] Regenstauf, pp 197–220
Dahm H (1951) Verluste der jülich-bergischen Landmiliz im Dreiβigjährigen Krieg. Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch:280–288
Engelbert G (1959) Der Hessenkrieg am Niederrhein (1. Teil). AHVN 161:65–113. https://doi.org/10.7788/annalen-1959-jg03
Engelbert G (1960) Der Hessenkrieg am Niederrhein (2. Teil). AHVN 162:35–96. https://doi.org/10.7788/annalen-1960-jg03
Engelbrecht J (1994) Landesgeschichte Nordrhein-Westfalen. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart
Essink HBM (1973) Grave-Cuijk tussen 1481 en 1543: een onderzoek naar de confrontatie van de stad Grave en het land van Cuijk met Bourgondie-Habsburg en de Gelderse hertogen Karel van Egmond en Willem van Gulik. s.n., S.l
Gabel H (2002) Sicherheit und Konfession. Aspekte niederländischer Politik gegenüber Jülich-Berg vor und während des Dreißigjährigen Krieges’. In: Ehrenpreis S (ed) Der Dreißigjährige Krieg im Herzogtum Berg und in seinen Nachbarregionen. Verlagsdruckerei Schmidt, Neustadt an der Aisch, pp 132–179
Hantsche I, Krähe H (2003) Geldern-Atlas: Karten und Texte zur Geschichte eines Territoriums. Historischer Verein für Geldern und Umgegend, Geldern
Harms W (1985) Deutsche illustrierte Flugblätter des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Teil 1, Ethica, Physica 1 1. Niemeyer, Tübingen
Harms W, Schilling M, Wang A (eds) (1980) Deutsche illustrierte Flugblätter des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Band II; Wolfenbüttel Teil 2: Historica. Kraus International Publications, München
Hufschmidt A (2004) Reflexionen und Handlungsfelder einer katholischen Fürstin. Magdalena von Bayern in ihren Briefen an Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg (1614-1627). Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 75:143–170
Isaacson W (1933) Geschichte des niederrheinisch-westfälischen Kreises von 1648-1667. Dissertation. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn
Israel JI (1998) The Dutch Republic: its rise, greatness and fall (1477-1806). Clarendon Press, Oxford
Jaitner K (1973) Die Konfessionspolitik des Pfalzgrafen Philipp Wilhelm von Neuburg in Jülich-Berg von 1647-1679. Aschendorff, Münster
Janssen W (1984) Kleve-Mark-Jülich-Berg-Ravensberg 1400-1600. In: de Wird G (ed) Land im Mittelpunkt der Mächte: die Herzogtümer Jülich, Kleve, Berg. Boss-Verlag, Kleve, pp 17–40
Janssen W (1997) Kleine rheinische Geschichte. Patmos-Verl, Düsseldorf
Kaiser M (2002) Überleben im Krieg – Leben mit dem Krieg. Zum Alltagsgeschichte des Dreißigjährigen Krieges in den niederrheinischen Territorien. In: Ehrenpreis S (ed) Der Dreißigjährige Krieg im Herzogtum Berg und in seinen Nachbarregionen. Verlagsdruckerei Schmidt, Neustadt an der Aisch, pp 181–233
Keverling Buisman F (2003) De Vrede en het Tractaat van Venlo, 1543 – gevolgen voor het bestuur van Gelre en Zutphen. In: Stinner J, Tekath K-H, Evers M, Jacobs ID (eds) Het hertogdom Gelre: geschiedenis, kunst en cultuur tussen Maas, Rijn en IJssel. Matrijs, Utrecht, pp 65–75
Leffers R (1971) Die Neutralitätspolitik des Pfalzgrafen Wolfgang Wilhelm als Herzog von Jülich-Berg in der Zeit von 1636 bis 1643. Ph. C.W. Schmidt. Neustadt a. d, Aisch
Lünig JC (1713) Das Teutsche Reichs=Archiv, und zwar Pars specialis nebst dessen I.II.III. vnd IV. Continuation, worin zu finden, Die merckwuerdigsten Allianzen und Buendnisse, Manifesta, Armistitia, Friedens=Schluesse, Recesse, Concordata, Erb=Verbrüderungen, Vereinigungen, Verträge und Vergleiche in Religions=und Profan-Sachen, Pacta Familae, Statuta Primogenituræ, Lehen=Brieffe, Expectanzen und Unwartschafften, Ehe=Beredungen, Reverse, Kauff=und Wiederkauffs = Contracte, Obligationes, Cossiones, Renunciationes, Testamenta, Codicille, Geist= und Weltliche Ritter=Ordens = Statuta, Capitualitones, Gan=Erbschafften, Commercien=Tractate, Stapel= und Niederlags=Gerichtigkeiten, Privilegia und andere Diplomata. Dritter Theil, Der Vierdten Abtheilung, Dritter Absatz. Lanckisch, Leibzig
Mader EO (2004) “... wegen unserer conversion Irr und Perplex gemacht.” Wahrnehmungen, Darstellungen und Vorbedingungen der Konversion des Pfalzgrafen Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg zum Katholizismus (1613/14). Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 75:109–141
Mostert R (2002) Der jülich-klevische Regiments- und Erbfolgestreit – ein “Vorspiel zum Dreißigjährigen Krieg”? In: Ehrenpreis S (ed) Der Dreißigjährige Krieg im Herzogtum Berg und in seinen Nachbarregionen. Verlagsdruckerei Schmidt, Neustadt an der Aisch, pp 26–64
Motte W (2002) Kriegsereignisse und Ortsgeschichte. Radevormwald im Dreißigjährigen Krieg. In: Ehrenpreis S (ed) Der Dreißigjährige Krieg im Herzogtum Berg und in seinen Nachbarregionen. Verlagsdruckerei Schmidt, Neustadt an der Aisch, pp 234–274
Neu T (2013) Die Erschaffung der landständischen Verfassung: Kreativität, Heuchelei und Repräsentation in Hessen (1509–1655). Böhlau Verlag, Köln
Parker GN (ed) (1997) The Thirty Years’ War, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Petri F, Droege G (1976) Rheinische Geschichte. Band 2. Neuzeit. Schwann Verlag, Düsseldorf
Rahlf T (1996) Getreide in der Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert: das Beispiel Köln im regionalen Vergleich. Auenthal-Verl, Trier
Reichmann C (2009) Archäologische Untersuchungen an der mittelalterlichen Landwehr (Hückelsmay). Die Heimat - Krefelder Jahrbuch 80:186–189
Richter O (2010) Und die Klugheit hört nicht auf Klugheit zu sein, wenn ihr ein Tröpschen Trug beigemischt wird. Das Patent des brandenburgischen Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm zur jülich-klevischen Erbfrage von 1654. Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 90:15–29
Romein CA (2015) Vaterland, patria und Patriot in den Rechtsangelegenheiten Hessen-Kassels (1647–1655). In: Prozessakten P (ed) PartikularinteressenHöchstgerichtsbarkeit in der Mitte Europas vom 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin, pp 117–136
Schmidt A (2007) Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt: politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555 - 1648). Brill, Leiden
Smolinsky H (1993) Jülich-Kleve-Berg. In: Gundermann I, Schindling A, Ziegler W (eds) Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung: Land und Konfession 1500-1650. 2, 2. Aschendorff, Münster, pp 86–106
Tornow U (1974) Die Verwaltung der jülich-bergischen Landsteuern während der Regierungszeit des Pfalzgrafen Wolfgang Wilhelm, 1609-1653. Dissertation. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn
Trim DJB (1999) Sir Horace Vere in Holland and the Rhineland, 1610–12. Historical Res 72:334–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2281.00088
Villari R (1994) The revolt of Naples. Polity Press, Cambridge
von Looz-Corswarem C (2014) Der Düsseldorfer Kuhkrieg 1651. In: Kleinbongartz S, Anna S (eds) Fürsten, Macht und Krieg: der Jülich-Klevische Erbfolgestreit ; [Stadtmuseum Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf, 7. November - 3. Januar 2010]. Droste, Düsseldorf, pp 90–129
von Looz-Corswaren C (2003) Gelre en zijn buren Kleef, Gulik en Berg, van de late Middeleeuwen tot 1543. In: Stinner J, Tekath K-H, Evers M, Jacobs ID (eds) Het hertogdom Gelre: geschiedenis, kunst en cultuur tussen Maas. Rijn en IJssel. Matrijs, Utrecht, pp 127–133
von Schaumburg E (1882) Die Schlacht auf der St. Tönis-Haide (17. Januar 1642) und die Einnahme von Oedt, Neuß, Kempen und Linn. AHVN 38:50–86
Wagner S (1977) Staatssteuern in Jülich-Berg von der Schaffung der Steuerverfassung im 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Auflösung der Herzogtümer in den Jahren 1801 und 1806. Selbstverlag Forschungsinstitut für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte an der Universität, Köln
Walz R (1982) Stände und frühmoderner Staat: die Landstände von Jülich-Berg im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Ph. C.W. Schmidt, Neustadt an der Aisch
Wilson PH (2004) From reich to revolution: german history, 1558-1806. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Wilson PH (2010) Europe’s tragedy: a new history of the Thirty Years War. Penguin, London
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romein, C.A. (2021). Jülich: Pamphlets and Cologne Get-Togethers (1640s–1650s). In: Protecting the Fatherland: Lawsuits and Political Debates in Jülich, Hesse-Cassel and Brittany (1642-1655). Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74240-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74239-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74240-9