Four hundred years ago, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded, the most powerful politician in the Netherlands at the time. This political murder is getting attention in various ways, including a book about his high-profile trial and execution.
Johan van Oldenbarnevelt is said to have been secretly buried in the village church of Berkel en Rodenrijs. Growing up in this village I often wondered where exactly he would be. Because no one could tell me that. The statesman had become involved in a power struggle with Maurits van Oranje, the stadtholder, and lost. This literally cost him his head on May 13, 1619 and where his body has gone has been a mystery ever since.
It is no coincidence that historian and lawyer Wilfried Uitterhoeve wrote the book 'The Case Oldenbarnevelt' during this commemorative year. Fall, trial and execution.” He too has not been able to solve the mystery of the final resting place. However, the combination of his two disciplines does provide an interesting new look at the last months of Van Oldenbarnevelt's life. Uitterhoeve reports extensively on the many interrogations to which Van Oldenbarnevelt was subjected. The minutes of the interrogations and defense of Van Oldenbarnevelt have largely been preserved. They offer a unique insight into the sharp mind of the politician, who was already 71 years old at the time.
Rising Star
Before we come to the inevitable fall of Van Oldenbarnevelt, the author first tells about the youth and career of the son of a gentleman farmer from Amersfoort, born in 1547. After his law studies, in 1570 he started working as a lawyer at the Court of Holland, which was charged with the administration of justice. Van Oldenbarnevelt's star rose quickly:in 1577 he became the pensionary of Rotterdam, the highest paid civil servant and representative of that city to the States of Holland. In that capacity he also had to deal with William of Orange and the Revolt against the Spaniards. His political and diplomatic talents did not go unnoticed.
The next step was that of the highest-ranking official in powerful Holland and thus of the entire Republic:the State Attorney or Grand Pensionary, a sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister in one. Van Oldenbarnevelt held this post from 1586, making him the most powerful politician of his time. William of Orange had meanwhile been murdered in 1584 and his son Maurits had been appointed as the next stadtholder. The thoughtful Maurice was mainly concerned with military strategies and warfare. Until the beginning of the seventeenth century he lovingly left political matters to his mentor Van Oldenbarnevelt.
While the two men complemented each other well for a long time, the first tension arose at the end of the century. The States General, headed by Van Oldenbarnevelt, thought that Maurits' strategies cost too much time and money and they simply had to approve the budget. The real schism arose around the Twelve Years' Truce, the armistice with Spain, from 1609 to 1621. Finally enforced by Van Oldenbarnevelt, but very much against Maurits' wishes. It would only give the Spaniards time to regain their strength, even though the Republic was also war-weary and broke.
Unsympathetic grabber
By pushing through his will, Van Oldenbarnevelt made Maurits his enemy and that would cost him dearly later on. Now Uitterhoeve sketches the politician as a pushy and unsympathetic man. Characteristics like this are always nice to read:'Van Oldenbarnevelt was not a very warm personality and outspokenly vindictive towards opponents. Not a popular man, but respected because of his overview, energy, his speed of work and his phenomenal memory'. In addition, the politician grabbed large amounts of money. The more power, and therefore foreknowledge, the richer he became from his investments in, for example, reclaimed land. He also accepted so many gifts from foreign powers that he would be accused of bribery during the trial.
But his hand has overplayed Van Oldenbarnevelt with his struggle against the conservative Calvinists. During the truce they got into a heated discussion with the liberal Remonstrants about the doctrine of predestination:were you already chosen by God when you were born or did you still have influence on it yourself? This dispute ran so high that not only did both groups of pastors and their followers no longer want to stay in the same church, but there was even a threat of civil war. Van Oldenbarnevelt intervened by forcing conservatives, through the law, to be tolerant. The state stood above the church.
During this conflict, Maurits deliberately sided with the strict current and thereby against his enemy. He marched his army through several cities that had sided with the liberals to change their minds. He then summoned Van Oldenbarnevelt to visit the Binnenhof. The politician felt wet, but never thought he would not come home.
Smuggled pens
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
While the entire build-up is necessary to understand the sequel, now begins the most interesting part of the book:the judicial process. The author uses the minutes to let Van Oldenbarnevelt speak about his choices from his time as director. As a reader, in addition to the historical story, you therefore also gain insight into the course of events in a courtroom from the seventeenth century and the tactics that Van Oldenbarnevelt applied in his own defence.
The Grand Pensionary was his own lawyer, but this was not made easy for him. The suspect was not allowed to take or use notes in the courtroom and in his cell. Fortunately, Van Oldenbarnevelt had a good memory, but he was also very happy with the smuggled pens and paper that his family hid in the fruit that was sent. Further contact or communication between the prisoner and the outside world was strictly prohibited.
Other criminal proceedings
The courtroom in the seventeenth century was clearly very different from what it is today. There were two types of criminal proceedings, the accusatory and the inquisitorial proceedings. In the first, the accused faced the judiciary as a free and equal party. In the second procedure, the accused was a disenfranchised subject and lawyers and an appeal were excluded. Proof of the crime or otherwise a confession, obtained voluntarily or through torture, was required.
Van Oldenbarnevelt was subject to the latter procedure, but he was not tortured:this method was rarely applied to the elite. The reason that his case had to be dealt with inquisitorially was due to the indictment:Van Oldenbarnevelt was suspected of high treason (undermining of internal authority and order) and treason (relationship with hostile powers). However, the politician did not confess, so his guilt had to be proven. For this he was interrogated for several days by twenty-four conservative Calvinist judges to a greater or lesser extent.
Tactics of Van Oldenbarnevelt
The interrogations began on November 14, 1618 and the last was to take place on April 14, 1619. All that time, Van Oldenbarnevelt was locked up in a room above the current Ridderzaal. It appears from the minutes that the judges questioned him on four main topics:the sowing of religious confusion to weaken the country, the appointment of landlords (mercenaries) in cities that had sided with the conservative Calvinists, the undermining of Maurice and the favoring of the Spanish enemy.
Van Oldenbarnevelt was faced with a barrage of hundreds of questions, which he had to answer acutely and from memory. That was far from easy, as he had been in power for decades. He often appealed to his advanced age when he would not answer. The author thinks that Van Oldenbarnevelt, with his good memory, often knew the answer. In some cases it was only more beneficial to pretend not to remember.
In addition, the state attorney had other tactics:he made both his profession and his actions small. He had, for example, been no more than the servant of the States of Holland and only articulated the decisions of third parties. And he explained how he had acted in the traditions of the land and in common sense. With twists and turns but without really lying, the politician tried to get out of the accusations.
From the diary of Van Oldenbarnevelt's servant, whom Uitterhoeve regularly quotes, we know how hard these intense interrogations were for the old man. He would be upset back to his room every time. In order to remember as much as possible, the politician made notes on the smuggled paper. Unfortunately, that source has been lost, as the papers were discovered by the guards at the end of the trial.
An unexpected verdict?
After the interrogations, the judicial officials sorted out all the information and had to indicate in an advice which facts had been proven and which could be punished. Here Uitterhoeve clearly explains how the trial against Van Oldenbarnevelt would never have been legally valid. Van Oldenbarnevelt's so-called confessions came from the interrogations, in which context was omitted or the politician's words were twisted. The officials also took incriminating statements from letters from Van Oldenbarnevelt as a confession, although the suspect had denied this during his interrogation.
It seems clear that the officials were convinced in advance of Van Oldenbarnevelt's guilt, resulting in the death penalty. The judges subsequently did not adopt this advice without a fight and spent days discussing the death sentence. For example, some of them wanted the sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment by the grace of Maurits. However, Van Oldenbarnevelt had to beg Maurits for this, and he explicitly refused to do so:he continued to insist on principle that he was not a traitor. Uitterhoeve thinks it wouldn't have mattered either:Van Oldenbarnevelt had made too many enemies who wanted to make sure that he would never strike back or thwart their plans.
End of story
How did Van Oldenbarnevelt actually react? When told that he would be read the death sentence the next day, followed by his execution, the prisoner is said to have cried out in disbelief. He had expected that there would be more interrogations in which he could set things straight.
Van Oldenbarnevelt then wrote a letter to Maurits in which he stated that he had always served him 'with sincere affection'. The old mentor asked his former pupil to forgive him if he had done something Maurits was not happy about. To the frustration of many, including Maurits, the state attorney continued to refuse to admit guilt or beg for a pardon. The next day, May 13, 1619, the politician was beheaded in the Binnenhof in The Hague. Maurits was not there.