Logo DBNL
De Zeventiende Eeuw. Jaargang 20 (2004)

De Zeventiende Eeuw. Jaargang 20

(2004)– [tijdschrift] Zeventiende Eeuw, De–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

Owen Felltham's A Brief Character of the Low-Countries: an ambiguous portrait of the Dutch
Katrien van Oost

1 Introduction

For both England and the United Provinces, the early seventeenth century was in many respects an intriguing era. The conflicts between the republic of the United Provinces and the absolute monarchy of Spain, the complex political situation in Stuart England and the shifting Anglo-Dutch relations had a massive impact on many of the writings published in seventeenth-century England. Owen Felltham's A Brief Character of the Low-Countries under the States, Being three weeks observation of the Vices and Vertues of the Inhabitants is one of them. First published in 1652,1 but already composed in the early 1620's, this satirical description of the United Provinces and the Dutch was fairly influential in its own time. It gave rise to a new genre, the character of nations, and was repeatedly used in propagandist disputes by both royalists and parliamentarians.

A Brief Character has been ignored in academic circles for quite a long time. Scholars, if they study Felltham at all, tend to focus on his more serious works, such as his resolves and poems. It is only in the past decade that critics seem to have taken a more vivid interest in Felltham's description of the United Provinces as well. An extensive discussion of the genesis of A Brief Character is found in Van Ittersum's survey article.2 She highlights the text's importance for the study of Anglo-Dutch relations in the seventeenth century. Whereas Van Ittersum mainly focuses on A Brief Character's alleged comments on England's foreign policies, Christopher Gabbard3 sees Fellthams text as a defence of traditionalist royalist values. However, A Brief Character is often ambiguous and both interpretations fail to give a satisfactory interpretation of the whole text. Nonetheless, their studies are excellent points of departure for a new attempt to fathom Felltham's description of the United Provinces.

In this article, the interpretations of Van Ittersum and Gabbard will be discussed. A close reading of the text will reveal some key passages that are left unaccounted for in

both interpretations. Finally, an attempt is made to lift the many ambiguities and present a full interpretation of Felltham's text by means of a study of the hybrid textual genre of A Brief Character.

2 A Brief Character and Anglo-Dutch relations in the seventeenth century

As A Brief Character was first officially published in 1652, it is very tempting to read it as a hollandophobic pamphlet written in defence of the first Anglo-Dutch war (1652-1654). However, we must take into account that the pamphlet was written at a much earlier date, in the beginning of the 1620's. Hence, it is impossible that Felltham initially wrote his satirical description of the United Provinces in support of Cromwell's foreign policies.

Van Ittersum argues that Felltham probably never intended A Brief Character to be used as propaganda in the Anglo-Dutch wars. The 1652 edition was published anonymously, and the preface clearly states that it was issued without the consent of the author. Moreover, the following editions of A Brief Character do not ‘follow a pattern punctuated by crises in the Anglo-Dutch relations.’4 It is for example significant that no reprints appeared during the second Anglo-Dutch war. Only after Felltham's death do we again find a direct link between his description of the United Provinces and the Anglo-Dutch conflicts: in 1672, the first year of the Anglo-Dutch war (1672-1674), A Brief Character was reprinted anonymously as Batavia: Or the Hollander displayed.

In order to retrieve the true political background of Felltham's description of the Low Countries, it is interesting to compare the two main versions of the text. Before the official publication of the text in 1652, A Brief Character had already circulated in several manuscripts from the early 1620's onwards. Five different manuscript versions can be distinguished.5 The first two manuscript versions (A and B), entitled Three Moneths Observations of the Low Countreys, especially Holland,6 are very similar. Manuscript C is regarded as a ‘thorough revision of the existing text,’7 due to some 140 changes in grammar and vocabulary. The most striking adjustment is undoubtedly found in the title of the pamphlet, which is now called Three Weeks Observations of the States Countries, especially Holland. The content of manuscript C, however, does not differ from that of the A and B text. In contrast, the content of the pamphlet does change considerably in the transition from manuscript C to D and E (only minor changes occur between D and E). Eventually, it was this last version that appeared in print, as A Brief Character of the Low-Countries under the States.

A Brief Character is noticeably longer that Three Moneths Observations. Van Ittersum claims that Felltham's elaboration of the original text has changed ‘a once-bantering tone into one of derision and contempt.’8 Her main argument is Felltham's description of cruel Dutch behaviour during the siege of Leiden:

Tis their own Chronicle business, which can tell you that at the Seige of Leyden, a Fort being held by the Spanish, by the Dutch was after taken by Assault. The Defendants were put to the sword, where one of the Dutch, in the fury of the slaughter, ript up the Captains body, and with a barbarous hand tore out the yet living heart panting among the reeking bowels, then with his teeth rent it still warm with blood into gobbets, which he spitted over the battlements, in defiance to the rest of the Army. O Tigers breed! The Scythian-Bear could nere have been more savage. To be necessitated into cruelty, is a misfortune to the strongly tempted to it; but to let spleen rave, and mad it in resistless blood, shewes nature steepd i'th livid gall of passion; and beyond all brutishness displays the unnoble tyranny of a prevailing Coward.9

According to Van Ittersum, the Anglo-Spanish treaty of 1630 has caused the shift in tone between the two versions of Felltham's character. In 1625, Charles I had declared war on Spain. He found an eager ally in the United Provinces, who were more than willing to fight their enemy of old. However, when Charles I signed the Treaty of Madrid in 1630, thus ending the Spanish war, the Anglo-Dutch alliance fell apart. England had switched sides and anti-Dutch sentiments could be freely expressed now. It is in this climate that Van Ittersum situates A Brief Character.10

Some added passages in A Brief Character, in which Felltham adopts a sympathetic stance towards Spain, support her hypothesis. Felltham considers the Dutch revolt to be unlawful (‘they were once the lawful subjects of that most Catholic Crown’, ABC 36) and acknowledges the sovereign power of the Spanish king in the United Provinces: ‘And certainly this is the badge of an ill Nature, when they have once cast off the yoke, to be most virulent against those to whom of right they owe respect and service’ (ABC, 35). Another small, but revealing detail is the change of ‘Their Navies are the whip of Spain, or the Arm wherewith they pull away the Indies [my emphasis]’ (TMO, al.53) into ‘his Indies [my emphasis] (ABC, 38)’. Whereas ‘the Indies’ seems to imply that the possession of the Indian colonies was still undecided and that the Dutch won them fair and square, ‘his Indies’ suggests that the United Provinces stole Spain's lawful territory.

However, Van Ittersum's claim that A Brief Character is far more negative on the Dutch than Three Moneths Observations is not easy to sustain. Indeed, in A Brief Character Felltham elaborates on vices already mentioned in Three Moneths Observations. He further ridicules their snobbery and fondness for outward appearance, gives more examples of their stubbornness and stresses their love of alcohol. More importantly, Felltham also elaborates on the state of Dutch religion. In Three Moneths Observations, he had al-

ready criticised the boundless religious toleration in the United Provinces, by portraying Amsterdam as a den full of serpents. His criticism on Dutch religion becomes even more prominent in A Brief Character. He does not only condemn the fragmentation of the Christian faith in the United Provinces (ABC, 47: ‘it can not excuse their boundless Tolleration’), he also stresses their proximity to hell twice. Already in the opening pages, Felltham writes:

It affords the people one commodity beyond all the other Regions; if they dye in perdition, they are so low, that they have a shorter cut to Hell than the rest of their neighbours. And for this cause, perhaps all strange Religions throng thither, as naturally inclining towards their Center. (ABC, 3)

Several pages later, he reformulates the same idea: ‘if Aetna be hells mouth or foregate, sure here is found the Postern’ (ABC, 10). Furthermore, Felltham also insinuates that the United Provinces and some of its ‘inhabitants’ are not really a product of God's creation. He for example suggests that God did not intend the Low Countries to be more than just mud and water. It was not ‘Creation’, but ‘the successive force of the Sun’ which has ‘a little emended them’ (ABC, 2). Furthermore, spiders, which live abundantly in Dutch gardens, are claimed to be ‘No creatures; for sure they were bred, not made’ (ABC, 6).

Besides elaborating on vices already introduced in Three Moneths Observations, Felltham also introduces two new vices: cruelty and cowardice. He for example claims that the English act more bravely when staring death in the face:

Fleets they can fight close, and rather hazard all then save some, while others perish: but single, they will flag and fear like birds in a bush when the Sparrow-Hauks bells are heard (...) they want the valiant stoutness of the English, who will rather expire bravely in a bold resistance, than yield to the lasting slavery of becoming captives to so barbarous an enemy. And this shews they have not learned yet even Pagan Philosophy, which ever preferred an honourable death before a life thralled to perpetuall slavery. (ABC, 39-40)

However, this extract is contradicted by other passages, in which Felltham stresses the libertarian character of the Dutch. He claims that ‘nothing can quiet them but money and liberty’ (ABC, 33) and that they despise a monarchical regime, as ‘The very name carries servitude in it, and they hate it more than a Jew doth Images, a Woman old age’ (ABC, 42-3).

According to Van Ittersum, the second new vice, cruelty, ‘resurfaces time and again in the D text.’11 However, there is only one explicit passage dealing with Dutch brutality in war: Felltham's description of the siege of Leiden (cf. supra). Other new passages stress the warlike nature of the Dutch as well, but it is not always clear whether these really express disapproval of their behaviour. Felltham for example recounts how the Dutch killed ‘with the loss of a thousand or little more (...) 7000 of their Enemies’ (ABC, 68) during the battle of Newport in 1600. With the previous passage in the back of one's mind, one could interpret this sentence as proof of their cruel nature, but in the

text itself the battle is described as ‘a gallant piece’ (ABC, 68). When Felltham describes the Spanish-Dutch confrontation in the Bay of Gibraltar (1607), he remarks that ‘a bolder attempt hath ever scarce been done’ (ABC, 69). It is difficult to decide whether ‘bold’ is meant here as a compliment or a reproach.

If we look at the textual transitions carefully, the transition from Three Moneths Observations to A Brief Character is not as straightforward as Van Ittersum seems to suggest. Indeed, it is true that many additional phrases and paragraphs are very critical of the Dutch country and mentality. By adding a new sentence, Felltham sometimes completely alters the tone of his original writings. In Three Moneths Observations, he for example remarks that the Dutch ‘Dresse their Meate in aqua caelesti; ffor their Water springs are not as ours, from the Earth, but comes to them (as Manna to the Israelites) from heaven’ (TMO, al. 14). As such, Felltham portrays the Dutch as God's new chosen people. Just as He has sent the Israelites manna from heaven during their journey through the desert, God now provides the Dutch with water. Felltham completely undercuts this positive image in A Brief Character by adding the phrase ‘This they keep under ground till it stinks, and then they pump it out again for use’ (ABC, 12). He seems to insinuate that the Dutch are not worthy of God's gift. However, Felltham has also added a new passage in A Brief Character in which he again compares the Dutch to the Israelites. This time he sees the biblical exodus from Egypt as a prefiguration of the Dutch rebellion against the Spanish oppressor, thus formulating a divine justification for their revolt: ‘They have struggled long with Spains Pharaoh, an they have at length inforced him to let them go’ (ABC, 91). Interestingly, this image alters the tone of the original passage in a positive way. In Three Moneths Observations, Felltham compares the Dutch rebels to serpents and rats, thus condemning their uprising. By drawing a parallel between the Spanish king and the Egyptian pharaoh in A Brief Character, he seems to lead the reader towards a more positive appreciation of the Dutch revolt.

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that all new passages in A Brief Character display a negative attitude towards the Dutch. Besides elaborating on Dutch vices, Felltham also elaborates on their virtues. Their diligence is stressed over and over again. Already in Three Moneths Observations, Felltham criticises the English for not being as industrious as the Dutch, and additional passages in A Brief Character repeat this idea. Felltham also praises the Dutch for their tough but honest conduct of trade, and again, heavily criticises the English:

In the sale of these they also are at a word, they will gain rather than exact; and have not that way whereby our Citizens abuse the wise, and cozen the ignorant; and by their Infinite over-asking for commodities proclaim to the world that they would cheat all if they were in power. (ABC, 74-5)

Interestingly, earlier on in the text we find the following comparison: ‘all their Merchandise they draw through the streets on Sledges, or as we on Hurdles do traitors to executions’ (ABC, 21). Here, Felltham connects Dutch merchants and traitors, thus insinuating that they are in some ways similar. It is not the only contradiction found in A Brief Character. Felltham for example criticises the hypocrisy of the Dutch as far as the sixth commandment is concerned: they pretend to be very chaste, but mentally they

give in to indecent thoughts. He also states that indecent behaviour is not punished, as ‘Coaches are as rare as Comets, those who live loosely shall not be carted’ (ABC, 21). However, Felltham also honours the chastity of Dutch women, who refuse to give in to temptation: ‘if you once pretend to more than is civil, she falls of like fairy wealth disclosed, and turns like beer with lightning to sowreness, which either Act nor labour can ever make sweet’ (ABC, 25-6).

The many ambiguities in Felltham's text make it difficult to sustain that A Brief Character should be read as a straightforward attack on the United Provinces and a defence of England's new ally after signing the Treaty of Madrid, Spain. Another passage that problematises Van Ittersum's interpretation is Felltham's elaboration on the dangers of absolute monarchy. Already in Three Moneths Observations, Felltham warns kings that a too rigid oppression will automatically lead to rebellion. In A Brief Character, he further elaborates on this idea. It is very hard not to read this passage as a direct critique on the Spanish king.

Consequently, it is very difficult to determine where Felltham's loyalties lie. Each passage that supports the Spanish king is counterbalanced by another one that seems to defend the Dutch uprising. Perhaps Felltham's true opinion on the Dutch-Spanish conflict is revealed in the passage in which he adopts the pragmatic stance that a war between the United Provinces and Spain can only be beneficial for England:

And were that Spaniard but possessed Lord of the Low-Countries, or had the States but the wealth and power of Spain, the rest of Europe might be like people at Sea in a Ship on fire; that could only chuse whether they would drown or burn. Now, their war is the peace of their neighbours. (ABC, 98-9)

3 A Brief Character as royalist propaganda

Whereas Van Ittersum tries to find the interpretation of A Brief Character in the shifting Anglo-Dutch relations of the 1620's, Christopher D. Gabbard suggests that the key to the text is to be found in the internal struggles of Great Britain. According to Gabbard,

The nation's Anglican-royalist elite, suspicious of Holland's potential to inspire domestic rebellion, viewed the Dutch Republic as a renegade nation, indeed, as the very seat of political subversion. This anxiety stemmed from the fact that golden-age Holland implicitly affronted both the ruling Stuart monarchy and England's residual feudal institutions. As a result, in all probability the elite would have applauded A Brief Character's satiric barbs directed against this rogue state.12

Gabbard suggests that A Brief Character is very much influenced by the Stuart patriarchal and conservative ideology of Felltham's day and age. After James I's accession to the throne, the relative emancipation of English women under the rule of Elizabeth I was counteracted and a ‘belief in correspondences and the Great Chain of Being’ was firmly re-established:

as God ruled over the heavens and the earth, so the king ruled the nations, and so, further down the rungs of degree, the father rule the household (...) patriarchism manifested itself both on the political and on the household level.13

Extracts from Felltham's Resolves14 give readers a fairly good insight in the author's conservative world view. In his resolve ‘The great Good of Good order’, the author expresses his belief in ‘the Ptolemaic universe as Christianized during the Middle Ages’.15 According to Felltham, God has enforced order and harmony upon his creation:

even in the Firmament, we see how all things are preserved by a glorious order. the Sunne hath his appointed circuit, the Moone her constant change, and every Plannet and Starre their proper course & place.16

Only in hell, chaos and disorder are to be found. Therefore, mankind has to organise life according to the divine principles of order and degree. Everyone should be content with whatever place in society God has assigned him or her to, as social mobility leads to chaos. Felltham explains this idea In ‘How hee must live, that lives well’:

nothing jarres the Worlds Harmony, like men that breake their rankes. One turbulent Spirit will diffentiate even the calmest Kingdome (...) Nay, when hee gives himselfe leave to transgresse, hee must needes put others out of their way: and hee that disorders himselfe first, shall trouble all the company.17

Felltham also composed poems that reveal his political and religious beliefs, such as ‘On William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, Beheaded, Jan. 10. 1643’.18 In this poem, he criticises the mock-trial of Archbishop Laud and states that the incident at last revealed the true nature of England and its leaders:

 
The State wished his head, white with age, cut off,
 
And for four years, with ill motives, pressed an investigation;
 
The fury of the State, the spite of the people,
 
The caprice of the Commons (supported by the sword)
 
At last came into the open.19

Although he acknowledges that Laud had made mistakes, Felltham downplays their severity, claiming that ‘the offence was not a capital one’. The final lines of the poem display Felltham as a great admirer of the Archbishop:

 
With him, the grandeur of the Kingdom,
 
The defence of the Cavaliers,
 
The tradition of the Church,
 
The freedom of the subjects,
 
And the safety of the British sphere
 
Are, for a season, buried together.

Another poem suggests Felltham may have shared some of Laud's anti-Puritan ideas. ‘Upon Abolishing the Feast of the Nativity of our blessed Saviour, Anno 1643’ is a vigorous plea for the celebration of Christmas Day, in which he strongly denounces those that decided on its abolishment.20 Felltham significantly ends his poem with the following lines: ‘Jews may reject the day, but I / Will Christian dye.’21

Probably the most overtly political of Felltham's poems is his panegyric of King Charles I, ‘An Epitaph To the Eternal Memory of Charles the First, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, &c. Inhumanely murthered by a perfidious Party of His prevalent Subjects, Jan. 30. 1648’. In this poem, Felltham first establishes the divine right of Charles I to rule over England. He then goes on to glorify the former king, claiming that he was more patient than Job, and wiser than Solomon. His suffering has turned him into a Christian martyr, as ‘He to save the Church has shed His blood’.22 Moreover, Felltham draws a parallel between Charles I and Christ. Comparing the treacherous Scots to Herod, Oliver Cromwell to Judas, Bradshaw to Pontius Pilatus and the round-heads to the Jews, Felltham builds up to his conclusion that ‘Here Charles the First, and Christ the second lyes’.

Clearly, ideas expressed in the rest of Felltham's oeuvre support Gabbard's claim that A Brief Character should be read as the result of a clash between ‘English and Dutch mentalité and the two nation's political systems’.23 Indeed, from the viewpoint of an ardent supporter of the Stuart monarchy, the religiously tolerant Dutch Republic must have embodied everything he or she fundamentally disagreed with. After their successful revolution against Spain, the United Provinces were no longer governed by those who were divinely destined to rule. Commoners could now break through the existing social strata and become the equals of the formerly privileged members of the aristocracy. Not surprisingly, Felltham is extremely critical of the Dutch democracy and its leaders:

The Countries government is a Democracy, and there had need be many to rule such a rabble of rude ones. (...) None among them hath Authority by inheritance (...) They are chosen all not for their fin of Wit, but for the Wealth they have to bear. (ABC, 42-3)

Twice, Felltham repeats the idea that a title of nobility in the United Provinces has become utterly void. He claims that in Dutch houses, ‘though their Ancestors were never known, their Arms are there’ (ABC, 17) and that ‘Etscutcheons are as plentifull as Gentry is scarce’ (ABC, 18). The traditional order of the political Chain of Being has been thoroughly disrupted, which also has had its influence on Dutch households. Just as there is no longer a monarch naturally governing his subjects, a father is no longer the automatic and indisputable head of his family. In the United Provinces, it has become almost impossible to distinguish sons from their fathers:

Had Logicians lived here first, Father and Son had never passed so long for Relatives. They are here Individuals, for no Demonstrance of Duty or Authority can distinguish them, as if they were created together, and not successively. (ABC, 48-9)

Moreover, the natural gender division has been obliterated as well. Not only have fathers lost the authority over their sons, they have also lost the natural right to dominate their wives: ‘In their Families they are all equals, and you have no way to know the Master and Mistress, but by taking them in bed together’. (ABC, 48).24

In short, the governmental system of the United Provinces and the alleged emancipation of Dutch women constituted a serious threat to the conservative principles of order and degree. Furthermore, the disruption of the Great Chain of Being in the Dutch Republic did not seem to have negative effects. On the contrary, the country was blossoming, both culturally and economically. No wonder royalist circles applauded Felltham's satirical description of the United Provinces, as his predominantly negative portrayal of the Dutch can be read as an illustration of the pernicious consequences of a Republican regime on the character of its inhabitants. Hence, it undermines the glorious myth of seventeenth-century Holland.

4 A Brief Character as a mirror for the English

Gabbard very elegantly presents Felltham's description of the United Provinces as a manifestation of the conservative and paternalistic ideology of the Stuart era. However, his interpretation is challenged by the same passages that also contradict Van Ittersum's reading of A Brief Character. It is true that in A Brief Character, the stress lies on the description of Dutch vices, by which Felltham probably wanted to demonstrate the degrading effects of disrupting the divinely imposed order of the world. However, the author also elaborates on Dutch virtues. One of the recurrent motives in A Brief Character is for example their industrious nature. Time and again, Felltham stresses that the Dutch are the most diligent people on earth (cf. supra).

Moreover, he does not only praise the Dutch, he explicitly criticises the English as

well. Three times, he clearly states the Dutch surpass his fellow-countrymen as far as diligence is concerned. According to Felltham, ‘they shame us with industry’ (ABC, 71) and

A mess of their knaves are worth a million of ours: for they in boisterous rudeness can work, and live, and toil, whereas ours will rather laze themselves to poverty; and like Cabages left out in winter, rot away in the loathsomeness of a nauseous sloth. (ABC, 40-1)

As a result, the total income of the English does not even equal half of the money earned in the United Provinces:

Merchandise amounted in Guicciardines time to fourteen Millions per Annum. Whereas England which is in compass almost as large again, and hath the Ocean as a Ring about her, made not above six Millions yearly: so sedulous are these Bees to labour and inrich their Hive. (ABC, 87)

In order to explain these passages, it might be interesting to have a closer look at the hybrid form of A Brief Character. On the one hand, A Brief Character is part of the short-lived tradition of the characters of nations, a seventeenth-century expansion of the Theophrastan character. These short pieces of prose describing moral types were probably introduced in England by Joseph Hall, who, unlike Theophrastus, did not only discuss human vices, but also dealt with human virtues. In the course of the seventeenth century, the genre of character-writing underwent some interesting changes. Instead of describing ‘ethical characters’, such as flattery, greed, arrogance and surliness, Thomas Overbury used the character genre to portray social types, such as a courtier, a country gentleman and a soldier. Also, the boundaries between the character and the essay gradually began to fade. As a result, characters developed into longer pieces of prose.25 Finally, the Theophrastan character was used for descriptions of nations as well. These characters of nations are logical continuations of the description of social types. Instead of the portrait of a courtier, a puritan or a servant, readers were presented with the character of some of the inhabitants of the country under discussion, whose personalities and behaviour were generalised and considered as representative of the whole nation. Not unsurprisingly, the characters of nations made extensive use of ancient-old ethnic stereotypes, which were widely used in seventeenth-century literature. Together with Anthony Weldon, whose A Perfect Description of the People and Country of Scotland is generally considered to be the first character of nations, Owen Felltham was one of the pioneers of this new genre. In 1659, John Evelyn followed their example and published A Character of England, which was quickly followed by the anonymous response A Character of France: to which is added Gallus Castratus or an answer to a late slanderous pamphlet. In 1660, printer Nathaniel Brooke published a Character of Spain and a Character of Italy, which according to Robertson form ‘the end of this brief fashion’26. Andrew Marvell's

propagandist poem The Character of Holland, which shows some interesting textual similarities with A Brief Character, can be placed in this tradition as well.27

Felltham's description of the United Provinces also incorporates formal characteristics of traditional seventeenth-century travelogues. A comparison of his text with general observations on the United Provinces written by some of his contemporaries shows that the first part of Three Moneths Observations is structurally very similar to other travel accounts. Felltham deals consecutively with the typical themes found in general observations on the visited country: geography, Dutch housing, the inhabitants of the country, their appearance and diet, the Dutch governmental and legal system and religious matters. The second part of his text, however, shows no structural similarities with other travel journals. Felltham now uses a biblical excerpt (Proverbs 30:24-28) as a structuring device instead. Interestingly, one typical topic is missing in Three Moneths Observations: Dutch history. Felltham adds lengthy passages on this theme in his A Brief Character, but includes them in the second part, thus distorting the original dichotomous structure.

Besides structural and topical similarities, another striking correspondence between Felltham's text and other seventeenth-century travelogues is the extensive use of national stereotypes. The style by which he describes those stereotypes is of course highly satirical and therefore very different from the (pseudo-) objective tone found in other travelogues, but as far as content is concerned, there are few differences. Diligence, neatness, love of alcohol and avarice are all characteristics often associated with the Dutch in the seventeenth century.28

Both Theophrastan characters and seventeenth-century travelogues can said to be examples of didactic and/or moralistic pieces of writing. In the preface to his Characters of vertues and vices in two bookes, Hall makes explicit the instructive nature of his work:

if thou shalt hence abiure those vices, which before you thoughtest not ill-favoured, or fall in love with any of these goodly faces of vertue; or shalt hence finde where thou hast anie little touch of these evils, to cleere thy self, or where any defect in these graces to supply it, neither of us shall need to repent our labour.29

As far as the didactic nature of travelogues is concerned, we have to take into account the various opinions on travelling in the seventeenth century. Some authors feared the corruptive influence of foreign vices and consequently tried to dissuade readers from travelling abroad. Others admitted the dangers of foreign travel, but also acknowledged

that the English could improve their character by assimilating the virtues of inhabitants of other European countries. In one of his resolves, Felltham for example argues that ‘a man may better himselfe by Travaile, hee ought to observe, and comment: noting as well the bad, to avoyd it, as taking that good, into use.’30

Reading A Brief Character as an instructive work, urging its readers not to imitate the many vices of the Dutch, but also stimulating them to follow their virtues, explains why Felltham does not solely focus on the negative traits of character of the Dutch. Moreover, it also helps to explain one lengthy passage in A Brief Character that remains unaccounted for in both Gabbard's and Van Ittersum's interpretation of the text, namely Felltham's concluding remarks on the drawbacks of absolutism:

They are a glass wherein Kings may see that though they be Soveraigns over lives and goods, yet when they usurpe upon Gods part, and will be Kings over conscience too, they are somtimes punisht with loss of that which lawfully is their own. That Religion too fiercely urg'd is to stretch a string till it not onely jars, but cracks; and in the breaking, whips (perhaps) the streiners eye out.
That an extreme taxation is to take away the hony, while the Bees keep the Hive, whereas he that would take that, should first either burn them, or drive them out. That Tyrants in their Government, are the greatest Traitors to their own States. That a desire of being too absolute is to walk upon Pinacies and the tops of Pyramides, where not only the footing is full of hazard, but even the sharpness of that they tread on may runne into their foot and wound them. That too much to regrate on the patience of but tickle Subjects, is to press a thorne till it prick your finger. That nothing makes a more desperate Rebell than a Prerogative inforced too far.
That liberty in man is as the skin to the body not to be put off, but together with life. That they which will command more than they ought, shall not at last command so much as is fit.
That Moderate Princes sit faster in their Regalities, than such as being but men, would yet have their power over their Subjects, as the Gods unlimited. That Oppression is an iron heat till it burns the hand. That to debar some States of antient Priviledges; is for a Falcon to undertake to beat a flock of wild-geese out of the fens. That to go about to compell a sullen reason to submit to a wilful peremptoriness is so long to beat a chain'd Mastife into his kennel, till at last he turns and flies at your throat. That unjust pollicy is to shoot as they did at Ostend into the mouth of a charged Canon to have two Bullets returned for one. That he doth but indanger himself, that riding with too weak a Bit provokes a headstrong horse with a spur. That tis safer to meet a valiant man weaponless, than almost a coward in Armor. That even a weak cause with a strong Castle, will boil salt blood to a Re bellious Itch. That tis better keeping a Crazy body in an equal temper, than to anger humors by too sharp a physick.
That Admonitions from a dying man are too serious to be neglected. That there is nothing certain that is not impossible. That a Cobler of Flushing was one of the greatest enemies that the King of Spain ever had. (ABC, 92-7)

The ideas expressed in this extract echo the ongoing debate in Stuart England whether kings received their sovereignty directly from God or that their ‘power arose by an act of transference from the people.’31 Especially Presbyterians and Catholics challenged the divine right of kings. They argued that originally, sovereign power was a matter of

the whole community. Later, the community decided to concentrate power in the hands of one man, the king. However, ‘in certain circumstances the king could be resisted and even deposed by the community’.32 Hence, a rebellion against a tyrannical monarch could be entirely justified.

It is not easy to reconcile Gabbard's reading of A Brief Character as a defence of traditionalist values with the apparent critique on absolute leadership found in its final paragraphs of the text. Pebworth, who favours a royalist reading as well, proposes that they were not written as a direct attack on the English king, but were meant to criticise the Spanish monarch and to celebrate the uprising of the United Provinces.33 Indeed, most passages could refer to the Dutch revolt against Spain, which seems to support Pebworth's hypothesis. However, it has already been indicated that A Brief Character is a very ambiguous text, and that it is impossible to determine where Felltham's loyalties lie. Some extracts can be read as a justification of the Dutch rebellion, others stress that the Spanish king lawfully ruled the United Provinces (cf. supra). Furthermore, it seems strange that a text that condemns the violation of the principle of order and degree and defends the divine right of kings to rule, at the same time contains passages that justify an uprising against a lawful monarch. Finally, direct references to the Spanish-Dutch conflict are scarce. It looks as though Felltham deliberately intended to keep the conclusion of A Brief Character as general as possible, which makes it difficult to maintain that his comments on absolutism do not involve the English king. Taking into account that formally, the text is a combination of two potentially instructive and moralistic genres, a reading of the conclusion as a lesson for all kings seems evident.

In order to explain the concluding paragraphs of A Brief Character, it is interesting to return to Felltham's elegy of Charles I. At first sight, the poem appears to be a destructive critique on the Parliamentarians and a rather straightforward deification of the murdered king. However, Pebworth warns readers not to interpret the text too literally. He suggests the poem is not a glorification of the real Charles I, but a description of a perfect monarch:

Felltham is writing not so much about the historical Charles as he is about the ideal Charles. A king should be divinely called to his throne; he should be wise, patient and just; he should promote unity in state and Church; he should oppose a factious and extreme Parliament; he should devote his last days to the composition of a devotional book. The martyred monarch of Felltham's poem is all that a king ideally should be.34

This reading suggests that Felltham was indeed aware of the mistakes Charles I had made during his reign. Consequently, the comments on absolute leadership at the end of A Brief Character do not necessarily contradict the text's overall conservative tone. Felltham most likely did believe in the divine superiority of a monarchical regime, but apparently he was also aware of the drawbacks of absolutism. It should be noted that the

author never challenges the right of kings to rule as sovereigns (cf. ABC, 92-3: ‘they are somtimes punisht with loss of that which lawfully is their own’ [my emphasis]). Therefore, it is possible to read the ending of A Brief Character not as a critique on the English king, but as a warning or moral lesson. Just as Felltham is holding up a mirror to the English people, he is showing his king what mistakes he should try to avoid in order not to provoke a rebellion. Thus, the ending is not an attack on absolutism, but an attempt to consolidate the traditional order.

Abstract - The many ambiguities in Owen Felltham's A Brief Character of the Low-Countries, first published in 1652, have lead to different interpretations of the text. Van Ittersum reads A Brief Character as a vivid denunciation of the Anglo-Dutch alliance. Gabbard, on the other hand, considers the text a defence of traditionalist royalist values. However, certain passages in A Brief Character contradict both interpretations. A close reading of the text and a study of its hybrid textual genre suggest an alternative interpretation: A Brief Character as an instructive mirror for the English and the English king.

Vorige Volgende