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.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.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.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.78 However, between 1635 and 1649, the nobility established their system to tax the commoners, concerning their traditional privileges.79 Unable to communicate with the duke's council, the nobles assembled in 1634 without notifying him, pointing to their right to organise assemblies.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.

#### 3.2.1 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.81 The request could not be refused, despite the expressed understanding

73Engelbert (1959), p. 67.

74Kaiser (2002), pp. 182–188.

75Walz (1982), p. 45.

76Kaiser (2002), pp. 182–188.

77Ibid., p. 193.

78Walz (1982), p. 61.

79Ibid., pp. 112–118.

80Ibid., p. 47.

81JL Akten 47, 7 Januari 1636: 297 v-298 r.

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.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.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.84 Consequently, the people of Jülich and Berg paid higher taxes and experienced an increase in the billeting of soldiers.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.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.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.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.89 Roaming soldiers posed a significant threat to stability, peace, and wellbeing. The troop movements continued, and many people fled the Lower-Rhine Area

82During previous years, soldiers had been billeted in the Jülich-Berg principalities, but not on such a large scale. See Walz (1982), p. 47.

83JL 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); Engelbert (1959), p. 69; For an indication on the value of the currency Wilson (2010), p. xxii.

84Engelbert (1960), p. 38.

85Engelbert (1959), p. 76.

86The 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).

87von Schaumburg (1882), p. 66; Kaiser (2002), p. 189.

This location was also known as: Kempe(ne)r Haide, Hülser Haide, St.Tönis Haide/ St. Antony's Haide or abbr. Tönis Haide or just as 'the Haide'.

88Reichmann (2009), pp. 186–187.

89Wilson (2010), p. 633; von Schaumburg (1882); Engelbert (1959); Engelbert (1960), p. 59.

to escape the horrors of war. They went into hiding in cities, forests, and across the borders, especially in the Dutch Republic.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.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.92 They met on Saturday 8 November in the Dominican convent of the city of Cologne.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.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

94JL 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.

  Sign. Cölln den 29. Octobr. [October] Anno 1642. Ex Commissione DD.

90Engelbert (1960), p. 78.

91JL Akten 39, 23 September 1642.

92Engelbert (1960), p. 57.

93This 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.

contributions to the Hessian army was scheduled.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.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.97 Debating the destitution and prosperity (Germ.: Wollfahrt) of 'our beloved Fatherland' 98 was on the agenda for the next assembly in Cologne, on 2 May 1643.99 The subject of the debate was how prosperity could be improved.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.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 coldheartedness 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

95JL Akten 39, 9 November 1642.

96JL Akten 39, 9 November 1642.

97Part 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 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.'

99JL Akten 39, 18 April 1643 (printed).

100JL Akten 39, 18 April 1643 (printed).

101JL 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] [1]642 so dan[n] den 28. Martij [1]643 Jahrs uneingewilligte und den Priuilegijs zuwider außgeschriebene Stewr- und Licent-Geldere. Getruckt im Jahr Christi, 1643.'

princes.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.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.104

Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had seriously violated the notions of freedom, noble privileges, law, and justice, according to a pamphlet issued in 1643.105 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.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

102Part 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, Brandschatzund 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 [1]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 [1]643 Jahrs.'

103Lat.: cum plenissima causae cognitione.

104Walz (1982), p. 90.

105JL Akten 39, 6 May 1643, p. 6.

106JL Akten 39, 6 May. 1643, p. 7.

traditions.107 His obligation was to take care of his lands with 'fatherly' precautions.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: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.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.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.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.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

107JL Akten 39, 2 August 1643 printed in Cologne (printed, 2-side leaflet).

108JL Akten 39, 2 August 1643 printed in Cologne (printed, 2-side leaflet).

109JL Akten 40, 16 January 1644.

110JL Akten 40, 16 January 1644, p. 6.

111JL Akten 40, 20 January 1644.

112JL 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.

113JL Akten 40, 11 July 1644: one-page leaflet (print).

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?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 1644.115 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.116 On this same date, they made a reference to soldateska rather than soldiers.117 The term soldateska had a violent and negative connotation and referred explicitly to lawless soldiers.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.119 With this choice of words, the marshal implied that his forces consisted of disciplined, not disorderly men.120 All of the complaints, he noted, were caused by actions which occurred during the collection of monthly contributions of about 3145 Reichsthaler121 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

114JL Akten 40, 9 August 1644.

115JL Akten 40, 12 Augustus 1644: one-page leaflet (print) of the Imperial Chancellery inviting people to defend the Holy Roman Empire.

116JL Akten 40, 13 Augustus 1644, one-page leaflet (print) reaction of the Landstände of Jülich concerning the Imperial request—written and signed in Cologne.

117JL Akten 40, 13 Augustus 1644.

118Wilson (2010), p. 623.

119JL Akten 40, 4 January 1645.

120Wilson (2010), p. 623.

121JL 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.

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 Manifest122 against the policy of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm was written on behalf of the Landstände of Jülich and Berg.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'. 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.125 Unfortunately, the duke had ignored the complaints of the Landstände so far.126

On 3 March 1645, a pamphlet was printed in the city of Cologne.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.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

122This 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.

123JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: 'Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg [...]'.

124JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: 'Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg [...]'., p. 5.

125JL 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.

126JL Akten 40, no date (30 pages, handwritten). First words: 'Ob woll beijder Furstenthumb Gülich und Berg, pp. 28–29.

127JL 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).

128JL 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).

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.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.130

129Section 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.'

130Section 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.  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.

 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.

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.131 As a result of these

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.'

131Section 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,

feelings, the nobility felt the need to protect their beloved fatherland, and to mention that the duke had inherited the duchies (Posterität).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.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.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. 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.136 These burdens had been enumerated earlier that year.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.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 1647.139

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.'

132JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 7.

133JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 5.

134JL Akten 40, 3 March 1645, p. 6.

135Schmidt (2007), p. 67.

136JL Akten 41, 23 December 1646.

137JL Akten 41, 26 November 1646.

138JL Akten 41, 26 November 1646.

139JL Akten 41, 23 December 1646.

On 16 January 1647, a 14-page text appeared, issued in the principality of Cleves.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.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.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.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.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.145 This pamphlet focussed on two arguments. The

140JL Akten 42, 16 January 1647 (handwritten).

141JL Akten 42, 16 January 1647: p. 3 v.

142JL Akten 42, 5 February 1647.

143JL 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).

144Villari (1994), pt. Afterword Two: Political and Conceptual Points of Contact Between the Seventeenth-Century Revolutions: Naples and Europe.

145JL 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

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.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.147 Half a year later, the Dutch States-General were still not convinced that the duke was living up to the agreements made.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.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

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).

146Richter (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.

147JL 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).

148JL Akten 43, 28 September 1647; Dutch National Archief 1.01.02 file 3253, p. 543; Dutch National Archive 1.01.02 file 98.

149JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.

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. 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 1647.151 It commented on the debates about the prosperity of the fatherland and conservation.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 1647.153 Though the original invitation seems lost,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.155 The Landstände were most willing to come to an official assembly, mainly to obtain a more detailed answer to their four requests.156 The Landstände tried to meet the duke's wishes with these remarks.

150JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.

151JL Akten 43, 20 June 1647.

152JL Akten 43, 20 June 1647.

153JL 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).

154The 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.

155Section 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.  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.'

156See above, and in: JL Akten 43, 27 May 1647.

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.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.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.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.160 On 1 June 1647, a letter was sent on behalf of the Dutch Estates-General

157Section from: JL Akten 43, 17 July 1647 (pamphlet), 8-9: 'So können Wir nicht absehen, was für hoffnung seye, daβ 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?

158Section 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.  So wird Uns desto schlechter hoffnung zu der vertrösteten Satisfaction gegeben, bevorab Ewer Furstl. Durchl. in dero Befehl Schreiben, so Ste unter Dato 24.  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,

to the Landstände of Jülich expressing abhorrence that the duke was pursuing his incorrect and illegal procedures.161 In October and December, the nobles assembled in Cologne.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 wellbeing 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.163

On 18 May 1648,164 another invitation of the nobility to join in an assembly on 8 June extended to all loyal patriots.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 4.166 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.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.168 The various princes of the Holy Roman Empire acknowledged and restored the old privileges of the Landstände. 169 The nobility of Jülich understood that the Swedish and Hesse-

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.

161JL Akten 43, 1 June 1647.

162JL Akten 43, 1 October 1647; JL Akten 43, 7 December 1647.

163See 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. 164Walz (1982), p. 114.

165JL 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.'

166JL Akten 44, 14 October 1648.

167JL Akten 44, 21 November 1648.

168W Isaacson (1933), p. 9.

169Ibid., p. 11.

Table 3.1 Tax and financial burden of Jülich (1639–1653)

This table has been published earlier in German in C.A. Romein, 'Jülicher Patrioten am Ende des Dreiβigjährigen Krieges (1642-1652). Die Verwendung der Vaterland-Terminologie im 17. Jahrhundert.' Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, vol. 85 (2021). Published with permission a

There may be many more taxes requested and/or levied, that have not been mentioned here. This can be explained by the hundreds of pages of source material at the NRW-archive that are still awaiting a researcher's attention. The author does not claim to be complete here, and merely sets out to offer an overview of the taxes she did find b

Christmann (2002), p. 213 c

Number of inhabitants has been fixed at 215,000 inhabitants. Based on: Tornow (1974), p. 22

Cassel army needed payment. Nonetheless, they were content with the peace treaty, as it was generally beneficial to their fatherland.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).171 Based on the grain prices found

170JL Akten 44, 21 November 1648.

171http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/011/i0515e/i0515e23.pdf. Accessed 12-12-2014.

Table 3.2 Tax and financial burden of Julich in kcal and days of food insecurity (1639–1653)

This table has been published earlier in German in C.A. Romein, 'Jülicher Patrioten am Ende des Dreiβigjährigen Krieges (1642–1652). Die Verwendung der Vaterland-Terminologie im 17. Jahrhundert.' Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, vol. 85 (2021). Published with permission a Ibid

b Number of inhabitants has been set at 215,000 based upon Tornow (1974), p. 22

by Thomas Rahlf, it is possible to calculate the purchasable amount of grain with silver.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.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.

172Rahlf (1996).

173Ibid., p. 22.

#### 3.3 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'. 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.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.176 Timely payments were essential, or the Hessian army would extend their stay.177 The Swedes would leave as soon as payments started to arrive, according to two pamphlets written in April and May 1649.178 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. 179 In the case of Hesse-Cassel, such a genuflection would not occur. The duke humbly requested them to attend an

174JL Akten 44, 4 December 1648.

175Tornow (1974), p. 22.

176Part 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].'

177Kaiser (2002).

178JL Akten 49, 26 April 1649; JL Akten 49, 31 May 1649 (printed).

179JL Akten 45, 24 January 1649.

assembly of February, in order to advise him on what to do to improve the fatherland's prosperity.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.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.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.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.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.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 30.186 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 1649.187 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.188 The

184JL Akten 46, 16 November 1649.

180JL Akten 45, 24 January 1649.

181JL Akten 49, 26 April 1649.

182JL Akten 45, 5 May 1649.

183JL Akten 45, 8 May 1649.

185JL Akten 49, 6 January 1651 (printed).

186JL 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.

187JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r–42 v.

188JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r; JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 v.

Landstände, especially the nobility, sorely regretted this situation as it harmed their beloved fatherland.189 Nevertheless, on 30 August 1649, a pamphlet printed on both sides was published on behalf of the duke.190 It requested the cooperation of the inhabitants of Jülich regarding the imperial contributions due to payment in 8 days.191

Texts of the experiences and observations of the nobility—frequently referred to as the Collegio Nobilium—are available from March 1650 onwards.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. 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.194 These two complaints led to the voicing of grievances.195 However, the duke did not listen to the patriots who had the best interest of the fatherland at heart.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.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.

189JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 40 r.

190This 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.

191JL Akten 46, 30 August 1649: p. 573 r. Unfortunately, the amount has not been filled out.

192For example JL Akten 48, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 52 v.

193JL Akten 48, 30 March 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 4 r.

194JL 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.'

195JL Akten 48, 21 April 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 23v.

196JL Akten 48, 21 April 1650, Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p. 24r.

197JL Akten 48, 22 April 1650, Prothocollu de Anno 1650, p. 26r.

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.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.199 It is unclear whether the Landstände went to the Duke's Landtag, as their documents make no mention of it.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.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.202

On 3 April 1651, Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm agitatedly remarked that the Dutch Republic and some reformed people had threatened and abducted Catholic clergymen.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

198JL Akten 48, 27 June 1650: 'Demnach der Durchleuchtigste Fürst und Herr, Herr Wolfgang Wilhelm Pfaltzgrave bey Rhein, in Bayeren, zu Gülich, Cleve und Berg.  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].'

199JL Akten 48, 27 June 1650.

200JL Akten 48, 4 July 1650: Prothocollum de Anno 1650.

201JL Akten 49, 20 August 1650 (printed).

202JL Akten 49, 20 August 1650.

203JL Akten 49, 3 April 1651.'

motives for the invasion.204 Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm had agreed to respect the Protestant religion when he signed the Treaty of Xanten but had not upheld this promise.205 Instead, he had imprisoned pastors, taken money away from churches and violated treaties regarding religion.206 Such accusations were published in several texts, translated, and consequently distributed in the Dutch Republic.207 It turned into a pamphlet polemic, in which texts written on behalf of Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm defended his case.208 The emperor also joined in as he wanted to prevent another full-blown war.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.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.211 The Prince-Elector's disappointment with the Treaty of Westphalia prompted his actions: Catholics had gained ground since 1609 and 1612.212 He had questioned the right of succession of his

204Kort 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).

205Kort Bericht, waerom Sijn Cheurfursteleijke Doorluchticheyt van Brandenburgh, 3.

206Kort Bericht, waerom Sijn Cheurfursteleijke Doorluchticheyt van Brandenburgh, 4-5.

207Kort 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).

208Vorstelijck 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).

209Mandement 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).

210von Looz-Corswarem (2014).

211Jaitner (1973), pp. 88–101; Isaacson (1933), p. 25.

212Jaitner (1973), p. 91.

distant relative ever since his acceptance of the fief in 1640.213 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.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 17.215 The competition between the two princes was not appreciated as the safety of the patria was at stake once again.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.217 The second version of this pamphlet was twice as long.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.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;220 his son Johann Wilhelm visited the Estates-General in The Hague, successfully requesting the Dutch Republic to refrain from interference.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.222 By 27 July the Landstände deliberated and mentioned that the patria depended upon the return of peace.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

213The text is in response to 7 March 1651 and 3 April 1651. Richter (2010).

214JL Akten 49, 29 May 1651 (printed).

215JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p.5 r and 7 v.

216JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1650, p.8 r.

217Placcaet 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).

218Placcaet 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).

219Wir Landtstenden auß Ritterschafft und Statten der Erbvereinigten Landtschafften und Herzogtumen, Gülich, Cleve, Berg, und Graffschafft marck u. (HAB Gm 3621 (8), n.p. 1651).

220JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p. 15 r.

221von Looz-Corswarem (2014).

222JL Akten 50, 17 June 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651, p. 15 r (2 July 1651).

223JL Akten 50, 27 July 1651: Prothocollum de Anno 1651.

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.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.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.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.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.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.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.230 Strikingly, the duke used the word 'the' (deβ) instead of

224von Looz-Corswarem (2014).

225JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.

226W Isaacson (1933), p. 26.

227JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.

228JL Akten 49, 14 November, 1651.

229JL Akten 49: 11 October 1651.

230Part 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

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.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.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.233 The text explicitly identified the burdens in question.  Düβeldorff den 6. May 1652.'

233Section 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,

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.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.235 The duke switched back and forth between your (euer)

235JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, p. 2.   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.'

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.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.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.238 Discussions both about the danger to, and potential consequences for, the fatherland were necessary.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.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.241 In 1665, the Treaty of Dorsten was accepted, downplaying the religious divisions of the period between 1612 and 1624. Moreover, the rights of

prostituiren wollen: Warnach Ihr Euch zurichten, und wir seint Euch auff den fall gehorsamen bezengens mit gnaden gewogen.'

236JL Akten 51, 31 August 1652.

237JL Akten 51, 5 September 1652.

238JL 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.  Sept. 1652. Ex Commissione Speciali DD. [von Mulheim].'

239JL Akten 51, 26 September 1652.

240Jaitner (1973), p. 36.

241Ibid., pp. 193–311.

the Protestants were clarified, thus resolving the 1647 religious matters.242 Most importantly, in 1666–1672, agreements were reached that dealt with the succession.243

#### 3.4 Conclusion

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.

242Ibid., pp. 179–180.

243von Looz-Corswarem (2014); Bergerhausen (2011), p. 55.

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.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'. 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'. 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.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 timeconsuming. 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.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

244JL Akten 39, 29 October 1642.

245JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652. (A second letter on the same date.).

246JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652, p 1-2. (A second letter on the same date.).

247JL Akten 51, 6 May 1652. (A second letter on the same date.).

248Villari (1994), chap. Afterword Two: Political and Conceptual Points.

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.

#### References

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Chapter 4 Hesse-Cassel: Alledged Sedition and Law-Suits (1640s–1650s)

In 1647–1655, the displeased nobility in Hesse-Cassel used similar termsto the nobility of Jülich to express criticism regarding their government. Landgravine Amelie Elisabeth von Hanau-Münzenberg (1602–1651) ruled the Lower Principality of Hesse-Cassel from 1637 to 1650, as regent for her son Wilhelm VI (1629–1663).1 Although the nobles had supported her in her role as a regent, Amelie Elisabeth proved unwilling to acknowledge their privileges, especially their required consent in tax matters. The nobility fiercely opposed Amelie Elisabeth's taxation because the prosperity of the principality, and the livelihood of its inhabitants had already suffered much from the Thirty Years' War. Nevertheless, she requisitioned payment from the commoners to pay her armies without obtaining the necessary consent. The nobility thus argued that she had neither listened to their pleas, nor honoured prior agreements, and thus she risked establishing an absolutus Dominatus.2 Here they applied precisely the same term as the nobility in Jülich to indicate that they considered her actions illegal. Correspondence between the nobility and the landgravine shows that the nobility would take the matter to the Imperial court if Amelie Elisabeth were to proceed with such abuses. The nobles of Hesse-Cassel reflected upon themselves as being patriots acting for the common good of their fatherland.3

This above case illustrates how the Hessian nobility responded to what they perceived as threats to the welfare of the Lower Hessian principality of Hesse-Cassel. These covered three aspects: the requisitioned payment from the commoners; the denial of the vital role the Hessian nobility had played throughout

1 Though there are no general spelling-rules during the seventeenth century, nor were people very consistent over time, the spelling of the landgravine's name has been adopted in accordance with her own autograph in JL 40, 9 May 1645; 11 May 1645 and 31 May 1645.

2 Replicae der niederhessischen Ritterschafft contra dem Hern Landgraff Wilhelmen zu Hessen, etc. 1652, in HStAM 73, documents from the year 1652.

3 von Friedeburg (2010), p. 170; von Friedeburg (2005); von Friedeburg (2003).

© The Author(s) 2021

C. A. Romein, Protecting the Fatherland: Lawsuits and Political Debates in Jülich, Hesse-Cassel and Brittany (1642-1655), Studies in the History of Law and Justice 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74240-9\_4

history; and above all, the continuous damage to the lands that affected all means of existence of the inhabitants. The German Landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel was small, with an estimated population of 375,000, and again, with only a few nobles.4 Most people in Hesse-Cassel were Lutherans since the sixteenth century, which they practised in silence when their landgrave converted to Calvinism.

In 1646 Landgravine Amalie Elisabeth requisitioned taxes to free Hesse-Cassel from its enemy occupation. When the nobility met to discuss this, the landgravine interpreted their assembly as undermining her government. Hence, she had its two chairmen humiliatingly arrested. The Hessian nobility then brought their case before the Imperial Chamber Court to seek reparations and restore their privileges; the case continued until 1655.

All debates focussed primarily on two issues: the welfare and prosperity of the landgraviate, and taxation and the cost of war. The landgrave claimed to use taxation to cover the cost of warfare, aiming to restore the welfare and prosperity of the principality. Conversely, the nobility claimed that the cost of war—and the resulting taxes—damaged Hesse-Cassel even further. Therefore the landgrave and the nobility had different perspectives on cause and effect. This does not imply that the landgrave and the nobility held opposing positions—they did judge the weight of taxes and warfare differently. Arguably, the landgravine—in contrast to the nobility—considered the hardships caused by warfare and taxation to be acceptable in comparison with the effects of ignoring the threat of war. The nobility and the landgravine barely engaged in a discussion about the governing principles that informed their arguments, only because they were generally in agreement. They agreed, for instance, on the premise that the welfare and prosperity of the land and its inhabitants ought to be protected. In addition, when the nobility referred to the risks posed by either a tyrannical rule or the establishment of an absolutus Dominatus, the landgravine or landgrave did not dispute that such risks were indeed detrimental and must be avoided. They merely claimed that, in this particular case, these actions were not tyrannical, because this was a case of extreme necessity. Likewise, the nobility did not attack this statement by claiming that the category of necessity was invalid, but instead stated that the landgrave's claim of necessitas was not applicable in the case at hand. In order to discuss these differences in interpretation, the nobles had assembled without Landgravine Amalie Elisabeth or—later on—Landgrave Wilhelm VI, respectively. Their exclusion from these meetings prompted the landgrav(in)e to use the argument that the assemblies were illegal, and to accuse the nobles of illegal protests and of committing lèse-majesté. Following earlier debates, the nobility accepted the landgrav(in)e's general argument, and countered by stating that while the argument's premise was correct in theory, it did not apply in this case.

The words fatherland and patriot played a crucial role in discussing the welfare and prosperity of the land and its inhabitants. Despite their sporadic usage, they indicate the need to set the discussants apart, attempting to avoid the accusation of

4 Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 64–65.

rebellion. In other words, they seemed to have followed Althusius' ideas about ephors. Not until the counterargument regarding lèse-majesté was developed did fatherland terminology enter the conversation in any significant way. When discussing taxation or assemblies, the nobility often referred to their immunities and privileges. They offered their loyalty as a counterargument against the accusation of lèse-majesté and illegal assemblies. In nearly all cases that such an argument was deployed, fatherland terminology was used as well, implying a commitment to the landgraviate.

 However, they differed with regards to how the duty to defend the fatherland should be carried out. From the nobility's reactions, it can be distilled that in their interpretation of the presupposed office of patriot and their asserted duty to protect the fatherland, they were empowered and in their rights to critique the landgrave's harmful policy. The landgravine, on the other hand, had lawyers consult historical examples. The examples they employed explained that being a patriot meant being loyal to the fatherland and the landgrave. In the past, nobles had set aside their privileges and immunities when the landgrave needed to defend the principality. The nobility countered this by stressing that they were both: liegemen and patriots.5 They underlined their loyalty to the landgrave as liegemen and their loyalty towards the landgraviate as patriots.

The word patriot is not found exclusively in texts written by the nobility: the landgravine and her lawyers employ it as well. For example, when they used historical evidence, the landgrave's documents stress that the ancestors of the nobility had acted as patriots precisely because they had accepted necessitas. This chapter shows that the argumentation in question was used from the start of the legal debate until the nobility and landgrave reached an agreement (Vergleich) in 1655. This lawsuit sets Hesse-Cassel apart from Jülich and Brittany, where no such formal situation occurred. Table 4.1 shows the number of times fatherland terminology was applied in six of the primary texts that will be discussed in this chapter. This amount may seem insignificant. However, it is necessary to take into account that it is the specific application of terminology in legal texts and debates that make it noteworthy. The surviving texts of the conflict between the Landstände (mainly the nobility) and the landgrav(in)e are the Imperial Chamber Court's (Reichskammergericht) lawsuit and its drafts. The fact that these interrelated texts show a recurrence in vocabulary signifies that the terminology was generally accepted. The most obvious proof of this can be found in the Vergleich (2 October 1655), an official text in which the word fatherland was used.

These legal texts showed that the use of words such as Patria, patriot, and fatherland had entered the judicial sphere (see Table 4.1). The words were not exclusive to the Landstände but were used by the landgrave as well.6 Although the landgrave and his lawyers mainly used this vocabulary when responding to the

5 Replicae, p. 4.

6 von Friedeburg (2003), p. 268; von Friedeburg (1999).

Table 4.1 Fatherland terminology in the sources of Hesse-Cassel

This table is an adaptation of an earlier published table in: C.A. Romein (2014) Fatherland Rhetoric and the "threat of absolutism": Hesse-Cassel and the Reichskammergericht (1646–1655), The Seventeenth Century, 29:3, 277-292. Adapted by the author/ reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of 2014 The Seventeenth Century a

Replicae: Patriot, 4, Patria, 3 (twice), 21, 41, 70 and 91 (three times); Fatherland, 26, 42, 74, 79, 81, 84, 85 and 91

b Duplicae: Patriot, 33, Patria, 11, 24 (twice), 37, 41, 42, 47, 52 and 55; Fatherland, 33, 41, 78, 83 and 94 (also as an adjective, used on page 32)

c Über das Duplic schrift: Natio, 2 (twice) and 12, Patria, 32

d Triplicae: Patriot, 36, Patria, 3 and 7; Fatherland, 36 (also as an adjective, used on 5 and 7)

e Memorialien: Patriot, 83, Patria, 56; Fatherland, 37, 57, 60, 64 (twice), 80 and 107. There is also a reference to the 'Teutscher Nation' on 14 f

Vergleich: Fatherland, § 4

nobility's arguments, it is nevertheless noteworthy that their terminology mirrored that of the nobility.

The use of fatherland terminology, and the issues these terms were applied to show that a new mode of political-legal argumentation had dawned. During the Middle Ages, it was considered a virtue of protecting the feudal benefice and its inhabitants. Failure to do so constituted a weak government. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the practice and protection of the true religion could become part of this interpretation. During the seventeenth century, virtue and the asserted duty to protect the fief were interpreted as one and the same duty. This duty entailed not only the protection of the fief and its inhabitants, but it also meant protecting its prosperity. In the Low Countries, this argument was taken to extremes, and led to the identification of Philip II (1527–1598) of Spain as a tyrant. It was a unique situation whereby the nobility identified a tyrant, then engaged in a Revolt, and ultimately gained independence via the Act of Abjuration (1581).7

In the formal and informal (draft) texts discussed in this chapter, the nobility argued that they were patriots whose love for the fatherland forced them to step in to protect their endangered fatherland. The most frequently used example of their duty to do so involved taxes levied without their consent. Such taxes endangered the prosperity of the principality, and so the nobility had to act. The danger was difficult to quantify; however, stubbornly the nobility persisted in their claim that taxes and the presence of soldiers had seriously threatened the prosperity of Hesse-Cassel. They concluded that the violation of their right of assembly in order to discuss this

7 See for example: van Gelderen (1993).

situation could lead to tyrannical rule.8 This example indicates two essential duties of the landgravine. Firstly, that she should respect noble privileges. Secondly, she needed to respect the welfare and the well-being of the principality's inhabitants. Taken as a whole, these texts, therefore, outline the characteristics of good government.

The fraught relationship between the landgrave and the Landstände of Hesse-Cassel had commenced in 1605–1606 when Landgrave Maurice converted to Calvinism and joined the Protestant Union.9 The nobility objected to the landgrave's military plans, and eventually felt compelled to negotiate with the imperial army for support. When the landgravine Amalie Elisabeth requisitioned grain and banned their assemblies 40 years later, the nobility believed their rights were curtailed once again. From 1646 onwards they wrote explicitly about the well-being of the fatherland which—they felt—had deteriorated noticeably due to the landgravine's politics—and the underlying problem related apparently to religious changes and warfare. The nobility avoided mention of their problems in any official correspondence, and nor did they publish pamphlets, contrary to the published pamphlets present in Jülich-Berg.

It has long been assumed that conflicts like the one in Hesse-Cassel were gradually resolved in favour of princes.10 However, the scenario in Hesse-Cassel suggests that the alleged struggle of the landgrave to increase his power was not straightforward and certainly did not go unnoticed. The nobility did not agree with what they perceived as the landgrave's attempts to gain more power and circumvent the need to consult them. Eventually, they filed a complaint with the Imperial Chamber Court in 1647. Here, I provide a complete overview of the complaint, and as no scholar has provided an overview of them so far, the archival sources in this chapter are a unique exposé of the debate at the time.11 The supplementary texts (unofficial drafts) that have never been analysed to the officially filed ones (see: Table 4.2) are included in this chapter.12

In this chapter, I examine the whole conflict and the lawsuit. These legal texts provide a context to the tense situation between the Landstände and the landgravine. I look into the entire lawsuit brought before the Imperial Chamber Court, which is unique because earlier Armand Maruhn and Robert von Friedeburg have only looked at parts of the case, while Tim Neu has looked at the lawsuit, but did not focus on the terminology of the conflict. He saw it as the starting point of the new relationship that commenced between the nobility and the landgrave. In order to understand historical references, I am first going to describe the dynastic lineage and

8 Replicae, 12–13.

9 Maruhn (2004a), pp. 24–32.

10Press (1991) and Maruhn (2004b).

11See for instance: Neu, Die Erschaffung der landständischen Verfassung refers to the sources but did not use all of the additional, unofficial sources (drafts).

12Maruhn (2004a, b), Eβer (2001), von Friedeburg (2003) and von Friedeburg (2005).

Table 4.2 Text concerning the conflict in Hesse-Cassel (1647–1655)

Texts in italics have been filed at or issued by the Imperial Chamber Court. C.A. Romein (2014) Fatherland Rhetoric and the "threat of absolutism": Hesse-Cassel and the Reichskammergericht (1646–1655), The Seventeenth Century, 29:3, 277-292. Adapted by the author/ reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of 2014 The Seventeenth Century

a Stift Kaufungen / Archiv der Althessischen Ritterschaft Kaufungen (AARK)

b von Friedeburg, 'Widerstandsrecht Und Landespatriotismus', 304; Maruhn, Necessitäres Regiment, 206 footnote 182; Neu, Die Erschaffung der landständischen Verfassung, 413; HStAM 73, 1816: 'gutachten' with modern handwriting 1648 has been added, on one of the two versions, though there is no indication to be found

c Date according to HStAM 5, Bestand 14660: sub- et obreptiones (fol. 25), as indicated with pencil (modern) on HStAM 5, 1816: sub- et obreptiones d

The Quadruplik is an unfinished document, as the conflict was resolved shortly after the Triplica: Neu (2013a), p. 413; Maruhn (2004a), p. 17

history of the principality from the sixteenth century until the end of the conflict. This overview is essential to understanding the undercurrents in the debate and references in the suit before the Imperial Chamber Court fully.

### 4.1 The Lineage of the Landgravial Family: 1500–1600

Hesse-Cassel (Map 4.1) experienced considerable turmoil in the seventeenth century, but the sixteenth century had not been devoid of troubles either. Philipp of Hesse (1504–1567) lost his father at the age of five,13 which did not lead to any significant governmental changes because his mother Anne of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1485–1525) had already been made regent after syphilis drove her husband insane.14 The nobility did not care for this state of affairs, as Anne no longer allowed them to assemble at will.15 The curtailment of their privileges led to

Map 4.1 Landgraviate of Hesse (seventeenth century). Map by Joan Blaeu, "Hassia Landgraviatus." 1645. Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center. https://collections. leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:cj82ks23k. Accessed November 23, 2020. Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map and Education Center at the Boston Public Library

13Press (1986), pp. 269–270.

14Demandt (1972), p. 222.

15Puppel (2004), pp. 158–189.

their request to Philipp to begin his reign at the age of 13½. The emperor eventually sanctioned this request.16

Philipp I of Hesse—later commonly referred to as the Magnanimous or 'the Elder' 17—attended the Imperial Diet of Worms (1521), where he met Luther (1483–1546).18 It was not until 3 years later when Phillipp I met with Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) and converted to Lutheranism. In 1526 Lutheranism became the official religion of the landgraviate.19 Fifty convents20 throughout the area were closed over the following years, and Philipp I founded a Protestant university in Marburg (1527).21 The Imperial Diet responded by condemning Lutheranism, after which several Lutheran members of the Diet united to form the Schmalkaldic League (1531). Landgrave Philipp I of Hesse and John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony (1503–1554) headed this league.22 After their defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg (1547), the emperor forced both princes to plea for mercy. Philipp I of Hesse was then forced into captivity for 5 years.23 The Augsburg Settlement (1555) finally ensured that Catholics and Protestants could coexist in the Holy Roman Empire, following the principle of 'cujus regio, ejus religio'. 24

Philipp I wrote in his will that upon the event of his death—which befell him in 1567—his possessions were to be divided among the four sons born of his first marriage to Christine of Saxony (1505–1549) (see Fig. 4.1).25 His second marriage had been a morganatic marriage to Margaret van der Saale (1522–1566), disqualifying heirs of that union from inheriting his lands. They were awarded the titles 'Born in the House of Hesse, Counts of Dietz and Lords of Lißberg' and controlled several towns and castles. In 1577, when this lineage died out, their possessions were redistributed among Philipp's four legitimate sons.26 Philipp had decided to divide Hesse into four principalities because he feared that his sons might not be able to cooperate. The welfare of the country, but more importantly, that of the

16Heinemeyer (1986), pp. 259–260; Demandt (1972).

17J. Feurborn, Nothwendige außführliche Special-Widerlegung deren in Hessen-Casselischen publicirten also gen. Wechsel-Schrifften gerühmbten,gleichwohl aber gantz unbegrundeten, Rettung eines, von Weiland herrn Landgraf Wilhelmen zu Hessen u., hochlöblichen Undenckens, sub data Cassel den 19. Aprilis Anno 1630 an herrn Georgen, herrn Philipfen und Herrn Friderichen, beede hochlöblicher gedächtniss alle Landgrafen zu Hessen u. abgegangenen Schreibens. (Giessen, 1647) p. 3.

18Heinemeyer (1986), p. 235.

19J. Feurborn, Nothwendige außführliche Special-Widerlegung, 3; Neu (2013a), p. 137.

20Two convents were handed to the Hessian nobility for their unmarried daughters. These were the convents of Wetter and Kaufungen. See: Demandt (1972), p. 226.

21Ibid., p. 226; Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 52–60.

22Demandt (1972), pp. 228–229.

23Press (1986).

24Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 60–63.

25Feurborn, Nothwendige außführliche Special-Widerlegung, 28-29; Ibid., pp. 63–64; Puppel (2004), p. 46; Wilson (2004), p. 45.

26Demandt (1972), p. 236.

dynasty, was of paramount importance. Specific central institutions were upheld: for example the Marburg court of appeal, the university, hospitals, and church institutions.27 The division resulted in four principalities. William IV (1532–1592) received Hesse-Cassel (Niederhessen). Louis IV (1537–1604)28 ruled Hesse-Marburg (Oberhessen). Phillip II (1541–1583) became landgrave over Hesse-Rheinfels and the lower County of Katzenelnbogen. The youngest brother Georg I (1547–1596) obtained Hesse-Darmstadt and the upper County of Katzenelnbogen.29 Hesse-Cassel was by far the largest principality with 6100 km2 and 175,000 inhabitants. The Nassau family at the Dillenburg, who was conveniently close by, influenced the development of Calvinism in the region and offered marriage partners for local Protestant Houses. Hesse-Cassel also became an important centre for arts and science.30

In various electorates of the Holy Roman Empire, only the eldest son could inherit the principality. In other principalities it was considered wise, on account of the need for appendages, to allow younger sons to own a small part of the fief.31 This line of reasoning shows that the fate of the dynasty as a whole was more important than holding the dynastic agglomerate together. The practice can perhaps best be illustrated by turning to the example of the death of Georg I of Hesse-Darmstadt, and the events that followed in its wake: his younger surviving sons each received a minor feudal benefice in 1596. The eldest son Louis V—received the most substantial part: Hesse-Darmstadt, due to his primogeniture.32 The younger sons gained, based on secundogeniture: Hesse-Butzbach (Philipp III)33 and Hesse-Homburg (Friedrich I).34

### 4.2 Maurice the Learned: Confessional Breakdown of Relations (1592–1627)

Maurice the Learned, who took an interest in arts and science, inherited the main parts of Hesse-Cassel upon the death of his father William IV in 1592.35 When Maurice's two remaining uncles passed away, the close relationship between the

27Heinemeyer (1986), p. 260; Maruhn (2004a), pp. 100–101.

28The succession crisis concerning Marburg broke out in 1604; the House of Hesse-Cassel claimed the principality, but had converted to Calvinism and could therefore not inherit, according to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt: Neu (2013a), pp. 203–221.

29Heinemeyer (1986), p. 238; Press (1986), pp. 269–270; Neu (2013a), pp. 159–164; Maruhn (2004a), pp. 100–104.

30Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 64–65.

31Press (1986).

32Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), p. 70; Press (1986).

33It was not until 1609 that he became landgrave.

34He became the principality's landgrave in 1622.

35Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 70–72; Menk (2000a), p. 47; Neu (2013a), p. 278.

various successors of Philipp I became strained. The heir of Hesse-Darmstadt had inherited by far the smallest fief and proved to be devoted to Lutheranism, while Maurice had converted to Calvinism. Both landgraves were entitled to inherit a part of Hesse-Marburg, as their uncle had died without an heir. However, Lutheranism had to remain the official religion of this principality.36 These religious differences proved detrimental to family relations and caused the Marburg Succession Crisis.37

Maurice's conversion to Calvinism (1605) and joining the Protestant Union (1609) triggered the ultimate breakdown of relations.38 Maurice was fascinated by theological developments and the Synod of Dordrecht (1618), in Holland. He became increasingly interested in defending the Calvinist case, and because he used military force to do so, his debts mounted massively.39 Debts and taxes placed a heavy burden on Hesse-Cassel: the principality fell into decline, and the nobles were infuriated. In order to prevent any further destruction, the nobility sought mediation from the emperor. Maurice argued that he fought for his faith and the autonomy of his lands. Because Maurice was unwilling to negotiate, the emperor had General Tilly invade Hesse-Cassel.

In 1623, the Aulic Court in Vienna ruled against Landgrave Maurice in the Marburg Succession.40 Maurice found it impossible to accept this verdict, and absented himself for 2 years in search for military alliances in the north, leaving his eldest son in charge.41 Meanwhile, the nobility turned against their landgrave, encouraging a condemnation of his behaviour by the emperor. The Landstände themselves received imperial protection, and Maurice's actions were marked as treasonous.42 In 1624 Wolfgang Günther, advisor to the landgrave, remarked that the nobility had betrayed the land through their negotiations with the emperor.43 Albrecht von Wallenstein's (1583–1634) imperial armies entered Hesse-Cassel in 1625, forcing the principality to defend itself. Hesse-Cassel had neither the money nor the troops for a proper military defence, and its allies also proved too weak to assist. With the defeat of the Danish king Christian IV (1577–1648) in the battle of Lutter (1626),44 Tilly was able to force Maurice to surrender and demilitarise.45

Numbed by defeat and humiliation, Maurice convened a family meeting. He signed a dynastic treaty on 12 February 1627,46 dividing his lands into Hesse-Cassel

36Demandt (1972), pp. 244–245.

37Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 73–75.

38Maruhn (2004a), pp. 24–32; Eβer (2000).

39Demandt (1972), p. 251.

40Ibid., p. 252; Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), p. 74; Weiand (2009).

41Neu (2013a), p. 265.

42Demandt (1972), p. 252.

43von Friedeburg (2007), p. 181; Menk (2000a), p. 69.

44Parker (1997), p. 139; von Friedeburg (2002), pp. 142–143.

45Menk (2000a), p. 69; Neu (2013a), pp. 300, 308–312, 318.

46Raingard Eβer remarks that some more research should be done with regard to this topic, as little research has been done into this document. See: Eβer (2000), pp. 199–201.

and Hesse-Rotenburg.47 The former went to the son Maurice had had with Agnes von Solms-Laubach: Wilhelm V.48 The latter went to his second wife Juliana of Nassau-Dillenburg and their surviving sons.49 As he had three sons with Juliana of Nassau, the secundogeniture was divided into three parts: Hesse-Rotenburg went to Hermann; Hesse-Eschwege was given to Friedrich; the youngest son Ernst received Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg.50 On 17 March 1627, Maurice resigned from the office, leaving his lands with debts totalling close to two million Reichsthaler. 51

### 4.3 Wilhelm V: The Enemy of the Emperor and Exile (1627–1636/7)

When Wilhelm V took over in Hesse-Cassel, he was already an experienced ruler after his father's absence in search of allies. He remained loyal to their Lutheran Swedish ally, despite the uncertainties this alliance brought.52 In November 1630, the Swedes offered to help Wilhelm V drive out the imperial forces, and in 1631 it came to an alliance.53 On 28 June 1633, the armies of Hesse-Kassel won the siege of Oldendorf, creating an advantageous position in Westphalia.54 Despite his military successes, Wilhelm V did not call a single meeting to confer with the Landstände until 1634.55

In February 1634, France and Hesse-Cassel formed an alliance. In that year a French general, entrusted with the command of the Hessian army appeared on the Hessian payroll.56 The next year France became actively engaged in the war, Sweden—which offered only military assistance—offered cooperation with France, and the possibility of receiving substantial financial contributions.57 On 30 May 1635, the Peace of Prague was signed, whereby the Calvinists—and thus the Landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel—were left out. Calvinists did not receive any reassurances about their positions or possessions, and hence, Landgrave Wilhelm V found himself in the blind.58 As a result of this situation, the Lutheran Landgrave of

47Press (1986), pp. 302–307; Menk (2000a), pp. 26, 35; Lemberg (2000), p. 173.

48Lemberg (2000), p. 174.

49Ibid., p. 174; Menk (2000b), p. 108.

50Nothwendiger Bericht, darauß zu sehen, Daß nicht allein die, von Hessen-Cassel erlangte (S.I. 1646) 34–35; Press (1986), pp. 303–305; Helbach (1977).

51Neu (2013a), p. 318; Demandt (1972), p. 253; Weiand (2009), pp. 33–34; Philippi (2007), p. 3. 52Press (1986), p. 307.

53Boehncke and Sarkowicz (2010), pp. 75–79; Menk (2000a), p. 16.

54Press (1986), p. 308.

55Ibid., p. 307.

56Buckreus (2008), p. 65.

57Ibid., p. 65; Medick and Marschke (2013), p. 13.

58Buckreus (2008), p. 27.

Hesse-Darmstadt demanded the principality Hesse-Cassel from his Reformed cousin Landgrave Wilhelm V, but he met with silence.59 Landgrave Wilhelm V felt compelled to continue the war to safeguard his assets, and freed Hanau from the imperial occupation in the process. The success was short-lived, as imperial forces soon conquered numerous cities in Westphalia. The landgrave needed strong military support, which he found when the French Cardinal de Richelieu, offered Wilhelm V a provisional treaty. This treaty was signed in Minden in early June. The final treaty,60 signed in Wesel on 21 October 1636, entailed two important clauses, one being the instalment of an army comprising 10,000 soldiers, in support of Hesse-Cassel and paid for by France to the amount of 200,000 Reichsthaler; the other that no peace would be signed without France's consent.61

Wilhelm V overtly opposed the emperor through his military alliances with Sweden (22 August 1631)62 and France (1636),63 and so the emperor banished him.64 Landgrave Wilhelm V had become an 'enemy of the emperor'. 65 In the meantime, the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt was appointed to deal with all administrative matters of Hesse-Cassel. Wilhelm V left for Eastern-Frisia with his family and the remainder of his troops. This banishment was short-lived, as Wilhelm V died on 21 September 1637.66 His wife and two sons,67 along with their entourage, remained in exile until 25 March 1640.68

#### 4.4 Politics in Exile (1637–1640)

The successor to the fief of Hesse-Cassel was the 8 year-old Wilhelm VI. As stated explicitly in his father's will, which was drawn up in 1633, Amelie Elisabeth became William's guardian.69 Her role was first among equals of the regents.70 Since enemy

59Demandt (1972), pp. 256–257.

60Buckreus (2008), p. 73.

61Ibid., p. 74; Demandt (1972), p. 257.

62Weiand (2009), pp. 38, 42 a provisional treaty had already been signed on 11 November 1630; Helfferich (2013), p. 135.

63Buckreus (2008), p. 65.

64Ibid., p. 28; Asch (2005), p. 131.

65Weiand (2009), pp. 39, 74; Helfferich (2013), p. 87.

66Puppel (2007), p. 104.

67The youngest son Philipp died in exile: Helfferich (2013), p. 140.

68Buckreus (2008), pp. 26, 107–108; Three daughters—Emilie, Charlotte and Elisabeth—had remained in Cassel for the duration of the exile, another passed away—Louise; Helfferich (2013), p. 140.