In the seventeenth century regents often had poets praise themselves. But in times of political crisis, pamphleteers ridiculed the elite by revealing their very vices and misdeeds. That could go far, but had a self-correcting effect. As soon as a satirist went too far, according to his colleagues, and there was a threat of disruption of civil society, he could easily become the target of ridicule.
Marijke Meijer Drees, lecturer-researcher older Dutch literature at the University of Groningen, late in the Dutch-language academic Tijdschrift voor History see how seventeenth-century satire worked in the Netherlands. Pamphleteers proceeded according to the classical laws of rhetoric. When regents, according to the satirists, were praised too much by their adherents (Latin:laudare ) they launched a counter-campaign aimed at reprimanding or berating (vituperare ).
That berating was in every way the opposite of praising. When praising focused on one's good, virtuous sides, berating focused on the morally depraved and dishonorable. Meijer Drees shows this on the basis of the satirical pamphlets that appeared around the inauguration of the young Amsterdam regent Gerard Bicker as the new drost and castle guardian of Muiden.
In a report of Bicker's arrival at the Muiderslot, the Amsterdam city poet Jan Vos describes how morally virtuous Gerard Bicker is:
‘Who the Politeness in its power; d'Nobleness on her throne, and the Staatskundet had wanted to descend to life (painting) at its sharpest, could be seen here in the periphery of Mr. Bikker.'
In Vos's account, Gerard Bicker is all about virtue, just as befits a regent from a powerful family. But fifteen months later, Amsterdam finds itself in a political crisis after a surprise attack on the city, political heads have to roll. The rhetorical technique of the 'vituperare' is used by the pamphleteers to remove the Bicker family from their political offices.
Duymzuyger, mean disturber of the peace!
In a pamphlet called 't Muyder Spoockje' , a fictitious conversation between a resident of Amsterdam and a native of Muiden, the native of Muiden tells how Bicker fled his castle out of cowardice when the city was attacked. In addition to being cowardly, he is also described as obese, smelly and unsanitary. The spot soon turns against the entire Bicker family.
Nevertheless, the pamphlet battle surrounding Bicker shows that there were also limits to the satire. When the Hague printer Willem Breeckeveld is arrested after a pub quarrel and forcibly tells that he was anonymously responsible for some incendiary texts ('Your uncle Bikker will have his head cut off and his treacherous torso will split on an oak trunk!' ) over Bicker, a boundary is crossed.
Whoever steals someone's honor steals his life, remarks one 'Koninck' in a pamphlet. He then scolds:“Faam robber, slanderer, cursed murderer, duymzuyger, mean disturber of the peace!”, he bites Breeckeveld. Another author writes that Breeckeveld 'burger-twist' sows with his 'nefarious find'. “Who is that bloodhound anyway, who wants to inflict such damage on our glorious Amstel city, who has the guts to take Bicker's name in his false mouth? What kind of one are you, don't you have a name, beast?”
Satire in the seventeenth century could go far, concludes Meijer Drees. But as soon as there is 'burger-twist' and disruption of society threatened, other pamphleteers intervened. It came too late for Bicker, however. The entire Bicker family suffered irreparable image damage. Breeckeveld ended up on the Amsterdam pillory, with a sign with 'Valsche artijkel drucker' around his neck.