Jaarboek voor Nederlandse Boekgeschiedenis. Jaargang 2

[p. 213]

Summaries

Jeroen Salman, Inleiding

[Introduction]

This yearbook contains six articles about censorship and the controle of print in the Netherlands from the seventeenth through the twentieth century. The authors examine to what extent rules with regard to the press where actually implemented.

A.H. Huussen jr., Censuur in stad en ommelanden van Groningen tijdens de Republiek 1594-1795

[Censorship in the town and the province of Groningen 1594-1795]

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, censorship of the press in the town and the province of Groningen resembled the practice in other provinces, esp. in Holland. Legislation was enacted against anonymous publications in general and against specific titles in particular. The extent to which the local and provincial governments tolerated the existence of opinions contrary to their own cannot be measured from published edicts alone. As in other towns, the city magistrates of Groningen proceeded against libellous or blasphemous tracts not only by judicial means but also by administrative decisions.

E.M. Grabowsky, ‘Op de goede beterschap van ons sieke privilegie’. Over Amsterdamse schouwburgregenten, drukkers en censuur

[The governors of the ‘Amsterdamse Schouwburg’ (Theatre), printers and censorship]

The ‘Amsterdamse Schouwburg’ was the most important theatre in Holland during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The plays that were performed there, were published by several printers who at first weren't on the pay-roll, but had a kind of gentlemen's agreement with the governors of the play-house. From 1684 onwards the activities of the printers became more and more supervised by the governors. The period 1729-1730 has been crucial in this development. A huge quarrel between the printer Dirk Rank and the management of the Schouwburg, with governor Balthazar Huydecoper as their leading man, resulted in the fact that the governors gained more and more control over the printers. Af-

[p. 214]

ter 1730 they decided what plays were printed and in what way this was done. It is known that they also censored (printed) plays, mainly the ones from the seventeenth century that were thought to be immoral. Because the ‘Amsterdamse Schouwburg’ obtained a privilege on the plays that were performed, this meant that in fact they practically controlled the whole market for plays in the eighteenth century. They used this privilege in quite an unusual way. Privileges on books were normally used to protect the economical interest of booksellers and printers, but the governors attempted to use them to realize their artistic and moral aims. In what extent they used their power has not yet been determined.

W. Heersink, Onder druk van de censuur. Boekverboden te Amsterdam, 1746-1750

[Under pressure of censorship. Forbidden books in Amsterdam, 1746-1750]

The years 1747 and 1748 were a turbulent period. The Dutch Republic was at war with France; it was a time of war hostilities, dearth of food and a heavy burden of taxation. William IV, prince of Orange, was elected stadtholder, to save the country from further miseries. Amsterdam was also in commotion. A (lower) middle class movement, called ‘Doelisten’ pleaded for a modest reform of government. The municipal government was reluctant. With the aid of the prince, however, the government could be changed, though not to the satisfaction of large groups of citizens.

As elsewhere, the grieve was expressed in numerous lampoons, in which the new municipal government but also the prince and the ‘Doelisten’ were insulted. Between 1746-1750 the public prosecutor, responsible for the implementation of censorship, brought on action against eight offenders of the law. The statements of witnesses written down by public notaries contain an abundance of information.

In four cases the public prosecutor eventually stopped the criminal procedure: in one case because of lack of evidence, in three cases because the prince had released a general pardon (1748). It was not the gravity of the insulting pamphlets, but the fear for disturbance that influenced the prosecutor. In his comments to the prince on these three cases the sheriff wrote that he was afraid of further disorder, if the offenders were held in prison any longer.

Ton Jongenelen, Vuile boeken maken vuile handen. De vervolging van persdelicten omstreeks 1760

[The prosecution of offences against the press code (1758-1760)]

In the Dutch Republic the formal laws which restricted the freedom of the press

[p. 215]

were seldomly applied. Still, in 1758-1760 the ‘Hof van Holland’ (provincial court) prosecuted the writer Jacobus Baroen, while in 1759-1760 the ‘schepenbank’ (municipal court) of Amsterdam prosecuted the bookseller Gerrit Bom. Both had been actively engaged in the propaganda campaign against the very unpopular pro-English foreign policy of princess Anne. Because of the scarce evidence, the courts had to drop the main charges, connected with the political activism of the accused, while concentrating on more tangible evidence concerning other publications. As a result of this, Baroen was convicted to jail for his part in the edition of a deist manifesto and an anti-clerical poem, both published several years before, and Bom had to pay 300 guilders for selling the long-forbidden works of Baruch de Spinoza. A common characteristic of these two cases was that the witnesses had been induced to give testimony in the hope for financial rewards. In the case of Baroen it's even possible to detect a political pressure group, connected with princess Anne, the widow of the late stadhouder William IV, that financed these rewards. This means that these events should be seen in their proper historical context, with its fierce propaganda-battle between ‘loevesteiners’ and orangists in 1758-1759. Nevertheless, the sentences indicate that the famous liberty of the press in the Republic had its limitations. It could even be argued that in the Netherlands, in contrast to some other countries where the censors made way for the Enlightenment, this liberty was on the wane. Anyway, Dutch writers on political and religious issues definitely were not free to express all their feelings without regard to the judicial consequences. This must be borne in mind when reading Dutch eighteenth-century texts.

Jacques Dane, Lectuur van Satan. Censuur en zelfcensuur in calvinistisch Nederland, ca. 1880-1940

[Reading matter of Satan. Censorship in Protestant Holland, 1880-1940]

This article presents an overview of Protestant censorship of literature in the Netherlands during 1880-1940. A comparison with Roman Catholic censorship permits a better understanding of Protestant censorship. Until the 19th century both Protestants and Roman Catholics used censorship as an instrument to exert ecclesiastical authority. Before 1816 the Dutch Protestant church practised censorship on a national level. After 1816 censorship became a task for local church leaders.

If censorship is taken to mean the prohibition of reading (kinds of) literature, then the Protestant ‘pillar’ was free of censorship. But Protestant church leaders did give reading advice. And with regard to moral issues the borderline between censorship and reading advice vanished. According to pedagogues, children did not have a natural moral intuition. The moral upbringing of children was founded on the basis that children who by thinking rationally grew up to be adults,

[p. 216]

obeyed God's law. Obeying God's word was considered a spiritual law of life. Parents and teachers were advised to check the child's reading matter, and to apply censorship if needed. Protestant upbringing was aimed at creating an intuitive sense that could differentiate between good and bad reading matter. This ‘inner censorship’ was the moral censorship of the Protestant pillar.

Calvinistic church leaders thought a family and school index to be of great use for parents and teachers. It permitted to check school and home literature. Christian publishers who published sunday school books had their own censorship. Books that did not meet the standards of a proper sunday school book never came in the pupil's hands. Yet, censorship at home and school was practised differently. To keep a watchful eye on children's reading matter was a difficult task, and the divide between prescribed children's censorship and actual censorship remained great.

Gerard Groeneveld, ‘Het boek mag niet leiden tot ontaarding van den volksgeest’. Boekencensuur in Nederland tijdenn de bezetting 1940-1945

[Book censorship during German Occupation of the Netherlands 1940-1945]

Freedom of speech was never a trade mark of National Socialism. After the Germans invaded the Netherlands in May 1940 they wanted to organize Dutch cultural life in such a way they could control it. The Hauptabteilung für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Head Office for People's Information and Propaganda) was created, with a special Referat Schrifttum (Literature Office) that was responsible for censorship on books. Also the Dutch Departement voor Volksvoorlichting en Kunsten (Department for People's Information and Arts - DVK) became effective. A special Afdeeling Boekwezen (Book Department) had to advise the Referat Schrifttum on publishing manuscripts or reprints. It was forbidden to sell books without the written authorization of the DVK. The central organization for paper distribution was under strict orders only to supply paper when authorization by the DVK had been given. Directions for proof readers at the Afdeeling Boekwezen indicated that books which showed appreciation for Jews, the Royal Family, Communists or other enemies of the Third Reich were prohibited. The establishment of the Nederlandsche Kultuurkamer (Dutch Culture Chamber - NKK), with the book trade part of the Letterengilde (Literary Guild), contributed largely to the bureaucracy. Finally the SD (Sicherheitsdienst) itself was involved in book control. The whole of this bureaucratic machinery was responsible for slowing down the book production. Public libraries were also the target of the censors. Dutch public libraries were very concerned about their continuation and therefore cooperated quite willingly with the German authorities. National management installed a Leescommissie (Reader Commission) which drew up a list of forbidden books.

[p. 217]

The image of the National Socialist book censorship in the Netherlands is rather obscure. Directives were too broadly defined, the competence of the authorities overlapped, proof readers were incompetent and personal vendetta's turned censorship into a complex and arbitrary bureaucracy.

Marika Keblusek, Boeken in ballingschap. De betekenis van de bibliotheek van Michael Honywood voor de royalistische gemeenschap in de Republiek (1643-1660)

[Books in exile. The library of Michael Honywood]

During the English Civil Wars in the mid-seventeenth century hundreds of royalists left their homecountry to seek refuge on the Continent. Many refugees spent some time in the Dutch Republic. On July 6th 1643 Michael Honywood arrived in Holland. When he left England he had to leave this library behind. But living without books was impossible for him. As soon as he reached Utrecht, the town where he was to spent the next 17 years, he started buying books again. The collection he put together in this period now forms the larger part of Lincoln Cathedral Library. That means that Honywoods library can still be researched as a whole. Honywood noted his purchases in the Dutch bookshops in a small notebook, which is still preserved in Lincoln. This ‘Accountbook’ enables us to know precisely what Honywood bought. During his stay in Utrecht Honywood bought over a 1000 books, most of them published in the Low Countries between 1640 and 1660. A remarkable part of Honywoods purchases consisted of political pamphlets, most of them concerning the situation in England. Many of these books were published by Samuel Browne, an exiled royalist bookseller who was working in The Hague. Furthermore, Honywood used his notebook as a lending register. We can conclude from the entries that he furnished many other royalists then living in Holland and France with books from his new library. Honywood lent his books to almost 100 different people. Most of them have been identified. They were royalists living in Holland, active in clerical, military or political matters. The titles of the borrowed books can be identified and many of them are still on the shelves of Lincoln Cathedral Library. A thorough inventory and analysis of both the buying part and the lendinglist in the notebook will enable us to see what books were read by the royalists in exile. The notebook of Michael Honywood enables us to reconstruct the role of the book in this particular community, not only to get a firmer grip on the royalist network on the Continent, but also to see how their thoughts and ideas were shaped, printed and read.