1: England Invaded by the Dutch

1 Robert H. Murray (ed.), The journal of John Stevens containing a brief account of the war in Ireland 1689–1691 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912).

2 E.S. de Beer (ed.), The Diary of John Evelyn, 6 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955; reprinted 2000), 4, p.582. On Evelyn see G. Darley, John Evelyn: Living for Ingenuity (London: Yale University Press, 2006).

3 Hoak, ‘The Anglo–Dutch Revolution of 1688–89’, p.17.

4 Gilbert Burnet, cit. Israel and Parker, ‘Of Providence’, p.351.

5 Israel and Parker, ‘Of Providence’, p.336.

6 J.I. Israel, ‘The Dutch role in the Glorious Revolution’, in J.I. Israel (ed.), The Anglo–Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp.105–62; 106.

7 S. Groenveld, ‘“J’equippe une flotte très considerable”: The Dutch side of the Glorious Revolution’, in R. Beddard (ed.), The Revolutions of 1688 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp.213–45; 240.

8 Diary of John Evelyn 4, p.597.

9 Groenveld, ‘“J’equippe une flotte”’, p.241.

10 See D.M. Swetschinski and L. Schönduve, De familie Lopes Suasso: Financiers van Willem III (Zwolle: Waanders, 1988).

11 Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon, van 21 October 1688 tot 2 Sept. 1696 etc., Historisch genootschap te Utrecht Werken uitgegeven door het historisch genootschap, gevestigd te Utrecht; nieuwe reeks, 23, 25, 46, 32. Derde serie 22, 35 (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1876–1915), I, p.13.

12 J.I. Israel and G. Parker, ‘Of Providence and Protestant winds’, in J.I. Israel (ed.), The Anglo–Dutch Moment, pp.335–63; 361.

13 For a full discussion of the various computations of troop and ship numbers see Israel and Parker, ‘Of Providence’, pp.337–8.

14 Israel and Parker, ‘Of Providence’, pp.353–4.

15 Saturday, 13 November 1688 (n.s.), Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon I, 13.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 D.M.L. Onnekink, The Anglo–Dutch Favourite. The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland (1649–1709) (PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht), p.37. M.E. Grew, William Bentinck and William III (Prince of Orange): The Life of Bentinck Earl of Portland from the Welbeck Correspondence (London: John Murray, 1924), p.134.

19 Diary of John Evelyn 4, pp.603–5.

20 ‘A true and exact relation of the prince of Orange his public entrance into Exeter’ (1688), cit. Claydon, William III, p.55.

21 Grew, Bentinck, pp.137–8.

22 Calendar of Treasury Books 8, pp.2126, 2129.

23 R. Beddard, ‘The unexpected Whig revolution of 1688’, in Beddard (ed.), The Revolutions of 1688 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp.11–101; 14; see also Beddard, A Kingdom without a King, pp.33–4.

24 Beddard, A Kingdom without a King, p.35.

25 S.B. Baxter, William III (London: Longmans, 1966), p.246. Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon I, 50.

26 Beddard, Kingdom without a King, p.180.

27 Roger Morrice, cit. ibid.

28 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, p.126.

29 Diary of John Evelyn 4, p.612.

30 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, pp.125–6.

31 Israel, ‘General Introduction’, in Israel (ed.), The Anglo–Dutch Moment, pp.1–43; 2.

32 See Claydon, William III, p.57, for the view that this change of route was a misunderstanding or mistake.

33 See below, Chapter 5.

34 See L. Pattacini, ‘André Mollet, Royal Gardener at St James’s Park, London’, Garden History 26 (1998), 3–18.

35 Cit. ibid., p.10.

36 See below.

37 On Anglo–Dutch gardens see below, Chapter 4.

38 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, p.128.

39 Diary of John Evelyn 4, p.600.

2: From Invasion to Glorious Revolution

1 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, p.128.

2 Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, p.109.

3 See T. Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp.24–8.

4 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, pp.121–2.

5 J.I. Israel, ‘Propaganda in the making of the Glorious Revolution’, in S. Roach (ed.), Across the Narrow Seas: Studies in the History and Bibliography of Britain and the Low Countries (London: The British Library, 1991), pp.167–77; 167–9.

6 L.G. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689 (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), pp.115–16.

7 Israel, ‘General Introduction’, pp.15–16.

8 See L. Jardine, The Awful End of Prince William the Silent: The First Assassination of a Head of State with a Handgun (London: HarperCollins, 2005).

9 Quoted in R. Beddard, A Kingdom Without a King: The Journal of the Provisional Government in the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford: Phaidon, 1988) pp.124–49.

10 P. Laslett (ed.), Locke’s Two Treatises on Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p.155; B. Rang, ‘An Unidentified Source of John Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education’, Pedagogy, Culture and Society 9 (2001), 249–77.

11 Onnekink, The Anglo–Dutch Favourite, p.32.

12 Israel, ‘The Dutch role’, p.115.

13 Ibid., p.120.

14 Ibid., p.110.

15 Ibid., p.109.

16 Ibid., p.160.

17 Claydon, William III, p.29.

18 Cit. ibid., p.54.

19 R. Strong, The Artist and the Garden (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp.183–92. See below, Chapter 6.

20 Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon I, p.35.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon I, p.36.

24 De Jong, Nature and Art, p.49.

25 Onnekink, The Anglo–Dutch Favourite, p.26.

26 See e.g. J. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp.648–9.

27 See F. and J. Muller, ‘Completing the picture: The importance of reconstructing early opera’, Early Music 33 (2005), 667–81; 670.

3: Royal and Almost-Royal Families

1 See J.R. Jones, ‘James II’s Revolution: Royal politics, 1686–92’, in J.I. Israel (ed.), The Anglo–Dutch Moment, pp.47–72; 55–6. See also R. Oresko, ‘The Glorious Revolution of 1688–9 and the House of Savoy’, in ibid., pp.365–88.

2 The story of the warming-pan plot here is based on R.J. Weil’s essay, ‘The politics of legitimacy: Women and the warming-pan scandal’, in L.G. Schwoerer (ed.), The Revolution of 1688–9: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp.65–82. I am grateful to Rachel Weil for introducing me to the warming-pan plot at the Davis Center Seminar at Princeton University, in 1988. See S.B. Baxter, William III (London: Longmans, 1966).

3 See ibid.

4 B.C. Brown (ed.), The Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne (London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1935), p.34.

5 Ibid., p.35.

6 Weil, ‘Politics of legitimacy’, p.67.

7 For an interesting argument concerning the inevitable impossibility of ‘proving’ the legitimacy of any birth without total confidence in women’s testimony, see ibid.

8 Diary of John Evelyn.

9 Baxter, William III, pp.233, 234.

10 D. Hoak, ‘The Anglo–Dutch Revolution of 1688–89’, in D. Hoak and M. Feingold (eds), The World of William and Mary: Anglo–Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688–89 (Stanford University Press, 1966), pp.1–26; 23.

11 S. Groenveld, ‘“J’equippe une flotte très considerable”: The Dutch side of the Revolution’, in R. Beddard (ed.), The Revolutions of 1688 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp.213–45, at p.234.

12 Weil, ‘Politics of legitimacy’, p.68.

13 On William the Silent see Wedgwood, William the Silent (London: Jonathan Cape, 1967); L. Jardine, The Awful End of Prince William the Silent.

14 Journaal van Constantjn Huygens, den Zoon (1673, 1675, 1677 en 1678), 8. See D. Hoak, ‘The Anglo–Dutch revolution of 1688–89’, in D. Hoak and M. Feingold (eds), The World of William and Mary, pp.1–26; 272, note 92.

15 Ibid., p.272, note 97.

16 Ibid., p.23.

17 S. Groenveld, ‘The house of Orange and the house of Stuart, 1639–1650: a revision’, Historical Journal 34 (1991), 955–72. I have largely accepted Groenveld’s revised view of the relationship between the two houses during this period, correcting that of Geyl.

18 P. Geyl, Orange and Stuart 1641–1672 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001; first English edition 1969), p.7.

19 See Groenveld, ‘The Dutch side of the Revolution’, p.217.

20 Geyl, Orange and Stuart, p.32.

21 Many historical accounts give William’s age as twelve in May 1641, although he was born on 27 May 1626 (n.s.). This is presumably because he was indeed twelve at the beginning of negotiations in 1638–39.

22 On comparative costs of clothes and paintings see J. Brotton, The Sale of the Late King’s Goods (London: Macmillan, 2006). See also R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of the Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia, 1987), pp.60, 130–1; David Howarth, Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1485–1649 (London, 1997), pp.9–10.

23 Parentalia, p.133.

24 Geyl, Orange and Stuart, pp.32–3.

25 On the conscious strategy of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms to create a court culture in the Low Countries to give dynastic prominence to the house of Orange see M. Keblusek and J. Zijlmans, Princely Display: The Court of Frederik Hendrik of Orange and Amalia van Solms (Zwolle: Historical Museum, The Hague, 1997).

26 Geyl, Orange and Stuart, p.35.

27 Groenveld, ‘The house of Orange and the house of Stuart’, p.961.

28 Ibid., p.963.

29 Ibid, p.964.

30 W.A. Speck, Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp.102–3.

31 Weil, ‘Politics of legitimacy’, pp.71–2.

32 Hoak, ‘The Anglo–Dutch Revolution of 1688–89’, p.20.

4: Designing Dutch Princely Rule

1 T. Sprat, The history of the Royal-Society of London for the improving of natural knowledge (London, 1667), pp.88–9.

2 On the court of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms see Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display.

3 ‘An autograph Memorandum from M. le Blon, in the handwriting of Rubens, Concerning a Picture for the Princess of Orange. The Subject The Marriage of Alexander the Great with Roxane’. See J.G. van Gelder, ‘Rubens Marginalia IV’, Burlington Magazine 123 (1981), 542–6.

4 Ibid., p.545.

5 P. van der Ploeg and C. Vermeeren, ‘“From the ‘Sea Prince’s’ Monies”: The Stadholder’s Art Collection’, in P. van der Ploeg and C. Vermeeren (eds), Princely Patrons: The Collection of Frederick Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms in The Hague(Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 1997), pp.34–60; 34.

6 J. Israel, ‘The United Provinces of the Netherlands: The Courts of the House of Orange’, in J. Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien Régime 1500–1700 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), pp.119–40; 126.

7 See K. Ottenheym, ‘Architectuur’, in J. Huisken, K. Ottenheym and G. Schwartz (eds), Jacob van Campen: Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Pers, 1995), pp.155–99; 175.

8 Ronald G. Asch, ‘Elizabeth, Princess (1596–1662)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, September 2004; online edn, May 2006 [, accessed 27 March 2007].

9 For Huygens’s youthful experiences in England see below. For the masques and ballets performed for the courts at The Hague see below, Chapter 7.

10 J. Israel, ‘The United Provinces of the Netherlands’, pp.119–40; 130.

11 16 August 1649, Worp, letter 4969.

12 See below, Chapters 11 and 12.

13 For Sir Constantijn Huygens’s early life see A.G.H. Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens and Britain, 1 (Leiden and Oxford: Brill and Oxford University Press, 1962); J.A. Worp (ed.), De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens (1608–1687), 1 (1608–1634) (’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1911).

14 They had left The Hague on the evening of 7 June: ‘En Angleterre aveq Carleton’, 7 June 1618 (Dagb., p.9).

15 J.A. Worp (ed.), De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens (1608–1687), 1 (1608–1634) (’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1911), p.21.

16 A.G.H. Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens and Britain, 1 (Leiden and Oxford: Brill and Oxford University Press, 1962), pp.113–17.

17 See H.J. Louw, ‘Anglo-Netherlandish architectural interchange c.1600–c.1660’, Architectural History 24 (1981), 1–22 and 125–144; 4.

18 Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens, p.139.

19 Bachrach seems to suggest that this occasion followed immediately after the June encounter with King James, but that is not what is suggested by the documents. See ibid., pp.139–40.

20 Ibid., p.218.

21 See ibid., pp.179–80. Huygens also had a significant encounter with Charles, Prince of Wales (the future Charles I). See Bachrach, Huygens and Britain, p.161.

22 Fifty years later, Huygens expressed admiration for another solo viol-player in the English style, Dietrich Stoeffken. See T. Crawford, ‘“Allemande Mr. Zuilekom”. Constantijn Huygens’s sole surviving instrumental composition’, Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Neederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 37 (1987), 175–81; 177.

23 See J. Zijlmans, ‘Life at the Hague Court’, in Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display, pp.30–46; 37.

24 On shared and distinctive musical traditions in England and the northern Netherlands in this period see J.A. Westrup, ‘Domestic music under the Stuarts’, Proceedings of the Musical Association (1941–42), 19–53; R.A. Rasch, ‘Seventeenth century Dutch editions of English instrumental music’, Music and Letters 53 (1972), 270–3. On Huygens’s own musical production see T. Crawford, ‘“Allemande Mr. Zuilekom”’, 175.

25 See Brotton, The Sale of the Late King’s Goods.

26 See e.g. Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens, p.110 and footnote 1.

27 George Gage, Toby Matthew and Inigo Jones accompanied the Earl of Arundel on his art-collecting travels around Italy, where they acquired their expertise as Continental agents buying and selling art (see also Toby Matthews’s letter to Carleton about acquiring Rubens and van Dyck in 1620).

28 Cit. Muller, ‘Rubens’s museum’, p.571.

29 Ibid., p.575.

30 This account of Rubens’s transaction with Carleton is based on Simon Schama, Rembrandt’s Eyes (Harmondsworth: Allen Lane for Penguin Press, 1999), pp.175–6.

31 W.N. Sainsbury (ed.), Original Unpublished Papers illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens, as an artist and diplomatist, preserved in H.M. State Paper Office (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1859), p.27.

32 Ibid., p.39.

33 Ibid., p.45.

34 Muller, ‘Rubens’s museum’, p.575.

35 Sainsbury, Original Unpublished Papers, p.38.

36 See Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens, p.142. See also S. Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London: Collins, 1987), p.258.

37 R. Hill, ‘Ambassadors and art collecting in early Stuart Britain: The parallel careers of William Trumbull and Sir Dudley Carleton, 1609–1625’, Journal of the History of Collections 15 (2003), 211–28; 216.

38 A.G.H. Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens and Britain, 1 (Leiden and Oxford: Brill and Oxford University Press, 1962), pp.110–11.

39 SP 84/85/176 Mytens to Carleton, London, 18 August 1618, cit. R. Hill, ‘Sir Dudley Carleton and his relations with Dutch artists 1616–1632’, 255–74; 268; (SP 84/86/103).

40 P. McEvansoneya, ‘The sequestration and dispersal of the Buckingham collection’, Journal of the History of Collections 8 (1996), 133–54.

41 See Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display.

42 According to Schama it was in the course of this art-buying spree that Huygens discovered Jan Lievens and Rembrandt as Protestant, Dutch Republic artists whose virtuosity matched that of the Catholic, Spanish-sympathising Rubens.

43 See S. Groenveld, ‘Frederick Henry and his entourage: A brief political biography’, in van der Ploeg and Vermeeren, Princely Patrons, pp.18–33; 30–1.

5: Auction, Exchange, Traffic and Trickle-Down

1 J. Thurloe, A collection of the state papers of John Thurloe, Esq; secretary, first, to the Council of State, and afterwards to the two Protectors, Oliver and Richard Cromwell. In seven volumes…To which is prefixed, the life of Mr. Thurloe…By Thomas Birch, 7 vols, Vol. 1 (London, 1742), pp.182–3.

2 See J. Brown, ‘The Sale of the Century’, in Kings and Connoisseurs: Collecting Art in Seventeenth-Century Europe (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), pp.59–94.

3 See A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer (eds), Lodewijk Huygens: The English Journal 1651–1652 (Leiden: Brill, 1982), p.61

4 J.M. Montias, ‘Art dealers in the seventeenth-century Netherlands’, Simiolus 0.18 (1988), 244–56; 245. See also J.M. Montias, Art at Auction in Seventeenth Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002); J.M. Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); E.A. Honig, Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998).

5 For more on the Duartes see below, Chapter 7.

6 Diary of John Evelyn.

7 Montias, ‘Art dealers in the seventeenth-century Netherlands’, p.245.

8 Montias, Art at Auction, pp.234–42.

9 Honig, Painting and the Market, p.195.

10 S. Slive, ‘Art historians and art critics – II: Huygens on Rembrandt’, Burlington Magazine 94 (1952), 260–4; 261.

11 I am placing the Lievens painting around 1625, in spite of the opinions of art historians. Held gives the date as 1629. The Rijksmuseum website gives 1626–27. A recent PhD dissertation on Lievens dates it at 1628–29: L. De Witt, Evolution and Ambition in the Career of Jan Lievens (1607–1674) (University of Maryland PhD, 2006). I place it a couple of years earlier for a number of reasons. Huygens says he was particularly melancholic at the time Lievens painted his portrait (see below), and his demeanour and dress as depicted resemble Dutch mourning paintings of the same period. He appears to wear a mourning ring around his neck. Huygens’s father died in 1624, and the Stadholder Maurits died in 1625. Huygens would have been doubly in mourning for these two highly significant losses. In late 1625 he was appointed secretary to the new Stadholder Frederik Hendrik. This would have been an appropriate occasion for a portrait.

12 Once again, this specific account by Huygens justifies his having his portrait painted in spite of his being in a period of mourning, since it places the onus for proceeding with the painting immediately on Lievens.

13 Pieters, ‘Among ancient men: Petrarch, Machiavelli, Sidney and Huygens’, in Speaking with the Dead: Explorations in Literature and History (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), p.41.

14 Ibid.

15 For the most recent account of Lievens’s career, see L. De Witt, Evolution and Ambition in the Career of Jan Lievens (1607–1674), unpublished PhD, University of Maryland, College Park (2006), especially Chapter 2, ‘Lievens in England, 1632–1635’.

16 Ibid., p.110. Reproduced in Princely Patrons, p.170.

17 Cit. De Witt, Evolution and Ambition, p.118.

18 Ibid., p.123.

19 Ibid., pp.121–2.

20 M.R. Toynbee, ‘Adriaen Hanneman and the English court in exile’, Burlington Magazine 92 (1950), 73–80. See also M.R. Toynbee, ‘Some early portraits of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I’, Burlington Magazine 82 (1943), 100–3.

21 A. Sumner, ‘Hanneman, Adriaen (c.1604–1671)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 19 February 2007].

22 BL Add. MS 16174: ‘Proposal to the parliament of Sir Balthazar Gerbier, knt., Peter Lely and George Geldorp concerning the representing in oil, pictures of all the memorable achievements since the parliament’s first sitting’, c.1651.

23 D. Dethloff, ‘Lely, Sir Peter (1618–1680)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 2 April 2007].

24 C. Hofstede de Groot, Die Urkunden uber Rembrandt (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1906).

25 Cited in F. Scholten, ‘François Dieussart, Constantijn Huygens, and the classical ideal in funerary sculpture’, Simiolus 25 (1997), 303–28; 309.

26 See full account in A.-M.S. Logan, The ‘Cabinet’ of the Brothers Gerard and Jan Reynst (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979), pp.75–86.

27 For a concise account of this dispute see Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu, pp.207–9.

28 See D. Mahon, ‘Notes on the “Dutch Gift” to Charles II: 1’, Burlington Magazine 91 (1949), 303–5; ‘Notes on the “Dutch Gift” to Charles II: 2’, Burlington Magazine 91 (1949), 349–50; ‘Notes on the “Dutch Gift” to Charles II: 3’, Burlington Magazine92 (1950), 12–18.

29 Cit. G. Schwartz and M.J. Bok, Pieter Saenredam: The Painter and His Time (London: Thames & Hudson, 1990), p.206.

30 H. Macandrew and K. Andrews, ‘A Saenredam and a Seurat for Edinburgh’, Burlington Magazine 124 (1982), 752–5; 755.

31 Schwartz and Bok, Pieter Saenredam, p.128; pp.149–54.

32 Mariët Westermann, ‘Vermeer and the interior imagination’, in Vermeer and the Dutch Interior (Madrid, 2003), p.225.

33 John Michael Montias, Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).

34 Diary of John Evelyn 3, p.262.

35 See R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England: William III and the Royal Collections (The Hague: Mauritshuis & SDU Publishers, 1988), p.79.

36 Mrs Burnett, wife of Gilbert, in 1707. Cit. C.D. van Strien, British Travellers in Holland during the Stuart Period: Edward Browne and John Locke as Tourists in the United Provinces (Leiden: Brill, 1993), p.153.

37 R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England: William III and the Royal Collections (The Hague: SDU Publishers, 1988), pp.78–80.

38 J. Israel, ‘The United Provinces of the Netherlands: The Courts of the House of Orange’, in J. Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe 1500–1750 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), pp.119–140; p.136.

39 Van Leeuwen, Paintings from England, pp.21–2.

6: Double Portraits

1 For an interesting account of Schurmann’s artistic activities see E.A. Honig, ‘The art of being “artistic”: Dutch women’s creative practices in the 17th century’, Woman’s Art Journal 22 (2001–02), 31–9.

2 See below.

3 5 August 1642. Worp, letter 3092.

4 For details of Susanna’s background see J.S. Held, ‘Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: a hitherto unknown portrait’, Art Bulletin 73 (1991), 653–68; 659–60.

5 Cit. ibid., p.661.

6 C.D. Andriesse, trans. S. Miedema, Huygens: The Man behind the Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.51. See also E. Keesing, ‘Wanneer was wie de heer van Zeelhem?’, De zeventiende eeuw 9 (1993), 63–5.

7 Davidson and van der Weel, A Selection of the Poems of Sir Constantijn Huygens, p.101.

8 Ibid., p.109.

9 For a poetic analysis of their relationship, as evidenced by Huygens’s ‘Daghwerck’, see R.L. Colie, ‘Some Thankfulnesse to Constantine,’ A Study of English Influence upon the Early Works of Constantijn Huygens (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1956).

10 See L. Roth (ed.), Correspondence of Descartes and Constantyn Huygens 1635–1647 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), pp.37–8.

11 Ibid., 29 March 1637, p.43.

12 J.S. Held, ‘Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: a hitherto unknown portrait’, Art Bulletin 73 (1991), 653–68.

13 The American-born Dutch art historian Gary Schwartz spearheaded the campaign to return the painting to the Dutch. See Schwartz’s account of the discovery, in Loekie Schwartz’s Dutch translation, in Het Financieele Dagblad, Amsterdam, 15 January 2005.

14 Held, ‘Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle’, p.658, footnote 20.

15 Ibid., p.664 (my translation).

16 Ibid.

17 See above, Chapter 3.

18 Held, ‘Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle’, p.665.

19 On the three poems see F. Noske, ‘Two unpaired hands holding a music sheet: A recently discovered portrait of Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle’, Tijdschrift van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 42 (1992), 131–40.

20 See ibid.

21 Ibid., p.138.

22 On Huygens and the theorbo see R. Spencer, ‘Chitarrone, theorbo and archlute’, Early Music 4 (1976), 407–23; 413. See also L. Sayce, ‘Continuo lutes in 17th- and 18th-century England’, Early Music 23 (1995), 666–84.

23 For Marnix’s influence on William see L. Jardine, The Awful End of William the Silent.

24 6 June 1652. Worp, letter 5230.

25 See Huygens to Mevr. Morgan. Worp, letter 3239.

26 J.A. Worp (ed.), De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens, naar zijn handschrift uitgegeven, 9 vols (Groningen, 1892–99), Vol. 4, pp.53–4: the poem was later retitled ‘Een minnaer aen een weduwe op een mugge-net hem bij haer vereert’.

27 D. de Wilhem to Huygens, The Hague, 1 August 1646. Worp, letter 4417.

28 Huygens to Mevr. A. Morgan. D. de Wilhem to Huygens, The Hague, 1 August 1646. Worp, letter 4417.

28 Huygens to Mevr. A. Morgan, Worp, letter 4438.

29 See Edward M. Furgol, ‘Morgan, Sir Charles (1575/6–1643)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 7 April 2007].

30 To Lady Strickland, 2 October 1654. Worp, letter 5370.

31 Huygens to Amalia van Solms, 3 August 1654. Worp, letter 5363.

32 6 June 1652. Worp, letter 5230.

33 See P. Geyl, ‘Frederick Henry of Orange and King Charles I’, English Historical Review 38 (1923), 355–83; 364.

34 Utricia Ogle (1616–74) was the daughter of Sir John Ogle and Elizabeth de Vries. She married captain Sir William Swann in 1645.

35 See J.A. Worp, ‘Nog eens Utricia Ogle en de muzikale correspondentie van Huygens’, Tijdschrift der Vereeniging voor Noord-Nederlands Muziekgeschiedenis 5 (1896), 129–36.

36 24 January 1647. Worp, letter 4527.

37 On Lanier’s career in the household of Charles I see J. Brotton, The Sale of the Late King’s Goods (London: Macmillan, 2006).

38 20 January 1654. Worp, letter 5324.

39 ‘Hofwijk’, lines 413–18. P. Davidson and A. van der Weel (eds and trans.), A Selection of the Poems of Sir Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996), p.143.

40 See J.A. Worp, ‘Nog eens Utricia Ogle en de muzikale correspondentie van Huygens’, Tijdschrift der Vereeniging voor Noord-Nederlands Muziekgeschiedenis 5 (1896), 129–36.

41 J.P. Vander Motten, Sir William Killigrew (1606–1695): His Life and Dramatic Works (Gent: Universa, 1980), pp.22–7. F. Blom (ed.), Constantijn Huygens: Mijn Leven verteld aan mijn Kinderen, 2 vols (Amsterdam: Prometheus/Bert Bakker, 2003), 1: pp.124–6; 2: pp.216–18.

42 Blom, Constantijn Huygens: Mijn Leven 1, p.124. I can find no evidence, aside from Contantijn Huygens’s letters to her, for how Lady Killigrew came to know Dutch. But see Elizabeth of Bohemia’s letter confirming that English noblewomen were learning Dutch at this time (Nadine Akkerman, personal communication).

43 Elizabeth of Bohemia to Sir Thomas Roe, The Hague, 24/14 June 1639. I am grateful to Nadine Akkerman for this reference.

44 1630. Worp, letter 566.

45 20/30 April 1671. Worp, letter 6794.

46 18 March 1646. Worp, letter 4295.

47 Lanier to Huygens, 3 April 1646. Worp, letter 4304.

48 The Life of the Honourable Robert Boyle by Thomas Birch, MA and FRS, London: Printed for A. Millar, over-against Catharine-Street in the Strand MDCCXLIV. (This later appears as the first part of Vol. I of the Wo r k s.) For Francis’s marriage, see p.34.

49 Lords Journal: ‘Boyle et al – pass to go to Holland, 22. Car. 1 viii 468 a. “Ordered, That Mr. Boyle and his Wife shall have a pass to go in to Holland; carrying with them Servants, and such Necessaries as are fit for his Journey.”’

50 See Birch, Life of Boyle. Birch adds the footnote: ‘Mr. Boyle’s letter to Mr. Marcombes, dated from London, Febr. 22, 1647–8, in which he mentions his intentions of setting out for Holland the next day.’

51 Charlotte’s birth date is generally given as ‘around 1650’, since the actual birth took place discreetly, and her status as a royal bastard was not made public till many years later.

52 J.P. Vander Motten, ‘Thomas Killigrew’s “lost years”, 1655–1660’, Neophilologus 82 (1998), 311–34.

53 See above for the marital disgrace of Thomas’s sister, Francis Boyle’s wife.

54 J.P. Vander Motten, ‘Killigrew, Thomas (1612–1683)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 8 April 2007].

55 Endymion Porter, who we are told actually found the house for the Cavendishes, was an agent involved in numerous art purchases made in the Low Countries on behalf of noble English clients. He was certainly well known to Huygens, and had served in the same capacity in purchases for the Dutch Stadholder. Huygens mentions Margaret Cavendish in a letter to Utricia Swann in 1653, when he has not yet met her in person.

56 4/14 October, 1655. Worp, De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens (1608–1687), 5, 244–5, letter 5432.

7: Consorts of Viols, Theorbos and Anglo–Dutch Voices

1 B. van Beneden, ‘Introduction’, in B. van Beneden and Nora de Poorter (eds), Royalist Refugees: William and Margaret Cavendish in the Rubens House 1648–1660 (Antwerp: Rubenshuis & Rubenianum, 2006), p.10.

2 I. van Damme, ‘A city in transition: Antwerp after 1648’, in ibid., pp.55–62; 58.

3 See P. Major, ‘A Church in exile: Anglican survival and resistance in Antwerp, 1650–53’ (in press).

4 On Jews and Jewish practice in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, see the many articles by J.I. Israel, particularly those in Studia Rosenthaliana.

5 On the Duarte family and its art collections see Edgar Samuel, ‘The disposal of Diego Duarte’s Stock of Paintings 1692–1697’, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kusten-Antwerpen (1976); ‘Manuel Levy Duarte (1631–1714): An Amsterdam Merchant Jeweller and his Trade with London’, Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England XXVII, 11–31. See also G. Dogaer, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kusten-Antwerpen (1971), for the 1683 inventory of the Duarte picture collection.

6 See entry for Gaspar Duarte on the website of the Joods Historische Museum of Amsterdam:

7 ‘Anvers, ce 24e de Mars 1641’. Gaspar Duarte to Huygens. Worp, letter 2677.

8 J. Duarte to Huygens, 7 April 1641. Worp, letter 2686.

9 G.F. Duarte to Huygens, 21 April 1641. Worp, letter 2677.

10 G.F. Duarte to Huygens, 9 May 1641. Worp, letter 2703.

11 I owe this connection to Nadine Akkerman, who is editing the letters of Elizabeth of Bohemia, for whom Wicquefort also worked.

12 £9 sterling = 100 Dutch guilders.

13 See Marika Keblusek, ‘Mary, princess royal (1631–1660)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 9 April 2007].

14 See below, Chapter 8.

15 See G. Dogaer, ‘De inventaris der schilderijen van Diego Duarte’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1971), 195–221; 203.

16 21 July 1648. Worp, letter 4845. On Huygens and the de Barres, see J. Tiersot, ‘Une famille de musiciens français au XVIIe siècle les de Barre. III. Les enfants de Pierre. Anne de la Barre. chez Huygens’, Revue de musicologie 9 (1928), 1–11; 7.

17 31 July 1648. Worp, letter 4850.

18 Tiersot, ‘Une famille de musiciens français’, pp.7–9 (not in Worp).

19 30 January 1653. Worp, letter 5271.

20 C. Huygens, ‘Dessein de l’entrée du ballet presenté à la reine de Boheme à la Haye’, in Huygens, Otiorum libri sex (The Hague, 1625), pp.49–54.

21 Cit. M. Keblusek, ‘“A divertissiment of little plays”: Theater aan de Haagse hoven van Elizabeth van Bohemen en Mary Stuart’, in J. de Jongste, J. Roding and B. Thijs (eds), Vermaak van de elite in de vroegmoderne tijd(Hilversum: Verloren, 1999), pp.190–202; 198.

22 N.N.W. Akkerman and P.R. Sellin, ‘A Stuart Masque in Holland, Ballet de la Carmesse de La Haye (1655)’, Parts 1 and 2, Ben Jonson Journal 11 (2004), 207–58; 227 and 12 (2005), 141–64.

23 Ibid., Part 1, p.227.

24 Ibid., p.228.

25 Ibid., p.229.

26 Ibid., p.231.

27 On such entertainments see M. Keblusek, ‘“A divertissment of little plays”: Theater aan de Haagse hoven van Elizabeth van Bohemen en Mary Stuart’, in J.A.F. de Jongste et al., Vermaak van de Elite in de Vroegmoderne Tijd(Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 1999).

28 See N.N.W. Akkerman, The Letters of the Queen of Bohemia (unpublished dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, 2008).

29 Akkerman and Sellin, ‘A Stuart Masque in Holland’, Part 2, 158.

30 Ibid., pp.142–3.

31 For Huygens’s musical dealings with Brussels, see R. Rasch, ‘Constantijn Huygens in Brussel op bezoek bij Leopold Wilhelm van Oostenrijk 1648–1656’, Revue belge de Musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap 55, ‘six siècles de vie musicale à Bruxelles/Zes eeuwen muziekleven te Brussel’ (2001), 127–46.

32 See Lynn Hulse, ‘Cavendish, William, first Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne (bap. 1593, d. 1676)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 [, accessed 9 April 2007].

33 See above, Chapter 4.

34 In October 1648 Frederik Nassau-Zuijlenstein (natural son of Frederik Hendrik) married Mary Killigrew, lady-in-waiting to Mary Stuart, at The Hague, and there was a large gathering of English nobility.

35 K. Whitaker, Mad Madge: Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, Royalist, Writer and Romantic (London: Chatto & Windus, 2003), p.113.

36 On Bolsover see T. Mowl, Architecture Without Kings: The Rise of Puritan Classicism under Cromwell (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), pp.167–9. See also T. Raylor, ‘“Pleasure reconciled to virtue”: William Cavendish, Ben Jonson, and the decorative scheme at Bolsover Castle’, Renaissance Quarterly 52 (1999), 402–39.

37 L. Worsley, U. Härting and M. Keblusek, ‘Horsemanship’, in Beneden and de Poorter, Royalist Refugees, pp.37–54.

38 J. Knowles, ‘“We’ve lost, should we lose too our harmless mirth?” Cavendish’s Antwerp Entertainments’, in ibid., pp.70–7.

39 On Lanier’s career in the household of Charles I see J. Brotton, The Sale of the Late King’s Goods (London: Macmillan, 2006).

40 Knowles, ‘We’ve lost, should we lose too our harmless mirth?’, p.77.

41 5/15 September 1653.

42 Huygens to Margaret Cavendish, 9/19 September 1671. On this exchange of letters see now N.N.W. Akkerman and Marguérite Corporaal, ‘Mad Science Beyond Flattery: The Correspondence of Margaret Cavendish and Constantijn Huygens’, Early Modern Literary Studies Special Issue 14 (May, 2004), 2.1–21 [].

43 Huygens included some poems in English (now lost).

44 Antwerp, 20 March 1657.

45 27 March 1657.

46 30 March 1657.

47 L. Brodsley, C. Frank and J.W. Steeds, ‘Prince Rupert’s drops’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society 41 (1986), 1–26.

48 This report was published by Christopher Merrett as an appendix to his translation of Antonio Neri’s Art of Glass (1662), pp.353–62.

49 R. Hooke, ‘Observatiion vii. Of some Phaenomena of Glass Drops’, Micrographia or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies made by Magnifying Glasses with Observation and Inquiries thereupon (London, 1665), pp.33–44.

8: Masters of All They Survey

1 For a vivid sense of the new consumer culture getting under way in the course of the seventeenth century, see J. Styles and A. Vickery (eds), Gender, Taste, and Material Culture in Britain and North America, 1700–1830 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006).

2 See H.J. Louw, ‘Anglo–Netherlandish architectural interchange c.1600–c.1660’, Architectural History 24 (1981), 1–23.

3 See PRO, WORK 5/2; D. Knoop and G.P. Jones, The London Mason in the Seventeenth Century (1935), 71; H. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600–1840, 3rd edn (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), p.299.

4 K. Ottenheym, ‘“Possessed by such a passion for building”, Frederik Hendrik and architecture’, in Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display, pp.105–25; p.110.

5 ‘[13?] November 1635’. Worp, letter 1301.

6 ‘Au camp soubs Philippine, le 2e de Juillet 1639’ (Worp, letter 2149), and 14 November 1639 (Worp, letter 2272).

7 See K.A Ottenheym, ‘De correspondentie tussen Rubens en Huygens over architectuur (1635–40)’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 1997, pp.1–11.

8 Utricia Swann sang at Hofwijk in 1642, and Huygens wrote a poem of lavish praise of her singing, which put the nightingale to shame. T. van Strien and K. van der Leer, Hofwijk: Het gedicht en de buitenplaats van Constantijn Huygens (Zutphen: Walborg Pers, 2002), pp.82–3.

9 See Koen Ottenheym, ‘“Possessed by such a passion for building”: Frederik Hendrik and Architecture’, in Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display, pp.105–25.

10 Ibid., pp.121–5. See also J. Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe 1500–1750 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), p.130.

11 See L. Worsley, ‘“His magnificent buildings”: William Cavendish’s patronage of architecture’, in Beneden and de Poorter, Royalist Refugees, pp.101–4.

12 See above, Chapter 3. See also Held, ‘Huygens and Baerle’, p.662.

13 See P. Geyl, ‘Frederick Henry of Orange and King Charles I’, English Historical Review 38 (1923), 355–83; 364.

14 15 February 1651. Worp, letter 5100.

15 To Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia. Worp, letter 5323. See also K. van der Leer, Hofwijk: Het gedicht en de buitenplaats van Constantijn Huygens (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2002), p.89.

16 S. Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (1987).

17 P. Davidson and A. van der Weel (eds and trans.), A Selection of the Poems of Sir Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996), p.137.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., p.139.

20 Ibid., pp.151–3.

21 2 June 1682. Worp, letter 7188.

22 Cit. Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland, p.107.

23 Huygens to Utricia, Hofwijck, 5/15 September 1653.

24 R. Strong, The Artist and the Garden (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000), pp.183–5.

25 A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer (eds), Lodewijk Huygens: The English Journal 1651–1652 (Leiden: E.J. Brill/Leiden University Press, 1982), pp.132–3.

26 A. Mollet, Le Jardin de Plaisir, contenant plusieurs desseins de Jardinage tant Parterres en Broderie, Compartiments de gazon, que Eosquers, & autres (Stockholm: Henry Kayler, 1651), fol. D4v (author’s translation).

27 See L. Pattacini, ‘André Mollet, Royal gardener in St James’s Park, London’, Garden History 26 (1998), 3–18.

28 Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland, p.170.

29 Cit. J.D. Hunt, ‘Anglo–Dutch garden art’, in D. Hoak and M. Feingold (eds), The World of William and Mary: Anglo–Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688–89 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp.196–7.

30 Cit. ibid., p.195.

31 Cit. Davidson and van der Weel, A Selection of the Poems of Sir Constantijn Huygens, p.199.

32 J. Evelyn, Sylva (1664), p.115, cit. S.M. Couch, ‘The practice of avenue planting in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, Garden History 20 (1992), 173–200; 176.

33 Evelyn, Sylva (1644), p.13.

34 Christiaan Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 4, p.176.

35 14/24 September 1676. Worp, letter 7032.

36 This is the distinguished Orangeist diplomatic family, living in The Hague, into which Alexander Bruce married in 1659. See above, Chapter 5.

37 See above, Chapter 2.

38 F.R.E. Blom (ed.), Constantijn Huygens: Journaal van de Reis naar Venetië (Amsterdam: Prometheus publishers, 2003), p.64 (author’s translation).

39 Ibid., pp.64–6.

40 J. Cats, Ouderdom, buyten-leven en hof-gedachten, op Sorghvliet (Amsterdam: J.J. Schipper, 1656), pp.14–15, cit. V. Bezemer Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland 1600–1650 (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 2001), p.12.

41 Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland, p.9.

9: Paradise on Earth

1 See Koen Ottenheym, ‘“Possessed by such a passion for building”: Frederik Hendrik and Architecture’, in Keblusek and Zijlmans, Princely Display, pp.105–25; pp.111–16.

2 See Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland, pp.15–59.

3 Ibid., p.29.

4 Evelyn, Sylva (1664).

5 J. Korthals-Altes, Sir Cornelius Vermuyden (The Hague: W.P. van Stockum & Son, 1925).

6 C. Roberts, ‘The Earl of Bedford and the coming of the English Revolution’, Journal of Modern History 49 (1977), 600–16.

7 For an account of van Baerle’s relationship with Constantijn Huygens see T. Verbeek, E.-J. Bos and J. van den Ven (eds), ‘The Correspondence of René Descartes 1643’, Questiones Infinitae: Publications of the Department of Philosophy Utrecht University, 45 (2003), 246–7.

8 C.D. Van Strien, British Travellers in Holland during the Stuart Period: Edward Browne and John Locke as Tourists in the United Provinces (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), p.149.

9 Cit. E. Den Hartog and C. Teune, ‘Gaspar Fagel (1633–88): his garden and plant collection at Leeuwenhorst’, Garden History 30 (2002), 191–205; 194.

10 See Andriesse, Huygens, pp.181–2.

11 22 April 1660, ‘Aan de Hertogin van Lotharingen’. Worp, letter 5644.

12 Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland, p.175.

13 Christian Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 8, pp.86–7.

14 See e.g. Philips Doublet to Christiaan Huygens, 9 March 1679. Worp, letter 2163.

15 See V.B. Sellers, Courtly Gardens in Holland 1600–1650 (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 2001).

16 On the precise family connections see M. Sikkens-De Zwann, ‘Magdalena Poulle (1632–99): A Dutch lady in a circle of botanical collectors’, Garden History 30 (2002), 206–20.

17 E. Den Hartog and C. Teune, ‘Gaspar Fagel (1633–88): His garden and plant collection at Leeuwenhorst’, Garden History 30 (2002), 191–205; 191.

18 Tachard, Voyage to Siam, p.51. For a fuller account of the VOC’s nursery garden at the Cape see Jardine, Ingenious PursuitsChapter 6.

19 Den Hartog and Teune, ‘Gaspar Fagel’, p.194.

20 Ibid., p.197.

21 Cit. Den Hartog and Teune, ‘Gaspar Fagel’, p.201.

22 Cit. D. Chambers, ‘“Elysium Britannicum not printed neere ready &c”: The “Elysium Britannicum” in the Correspondence of John Evelyn’, in T. O’Malley and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn (eds), John Evelyn’s ‘Elysium Britannicum’ and European Gardening(Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1998), pp.107–130; p.115.

23 Ibid., p.127.

24 Sikkens-De Zwann, ‘Magdalena Poulle’, p.216.

25 See M.A. da Silva and M.M. Alcides, ‘Collecting and framing the wilderness: The garden of Johan Maurits (1604–79) in North-East Brazil’, Garden History 30 (2002), 153–76.

26 H.S. van der Straaten, Maurits de Braziliaan: Het levensverhaal van Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, stichter van het Mauritshuis, gouverneur-generaal van Nederlands-Brazilië, stadhouder van Kleef 1604–1679(Amsterdam: van Soeren & Co., 1998)

27 Cit. da Silva and Alcides, ‘Collecting and framing the wilderness’, p.158.

28 Cit. ibid., p.166.

29 Cit. ibid., p.172.

30 Cit. ibid., p.158.

31 See W. Diedenhofen, ‘“Belvedere”, or the principle of seeing and looking in the gardens of Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen at Cleves’, in J. Dixon Hunt (ed.), The Dutch Garden in the Seventeenth Century (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1988), pp.49–80.

32 For the definitive account of the ‘tulipmania’, see Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 2007).

33 Ibid., p.2.

34 See above, Chapter 5.

35 Goldgar and Montias have shown that paintings and tulip bulbs were both traded and bought by the same people. For the moral dilemma of disposable wealth in the United Provinces in the seventeenth century, see Schama, Embarrassment of Riches.

36 On Blathwayt’s career see S. Saunders Webb, ‘William Blathwayt, imperial fixer: From Popish Plot to Glorious Revolution’, William and Mary Quarterly 25 (1968), 3–21; ‘William Blathwayt, imperial fixer: muddling through to empire, 1689–1717’, William and Mary Quarterly 26 (1969), 373–415.

10: Anglo–Dutch Exchange and the New Science

1 Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den Zoon, p.103.

2 Ibid., p.114.

3 See L. Jardine, Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution (London: Little, Brown, 1999), for a full bibliography.

4 Cit. Strien, British Travellers in Holland, p.264.

5 Ibid.

6 A coiled spring was a standard feature of a traditional clock, incorporated as a driver of the mechanism (wound up with a key to drive the clockwork as in any modern clockwork toy); Huygens’s original idea was to move it to act as a regulator of the balance.

7 Oldenburg, Correspondence 11, 186 (translation from the French taken from the version published by Oldenburg in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in November 1676).

8 BL Sloane MS 1039, f.129.

9 Moray and Bruce were related by marriage, I believe (there are too many Morays/Murrays and Bruces to be able to prove this). They were both probably prominent Speculative Freemasons.

10 On the English community at Maastricht during the Commonwealth years see J.P. Vander Motten, ‘Thomas Killigrew’s “lost years”, 1655–1660’, Neophilogus 82 (1998), 311–34.

11 For the text of the correspondence between Sir Robert Moray and Alexander Bruce, Earl of Kincardine, see now D. Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray to the Earl of Kincardine, 1657–73 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). On Moray’s laboratory see e.g. ibid., p.82.

12 Ibid., p.190. See J.H. Leopold, ‘Christiaan Huygens, the Royal Society and Horology’, Antiquarian Horology 21 (1993), 37–42; 37.

13 Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray, p.197.

14 Parts of the escapement mechanism in clocks.

15 Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray, pp.198–9.

16 The first surviving communication between Moray and Christiaan Huygens is a letter dated 22 March 1661 (o.s.), shortly before Huygens arrived in London for the first time from Paris. Oeuvres Complètes 3, pp.260–1. However, it is clear that the two already know one another well.

17 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 2, p.209.

18 Lodewijk Huygens writes to his brother Christiaan in this period saying that the van Aerssens’ house is the most fashionable and most frequented house in The Hague.

19 Hume was chamberlain to Maria (Mary), Princess of Orange. See Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.477.

20 Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray, p.211.

21 Moray had played a prominent role in negotiations in Scotland during events preceding the arrest and execution of Charles I. Charles II recompensed handsomely those who had stood by his father right up to his end. See David Stevenson’s introduction to his edition of the Kincardine correspondence.

22 E.L. Edwardes, The Story of the Pendulum Clock (1977), p.41, interprets this as a reference to a type of ‘crutch’ (a fork-like device through which a clock pendulum runs) that Huygens had introduced.

23 A projection that engages on the teeth of a wheel, converting reciprocating into rotary motion (or vice-versa) in a clock.

24 Edwardes, Story, p.58, believed Moray wrote ‘Chopes’, which he identified as ‘chops’ or backcocks, parts of the suspension system for pendulums in clocks. But the first letter of the word is certainly ‘s’.

25 Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray, p.217.

26 On Culross, the Bruce family home, see Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland: Fife, Kinross and Clackmannan (Edinburgh: HMSO, 1933), pp.69–87. See also Dutch-style water landscape of Culross (across the Forth of Firth) by John Slezer (1693).

27 Culross, 15 September 1668. Worp, letter 6677.

28 Moray was delayed in Paris, negotiating the terms of Charles II’s return with the French, until summer 1660.

29 See references in G.E. Scala, ‘An index of proper names in Thomas Birch, “The History of the Royal Society” (London, 1756–1757)’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 28 (1974), 263–329. See also M. Hunter, Establishing the New Science: The Experience of the Early Royal Society (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989), p.81.

30 See D.S. Landes, ‘Hand and mind in time measurement: The contribution of art and science’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 43 (1989), 57–69; 61.

31 See L.D. Patterson, ‘Pendulums of Wren and Hooke’, Osiris 10 (1952), 277–321.

32 Huygens was given a commission in Paris 14 March 1661 to convey to Mme Bruce (Veronica van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck) – Oeuvres Complètes 22, p.561.

33 Ibid., pp.569–70.

34 Ibid., p.576.

35 Ibid., p.606.

36 Diary of John Evelyn 3, pp.285–6.

37 24 July 1661. See D. Stevenson, Letters of Sir Robert Moray to the Earl of Kincardine, 1657–73 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).

38 Huygens to Moray, 14/24 June 1661. Oeuvres Complètes 3, p.284.

39 Huygens to Moray, 22 July/1 August 1661. Ibid., p.307.

40 Huygens to Lodewijk Huygens, 31 October/9 November 1662. Oeuvres Complètes 4, p.256.

41 This version of events is confirmed in Hooke’s 1674–75 Cutlerian lecture.

42 A description of this clock is to be found in Huygens’s Horologium Oscillatorium (1673). See M. Mahoney, ‘Christian Huygens: The measurement of time and of longitude at sea’, in Studies on Christiaan Huygens, ed. H.J.M. Bos et al. (Lisse: Swets, 1980), pp.234–70. In an unpublished Cutlerian lecture of 1674–75, rewritten (I believe) around 1678, Hooke describes the various clocks used in these trials.

43 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 22, p.606.

44 See Leopold, ‘Christiaan Huygens, the Royal Society and Horology’, p.39.

45 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 4, p.278. See also Christiaan to Lodewijk, 18/28 December 1662, ibid., pp.284–5.

46 Bruce to Huygens, 2/12 January 1663. Ibid., pp.290–1.

47 Leopold, ‘Clockmaking in Britain and the Netherlands’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 43 (1989), 159.

48 See Huygens to Moray, 1 December 1662 (n.s.), Oeuvres Complètes 4, pp.274–5, and Huygens to Moray, 10/20 December 1662, ibid., pp.280–1.

49 Moray to Huygens, 9/19 January 1663. Ibid., p.296.

50 Huygens to Moray, 2 February 1663 (n.s.). Ibid., p.304.

51 Bruce to Huygens, 16/26 January 1663. Ibid., pp.301–2.

52 Huygens to Bruce, 9/19 January 1663. Oeuvres Complètes 22, p.593 (this is a letter from the Kincardine papers, so is out of order in the Oeuvres Complètes).

53 See J.H. Leopold, ‘Clockmaking in Britain and the Netherlands’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 43 (1989), 155–65; 159.

54 Moray to Huygens, 19 February/1 March 1663. Oeuvres Complètes 4, p.318.

55 Ibid.

56 This suspicion is confirmed by the fact that Hooke’s evaluation of the Huygens longitude clocks, as recorded in the minutes of the Royal Society in 1665, repeats these criticisms in very similar words.

57 In A Description of Helioscopes and some other Instruments (London: T.R. for J. Martyn, 1676) (conveniently to be found cited at length in Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 7, pp.517–26), Hooke gives the date of this trial as 1662. In BL Sloane MS 1039, fol. 129v, in his Cutlerian lecture on the subject he recalls the date as March 1664. I am confident that the actual date is March 1663.

58 Conveniently to be found cited at length in Oeuvres Complètes 7, p.519.

59 On 22 December 1665 Pepys recorded in his diary: ‘I to my Lord Brouncker’s and there spent the evening by my desire in seeing his lordship open to pieces and make up again his watch, thereby being taught what I never knew before.’ Cit. Leopold, ‘Christiaan Huygens, the Royal Society and Horology’, p.39.

60 In 1663 Christiaan Huygens was again in London with his father, and frequented the Royal Society, which made him a foreign Fellow.

61 See e.g. Pepys diary, cit. note 59 above, and Moray’s exchanges with Huygens about the new-design clock he is trying to get William Davidson to collect from The Hague for him in early 1665.

62 See L.D. Patterson, ‘Pendulums of Wren and Hooke’, Osiris 10 (1952), 277–321; 283.

63 Having examined the Trinity College Cambridge Hooke papers myself, I am now confident that sheets A–L of the longitude papers are from the early 1660s, but that everything thereafter is from the 1670s, possibly as late as 1678–79. I am grateful to the Wren Library, Trinity College Cambridge, for giving me access to these papers.

64 Richard Waller, Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (1705), p.v. On the Moray negotiations with Bruce and Huygens see the Kincardine papers (RS transcript), pp.406–7.

65 I base this account on the important article by Michael Wright, ‘Robert Hooke’s longitude timekeeper’, in M. Hunter and S. Schaffer (eds), Robert Hooke: New Studies (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1989), pp.63–118. Wright’s compilation of key recorded moments in Hooke’s spring-regulated timekeeper development is at pp.76–8.

66 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, pp.503–4 (letter 1481). This is one of the two letters Hooke considered to constitute a betrayal of his confidence to Huygens on Moray’s part. The other is that of 22 July 1665. Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, pp.426–8 (letter 1436).

67 ‘Mr. Hooke having made a proposition of giving the discovery of the longitude, as he conceived it, to the society, it was ordered, that he should choose such persons to commit this business to, as he thought good, and make the experiment; that by such persons chosen, the council might be satisfied of the truth and practicableness of his invention, and proceed accordingly to take out a patent for him.’

68 Richard Waller, Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (1705), p.v.

69 Ibid.

70 I am extremely grateful to Felix Pryor for assisting me in tracking down this document, and giving me sight of a legible photocopy.

71 See Waller, Posthumous Works,

72 Holmes was already carrying out tests of deep-sea sounding devices for the Royal Society.

73 Holmes’s account of this incident is recorded in the Journal Books of the Royal Society for 11 January 1665. See Birch 2, pp.4–5.

74 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.204 (letter 1315). See also ibid., pp.222–3 (letter 1324).

75 Ibid., p.224 (letter 1325).

76 Philosophical Transactions 1, 6 March 1665.

77 The grave outbreak of plague in July 1665, which necessitated the removal of the Court first to Hampton Court and then to Oxford, and the dispersal of the Royal Society members to the safety of the country, marked the end of this phase in Hooke’s longitude timekeeper aspirations.

78 See below, Chapter 12.

79 It is via the Isle of Wight route that Holmes’s path crossed that of Robert Hooke (born on that island). It has been plausibly argued that Grace, Robert’s niece, was the mother of Holmes’s illegitimate daughter Mary. See L. Jardine, The Curious Life of Robert Hooke: The Man Who Measured London (London: HarperCollins, 2003).

80 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.224 (letter 1325). Huygens’s attitude to his first longitude clocks was entirely consistent: he doubted their suitability from the start (Oeuvres Complètes 4, p.285).

81 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.256 (letter 1345).

82 Birch 2, p.21.

83 For a clear sense of the concern caused by Holmes’s conduct on that voyage, and Pepys’s lack of trust of him, see Pepys, Diary 6, p.43.

84 Ibid., p.56.

85 Birch, A History of the Royal Society 2, p.23.

86 Moray also added two further experiments Holmes claimed to have carried out with the clocks (ibid.).

87 Ibid., p.26.

88 I owe this discovery to C.H. Wilson, ‘Who captured New Amsterdam?’, English Historical Review 72 (1957), 469–74: ‘Fortunately our answer [to the question of whether Holmes was involved in the capture of New Amsterdam in 1664] need not rest on surmise, for we have Holmes’s own account of his movements during the months when he is supposed by some historians to have been on his way to America, and capturing New Amsterdam [Captain Robert Holmes his Journalls of Two Voyages into Guynea in his M[ajesty’]s Ships The Henrietta and the Jersey, Pepys Library Sea MSS. No. 2698]’ (pp. 472–3).

89 For Holmes’s buccaneering style, see Captain Robert Holmes his Journalls of Two Voyages…, p.168.

90 See Patterson, ‘Pendulums of Wren and Hooke’, pp.302–5.

91 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 7, pp.323–4. Bruce’s response to receiving his own complimentary copy of Huygens’s Horologium Oscillatorium was similarly critical. See Leopold, ‘Clockmaking in Britain and the Netherlands’, p.41.

11: Science Under the Microscope

1 I am extremely grateful to Dr Jan Broadway for this reference.

2 On the history of discovery and development of the microscope in the Netherlands see E.C. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), and S. Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1983).

3 It received the imprimatur of the Royal Society on 23 November 1664.

4 For a fuller version of this episode see L. Jardine, ‘Robert Hooke: A reputation restored’, in M. Cooper et al. (eds), Robert Hooke: Tercentennial Studies (Ashgate, 2006), pp.247–58.

5 13 February 1665. Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.236.

6 Ibid., p.245.

7 On Huygens’s annotations of his copy see M. Barth, ‘Huygens at work: Annotations in his rediscovered personal copy of Hooke’s “Micrographia”’, Annals of Science 52 (1995), 601–13.

8 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.240.

9 See the letter of thanks sent by Auzout to Sir Constantijn Huygens. I accept McKeon’s redating of this letter: R.K. McKeon, Établissement de l’Astronome de Précision et Oeuvre d’Adrien Auzout (2 fascicules), Thèse présentée pour le Doctorat du Troisième Cycle (Paris, 1965).

10 5 June 1665 (n.s.). Huygens archive, Leiden.

11 Auzout proposed setting up the Observatory in the dedicatory letter to Louis XIV which prefaced his L’Ephéméride du comète de 1664 (1665).

12 Hooke, Micrographia, fol. e1v.

13 Such a printed report is equivalent, in the period, to a priority claim, preceding an application for patent.

14 A. Auzout, Lettre à Monsieur l’Abbé Charles, sur la Ragguaglio di nuove Osservationi da Giuseppe Campani (Paris, 1665). Campani’s book was reviewed in the first issue of the Philosophical Transactions in London in March 1665.

15 Auzout and the Royal Society (i.e. Oldenburg) had been corresponding since early January 1665, following the publication of Auzout’s L’Ephéméride du comète. See A.R. and M.B. Hall (eds and trans.), The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, 13 volumes: vols 1–9 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965–73); vols 10–11 (London: Mansell, 1975–76); vols 12–13 (London: Taylor & Francis, 1986) 2, pp.341; pp.359–68. The Journal des sçavans began publication in January 1665, but ceased after three months. It began again in January 1666. Thus Auzout’s published letters may well have been intended for publication in the Journal, where indeed a review of the Campani (probably by Auzout) was eventually published in January 1666.

16 See Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, pp.383–410.

17 Ibid., p.384. See also Preface fol. b1r.

18 Ibid., p.420.

19 Ibid., p.429.

20 M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio, and L.M. Principe, The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, 6 vols (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2001) 2, p.387.

21 Moray also explained to Huygens that Hooke was having to put a lot of effort into preparing the lectures he had undertaken under the sponsorship of Sir John Cutler. So Cutler (another who dogged Hooke’s career, and caused him long-running difficulties) is already involved in this episode.

22 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.213.

23 Huygens had already made a note to himself to make the iron circle a modification in his own machine six months earlier.

24 13 September 1664 (Huygens archive, Leiden). In October 1665 Moray (in Oxford) reported to Huygens that Oldenburg had informed him by letter that trials were revealing further problems (Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, pp.503–6).

25 For the intimate (indeed, passionately affective) tone of these letters, at least in the early days of the correspondence, see the first letter sent by Moray, 31 May 1661 (Huygens archive, Leiden; also transcribed in Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes).

26 This is confirmed by the fact that on 2 November 1664 Hooke was admonished to ‘endeavour to have his new instrument for grinding optic-glasses ready against the next meeting’ (T. Birch, A History of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, from its first Rise, 4 vols (London, 1756) 1, p.483).

27 McKeon, Établissement de l’Astronome de Précision 2, pp.209–10.

28 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.156. See McKeon 1965 2, pp.111–12.

29 This interest in Campani’s techniques for making high-accuracy telescopes formed part of a larger debate about the Copernican theory of planetary motion, and the Inquisition’s attitude towards it. See for instance the review of Auzout’s Lettre à Monsieur l’Abbé Charles (Paris, 1665) in the Journal des sçavans of 11 January 1666.

30 See McKeon, Établissement de l’Astronome de Précision 2, p.211.

31 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.174, 25 December 1664. McKeon 1965 2, p.112.

32 Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.198, minute of a letter dated 15 January 1665.

33 On 2 January 1665 Huygens wrote to Moray impatiently asking for more information about Hooke’s working model of the lathe. He described how, in his own trials, he did better by keeping the circle fixed. Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.186. See also ibid., p.346, and Oeuvres Complètes 22, pp.82–4.

34 This was not the only ‘leak’ of Hooke’s lens-grinding machine. See Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.306.

35 Ibid., pp.441–2.

36 Hunter, Clericuzio and Principe, The Correspondence of Robert Boyle 2, p.493.

37 During the early months of the plague exchange of letters between London and the rest of England was hampered by anxieties over infection.

38 Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.529.

39 Ibid., p.538.

40 Hunter, Clericuzio and Principe, The Correspondence of Robert Boyle 2, pp.610–11.

41 Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.474. The original is bound in the back of a copy of A. Auzout, Réponse de Monsieur Hook aux considerations de M. Auzout. Contenue dans vne lettre écrite à l’auteur des Philosophical Transactions, et quelques lettres écrites de part & d’autre sur le sujet des grandes lunetes. Traduite d’anglois (Paris, 1665), in the BL.

42 Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.516 (author’s translation).

43 Ibid., pp.447, 448, 452–3.

44 The Halls’ annotations to the letters in the Oldenburg Correspondence treat Hooke’s contribution consistently as if it were an ill-conceived and botched project, and as if Auzout were self-evidently correct in all his criticisms.

45 Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.83. Wren’s position was presumably not helped by the fact that he had recently had to concede Huygens’s superior talent as an observational and theoretical astronomer, when Huygens’s model for the rings of Saturn was demonstrably more plausible than the one Wren had himself come up with.

46 See Hunter, Clericuzio and Principe, The Correspondence of Robert Boyle 2, p.544, Boyle to Oldenburg, 30 September 1665.

47 Christiaan Huygens’s father is a key figure in the establishing of his official scientific position in Paris. Several letters show Huygens thanking the King for allowing his father’s intercession on his behalf in the matter of the Académie des sciences appointment, and for lavish gifts for his father from the King, sent in appreciation of his efforts.

48 Auzout to Oldenburg, 1 July 1665. Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, p.428.

49 See Hunter, Clericuzio and Principe, The Correspondence of Robert Boyle 2, p.504; p.517.

50 This was yet another responsibility Hooke had taken over from someone else, this time from Wren, who had given up the job on the excuse that he was about to be sent to France by the King.

51 i.e. Cutler lectures.

52 1 August 1665. Huygens, Oeuvres Complètes 5, p.427.

53 Oldenburg, Correspondence 2, pp.294, 297.

54 My own view is that this review is by Auzout, though it might be by Justel.

55 Cit. C.D. Andriesse, Titan kan niet slapen: een biografie van Christiaan Huygens (Amsterdam: Contact, 1993), French trans. D. Losman, Christian Huygens (Paris: Albin Michel, 1998), p.348.

56 Huygens to Constantijn Huygens, 30 December 1688, cit. R. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p.473.

57 Cit. Andriesse, Christian Huygens, p.377.

58 From the diary of Constantijn Huygens, cit. ibid., p.378.

59 This account is based on Westfall, Never at RestChapter 11. See also Westfall, Never at Rest, p.473.

60 It was during this period that Hooke and Newton met at Halley’s house, and Hooke failed to get satisfaction once again over his being credited with some part in the inverse square law.

61 Ibid., pp.378–9.

62 From the diary of Christiaan Huygens, cit. Andriesse, Christian Huygens, p.380.

63 Westfall, Never at Rest, p.480.

64 Some scholars maintain that these discussions took place at Hampton Court. The two men were, however, both in London for several months, and had ample opportunity to seek out each other’s company.

65 Westfall, Never at Rest, p.488.

66 Ibid., p.496.

67 Christiaan Huygens died at Hofwijk in 1695.

68 Wren also found himself largely out of favour, though his ongoing architectural projects, and his usefulness to Queen Mary in her many rebuilding projects, sustained his public position until her death.

69 Hooke was by now no longer being remunerated as Curator of Experiments, though he continued to appear at meetings, lecture and lead discussions of experiments. It was probably about this time that a letter – evidently orchestrated by Hooke – was sent to Halley as Clerk of the Royal Society, urging him to take Hooke on once more in a salaried position. This letter is reproduced in J.B. Nichols, Illustrating the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century (London: J.B. Nichols & Son, 1822) 4, pp.66–7.

70 Westfall, Never at Rest, pp.174–5.

71 See Newton to Oldenburg, 19 March 1672, cit. Westfall, Never at Rest, p.245.

72 Newton to Oldenburg, 21 December 1675, cit. ibid., p.273.

73 Cit. A.R. Hall, ‘Two unpublished lectures of Robert Hooke’, Isis 42 (1951), 220.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., p.222.

76 Ibid., p.224.

77 Ibid., p.220.

78 For Newton’s detailed marginal annotations in his copy of Micrographia, see G. Keynes, A Bibliography of Robert Hooke (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1966), pp.97–108.

79 Jardine, Curious Life of Robert HookeChapter 8.

80 See Andriesse, Huygens, pp.203–13.

81 Cit. ibid., p.210.

82 This account is based on R.S. Wilkinson, ‘John Winthrop, Jr., and America’s first telescopes’, New England Quarterly 35 (1962), 520–3, and J.W. Streeter, ‘John Winthrop, Junior, and the fifth satellite of Jupiter’, Isis 39 (1948), 159–63.

83 See below, Chapter 12.

84 Cit. Streeter, ‘John Winthrop’, p.161.

12: Anglo–Dutch Influence Abroad

1 T. Sprat, The history of the Royal-Society of London for the improving of natural knowledge (London, 1667), pp.88–9.

2 On the early history of New Netherland see J. Jacobs, New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (Leiden: Brill, 2005), and J. Venema, Beverwijck: A Dutch Village on the American Frontier, 1652–1664 (Albany and Hilversum: State of New York University Press and Verloren, 2003). For a thoroughly readable general book see R. Shorto, The Island at the Centre of the World: The Untold Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Founding of New York (New York: Doubleday, 2004).

3 Jacobs, New Netherland, p.475.

4 Cit. Shorto, The Island at the Centre of the World, pp.63–4.

5 Jacobs, New Netherland, p.373.

6 Ibid., p.93.

7 Ibid., p.143.

8 For a full account see ibid., passim.

9 Captain Robert Holmes his Journalls of Two Voyages into Guynea in his M[ajestie]’s Ships the Henrietta and the Jersey, Pepys Library Sea MSS. No. 2698, p.168.

10 J.D. Davies, ‘Holmes, Sir Robert (c.1622–1692)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [, accessed 4 June 2007]. On the canard that it was Holmes who actually attacked and took New Amsterdam see C.H. Wilson, ‘Who captured New Amsterdam?’, English Historical Review 72 (1957), 469–74.

11 Cit. J. Scott, ‘“Good night Amsterdam”: Sir George Downing and Anglo–Dutch state-building’, English Historical Review 118 (2003), 334–56; 346.

12 Ibid., pp.346–7.

13 Shorto, Island at the Centre of the World, p.330.

14 M. Kurlansky, The Big Oyster: New York in the World, A Molluscular History (London: Jonathan Cape, 2006), p.37.

15 Antonivaz, 9 May 1642. Worp, letter 2996.

16 See C. Lesger, The Rise of the Amsterdam Market and Information Exchange: Merchants, Commercial Expansion and Change in the Spatial Economy of the Low Countries, c. 1550–1630 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).

17 T. Sprat, The history of the Royal-Society of London for the improving of natural knowledge (London, 1667), p.401.

18 Cit. M. ‘T Hart, ‘Cities and statemaking in the Dutch Republic, 1580–1680’, Theory and Society 18 (1989), 663–87; 663.

19 Cit. ibid., p.674.

20 Cit. ibid., p.679.

21 Lesger, Rise of the Amsterdam Market, p.224.

22 H.J. Cook, Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007). See also H. J. Cook, ‘Time’s bodies: crafting the preparation and preservation of naturalia’, in P.H. Smith and P. Findlen (eds), Merchants and Marvels: Commerce, Science and Art in Early Modern Europe (London: Routledge, 2002), pp.223–47, and ‘The cutting edge of a revolution? Medicine and natural history near the shores of the North Sea’, in J.V. Field and F.A.J.L. James (eds), Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp.45–61.

23 L. Neal, ‘Venture shares in the Dutch East India Company’, draft paper, ‘prepared for the Yale School of Management Conference of Interest and Enterprise: Essays in Financial Innovation March 6 & 7, 2003, Yale University’ (consulted online).

24 This account of the VOC and its economic significance is based on J. de Vries and A. van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp.382–96 and 457–64.

25 Ibid., p.385.

26 W. Temple, Miscellanea…by a person of honour (London: E. Gellibrand, 1680), pp.204–5.

27 Ibid., pp.214–15.

28 See H.J. Cook, Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine and Science in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), pp.349–77.

29 Cit. ibid., p.371.

30 Wilhelmi ten Rhyne M.D. &c., Transisalano-Daventriensis Dissertatio de arthritide: Mantissa schematica: De acupunctura: et Orationes tres, I. De chymiæ ac botaniæ antiquitate & dignitate. II. De physiognomia: III. De monstris. Singula ipsius authoris notis illustrata (London, 1683). For more on this treatise see R.W. Carrubba and J.Z. Bowers, ‘The western world’s first detailed treatise on acupuncture: Willem Ten Rhijne’s De Acupunctura’, Journal of the History of Medicine 29 (1974), 371–98.

31 For the Anglo–Dutch context for this discussion of George Downing’s attitude to Dutch Republican fiscal policies, see Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth Century English Political Instability in European Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), and Scott, ‘What the Dutch Taught Us: The Late Emergence of the Modern British State’, Times Literary Supplement (16 March 2001), pp.4–6.

32 See Jonathan Scott, ‘Downing, Sir George, first baronet (1623–1684)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [ catalogue., accessed 10 June 2007]

33 Cit. Scott, ‘“Good night Amsterdam”’, p.344.

34 The account that follows of Downing’s important role in shaping English fiscal policy after the Restoration is based on ibid., pp.334–56.

35 Ibid., p.354.

Conclusion: Going Dutch

1 William returned to The Hague in late February 1671.

2 William was made Captain General (overall military commander) by the States General in 1671, and Stadholder in 1672, following the murder of the de Witt brothers and the fall of the Republic.

3 W. Troost, William III, the Stadholder-King: A Political Biography, trans. J.C. Grayson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp.63–4.

4 PRO, LC5/2, pp.29–31. I am extremely grateful to Dr Anna Keay of English Heritage for passing this reference to me.

5 Troost, William III, the Stadholder-King, pp.62–3.

6 Worp, letter 6778.

7 Worp, letter 7077.

8 De Gedichten van Constantijn Huygens online, University of Leiden website:

9 See Wren family, Parentalia, p.323.

10 CLRO, RCA 82, fol. 268v.

11 J.E. Moore, ‘The Monument, or, Christopher Wren’s Roman accent’, Art Bulletin 80 (1998), 498–533.

12 An Act of Parliament of 1667 contained the instruction that: ‘The better to preserve the memory of this dreadful visitation; Be it further enacted that a Columne or Pillar of Brase or Stone be erected on or as neare unto the place where the said Fire so unhappily began as Conveniently as may be, in perpetuall Remembrance thereof, with such Inscription thereon, as hereafter by the Mayor and Court of Aldermen in that behalfe be directed.’ Work excavating the foundations was completed in November 1671, and construction must have commenced shortly thereafter.

13 Cit. van Strien, British Travellers in Holland, p.263.

14 KA 48 fol. 5. Constantijn Huygens to Christopher Wren, ‘Surveyor of the Kings buildings’.

15 Offenberg expresses uncertainty as to whether the letter addressed to ‘a courtier at the court of the Prince of Orange’ was actually intended for Huygens (p.420). The letter to Wren (to which Offenberg does not refer) confirms that this was indeed the case.

16 See A. Offenberg, ‘Dirk van Santen and the Keur Bible: New insights into Jacob Judah (Ayre) Leon Templo’s model Temple’, Studia Rosenthaliana 37 (2004), 401–22. Thanks to Moti Feingold for bringing this article to my attention.

17 Hooke, Diary, p.179.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!