Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

[p. 240]

54 Answer from a good patriot and citizen of the town of Ghent to the notorious pamphlet entitled: Advice of a citizen of the town of Ghent, who has become embittered by the calamities in his town, 1583 ¹

This is Marnix of St Aldegonde's answer to a pamphlet published in the same year by Frederick Perrenot, lord of Champagny (Granvelle's brother), detained at Ghent since 1578. The latter had attacked the policies of the prince of Orange in particular.

The prince of Orange has always defended us against your schemes and those of your brother and of people like you, and when we were oppressed by tyranny, he proved that he truly pitied our misery. When he was called in by some of our country to help us,² he not only risked his life and used all the means he could lay hands on, but he pledged nearly the whole estate of his brothers, the counts of Nassau. Though God did not at that time allow him to achieve his aims and to deliver us as he hoped, yet he has always remained loyal and full of affection towards us. When there was a new opportunity for helping us, he was again asked to take advantage of it by the States of the country,³ and he once more brought a large army to our aid. Thanks to that army and to the sympathy he had built up in the country, he was able to take the first step towards our deliverance.

Everyone seeing how much he has suffered since for the sake of our liberty and the bitter pain caused by the death of the counts Louis, Adolph and Henry his brothers, and that of Duke Christopher, killed in battle for our sake,⁴ may judge the value of your remarks about the hatred which the house of Nassau feels for these provinces and the grudge you say they harbour against us. Those who stake their lives and possessions on delivering us from our misery and calamities, do not provide any evidence of being hostile to us. Rather do those, who feign to lament our misery and calamities, but in reality intend to return us to the yoke of the king of Spain.

You accuse him of wanting to establish his own dominion; when did he

1 Responce d'un bon patriot et bourgeois de la ville de Gand au libelle fameux intitulé Avis d'un bourgeois de la ville de Gand, qui se ressent amerement des calamitez de sa ville (Knuttel, no. 633).

2 In 1568.

3 In 1572.

4 See Document 19.

[p. 241]

ever show such ambition? What evidence have you to convict him? Had he tried to become seignior of these provinces, had this been his principal aim, he would not have been so slow to seize opportunities and would not have refused the offers made to him. We know the powers we have often offered him and that on many occasions he could have done what you accuse him of. But honest people also know that he always refused our requests, perhaps too often. A man who prefers another prince to himself cannot rightly be judged to aspire to the sovereignty. A man who puts the crown on the head of another cannot be as ambitious as you represent him. Discerning people will never believe that he thought fit to call in other princes in order to establish his own authority, or that he has always kept in reserve some way of disposing of them; they know that supreme authority is never shared. Crowns, like marriages, cannot be shared; a man who aspires to the sovereignty and has the means to obtain it, will never be so foolish as to share it with others. Thus it is not easy to depose a prince elected and established in a country by the general consent of the people, especially if he is of royal rank, as is His Highness, son and brother of the kings of France. And if the ugly affair of Antwerp had not taken place so soon, before his authority was firmly established,⁵ we would have seen abundant proof of the fact that such princes are not to be played with.

You claim to suspect the prince of Orange of aspiring to the sovereignty of Holland. What in fact happened was that he had so proved his fidelity and love for the people of Holland - of whom he had been governor for very many years - that they asked him to agree to become their protector under the title of sovereign.⁶ He for his part did not think it wise to let the duke of Anjou receive complete power over the whole country all at once, for he feared that this young foreign prince, who did not know the disposition of the inhabitants and was not well-versed in their laws, customs and privileges, could easily be misled by his followers' bad advice or by the sinister practices of the pensionaries of the king of Spain. Thus with His Highness's consent he decided not to reject the request of the people of Holland, as he had rejected that of several other provinces,⁷ whose safety depended in his opinion on the support of a prince of greater power. What objections can one raise to this? What trace of ambition can one discover here? None, of course. Indeed, is there more convincing

5 The French fury of 17 January 1583.

6 In July 1581 the province of Holland had entrusted high authority to the prince of Orange for the duration of the war.

7 Gelderland, Overijssel and Utrecht.

[p. 242]

proof not only of his great caution and love for these countries and his aspiration to preserve all of them in their liberties, but also of singular moderation and modesty, free from any greed and ambition? The course of events has shown everyone how wise was his decision.

There is nothing that you do not use as a basis for your slander and you model and remodel your lies as an actor does a nose of wax. One and the same subject serves you for different calumnies, entirely at variance with each other. First you say that he perfidiously handed the country over to His Highness; then, that he set the provinces against His Highness and himself tried to make His Highness hated by those of the religion, because he has never cherished any goodwill towards the duke. But all your efforts to disguise your lies are fruitless. There is one single fact that convincingly proves you a liar and cuts through the knot of all your tangled fabrications. When the prince was at death's door and in so serious a state of health that there did not seem any hope of him surviving, he told us that he did not know a more suitable prince than His Highness to help us, nor a prince who could with greater confidence be expected to govern the people peacefully. And he therefore ordered us to honour and love His Highness and to consider him the father of this country. This was his farewell to the States General and his last will and testament.⁸ This was the opinion he had conceived of His Highness and evidence of the sincere esteem in which he held him. Who will now believe what you say about his excessive hypocrisy? It is clearly totally unfounded. Surely at the moment of passing from this world there is no room for hypocrisy. This single fact proves you a liar; it will give dignity to the rest of the prince of Orange's life.

If His Highness has since been ill-advised or has himself meant harm, the prince, of whose fidelity and love of the country we have had so much evidence, cannot be blamed for it. The prince considered His Highness a very honest man, capable of delivering us. If the contrary has proved the case, the prince of Orange must not be blamed. People who judge the actions of others on the grounds of their results and not of their motives, do not deserve ever to be happy or to succeed in their undertakings. Sensible people always do otherwise; they offer advice based on solid arguments and are not cast down by the outcome, which God alone decides.

And if, even after disasters as great as those at Antwerp, Bruges,

8 On 18 March 1582 the prince was seriously wounded by Jean Jaureguy's attempt on his life. He then communicated his ultimate wishes to Marnix.

[p. 243]

Dixmuyde and elsewhere, the prince does not angrily and hastily pronounce sentence on His Highness (as some people think he should), does not deprive him of all authority nor declare him to be deposed of his rights and prerogatives, it is not because he does not love the public good and does not seek the best means to deliver the country. It is because great practical experience and clear judgment have taught him that a rule always held by statesmen is true, that one should reflect a long time before doing something which cannot be undone and that one should be slow to give a definitive answer, for time accomplishes gently what cannot well be brought about by violence.