university of groningen traders, ties and tensions …bers of the bergen kontor, all of them from...

University of Groningen

Traders, ties and tensionsWubs-Mrozewicz, Justyna Joanna

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2008

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Wubs-Mrozewicz, J. J. (2008). Traders, ties and tensions: the interactions of Lübeckers, Overijsslers andHollanders in Late Medieval Bergen. Groningen: s.n.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 24-06-2020

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/traders-ties-and-tensions(aeac8d92-1a88-44a2-a1b7-dec7ed008a41).html



In the preceding chapters, it has been demonstrated that the relations of Overijsseltraders with other merchants and with the Kontor administration were anythingbut static when perceived from both the diachronic and the multiple synchronicperspectives of trade politics, organisation, and trade in specific goods. These rela-tions were changeable ties and tensions. In this chapter, the tensions in specific cas-es will be analysed, from the source of discord to the resolution of the conflict.Three conflicts will be examined from two different angles: the perspective of themultiple and at times complex steps taken to resolve these disputes, as well as theperspective of Kontor and group membership. In short, the main focus will be onthe procedure of dealing with the conflict, and the implications for group member-ship. It must be stressed that none of the chosen cases have previously beenanalysed from these perspectives; nor have they ever been studied in an integralform, making full use of all of the extant sources. In previous research they haveusually been presented in fragments, and not placed within a broader context. Intwo of these cases, the contacts of Overijsslers with Hollanders play a prominentrole, but all of the groups addressed in this study come in for discussion.

The first case concerns a conflict during the years 1464-1467 between three mem-bers of the Bergen Kontor, all of them from Overijssel, namely Hermen Schotelerfrom Kampen, and Dirck Johanszoon and Gert Girinck from Deventer. Its resolu-tion took place in Bergen and in Lübeck. The case has occasionally been mentionedin research, but usually based on only a minor part of the documentation available.1

Here, it will be discussed for the first time in detail, with an emphasis on the processof dealing with the problem. All available sources will be drawn into the analysis,including letters (some of them used here in their original unpublished form2), aswell as entries in the Lübeck Niederstadtbuch, published in Lübisches Urkunden-buch and also by Wilhelm Ebel in his detailed Lübecker Ratsurteile 1-4.

In the second case, the incident of public humiliation of Kampen traders for theirtrade with Hollanders in 1468, shortly touched upon in the Introduction, will beexamined in detail. This was part and parcel of a larger conflict in which Over -

1 Nedkvitne, Utenrikshandelen, p. 597 note 9 only mentioned Hermen Schoteler, but he did it in thecontext of fish prices, not the conflict.

2 The sources in the AHL, ASA Externa Danica, nr. 846, have been published in Bull (ed.) Bergen ogHansestæderne, pp. 132-138, yet at times with omissions and mistakes, therefore transcriptions havebeen compared here to the original sources.

VII Conflict Resolution within the Kontor:Three Cases

ijsslers clashed with Kontor administrators and Wends. Unlike the first case, thesecond was resolved outside of Bergen, namely at the Hanseatic Diets. It must benoted that the tensions from the period 1468-1477 have frequently been employedin research as a prime example of the internal divisions within the Kontor, and theseparatists tendencies of the Overijsslers.3 This is not the full story, however. Theabundant evidence pertaining to the conflict has already been consulted earlier inthis study in order to cast light on various aspects of how the Kontor functioned,especially regarding the question of leadership in the Kontor, settlement and resi-dence, rules, and trade. From a long-term analysis, it has been shown that these ten-sions were concentrated in the period 1468-1477, but cannot be seen as representa-tive for the overall relations between Lübeckers and Overijsslers.4 In this chapter,the details of these aspects have been pushed to the background, while the mannerand process of dealing with the various issues of the conflict will be examined inmore detail. The vantage point for this case is that it concerns a group within theKontor, in conflict with other Kontor traders and in contact with non-Hansards,during a specific period.

The final case analyses the crimes of the rebellious Hinrick van Hasselt from De-venter, and his accomplices, in the 1530s and 1540s. The resolution of this case re-volves on the one hand around the issue of individual traders repeatedly breakingKontor rules, and on the other around the question of who had the legal authorityto try them. The latter question was connected to the changing legal structure of theKontor, which began to place more responsibility in the hands of the authoritiesfrom the Hanseatic towns from which criminals came. The case draws upon a largecorpus of unpublished sources in the archives in Deventer, Lübeck, Brussels andUtrecht, amounting to several hundred files. Much of the information overlaps,creating a tangled sourcebase of paraphrases and copies.5 The colourful figure ofHinrick van Hasselt has largely gone unnoticed in research,6 the only larger publi-cation being my own article, which serves as the basis for this section of the chap-ter.7

vii conflict resolution within the kontor: three cases 215

3 Bruns, Bergenfahrer, pp. XV-XVII; Daenell, Die Blütezeit II, pp. 206-210; Schreiner, Hanseatene ogNorge, pp. 50-54; Hamre, Norsk historie 1450-1513, p. 31; Helle, Bergen I, pp. 795-797; Nedkvitne,Utenrikshandelen, pp. 138-140; 265; Henn, ‘Die Bergenfahrer und die süderseeischen Städte’, pp. 240-243.

4 Chapters ‘Introduction’, ‘Group Administrators’, ‘Summertime, Wintertime: Group Settlements’,‘Making, Breaking, and Bending Group Rules’ and ‘Goods and Groups: Cooperation, Co-Existence,Competition’.

5 Consequently, it is difficult to quote one version of the opinions on the ongoing event, as is possiblein the first and second case studies, in which extracts from the sources are often quoted. Instead, theseviews are compiled in the main text.

6 He appeared only briefly as an example or anecdote in Röhlk, Hansisch-norwegische Handelspolitik,pp. 23-25 and Bugge, ‘Småtræk’, pp. 118-119. Rudolf Häpke published several sources on Van Hasseltin NAU, but in his 1914 book Die Regierung Karl V. und der europäische Norden, he mentioned Hin-rick only in a note on p. 32.

7 Wubs-Mrozewicz, ‘Hinrick van Hasselt’.

Overijsslers at Loggerheads in the 1460s: the Loud Case of Hermen Schotelerfrom Kampen, and Dirck Johanszoon and Gert Girinck from Deventer

In the spring of 1463, Dirck Johanszoon from Deventer offered houses, ground,goods, tools, movable property in the Finnegarden tenement, as well as credits anddebts in Norway, on security from Hermen Schoteler from Kampen. Against thesecurity of this property, Hermen agreed to grant a loan of 250 Lübeck marks.Dirck Johanszoon received fish and grain products, financed by Schoteler, who hadalso covered another outstanding debt or payment to one Hans Schuttorp. The dealwas reached in Bergen in the presence of six witnesses and was entered into the kop-mansboek; the agreed repayment of the debt was to take place at the forthcomingSt Martin’s fair, which was to start on 11 November. Remittance failing, Schotelerwas to receive compensation for his losses, which in practice meant that he wouldbe entitled to the security. It must be noted that the movable and immovable prop-erty, offered as security, belonged both to the person signing the document, DirckJohanszoon, and his business associate Gert Girinck, also a Deventer burgher. Akey issue was that Dirck also made this deal on behalf of Gert.8

216 traders, ties and tensions

8 In the following citations, DJ=Dirck Johanszoon; GG=Gert Girinck; HS= Hermen Schoteler; ‘Jtemnoch bekene ick Dederick Johans soen vnd Gert Ghirinc dat wij sint schuldich Herman Schotteler an-derhalff hondert postelaetscher gulden dat jc visch voir ontfangen hebbe alse van Laurens Jngersoenswegen vnd noch viertich marck lub die hie Hans Schuttorp heft gegeuen van onser wegen. Noch sijnwij schuldich Geert ghirinc vnd Dederick Johanssoen twee hondert marck lub dair jc hebbe von ont-fangen meel molt vnd bier toe der noeghe. Voir dessen voirss. sume die wij Herman schuldich sint vnddait sette wij hem van onser beyder wegen Geert voirss vnd Dederick vorss alsodane huuse vnd houevnd al dat dait jnne js roerende vnd onroerende sonder enichhande list. Ende desse voirss sume soelenwij hem betalen jn Sunte Mertens marcket naestcomende bij den staenden cruce. En weer dat sake datdesse voirss sume niet betaelt vnd worde alsso voirss is den schaden den Herman dair bij heeft dielouen wij Geert vnd Dederick toe richten gelijck den rechten houetstoel. Om dat dit waer js soe hebbejc Dederick Johanssoen gescreuen mit mijns sulues hant’ (I, DJ and GG confess that we owe HS 150postulaetgulden [golden coins] for which I [sic] have received fish on behalf of Laurens Ingersoen, aswell as 40 Lübeck mark which Hans Schuttorp had given on our behalf. In addition, we GG and DJowe 200 marks for which I have received meal, malt and beer to our satisfaction. For these aforemen-tioned sum we are obliged to pay him during the coming St. Martin’s fair as long as the [market] crossis standing [i.e. as long as the market is lasting]. And if this sum [debt] is not repaid according to theagreed terms, we G[G] and D[J] promise to cover the loss incurred by HS equal to the right main sum.I, DJ, have written this with my own hand to confirm that it is true.), in the AHL, ASA Externa Da -nica, nr. 846; compare the transcription in Bull (ed.) Bergen og Hansestæderne, pp. 135-133; accordingto this source, the witnesses of the deal were on the side of Dirck: Geert Grubbe, Johan Leemhuss andRey[…] Hoet [illegible second part of name], and on the side of Hermen: Gosen Klenkenberch, JacobVisch and Henric Rouhorst, compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’ on Rouhorst; the same sourcealso gives an overview of fish prices in the trade of these merchants, compare Nedkvitne, Utenrik-shandelen, p. 597 note 9. In a 1464 source, the amount of debt at the moment of signing the agreementwas 250 Lübeck marks, see NGL II/2 pp. 690-692 (HUB 9 nr. 115; LUB 11 nr. 292), which would in-dicate that it equalled the total sum in the text quoted above. The same source gives the additional in-formation that the security consisted of ‘ere husz yn deme Finegarden beleghen, ghudere, retschoppunnd schulde to Bergen unnd yn Norwegin’(their houses located in the Finnegarden tenement, goods,tools and debts in Bergen and in Norway); compare NGL II/2 pp. 692-693 (LUB 10 nr. 493; Ebel,Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 69 b), and the note on grounds in NGL II/2 p. 693 (LUB 10 nr. 624; Ebel,Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 69 a).

Problems arose, however, when the payment became overdue. Hermen Schotel-er laid claims to the debt, and consequently to the security. It appears that Gert Gir-inck opposed the claim and renounced his own responsibility, because he had beenabsent when the deal was signed. Moreover, he pointed out, the deal had beenreached and signed without his knowledge or consent, and such lending on securi-ty was illicit since the houses had already been used as security in Deventer. There-fore he wanted the agreement reached between Dirck and Hermen declared nulland void.9 According to the statutes, lending on security in Bergen was supposedto also be made known in the hometowns of Kontor traders, and were otherwiseinvalid.10 In other words, it should have been made both to Gert Girinck, who atthat time probably resided in Deventer, and to the council in Deventer. This clausewas the strongest argument Gert could present, but apparently the Kontor was notinclined to believe him on the spot. The case was thus a disagreement between in-dividual traders on the extent of payment responsibilities.

The resolution of this case passed through several phases, involving the BergenKontor, the Lübeck council, and the councils of Overijssel towns. The first steptaken by the three involved traders was to bring the case before the aldermen andall the assembled heads of business units, the menheyt,11 in the summer of 1464.There, the entry in the ‘kopmanszbock ynt jar 63’ was read aloud. Dirck Johan-szoon admitted responsibility for borrowing on security, but pointed out that thegoods acquired in this manner were for the benefit of both Dirck and Gert. The al-derman asked whether Dirck and Gert were ‘vulkamen masschuppe’ – meaningbusiness partners, having both invested capital and shared responsibilities in thebusiness12 – and whether they had been engaged in this way at the time that the loanon security was given. Both answered in the affirmative.13 Indeed, there is evidencethat Gert and Dirck had traded together on such premises for some years prior tothis incident, at least since 1461.14 The authorities decided to dismiss Gert’s requestthe the loan be declared null and void, basing their verdict on the fact that the se-


9 ‘Gherd sprack, nachdeme die vorpandinge yn sineme afwesende und sunder sinen willen und wetengheschien und die husz tovorne vor schepen unnd schulten to Deventer weren vorpandet, so hapedehie, die vorpandinghe scholde machtlosz wesen’ (G[G] said, since the lending on security had hap-pened in his absence and without his consent, and the houses had previously been lent on security inthe presence of the administrators in Deventer, he hoped that the loan would be rescinded). NGL II/2pp. 690-692 (HUB 9 nr. 115; HUB 9 nr. 407; LUB 11 nr. 292).

10 NGL II/2 nr. 416 § 38: ‘So schal ock nemenndth jennige vorpanndinge donn siner selschop huser ed-der bodenn sunder offentlick vor gerichte unnde rade inn dudesche landth unnde hir tho Bargen vordeme residerende kopmanne, anders schal, ge vorpandinge vann kene werde sinn’ (Nobody is allowedto lend on security his business, houses or ground without having publicly informed the council inGermany [hometown] and here in Bergen the Kontor administrators, otherwise the loan on securityshall be considered invalid).

11 Compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’ on the administrative and juridical structure within theKontor.

12 W. Stark, ‘Über Techniken und Organisationsformen des hansischen Handels im Spätmittelalter’, in:Jenks and North (eds.) Der hansische Sonderweg?, pp. 192-193; Friedland, Die Hanse, pp. 168-169.

13 30.06 and 6.07 1464, NGL II/2 pp. 690-692 (HUB 9 nr. 115; HUB 9 nr. 407; LUB 11 nr. 292).14 AHL, ASA Externa Danica, nr. 846; Bull (ed.) Bergen og Hansestæderne, pp. 138-142.

curity had been given in accordance with the statutes, that is publicly and in thepresence of specified witnesses, entered in the register, and that Dirck had incurredthe debt with the clause of giving security and obtained the goods while he was a‘vulkamen masschuppe’ of Gert’s.15 Gert, however, claimed that he had been de-ceived by Dirck and Hermen, producing a letter which was to prove that they hadbeen scheming against him. Sinking to his knees, he begged that he might seek jus-tice in Lübeck, in other words appeal the verdict. Lübeck was the only place whereBergen Kontor traders could appeal, as was discussed earlier. Hermen opposed thisrequest, but the menheyt decided to grant it. Following the statutes, Gert was or-dered to cover the expenses (‘kosth unnde theringe’) of Hermen during theprocess.16

Shortly thereafter, the affair was transferred to Lübeck. The Bergen aldermensent a detailed report of the hearing to Lübeck, as well as a true copy of the entryin the kopmansboek. Also, they stressed that the administrators of the Kontor hadnot suspected any illegitimate acts concerning either the lending against security orthe entry itself, and based their verdict on the facts which with they had been con-fronted. The case was brought to Lübeck because Gert claimed that he had beenwronged (‘de obgemelte Gert menet zick wesen beswart in synem rechte’).17 Abouta year later, in the summer of 1465, the Lübeck council reached a decision that sincethe matter concerned property in Bergen, Dirck did not have the power to providesecurity for more than his half of the property, even though Gert and Dirck hadbeen full business associates. Unless, they noted, Gert had granted Dirck a warrantto manage his part of the property.18 Apparently, this last clause meant that the case


15 NGL II/2 pp. 690-692 (HUB 9 nr. 115; LUB 11 nr. 292): ‘unnd wart na besprake affgesecht vor recht:Na deme male die vorpandinge vor den sesz mannen were geschien nha lude des kopmans wilkore yndeme artikel: ‘Die vorpandinge dhon wil’, unnd dat gescreven yn desz kopmans bogk, Dirck ock derschuld unnd vorpandinge tostund unnd die gudere yn die zelschup weren gekamen unnd zie beydevulkamen masschuppe weren, zo scholde de vorpandinge unnd kopmansbock by macht bliven’ (andafter deliberation it was decided in court: since the loan on security had happened in the presence ofsix men, following the paragraph in the Kontor statutes ‘On lending on security’, and it had been writ-ten down in the Kontor book, and DJ had admitted the debt and the lending and the goods were des-tined for the business and they both [DJ and GG] were full associates, therefore the lending on secu-rity shall remain valid). Compare NGL II/2 nr. 416 § 38.

16 See chapter ‘Group Administrators’; according to the statutes, the person appealing to Lübeck was togive one hundred English shillings as security to the Kontor and guarantee his adversary the costs ofstay until a verdict was reached in Lübeck: ‘Wol na dem ordel appeleren wolde, de schal deme kop-manne vorborgenn hundert ß engelsch unnde sineme weddersathenn kosth unnde theringe wenthe thouthdracht der sacke (…)’ (When one wants to appeal against the sentence, he shall stand security for100 English shillings and cover the expenses of his opponent), see NGL II/2 nr. 416 § 15; NGL II/2pp. 690-692 (HUB 9 nr. 115; LUB 11 nr. 292).

17 11.07.1464, NGL II/2 pp. 692-693 (LUB 10 nr. 493; BGO nr. 2330; Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr.69 b).

18 15.07.1465, NGL II/2 p. 693 (LUB 10 nr. 624; Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 69 a): ‘Darvp na klagevnde antworde beider vorscreuen parthie de Rad to Lubeke na ereme ripeme rade vnde besprake bei-den erscreuenen parthen affsede vor recht: nademe yd liggende grunde vnde stande erve zin, vndewowoll Gerd Ghirink unde Diderik Johansson vulle selsschopp weren, mochte doch Diderik Johans-son nicht meer vorpanden in den erscreuenen eruen, dan allene zin part, id en were, dat he von Gerde

was unresolved, and instead the final resolution was postponed. A couple ofmonths later, the Lübeck council declared that if Gert could prove that Hans Schut-torp, who was mentioned in the security entry of 1463, had been ‘olderman’ (al-derman) at the time the letter was issued, then the letter would be declared null andvoid. Hermen Schoteler, on the other hand, was allowed to bring a ‘better’ letter.19

The matter was again adjourned for ‘jar unde dach’.20 The alderman issue can be un-derstood in the following way: if Hans Schuttorp, as Bergen alderman, had extend-ed a loan to Dirck and Gert, which was (temporarily) covered by Hermen Schotel-er, then this alderman would probably not have been impartial in judging the caseand providing information. Hence the note on the need for a ‘better’ letter as proof.Unfortunately, it is unknown who the aldermen were at that time.21 Subsequently,Hermen Schoteler demanded Gert to give him security for the expenses, but the lat-ter could prove that he had already fulfilled this obligation in Bergen, and so the re-quest was dismissed.22


Ghiringes zines deles sulker eruen haluen ghemechtiget were’ (After the complaint and answer of bothaforementioned parties, the council of Lübeck reached after careful consideration the [following] ver-dict: since the matter concerns ground and buildings, even though GG and DJ were full associates, DJshould not have lent more on security of the aforementioned buildings than his own part, unless GGhad given him the full power of authority to do so).

19 About 1.11.1465, Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile I, nr. 97: ‘Witlik zij dat in der twistigen zake twischenHermen Schoteler van Campen uppe de ene und Gerde Giringe van Daventer uppe de anderen zijdende Rad to Lubeke na beider parthe anclage und wedderrede hefft gedelet vor recht: Kan Gerd Ghir-ingk dat bewijsen, dat Hans Schuttorp, mede sakewolder in des kopmans breve van Bergen in Nor-wegen benomet, olderman was, do de breff ghegeven wart und he Hermen Schoteler den breff over-antworde, so were de breff in deme artikele machtloß; konde Hermen Schoteler enen beteren breffbringen, des mochte he geneten’ (It shall be known that in the conflict between HS from Kampen onthe one hand and GG from Deventer on the other hand, the council of Lübeck decided after havingheard the charge and answer of both parties in court: If GG kan prove that Hans Schuttorp, mentionedin the Kontor letter as involved in the case, used to be alderman when the letter was issued and he gaveHS the letter, then the letter shall be considered invalid; if HS could bring a ‘better letter’ [betterproof], he would enjoy his right).

20 As follows from the entry of 16.11. 1465 Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 70. ‘Jar unde dach’ was aregular length of adjournment in the Middle Ages. The length of this period has been a matter of dis-cussion: in the dictionary of the brothers Grimm it was one year; see Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch,‘Jahr III. Rechnungsjahr’, while another view holds that this period amounted to one year, six weeksand three days, see Lexikon des Mittelalters 5, p. 279 and MNW, ‘jaer ende dach’ entry. In the contextof this case, the period started on the day the council took its decision: ‘Nademe de Rad gedelet hed-de Hermen Schoteler den breff to halende binnen jar unde dage, so scholde Hermen den breff bringenbinnen jar unde daghe, welk jar unde dach anghan schall uppe den dach, alse de Rad dat affzede’, see16.11. 1465, Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 70.

21 In the list from c. 1700 in the AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 614, and in Bruns overview of the aldermen andachteinen, Bergenfahrer, pp. XXIII-XXIV the years 1453-1468 constitute a lacuna. Consequently,Hans Schuttorp is not known as a Bergen alderman in the existing literature.

22 10.11.1465, Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile I, nr. 99: ‘denne Hermen begerende was van Gerde eme borgento stellende vor een sulket wes he mit rechte uppe eme bringen konde, desgeliken wolde he eme wed-derumme don, dar Gerd to antworde unde zede, dat kost und theringe bij deme kopmanne to Bergenalrede vorborget weren’ (H[S] requested that GG should give him surety for such a case as he couldlawfully produce against him, which he was willing to do in return, to which GG answered that he hadalready given surety in the presence of the administrators of the Bergen Kontor); compare 9.11.1465,Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile I, nr. 98.

The ball was thus again in the court of the Kontor. What followed is one of themost vivid and loudest extant accounts of a Kontor meeting, at which all traderswere present, bearing witness to the fact that the Kontor leaders did not have tohave the last word in Kontor matters. A source from June 1466 tells how HermenSchoteler appeared shortly before the meeting started with an open letter fromLübeck, which contained a request for a sealed extract from the Kontor register onthe case. Gert himself was also present.23 The alderman asked the menheyt whetherthey wanted to make the documents available. Gert, along with other traders fromDeventer, but also Wendish merchants, declined vociferously, claiming that morethan enough had been written on the matter. The alderman described these protestsin the source as upheaval and conspiracy.24 He turned to the other party to askwhether they also wanted to dismiss the request by Lübeck, but Gert and his back-ers deafened all opposing views with their clamour.25 Next, the alderman and his as-sistants stood up and stated that if the Kontor traders thought that errors had beenmade in handling the affair, the leaders of the Kontor would ask Lübeck to passjudgement on the whole procedure. The administrators then asked the rebelliousparty supporting Gert Girinck, to leave the building. The latter refused to leave,upon which the alderman suggested that they stand up so that it would becomeclear which party had the majority opinion in the meeting, which in practice meanta vote. Again, the group refused. They also fiercely opposed the administratorswriting a letter to Lübeck concerning the meeting using the seal of the Kontor orpersonal seals. The pro-Gert party shouted that they would write their own reportto Lübeck.26 In the end, though, the administrators did send a report to Lübeck on


23 NGL II/2 pp. 694-695 (HR II/5 nr. 788; LUB 11 nr. 94).24 21.06.1466, NGL II/2 pp. 694-695 (HR II/5 nr. 788; LUB 11 nr. 94): ‘Des hadde de mergenomede Gert

myt etliken synen frunden van Deventer vorsamelinge, bunt unde conspiracien gemaket, de vurdermervele van anderen Osterlingen to zick getoghen hadden, dewelke vorhogheder stempne repen uth enemmunde: “nen, nen, nen, dar is alrede mer den to vele gescreven”’ (the frequently mentioned GG gatheredand conspired with several of his friends from Deventer, who furthermore made many ‘Osterlinge’ jointhem, and they all shouted in unison ‘no, no, no, more than enough had been written on this matter’).

25 NGL II/2 pp. 694-695 (HR II/5 nr. 788; LUB 11 n. 94): ‘De olderman sprak: “gii anderen gudenmanne, de gii van desseme bunde, alse my dunket, nicht en ziin, is dat juw wille, dat men deme rade toLubek ere bede, zo gii gehort hebben, nicht twiden schal?” De anderen van der erscrevenen conspira-cien repen noch luder na den vor: “ja, ja, ja,” also ok dat men den enen vor deme anderen nicht kondehoren, unde wen jement was, de ziine meninge unde andacht beschedeliken gerne geopent hadde, demoste nicht spreken vor ereme schreye’ (The alderman said: ‘you other good people, who do not seempart of this gang, do you want that one should not challenge the request of the Lübeck council, as youhave heard it?’ The others from the aforementioned conspiracy shouted even louder ‘yes, yes, yes’, sothat it was not possible to hear the others, and if there was someone who wanted to utter his view, hewas hindered by the clamour).

26 NGL II/2 pp. 694-695 (HR II/5 nr. 788; LUB 11 n. 94): ‘Des stunt unse olderman up unde wii myteme alle unde vorboden uns to rechte, hedde wii jemende to kort gedan myt worden, scrifften, offtewerken, de uns darumme vor juw heren wolde anseggen myt rechte, wi wolden bothen unde lyden najuwer irkentnisse (…) Aldus both unse olderman, dat deghenne, de juw heren zo bovenscreven steytin den saken nicht wolden volgafftich wesen unde partiich weren, scholden uthgan unde laten de kop-man darumme spreken. Se repen hoch, wii scholden uthgan, ze wolden dat husz ok eyne wyle be-waren. Noch both de olderman, ze scholden upstan, dat men mochte zen, welk part dat meste were,ze repen aver, ze hadden des nen behuff. To deme latesten beghereden wii, indeme de menheyt in dess-

the rowdiness of the meeting, with the seal of the Kontor, as remains of it are stillattached to it.27 A shortened version of the report was entered into Lübeck’sNiederstadtbuch a month later.28 No letter from Gert and his supporters has sur-vived, nor any indication that it was ever written or sent. It must be noted that threeyears later, within the context of the larger conflict which raged during the period1468-1477, Kontor administrators presented the Gert’s behaviour as a prime exam-ple of insubordination by Overijssel traders.29

This incident – the fierce reaction of Gert Girinck and his supporters, as well asthe response of the alderman – might be interpreted in a number of ways. Gert wasclearly afraid that the alderman would produce extracts and writings which wouldgive Hermen, rather than Gert, the advantage in the Lübeck appeal. This mighthave been because the alderman favoured Hermen, which sounds plausible if the al-derman was indeed Hans Schuttorp or if any of the aldermen had close relationswith Hermen. The wording of the report sent to Lübeck does indicate that the lead-ers of the Kontor were more on the side of Hermen Schoteler: his arrival and re-quest is described in neutral terms, while the reaction of Gert Girinck is brandishedas violent and rebellious. On the other hand, the fact that the alderman and his as-sistants considered a trial in Lübeck to be the best solution to the matter, might im-ply that he was not Hans Schuttorp, and that he expected the council in Lübeck toacquit the Kontor leaders of any guilt. Finally, Gert might have opposed the send-


er zake nene tuchnisse breve unde scriffte uthgeven wolde, dat wii denne den vorlop desservakebenomeden zake in beslotenen scrifften juw erbaren heren mochten bevalen, genoch to dondeichteswes juwen beden, dar gii doch to bedende hebben. Se repen aver lut: “scrive gii, wi willen okscriven, gii scholen in desser zake nene scriffte under des copmans segel deme rade to Lubeke benalen.”Noch alderlest begerden wii, dat wii under unsen egenen signeten juw van dessen dingen mochten cer-tificeren, ze repen aver nen’ (Then our alderman stood up, and we all with him, and declared that wewere prepared to go to court, if we had wronged anyone with words, letters or deeds, he [this person]can pursue his case in Lübeck, and we would to follow your judgement and accept your punishment(…); so our alderman suggested that those who did not want to abide by your decision and were dis-obedient, as described above, were to leave and let the administrators discuss the matter. They shout-ed back that we were the ones who should leave, they would stay in the house. The the alderman askedthat they should stand up, so that it would be possible to see, which party formed a majority, to whichthey replied that they did not feel the need to do so. Finally, since the assembled traders did not wantto issue any testimony or letter on the matter, we asked that we may relate the course of this often men-tioned affair to you in a sealed letter, following your request that you are still waiting to be followed.They shouted loudly: ‘If you write [a letter], so will we, you shall not issue any writings to the coun-cil in Lübeck using the seal of the Kontor’. Ultimately, we asked that we may certify the writing withour own seals, but they opposed this as well).

27 The letter to Lübeck is signed ‘Olderman unde de veer unde twintich manne, vor hovetlude des kop-mans van Berghen in Norwegenne gheordinert, juwe denere’ (alderman and the 24 men, chosem as theleaders [administrators] of the Bergen Kontor, your servants) and in the source edition, there is a noteon the remains of the seal attached; NGL II/2 pp. 694-695 (HR II/5 nr. 788; LUB 11 n. 94).

28 26.07.1466, NGL II/2 nr. 696 Niederstadtbuch 1466 Jacobi (LUB 11 nr. 125).29 1469, NGL II/2 p. 730 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187) § 6: ‘Item maken sie uploep, sonderlinge voir-

samelinge yegen den coepman sunderlinges in korten jaren. […] Dergeliiken nu in drien jaren GeerGyring yegen den coepman uploep unde vorsamelinge makede, dat witlick is’ (they make assaults andspecial gatherings against the administrators, especially in the recent years […] also, as is well-known,GG made assaults and instigated [such a] gathering three years ago).

ing of further writings to Lübeck because there may have indeed been evidence in-dicating that Dirck Johanszoon had a legal warrant to manage all goods and prop-erties owned by his business partner.

Further extant evidence is somewhat unclear as to all of the decisions and moti-vations in the final resolution of the conflict. In March 1467, Gert Girinck againchallenged Hermen Schoteler in front of the Lübeck council to provide proof fromBergen to back his claims. Hermen replied that he had been hindered in his pursuit,and requested permission to bring further evidence at a later time.30 The council de-cided that if he could prove that he had been hindered, his request would be grant-ed.31 However, as pointed out earlier, the council had already received and regis-tered a report from Bergen. Possibly, they wanted testimony from somebody otherthan the Bergen alderman. In any case, there is evidence that traders from Kam -pen,32 and also from Zwolle,33 testified that Hermen Schoteler had indeed been im-peded in procuring the necessary documentation to prove his case. Both testimo n -ies were sent by the council of Kampen, which shows that Hermen Schoteler’shometown had become engaged in the affair, perhaps at the request of Hermenhimself. Yet there is no evidence that the Kampen councillors had any say on theresolution of the matter, nor that they tried to participate in the decision-making.

Concerning what happened next, there is a gap in the sources. Further extant ev-idence is the final verdict issued by the Lübeck council in July 1467, reiterating theopinion held in 1465, namely that Dirck Johanszoon had only been entitled to of-fer security for his part of the properties in Bergen. The clause on the alternative ifGert Girinck had issued a warrant for Dirck to manage his properties was not in-cluded this time.34 This implies that Hermen Schoteler had not been able to providesufficient proof of his rights, and that the case had been closed. To add an epilogue,


30 Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile I, nr. 109: ‘dar to de erscrevene Hermen Schoteler antworde, dat he dar sul-ves to Bergen vorhindert were, also dat he sulk bewijs van deme erscreven kopmanne nicht hebbenkunde, so he dat nabringen wolde’ (HS replied that he had been hindered in Bergen in procuring suchproof, and wanted to bring it later), c. 14.03.1467.

31 Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile I, nr. 109: ‘Kan Hermen Schoteler vorbenant dat tugen und na bringen alserecht is, dat he behindert zij geworden umme sodane zin bewijß van dem kopmanne vorscreven tobringende, des mach he geneten’ (If HS and prove it and bring [a letter] that he had been hindered inbringing such proof from the [Kontor] administrators, he may enjoy his right), c. 14.03.1467.

32 16.04.1467, AHL, ASA Externa Danica, nr. 846; Bull (ed.) Bergen og Hansestæderne, pp. 132-133; oneof the witnesses was Coep Hilbrantssoen, who was involved in the 1468-1477 conflict, case numbertwo in this chapter.

33 19.04.1467, AHL, ASA Externa Danica, nr. 846; Bull (ed.) Bergen og Hansestæderne, pp. 133-134.34 15.07.1467, Ebel, Lübecker Ratsurteile IV, nr. 78 (LUB 11 nr. 265): ‘de Rad na clage unde antworde

hefft gedelet unde utgesproken vo recht: Wowoll dat Diderick Johansson Hermen Schoteler den gar-den, liggende grunde unde stande erve myt erer tobehoringe hefft vorpandet, so vorscreven steit, so enwere doch Diderick Johansson nicht meer mechtich in deme erscrevenen garden, liggenden grundenunde standen erven myt eren tobehoringen to vorpandende, dan zin part, dat he darane hefft, nademeyd liggende grunde unde stande erve zin etc.’ (The council pronounced after charges and replies: Eventhough DJ had lent on security the tenement, the ground and the buildings with all [movable] proper-ties involved to HS, as aforementioned, DJ did not have full power of authority to lend more on secu-rity of this tenement, ground, buildings and properties than his own part in it, since the matter con-cerns ground and buildings).

two years later, the council of Kampen complained at a Hanseatic Diet that theyhad sent a letter to the Kontor on the Schoteler matter, yet received no response.The issue was brought up with a list of other grievances, which constitute the sec-ond case study in this chapter.35 The Kontor aldermen replied that HinrickRouhorst (a Kontor trader and unbadesman of the Overijsslers) represented the in-terests of Schoteler in court, but the Kontor itself did not wish to deal with this un-clear case any longer, and therefore did not send a response.36 The Kontor file wasclosed with the label ‘nebulous affair’ on it.

How should this case and its resolution be seen within the group context? Uponfirst glance, the opposition between three parties – the Overijsslers, the Kontor al-derman, and the council in Lübeck – come to mind. Yet a closer look shows thatties and tensions were distributed along different lines. First of all, it was a conflictbetween Overijsslers, that is between traders from Deventer and Kampen, con-cerning fairly regular trade and property matters. The fact that they shared trade in-terests and conducted business together not only did not prevent, but indeedcaused, the conflict. It is apparent that close business relations entailed in this caseboth ties and tensions. It must be noted that the merchants’ origins from either thesame town (in the case of Dirck and Gert from Deventer), or from a neighbouringtown (Hermen from Kampen) does not seem to have played any vital role in thisparticular case. They did not employ any terms which would suggest group identi-ty, like ‘Overijssel’ or ‘Zuiderzee’. The relevance of the traders’ towns of origin wasaltogether limited: since the affair concerned loans, property, and actions in Bergen,the hometown was apparently only relevant for administrative purposes. Instead,Gert Girinck and Hermen Schoteler presented their case within the context ofBergen and the Kontor, as Kontor traders, and followed the general legal proce-dure. It was a Kontor matter. However, when the context changed, that is whenother grievances against the Kontor aldermen surfaced, the case was brought up byKampen as charge against Overijssel.

From the point of view of the Kontor, this case simply concerned a dispute be-tween Kontor traders; their places of origin were apparently of minor importanceto the Kontor as well, since they never specifically brought it up. The alderman dis-cussed the legal aspects of the case, such as whether the act of lending on securityhad occurred in accordance with the statutes, and whether the traders had been full


35 NGL II/2 p. 729 (DN 6 nr. 566; HR II/6 nr. 186) § 8.36 NGL II/2 p. 733 (DN 6 nr. 568; HR II/6 nr. 188) § 12: ‘Item to den lesten artikel des breves van Her-

man Schoteler: sin unbadesman Hinrik Ruwenhorst in den zaken wart myt dem wederparte to liikeunde dedinghe gewyset, de koepman wolde sich niet mer myt sodaner unclaren zake bekummeren,darumme wort nicht eyn antworde screven’ (Concerning the last paragraph of the letter from HS: hisrepresentative Hinrick Rouhorst was summoned to come to terms and a juridical settlement with hisopponent [GG], the [Kontor] administrators did not want to deal with such an unclear matter any-more, therefore no answer was written). The issue was not raised in the further discussions betweenthe Kontor and Overijsslers in 1476, nor in the resolution of the series of problems the same year; seeNGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393), and the second case in this chapter. Compare chapter ‘Group Ad-ministrators’ on the possible role of Hinrick Rouhorst as an alderman for Overijsslers in Bergen.

business associates. In other words, they treated the matter primarily in categorieswhich pertained to all Kontor traders, and not any specific group. Quite the con-trary, as the alderman stated explicitly that during the 1466 meeting of the menheytin Bergen, some of the Wends had openly supported Gert Girinck; the upheavalduring the gathering was triggered by the issue of lending on security, and not byany group-related matters. On the other hand, if the matter is regarded from theperspective of the two transient groups which were formed during the meeting –those who were for and those who were against sending the report to Lübeck – itis relevant that the alderman was denied the right to issue a report on behalf of theKontor as a whole. In this particular case, the temporary division into two ingroupswas irreconcilable with the idea of the Kontor as an all-encompassing ingroup. Yetagain, this was in no way connected to any opposition between Overijsslers andWends, or Overijsslers and Lübeckers, during the conflict. Retrospectively, how-ever, the behaviour of Gert Girinck was eventually presented as an act of disobedi-ence of Overijsslers in general. It is an interesting example how the same eventcould be discussed as an individual case or a group case, depending on the momentand context of its presentation. Manipulation of evidence for a one’s own purpos-es is a timeless phenomenon, and it was apparently not unknown in Bergen or theHanseatic League either.

Finally, when approaching the case from the Lübeck perspective, the origin ofthe three traders was noted as an identifier; no group issues in Bergen were men-tioned. The merchants were referred to as individuals, their tie being the link toBergen and the question of lending on security there. Again, the focus was on thevalidity of the security deal and the circumstances under which the deal was made.When bias was suspected, even from a (potential) Kontor alderman, additional in-formation was requested. The affair was treated as a regular appeal from the BergenKontor to its higher authority, the Lübeck council. It was not brought up later in agroup context.

In conclusion, the resolution of the conflict between Hermen Schoteler and GertGirinck in the 1460s bears witness to the fact that Overijssel traders could act andbe perceived solely as Kontor traders, with their places of origin playing only a mi-nor role, and their Overijssel group membership not playing any role at all. Put dif-ferently, they were first and foremost members of the Kontor ingroup in this par-ticular case. Yet parts of their case could be used in the 1468-1477 conflict to reachdifferent means, namely to exemplify group behaviour.

Ingroup Intricacies: Overijsslers, Wends, and the Kontor in the 1468-1477Conflict

The conflict between Overijsslers and Kontor administrators between 1468 and1477 consisted of a wide range of issues, which indicates that antagonisms were par-ticularly strong at that time. It did not concern one isolated incident. To summarise


the issues which were most frequently mentioned in several sources, the mootpoints appear to have included the Overijsslers’ joint shipment of goods with Hol-landers, the public humiliation of Overijssel traders in 1468, their contacts withHollanders altogether, the question of equal treatment within the Kontor, their dis-obedience to the statutes and the aldermen, their riotous behaviour, their import ofgrain products to Bergen, credit system issues, taxes, smallwares trade, access toarms, their idiosyncratic manners of conducting trade, and housing issues. More-over, both parties accused the other of lies and manipulation of the facts. The redthread in the Overijssel accusations was that they considered themselves disadvan-taged, in some aspects excluded and even humiliated, within the Kontor – in otherwords, they felt that they were being treated as an outgroup. The aldermen coun-terattacked with charges which can be boiled down to disobedience, breaches ofKontor rules, and idiosyncratic behaviour. Some of the accusations pertained to in-dividual Overijssel traders, but most referred to the Overijsslers as a group, dubbedthe ‘Zuderzeeschen’. Unlike the case discussed above, this dispute was dealt withand resolved at one level, namely the Hanseatic Diets.37

The conflict was sparked by the affair mentioned in the introduction, in whichKampen traders were punished in 1468 for shipping their goods with Hollanders,specifically 3 to 3,5 lasts of goods (i.e., fish) in barrels, along with some hides. Ayear later, the Kampen councillors complained at a Hanseatic Diet that theirburghers in Bergen had suffered a series of humiliating retributions for their ac-tions, and that they had been treated like severe criminals. The shipment wasknown to the administrators, and the Kampen traders had had to provide securityagainst it, according to traditional custom. Yet four weeks later, the Kontor secret-ary forbade the three traders and their men to carry out their work, and proclaimedthat nobody in the Kontor would be allowed to eat and drink with them. The stanceof the Kontor was that the Overijsslers had broken the law by shipping their goodswith Hollanders. Shocked and angered, the Kampen traders protested that they hadnever ever heard of such a rule, and that the Hanseatic recesses contained no suchprovisions. Their protests were rejected, however, and the accused were made to re-move their upper clothing and, bareheaded as well as barefooted, beg all of theKontor traders for mercy. In addition, a fine of 50 guilders and 12 markpund wasimposed on each of them by the aldermen.38


37 NGL II/2 pp. 727-729 (DN 6 nr. 566; HR II/6 nr. 186); NGL II/2 pp. 729-731 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6nr. 187); NGL II/2 pp. 732-734 (DN 6 nr. 568; HR II/6 nr. 188); NGL II/2 p. 734 (HR II/6 nr. 189);NGL II/2 pp. 734-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342); NGL II/2 pp. 739-742 (HR II/7 nr. 343); NGL II/2 pp. 742-743 (HR II/7 nr. 388); NGL II/2 p. 743 (HR II/7 nr. 389); NGL II/2 pp. 744-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391);NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393); NGL II/2 nr. 433 (HR II/7 nr. 415); NGL II/2 nr. 434 (HR II/7nr. 416). The chronological occurrence of the matters will be presented in the footnotes.

38 NGL II/2 pp. 727-729 (DN 6 nr. 566; HR II/6 nr. 186) § 1: ‘Item so beclaghen em onse borghere, datem gheschiet is inden jare van 68 dat se gheschepet hadden in een Hollander omtrent 3 oft 3,5 last ton-nen ghudes ende wat velwerck, dat vornam de koepman en sande onsen burgheren boden ende onseborgheren mossten borghe setten na older ghewonten. Daerna over 4 weken quam des koepmans klerck ende verboet onse borghere ore knechte dat se oer werck nyet doen en mosten noch nyemant

The conflict quickly came to center around Wends, especially Lübeckers, andOverijsslers. The administrators at that time were, unsurprisingly, Lübeckers.39 Inthe same 1469 document directed at the envoys of Hanseatic towns at the LübeckDiet, the burghers of Kampen, as they were explicitly called, aired a series of othergrievances.40 There must have also been a letter from Deventer voicing similar com-plaints, but it has most likely been lost.41 A short version of the Overijssel com-plaints was recorded by the Lübeckers.42 It must be noted, thus, that the councilsof the Overijsslers’ hometowns became actively involved in resolving the affair,giving it the semblance of regional strife.

The Kontor administrators filed their own charges at the 1469 Hanseatic Diet inLübeck. First, they expressed their disappointment that the said traders, who hadsupposedly been diligently protected by the administrators against the Norwegianauthorities, were now accusing their benefactors of maltreatment. Apparently, theKampen burghers did so without any warning,43 in other words behind the Kontoradministrators’ back. The Kontor party added several other complaints concerningthe deeds of Overijsslers in Bergen, and at the end of the list, they requested the


myt em eten noch drynken en moste. Do dyt gheschiet was, do sande de koepman onse borghere bo-den ende seden, dat se des koepmans recht ghebroken hadden, om des willen dat se myt den Hollan-der ingheschepet hadden daer onse borgher op antworden, dat se dat nye oer daghe ghehoert en had-den ende ock dat resses der hanssteden nyet in en holt. Dyt vorscreven en mochte em altemale nyethelpen, se mosten ere kledere wt trecken ende komen vor de ghemeente barvoet bloethoves ende by-dden em om Ghodes willen, dat men em to ghenaden nemen wolde; daerentboven moste em elc mangheuen 50 gulden ende 12 markpund, was in allen mennyeren oft se mysdeghe lude ghewest haddenvan ondade’ (Our burghers complain that in the year 1968 they shipped with Hollanders about threeor three and a half lasts of barres, goods and some hides, and the [Kontor] administrators heard of itand sent a messenger to our burghers and they had to give security according to old custom. After fourweeks, the secretary came and forbade the employees of our burghers to do their work, and nobodywas allowed to eat or drink with them. When this happened, the administrators sent a messenger toour burghers and claimed that they had broken the law because they had shipped [goods] with Hol-landers. To which our burghers answered that they had never heard of [the rule] and it was not in-cluded in the recesse. This was to no avail, they had to shed their upper clothes and stand in from ofthe assemblied traders with bare feet and heads and ask for mercy in God’s name; in addition, each manhad to pay 50 gulden and 12 marks, and it was all as if they had been criminals). Compare NGL II/2pp. 742-743 (HR II/7 nr. 388) where it was specified that the goods exported were barrels with stock-fish (rotscher); NGL II/2 p. 738 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 27; NGL II/2 p. 739 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 5.

39 Bruns, Bergenfahrer, p. XXIV.40 NGL II/2 pp. 727-728 (DN 6 nr. 566; HR II/6 nr. 186) § 2 trade with Norwegians and credit issues

(compare chapter ‘Making, Breaking, and Bending Group Rules’); § 3 import of grain products (com-pare chapter ‘Goods and Groups’); §§ 4,5 access to arms and gunpowder as well as the possibility tohire ‘soldenaers’ (mercenaries); § 6 Overijssel import of goods (compare chapter ‘Goods and Groups’)§ 7 the matter of Hinrick Rouhorst (compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’); § 8 the matter of Her-men Schoteler, see the case above.

41 This can be deducted from the Lübeck list of grievances sent from Kampen and Deventer, NGL II/2p. 734 (HR II/6 nr. 189), and the answer of the Kontor administrators, see NGL II/2 pp. 732-733 (DN6 nr. 568; HR II/6 nr. 188) note 2 and §§ 1-5; the issues there were the fine for a purchase of a house,equipment of norderfahrer (extendig credit etc.), smallwares trade, not being elected in the Kontorcouncil, concerning the vorbaden reyse (forbidden sailing) of Lambert van Hesinghen.

42 NGL II/2 p. 734 (HR II/6 nr. 189).43 NGL II/2 pp. 729-730 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187) § 1.44 NGL II/2 pp. 729-731 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187) § 2 breaches of the oath, the Kontor statutes

Hanseatic envoys to take Overijsslers to task on these matters.44 In addition, theKontor authorities sent a reply to the accusations of the Overijsslers. The reply be-gan by maintaining that the Overijsslers had told the truth only ‘sparingly’ in theircharges (‘de waerheyt seer spaeren’), and failed to address the core of the problems(‘claerliken den grund der zake niet en roeren).45 They went on to explain their ac-tions.46 Kampen obtained a copy of these complaints and reply to their charges.47

These three documents – the complaint of Kampen, the complaint of the Kontor,and the Kontor’s reply to the Kampen complaint – were filed at the 1469 Hanseat-ic Diet in Lübeck, but no resolution was issued because most of the Hanseatic en-voys had already left by that time; the case was therefore postponed.48

The case was not taken up until the Hanseatic Diet in Lübeck in May and Juneof 1476.49 The reasons for this lengthy postponement were probably the war be-tween the Hanse and England during the period 1470-1474, and the subsequentpeace negotiations,50 and the conflict which reerupted between the Kontor and theHanseatic craftsmen in Bergen, who balanced their interests and loyalties betweenthe Hanseatic Kontor and the Norwegian king.51 These matters were more press-


and regulations, not paying the full tax, retail trade (compare chapter ‘Making, Breaking, and BendingGroup Rules’); §§ 3, 4 selling of smallwares to and secret trading with Norwegian debtors of otherKontor traders, retail trade of cloth (compare chapters ‘Making, Breaking, and Bending Group Rules’and ‘Goods and Groups’); § 5 selling of arms to Norwegians (compare chapter ‘Making, Breaking andBending Group Rules’); § 6 upheavals against the administrators, Gert Girinck is given as one of theexamples (compare chapter ‘Making, Breaking, and Bending Group Rules’ and the case above); § 7fights with the English and assault on the English alderman, in which men of Hinrick Rouhorst hadbeen involved; § 8 the use of an own alderman, fights, worst influence in the Kontor (compare chap-ter ‘Making, Breaking, and Bending Group Rules’).

45 NGL II/2 p. 732 (DN 6 nr. 568; HR II/6 nr. 188) § 1.46 NGL II/2 pp. 732-734 (DN 6 nr. 568; HR II/6 nr. 188) § 1 Hans Brull, probably a Deventer burgher,

had been fined for buying a house because he had left the Kontor and bought up shipwrecked goods;§ 2 equipment of norderfahrer (extending credit etc.) § 3 the sale of smallwares was not according tothe statutes; § 4 the election to the ‘raet der oldermanscap’ (council) choose the best candidates; § 5Lambert van Hesinghen was punished for forbidden sailing; § 6 concerning the Kampen case of ship-ping goods with non-Hansards, such shipment can be allowed when proved necessary; § 7 everybodywas allowed to trade with ‘free’ Norwegians; § 8 Overijsslers were defended by the administratorswhen needing to appear in Norwegian courts; § 9 concerning the import of grain products, Wends alsohad to send goods back, but ‘by vorworden moghen sich de Campere van den schiphere vriien’ (con-ditionally, the Kampen traders may be released of their obligation towards the skippers); § 11 con-cerning the letter to Rouhorst: the Kontor was to have one alderman; § 12 concerning Schoteler, theKontor did not want to be involved any longer in this unclear matter.

47 The complaint published in NGL II/2 pp. 729-731 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187) is in fact based onthis copy, which bears the note ‘Des coipmans clage van Bergen op ons steden’ (the complaint of theBergen traders concerning our towns).

48 NGL II/2 p. 735 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 1; HR II/6 p. 122; HR II/6 nr. 186 footnote nr. 3; compare NGLII/2 p. 727 footnote nr. 3.

49 NGL II/2 pp. 734-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342).50 See for instance Stoob, Die Hanse, pp. 266-268.51 Conflict of 1473-1476, see NGL II/2 nr. 427 (HR II/7 nr. 278); NGL II/2 pp. 711-716 (HR II/7 nr.

175, 272, 273, 275, 336), and also footnote nr. 1 on p. 711; compare Wubs-Mrozewicz, ‘Shoes and shoe-makers’ and the literature there on the relations between the Hanseatic Kontor, the Hanseatic crafts-men and the Norwegian King.

ing. Indeed, it must be stressed that the conflict involving Overijsslers within theBergen Kontor was a distinctly local affair: only issues pertaining to Bergen werediscussed at the Diet of 1476, rather than the relations between Wends and Over -ijsslers in general.

During the proceedings, both the Kontor and the Overijsslers again filed theirrespective complaints. In a statement issued by the Kontor, the aldermen stressedthat although the ‘Suderseeschen’ had sworn an oath concerning Kontor regula-tions, they continued to break the rules.52 Several of the issues raised in fact echoedthe 1469 charges of the Kontor;53 other accusations – such as divulging Kontor se-crets and maintaining intensive contacts with Hollanders – were new.54 Of funda-mental importance was the fact that the Kontor administrators presented Over -ijsslers as the most harmful group under their jurisdiction, mainly due to theirinsubordination.55 Concerning the shameful incident of 1468 and its presentationby the Deventer burgomaster, the Kontor administrators dismissed the portrayal asinaccurate and based on the storytelling of drunkards, implying that the three Kam-pen traders had invented a false version of the incident.56

Envoys from Kampen, Deventer and Zwolle filed their own complaints in Juneof 1476. Their first point was that the aldermen had devised new regulations di-rected against Overijsslers, which they were forced to accept by oath, even beforethe regulations’ contents or ramifications had been made known to them. They alsoreiterated that Overijssel merchants were more obstructed by these rules than theother traders, and claimed that the Kontor administrators should not have been al-lowed to make such decisions without the consent of the Hanseatic towns.57 Most


52 NGL II/2 p. 735 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 2; compare HR II/7 nr. 389, and the overview of all the issues dis-cussed in Bremen in HR II/7 pp. 598-601.

53 NGL II/2 pp. 734-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342) §§ 3,4 taxes; § 5 ‘huepkop’[that is buying unsorted fish inbulk]; §§ 8, 9 trading with ‘unfree’ (indebted) Norwegians and divulging Kontor secrets; § 10 sellingarms to Norwegians; §§ 12, 13 importing grain products from the Baltic and not sending fish backthere; §§ 16, 17 irregularities in the smallwares trade; § 20 freighting more non-Hanseatic ships thannecessary.

54 NGL II/2 pp. 735-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 5 raising fish prices; § 7 trading with Norwegian officialsand passing Kontor secrets; § 8 luring fishermen away with gifts; § 9 secret trade at Stranden with Nor-wegians; § 10 trading with money and not through exchange of goods; § 11 building unusual houseswith many rooms; § 17 selling counterfeit smallwares; § 21 many contacts with Hollanders; § 24changed their trade habits, as in the past Overijsslers used to bring cloth and other goods to the Kon-tor and receive fish in return, not dealing directly with Norwegians.

55 NGL II/2 p. 737 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 23: ‘Item synt ok der nederlage mer to hinder, to scaden unde invorderfnisse wen andere nacien’ (they are more of a hindrance and damage to the settlement than anyother group of traders).

56 NGL II/2 p. 738 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 27 (‘unredelike is vortogevende dat drunkars nasegghen, alse heopenbair leet luden’).

57 NGL II/2 p. 739 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 1: ‘Item int irste hebben die steden, als van Deventer, Campen undeZwolle verstaen, dat die coepman toe Berghen op die Suderseeschen sunderlinghe statuten undebeswaringe maket, vorder dan van olts ghewontlike is, unde die oeren vorder belasten dan andere, undemenen, dat se dat buten consente der ghemeenre steden nicht doen en scollen; unde dat die onse sulkeunde andere statute, wanneer sie toe Berghen comen, zweren moten to helpen hoelden, woewel sie nyeten weten, wodanich die statuten hoelden unde wat sie vermoghen’ (First of all, the [councils of the]towns of Deventer, Kampen and Zwolle heard that the administrators in Bergen had enacted statutes and

of the issues addressed in the statement by the Overijsslers were new grievances,which stressed the discriminating treatment they had been receiving in the Kontorvis-à-vis the Wends.58 On the matter of impediments which Overijsslers had expe-rienced in their construction of new houses, for example, they underlined the factthat Wends encountered no such problems.59 On the affair of the public penitenceof the Kampen traders, they maintained that this had been an unfair and shamefulhumiliation to ‘their people’ (‘den onsen’), which may have referred to both thetraders involved and the entire group of Overijsslers in the Kontor.60 The bottomline was that Overijsslers demanded that they be treated like other Hansards.61

Both documents – the complaints issued by both the Kontor and the Overijsslers– were lengthy lists of grievances aimed at providing each party’s respective ver-sions of the issues at hand and, in turn, convincing the envoys at the 1476 Hanseat-ic Diet in Lübeck of their innocence. In part they responded to each other’s earliercomplaints, but mostly they launched into monologues. From a later source it ap-pears that at the Lübeck meeting, it was decided that Overijsslers were to preparespecific answers to the charges of the Kontor representatives, among them proofthat the 1468 incident had indeed taken place.62

The affair was formally brought to an end during the Hanseatic meeting in Bre-men in August of 1476. Representatives of the Kontor presented their complaints,and the Hanseatic envoys called upon the burgomasters of Lübeck, Hamburg,Magdeburg and Stade to mediate between the parties.63 The envoys from Kampenand Deventer provided answers to the Kontor charges brought two months earli-er, dismissing them as either abrupt changes in the Kontor rules (while they them-selves continued to abide by the old policies),64 or accusing the Kontor aldermenand other merchants of dealing in the same manner.65 They stated with some sar-


hindrances against the Overijsslers, exceeding what had been old custom, and charge their [burghers]more than others; they [the councils] consider that the Kontor administrators cannot proceed this waywithout the permission of the [Hanseatic] towns. And that their [burghers] had to swear on these andother statutes when they arrive in Bergen, even though they do not know, what these statutes containand how far the power vested in these statutes extends). Compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’.

58 NGL II/2 pp. 739-742 (HR II/7 nr. 343): § 4 hindrances in the construction of houses; § 5 unequal treat-ment in the Kontor; § 12 trade with Olav Nilsson; § 13 double taxing in Bergen and in London; § 14fights; § 15 concerning the ban on the trade with Hollanders, while the Kontor aldermen conductedsuch trade themselves. On the other hand, § 2 the credit issues; § 6 denied access to arms; § 7 the issueof import of grain products; § 8 election to the council, were in part repetition of the 1469 complaints.

59 NGL II/2 p. 739 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 4: ‘dat men myt den Oesterschen so nyet en holt’ (that the Wendsare not being treated in such a way).

60 NGL II/2 p. 739 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 5: ‘den onsen toe en ewiger verschemenisse ende onteringhe, welck nyet behoerlick en is’ (to the eternal shame and dishonour of our [burghers], which is not ap-propriate).

61 NGL II/2 p. 740 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 11 (‘men myt eren coepluden dat soe holden, als men myt denghemenen coepman der hense holdet en sculdich is to doene’).

62 1477, NGL II/2 nr. 435 (HR II/7 nr. 417).63 NGL II/2 p. 743 (HR II/7 nr. 389) § 31.64 NGL II/2 p. 745 (HR II/7 nr. 391) §§ 1, 2 taxing goods.65 NGL II/2 pp. 745-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391) §§ 3, 4 purchases in bulk and the sorting of fish; § 7 trade at

Stranden; § 8 the selling of arms; §§ 10, 12 sending goods from Bergen back to the Baltic towns, from

casm in one of their points that only when their adversaries followed Kontor rulesto the letter would Overijsslers follow suit.66 On some issues, they maintained thatthey were unaware that any such misconduct had been committed by theirburghers.67 On the accusation of the riotous behaviour of one Wolter van Zutphen,they called attention to the fact that the person was neither a burgher of Deventernor Kampen, nor was he in masscap with Deventer or Kampen burghers. He wasprobably from Zutphen, in Guelders,68 and should therefore not be seen as part ofthe Overijssel group in Bergen.69 On the matter of the alleged Overijssel alderman,they elaborated upon the rules of self-governance which they assumed gave themthat right, and above all stressed that they now recognised the Kontor alderman astheir proper alderman.70

Some of the charges, the indignant Overijsslers claimed, where downright un-true, and they offered alternative explanations.71 They also maintained that some ofthe complaints of issued by the Kontor envoys, and the measures taken by the al-dermen, were aimed at hindering them in their fish trade with Norwegians andmaking them dependant on other Kontor traders.72 When defending their methodsof trade, which involved using money instead of goods for exchange, they pointedout that Bergen was a town of free trade, and that money was everywhere used inconducting trade.73

The main thread which brought the Overijsslers’ argument together was againthat they as members of the Hanseatic League, they wanted nothing more than toenjoy the same rights as other Hansards, be they from the Wendish or the westerntowns.74 In their view, some of the charges, and several of the Kontor measures,


where the grain products where fetched; § 19 contacts with Hollanders.66 NGL II/2 p. 746 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 7: ‘Als die anclegers der ordinancien volgen, dan willen sie derge-

liken oic gherne doen’ (When the plaintiffs follow the rules, then they [the Overijsslers] will gladly dolikewise).

67 NGL II/2 p. 745-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 5 divulging secrets; § 15 selling counterfeit goods; § 20 ri-otous behaviour.

68 ‘Van Zutphen’ did not have to mean that he was a burgher there, see the case of Hinrick van Hasselt(from Deventer) in this chapter.

69 NGL II/2 p. 747 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 16.70 NGL II/2 p. 748 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 20; compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’.71 NGL II/2 p. 748-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 18, concerning the charge of not allowing Wends to ship their

goods in Overijssel ships, they gave multiple examples of the contrary, and maintained that the oppo-site was actually the case: their burghers were repeatedly denied the right to ship with Wends, there-fore Overijsslers sent goods with non-Hansards; § 23 on the fight with the English.

72 NGL II/2 pp. 745-746 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 6: ‘die coepman hefft dat alsoe ingesat, omme den Zuder-seeschen te dringhende, oir vissche te copen van den coepman unde nicht van den Northmannen’ (theadministrators have enacted the rule in order to force the Overijsslers to buy the fish from the Kontorand not from the Norwegians).

73 NGL II/2 p. 746 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 9.74 NGL II/2 pp. 746-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 11: ‘wente sie in der hanse siin unde dairomme kopen unde

vercopen moegen unde privilegien der hanse geneten sullen gelike andere ondersaten van der hanze,die siin van oesten off van westen’ (because they are in the Hanse and therefore may buy and sell andenjoy the privileges like other members of the Hanse, whether they are from the east or the west [Balticor the North Sea]); § 13 in the context of constructing houses their way, ‘wente sie mede in [der] hanse

gave the impression that Overijsslers had been expelled from the League (‘geliic offtse wt der hanse verbannet weeren’).75 The stinging accusation that they were themost malevolent group in the Kontor forced them to retort that they had beennothing but useful for the Kontor, as they had always been good merchants andmembers of the Hanse, and dutifully followed the regulations of the towns.76 Itmust be emphasised that they meant that they followed the rules of the Hanseatictowns, not those of the Kontor, which implies they did not – and would not – ac-cept all Kontor decisions without a discussion first.

Finally, it should be noted that they did not respond to the rather insulting claimthat their version of the 1468 incident had been based on the incoherent babblingof drunkards. Yet it seems that they did prepare a separate account of the incident.An extant draft of it has survived in the Kampen archive, and it provides addition-al details of the affair: for example that the Kampen traders had been ‘Willem tenAcker77 unde Coep Hilbrantssoen’, as well as a ‘Herman Brunyng’, and that theytheir illegal shipment with the Hollanders had primarily consisted of fish. It wasalso specified that the traders’ private parts had been covered after they had shedtheir garments.78 Moreover, a further penitence had been planned by the authori-ties, namely pilgrimages to Santiago di Compostella, Trondheim, and Wilsnack (apopular pilgrimage site in Brandenburg), but this punishment had in the end been


siin’ (because they are also in the Hanse); § 22 concerning the purchase of fish from Norwegians:‘seggen mede, soe sie in der hanse siin, dat sie geliic andere ondersaten der hanse coepslagen moegenmitten Northmannen unde sullen nicht vorbonden wesen, allene mitten coepman toe Berghen te co-epslagen’ (they state that since they are in the Hanse, they can trade like other Hansards with Norwe-gians and shall not be obliged to trade with the Kontor only); § 24 in their final conclusion, theystressed they wanted to be treated and protected ‘alse anderen gehorsamen ondersaten der hanse’ (likeother obedient subjects [members] of the Hanse).

75 NGL II/2 p. 748 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 18, in the context of shipment of goods.76 NGL II/2 pp. 748-749 (HR II/7 nr. 391) § 21: ‘si tot genen tiiden der nederlaghe hinderlick geweest

siin dan profiitlick, unde heben altiit alse guede coeplude unde ondersaten der hanse sich geboirlikengehat unde horsam geweest nae der stede ordinancien’ (at no time were they to a disadvantage to thesettlement, but [rather] to its advantage, and they have always behaved like good traders and subjects[members] of the Hanse, and they have obeyed the rules of the [Hanseatic] towns).

77 In 1479, he shipped stockfish together with the Hinrick Rouhorst, who was probably the alderman forOverijsslers in Bergen during the conflict; see Bronnen voor de economische geschiedenis van het Bene-den-Maasgebied II. Rekeningen van de Hollandse tollen 1422-1534, p. 129 and chapter ‘Group Ad-ministrators’.

78 NGL II/2 pp. 742-743 (HR II/7 nr. 388). This penitence was widespread in the Low Countries, see‘Voetval’ in the MNW. In the German sources, ‘Fussfall’ apparently did not contain the element ofshedding of clothes, see for instance ‘Fuszfall’ in Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch and G. Althoff, DieMacht der Rituale: Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter(Darmstadt 2003) p. 183; there is no entry‘vôtval’ in the Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch (neither in Schiller and Lübben nor Lasch and Borch-ling). In the Bergen material, I have not found any other example of such penitence: in 1477, Kampenburghers dismissed the implication that it took place in another case, see NGL II/2 p. 753 (HR II/7 nr.416) and compare 1476, NGL II/2 p. 740 (HR II/7 nr. 343) § 10. In a source of c. 1600, it was describedas an ancient penitence, which was part of meting out a punishment: ‘Jhn dat erst ssal he sick gentzlichBloten van denn houede bicht ande vote ijedoch bewaherende de Kouischeit syner schameniße’ (Firstof all, he shall shed all clothes from head to feet but keeping the chastity of his private parts), AHL,Bergenfahrer nr. 857.

called off.79 The Kampen council mentioned that the account had been varified byHerman Brunyng and Hinrick Rouhorst, who may have been the Kampen alder-men in Bergen.80

At the end of the Bremen meeting, the designated mediators reported that anagreement had been reached by both parties.81 Several motions were passed whichconfirmed or reinstated the rules of trade and residence in Bergen, in line with thedemands of the Kontor representatives: these concerned taxes, the fish trade, credit,housing, smallwares, and the restriction to one common alderman.82 On the otherhand, a number of clauses recognised the Overijsslers’ claims: for instance that anyKontor rules which denied Overijsslers the right to be elected as aldermen be de-clared null and void, that the Kontor alderman was to judge and defend Overijsslersin the same way as other Hansards, and that Overijsslers not be denied access toarms.83 Referring to the incident from 1468, it was decided that from then on, shame-ful punishments would be abolished (‘item so sall vortan dey voetvall unde apenbarpenitencie unde beschemenisse anno 68 bescheen aff wesen’). The parties added inalmost poetic terms that they considered it just not to let someone die twice of thesame misdeed, that is to suffer exceedingly (‘en byllick beduchte, ok umme eynermysdaet nicht twier dode to sterven’).84 This might be understood as a view that onepunishment be enough, and that the humilitating penitence was unnecessary.

The matter seemed hereby resolved, yet the Kontor alderman apparently stillharboured grievances against the Overijsslers after the Bremen resolution. In a let-ter issued to Rostock after the Bergen fire of 10 September 1476, the aldermenvoiced the opinion that unlike the Wends, the Overijsslers should not be allowedto rebuild their houses because of the problems they had caused and continued tocause within the Kontor.85 A year later, in 1477, the Kampen council drafted twoletters which indicated that the 1468 incident continued to have repercussions for


79 NGL II/2 pp. 742-743 (HR II/7 nr. 388); in the description of the former punishments in the Kontor(c. 1600), pilgrimages to Einsiedeln, Rome, Trondheim and Santiago di Compostella were mentioned,see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 857. On the pilgrimages to Wilsnack and Einsiedeln, and the importance ofWilsnack as a pilgrimag site, see N. Ohler, ‘Zur Seligkeit und zum Troste meiner Seele. Lübecker un-terwegs zu mittelalterlichen Wallfahrtsstätten’, ZVLGA 63, 1983, pp. 94-98.

80 NGL II/2 pp. 742-743 (HR II/7 nr. 388); compare chapter ‘Group Administrators’.81 NGL II/2 p. 743 (HR II/7 nr. 389) § 85; 10.09. 1476, NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393); Daenell, Die

Blütezeit II, pp. 207-208.82 NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393) §§ 1-7.83 NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393) §§ 8-11.84 NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393) § 12.85 Presented as if Norwegians were complaining about the presence of Overijsslers in Bergen: NGL II/2

nr. 433 (HR II/7 nr. 415): ‘(…) off sick de saken na vorlope so geffellen, dat de kopman weder buwenscholde, dat denne de Zudersesschen glick den Osterlinxschen kopmannen nicht buweden umme velegebrekes willen, dar de kopman van erer wegen in mennichvoldigen klachten van den inwoners deslandes kumpt unde gekamen isz, deme gemenen gude to vornichtinge’ (if it happened that the traders[of the Kontor] would reconstruct [houses], then the Overijsslers should not rebuild along withWends due to the many problems, which the Kontor had experienced as a result of the many com-plaints uttered by the inhabitants of [this] country, which is pernicious to the shared interest [of theKontor]); the fire of 1476 was so extensive that the whole Kontor organisation had to move to Stran-

its burghers in Bergen. In the first letter to the Kontor aldermen, they remindedthem that the accused Kampen burghers had already been unduly punished for hav-ing shipped a small amount of goods in Hollandish ships by having to pay a fineand by having to undergo the humiliating penitence.86 They stressed that the rea-son for their perceived misdeed had been the lack of Hanseatic ships sailing in thedirection of Kampen, thereby implying that only out of sheer necessity had the ac-cused been forced to make use of non-Hanseatic ships.87 The whole incident, theystated this time explicitly, was no contrived story, but had truly happened in thepresence of all the traders in Bergen. This had been testified by Kampen envoys inBremen, and written proof could be produced at any time if again needed. Becausethe Kontor envoys could not provide counterevidence, the matter had been re-solved in Bremen in 1476. Therefore the Kontor aldermen were not in their right toexpel the Kampen traders involved in the 1468 incident from the Hanse, becausethis went against the Hanseatic recess and the Bremen resolution.88 The second let-ter, a complaint directed at the council of Lübeck written the very same day as thefirst letter, elucidates this alleged ploy of the Kontor. The aldermen demanded thatall Kampen traders renounce any trade associations with their compatriots who hadbeen obliged to do public penitence in 1468. Again, the Kampen council underlinedthat the incident had happened in public, and thus that it could not be dismissed asuntrue. They requested that the Kontor aldermen be reprimanded and reminded ofthe Bremen resolution.89 There are no extant sources on the reaction of the Kontoror the Lübeck council to these two letters, so the epilogue of the 1468 punishmentof Overijsslers for trading with Hollanders remains obscure.

When regarding this case from the group context, the most conspicuous aspectseems to be the clear-cut division into rival parties. The Overijsslers stand out as adistinct group. In the majority of the evidence from this conflict, the envoys from,or councils of, Kampen and Deventer, and in some instances also Zwolle, spoke outon behalf of the Overijssel group.90 When for instance Kampen reacted to the iniq-


den and even stay with Norwegians, see NGL II/2 nr. 433 (HR II/7 nr. 415).86 NGL II/2 nr. 434 (HR II/7 nr. 416): in this letter, the mentioned fine was 50 ‘Berger gulden’, 5 of

which were to be paid in wax.87 NGL II/2 nr. 434 (HR II/7 nr. 416).88 NGL II/2 nr. 434 (HR II/7 nr. 416), the difference in perception and presentation of the events: ‘Dat

gene gedichte saken en siin, dan apenbair unde in der wairheit, […] geschiet voir der gansen gemeen-heit oppe die tiit toe Bergen wesende’ (These are no contrived stories, but well-known and true [inci-dents], which had happened in the presence of the whole assembly of merchants who were in Bergenat that moment).

89 NGL II/2 nr. 435 (HR II/7 nr. 417): ‘de coipman toe Bergen in Noirwegen onsen borgeren aldairverkierende opleggende is, sie geen gelt noch guet soelen hantiren noch in oir masscap heben onsenborgeren tobehorende, die in den jar 68 verleden den vorgerorden copiman een voetval heeft moetendoen mit bloeten hoefden ende mit baren benen’ (the Kontor administrators forces out burghers notto handle any money nor goods nor have trade associations with those burghers who in [14]68 had todo voetval with bare heads and feet).

90 NGL II/2 pp. 739-743 (HR II/7 nr. 343); NGL II/2 pp. 744-750 (HR II/7 nr. 391).91 NGL II/2 pp. 727-729 (DN 6 nr. 566; HR II/6 nr. 186).

uities inflicted upon its burghers, it referred to the Overijssel context.91 Equally, theKontor presented the Overijsslers, the ‘Zuderzeeschen’, as one defined groupwhich stood in opposition to both the central administration and the Wends,92 asdid the Hanseatic envoys who arbitrated in the conflict.93 As mentioned in the in-troduction to this chapter, this very distinct picture of Overijsslers as a group hasoften been presented in earlier research as emblematic of their separate status with-in the Kontor,94 but in fact it was an example of the highest tensions between thegroups. The other party in this conflict consisted of the Kontor aldermen and rep-resentatives at the Hanseatic Diet.95 Above these two groups, envoys from theHanseatic towns served as arbitraries, and the Diet as a forum for rolling out ver-sions of events and tensions.

Upon further insight, these divisions appear far more complex. First, there wasthe position of Overijsslers as an insubordinate group within the Kontor. Severalof the charges of the Kontor administrators reveal that Overijsslers were perceivedas a distinct group of merchants within the Kontor ingroup who failed to complywith the rules. This lay at the core of their accusations regarding breaking the rulesof the credit system, conducting secret trade at Stranden, maintaining differenttrade practices in the import of grain and smallwares, electing their own alderman,and crossing the Kontor boundary through their contacts with Hollanders. Theseaberrations were to be renounced, which means that Overijsslers were expected tobehave like other Kontor traders. On the other hand, Overijsslers claimed that asfar as Kontor rights were concerned, they were to some extent being pushed out-side through their unequal treatment. This applied to the rules of the credit system,the import of grain products, housing matters, access to the administrative posts,and in the case of the traders involved in the 1468 incident, public humiliation anddeprivation of Hanseatic rights. As quoted above, they explicitly stated that attimes they had been treated as if they were not in the Hanseatic League at all, andthey were certainly not being treated as proper members of the Kontor. In otherwords, they were being treated as an outgroup. Nowhere in the abundant evidencedid they voice any intention of leaving the Kontor, despite such abuses, whichmeans that Overijsslers truly wished to remain part of the Kontor ingroup and en-joy all of the rights resulting from this membership.

Furthermore, the way the case was resolved adds to its complexity. As men-tioned earlier, the usual way of dealing with inner disputes was to discuss them at


92 NGL II/2 pp. 729-731 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187); NGL II/2 pp. 731-734 (DN 6 nr. 568; HR II/6nr. 188); NGL II/2 pp. 734-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342).

93 NGL II/2 nr. 430 (HR II/7 nr. 393); NGL II/2 nr. 431 (HR II/7 nr. 394); NGL II/2 p. 743 (HR II/7nr. 389) §§ 31, 85.

94 Bruns, Bergenfahrer, pp. XV-XVII; Schreiner, Hanseatene og Norge, pp. 50-54; Hamre, Norsk histo-rie 1450-1513, p. 31; Helle, Bergen I, pp. 795-797; Nedkvitne, Utenrikshandelen, pp. 138-140; 265.

95 Admittedly, they appeared as ‘die koepman van Bergen’, which denoted the Kontor as a whole. How-ever, they revealed their position of decision makers and legal representatives, thus the group of ad-ministrators of the Kontor.

the Kontor level and, if necessary, appeal to the council of Lübeck. This means thatthe particular traders who harboured grievances would have normally sought jus-tice following the internal procedure. In this case, however, Overijsslers broughtthe case directly to the assembled envoys of the Hanseatic towns. Though quitelogical in a conflict concerning the central Kontor administration, it still meant de-parting from the usual Kontor procedures. As mentioned earlier, the Kontor alder-men and representatives duly protested the Overijsslers’ bypassing of their author-ity, without even informing them of the charges or their intentions.96 The sourcesdo not disclose directly why Overijsslers decided to appeal directly to the Hanseat-ic towns, but the content of their charges provide some hints. Most of the mootpoints concerned rules devised or interpreted by the aldermen in Bergen, and notthose imposed on the Kontor by the Hanseatic towns. Consequently, Overijsslersmay have presumed that the aldermen were simply not going to pay heed to theirclaims. Moreover, according to the Overijsslers, the aldermen were guilty of break-ing some of the very same rules which they had rigidly forced upon the Overi-jsslers, making the administrators appear both biased and inconsistent. Finally, theconstantly repeated claim that Overijsslers wanted nothing more than to be treat-ed as Hansards might imply that the ‘Hanseatic’ element was the cue to bringinggrievances to an external forum, rather than to the Kontor. It is worth noting thatit was not the individual Overijssel traders or the Overijssel group in Bergen, butrather the councils of the Overijssel towns, who were involved in presenting thiscase at the Hanseatic Diets. The boundaries of the Kontor ingroup were therebyopened up by the ties with the traders’ hometowns; the dispute did not only engagean insubordinate group within the Kontor. In other words, it was at the same timeboth an inner conflict between a group within the Kontor and the administrators,and a general Hanseatic matter whereby the town representatives and the Kontorwere involved.

Lastly, the question arises whether the conflict should be solely regarded as amatter of Overijsslers on the one hand, and the Kontor administrators on the other.In several of the presented grievances, Overijsslers showed that the hindrances theyexperienced in Bergen were posed by Wendish traders, and they implied that theadministrators represented first of all Wendish interests, presenting them as Kon-tor interests.97 Similarly, the representatives of the Kontor at the Hanseatic Dietsspoke of the trouble caused by Overijsslers to Wendish trade and traders, and thatOverijsslers should act as the Wends did.98 In one of the paragraphs, the aldermenused the term ‘Osterlinghe’ as a synonym to ‘die koepman’.99 This opposition is


96 NGL II/2 pp. 729-730 (DN 6 nr. 567; HR II/6 nr. 187) § 1; NGL II/2 p. 735 (HR II/7 nr. 342) § 1.97 NGL II/2 pp. 739-742 (HR II/7 nr. 343) §§ 4, 6; NGL II/2 p. 744-751 (HR II/7 nr. 391) §§ 12; 18.

Compare Schreiner, Hanseatene og Norge, p. 53, who claimed that since the fifteenth century, theKontor was primarily serving Wendish interests. See also Daenell, Die Blütezeit II, pp. 206-208.

98 NGL II/2 pp. 735-738 (HR II/7 nr. 342) §§ 4, 13, 24.99 According to the burgomaster of Deventer, Johann Borre, ‘die koepman’ listed higher debts of Nor-

wegians than it was really the case, to which the Kontor envoys addressed the Hanseatic mediators:

also apparent in the above-mentioned letter from the Kontor to Rostock, whichpropsed the idea of rebuilding Wendish rather than Overijssel houses after the fireof 1476.100 This means that there was a duality in the appearance of the Kontor par-ty in this conflict: apart from serving as representatives of the entire Kontor in-group, they were simultaneously representatives of the Wendish group. They act-ed as if the Wends were the Kontor ingroup, and the Overijsslers an outgroup. TheLübeckish aldermen were thus not impartial in this case, and possibly this was thereason why the envoys of the Hanseatic towns allowed it to be directly brought toa Hanseatic forum.

Summing up, the second case analysed here shows that even when a conflict ap-peared as an internal Kontor affair, based on the distinct actions and perceptions ofone group, the divisions were in fact multilayered and extended beyond the Kon-tor. The grievances were in part caused by the Overijssel group breaking Kontorrules, and in part because of the broader issue of the equality of Hanseatic rights,which extended beyond the Kontor. The resolution of this particular conflict wasnot an internal affair involving only the group of traders concerned and the Kontoradministration, but also the representatives of the respective Overijssel towns andassigned mediators from Hanseatic towns were drawn in. And the Kontor admin-istrators and representatives were in fact serving not only as ‘impartial’ spokesmenof the Kontor, but also as defenders of the dominant position of the Wendish groupwithin the Kontor.

One against All, All against One? The Case of Hinrick van Hasselt

Hinrick van Hasselt was a notorious trader from Deventer who in the first half ofthe sixteenth century stirred up trouble in the Bergen Kontor.101 The accusationsagainst him ranged from heresy to rebellious behaviour, and from illegal trade withNorwegians and Hollanders to divulging Kontor secrets. He entered the scene as atroublemaker in 1536, when he allegedly proclaimed that Jesus and Christ had beentwo different people (Jesus being the son of Christ); that John the Baptist had notbeen conceived by a man; and finally, that the Virgin Mary had not been a virgin.102

There were even rumours that he had presented himself as the Messiah, as is evidentfrom a denial statement issued by fellow Deventer traders in 1540, who dismissedthe accusation as nonsense and testified that Hinrick had never made any such


‘sulke bosheyt scal by den Osterlingen nycht bevunden werden’ (such wickedness is not committedby the Wends), see NGL II/2 p. 738 § 26 (HR II/7 nr. 342).

100 NGL II/2 nr. 433 (HR II/7 nr. 415).101 He was probably already active in Bergen in the 1520s: in the Bergen account books, there is evidence

that he bought in lard, butter and fish, while he sold meal NRJ 1, pp. 655, 656, 658 (1520); NRJ 2 pp.574-575 (1521); also, in 1536 he sold cloth from Leiden and Hoorn, see OER, p. 137; in 1522, he wasmentioned as the inhabitant of the tenement ‘Vettherleffuen’ (Vetrliden), see NRJ 3 p. 637 (1522).

102 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1536); copy in the BNA Brussels, Audience 1669/2; in 1539, ‘a case VanHasselt’ was discussed in the Hague, which probably concerned this heresy; see NAU 1 nr. 336.

claims.103 Hinrick was not presented in the sources as a follower of any particular sect,but his contacts with Anabaptists were noted, which caused unrest in the Kontor.104

In the 1540s, the Kontor aldermen voiced several complaints regarding the ac-tions of Hinrick van Hasselt. They claimed that he was planning a rebellion in theKontor,105 and that he maintained close relations with ex-Hansards, which wasstrictly prohibited.106 Also, his trade with non-Hansards, especially Hollanders,was a source of irritation for the Kontor administrators, who suspected that Hol-landers even held shares in one of Hinrick’s ships.107 Van Hasselt’s contacts withAmsterdam were seen as a potential threat in another way as well: they feared thathe would settle there and harm the Kontor. It was rumoured that he knew influen-tial people in Amsterdam, thereby strengthening the fears of the Kontor.108

The series of charges did not stop there. Hinrick and his trade partner in Bergen,Dirck Schonekamp, were accused of illegally trading outside of Bergen, in Trond-heim and other places were they could gain access to fish, thereby circumventingthe Kontor rules on credit to the fishermen and escaping control.109 Van Hasselt notonly exported fish, but also imported goods from Overijssel, namely cloth andwine.110 This trade was conducted in close cooperation with the captain of theBergen castle, Christopher Huitfeldt, the Deventer burghers Philip Janszoon andHinrick van Merckel, and the Trondheim burgher Albert Garritsen.111 The rap-prochement with the captain was perceived as highly harmful to the Kontor,112 on


103 TAL Deventer, Rechterlijk archief, Liber attestationum 6d fol. 348-349.104 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (undated concept). Anabaptists were perceived as a potential danger to

the peace in Hanseatic towns, so in 1535 it was decided that a town in which the heretic preaching ofthe Anabaptist or the Sacramentist sects would be adopted, should be excluded from the Hanse see HRIV/2 nr. 86 § 126, compare HR IV/2 pp. 24-25 and nr. 136; the decision as repeated in 1540 HanseaticDiet, Höhlbaum(ed.) Kölner Inventar, p. 331; on the Anabaptism and the Hanse see Postel, ‘DerNiedergang’, pp. 174-176 and the references there.

105 TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad, nr. 430; AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (24.06.1543).106 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (7.09.1542; 3.12.1542). Compare chapter ‘Making, Breaking, and Bending

Group Rules’.107 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (3.12.1542; 1543), nr. 873 (1545), nr. 934 (1542) and nr. 1355 (26.10.1542);

TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430. Hinrick’s trade was not insignificant: according to thealdermen, he shipped several thousands vage of stockfish (in 1599, one last of stockfish contained 100vage of the commodity); see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 934 (1542); he used several ships for this trade, seeTAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430; NAU 1 nr. 483 (March of 1543); AHL, Bergenfahrernr. 1672 (24.06.1543).

108 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (25.11.1542; 3.06.1543).109 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 934 (1542) and 1672 (1543); TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430;

NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543).110 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543) and 873 (7.09.1542); TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr.

430; NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543).111 TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430; DN 11 nr. 661 (27.03.1543); Philip Janszoon was a

brother-in-law of Hinrick van Hasselt; see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1.11.1542), while Hinrick vanMerckel was a business associate of Dirck Schonekamp; see ibidem, (25.11.1542).

112 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (probably 1542) and nr. 934 (1542). Huitfeldt, on his part, declared in 1543that he needed this connection to furnish the castle with wine and cloth at good prices; see AHL,Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (24.06.1543); NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543). Yet he also denied having contactswith Van Hasselt; see DN 11 nr. 661 (27.03.1543) and AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (31.08.1545).

the one hand because Hinrick became the debtor of Huitfeldt without the consentof the Kontor,113 but especially because it took place at the same time that Overi-jsslers were suffering under the 1542 embargo imposed by the king.114 This wasseen as a serious breach of Kontor solidarity, and Van Hasselt was denounced forseeking his own benefit by throwing a spanner in the works of others.115 Alleged-ly, the reason why he himself did not suffer under the embargo was that he hadgained personal privileges from the king,116 something which also went againstKontor rules.117 Finally, Hinrick van Hasselt and Dirck Schonekamp were accusedof betraying the Kontor: they had divulged Kontor statutes as well as other secretsto the Bergen captain, Scotsmen, and Hollanders.118 The aldermen even claimedthat Schonekamp was guilty of stealing the Kontor seal.119 In addition, he had pur-posefully failed to pass on a letter from the Kontor to Deventer which would haveinformed the Overijsslers of the trade embargo imposed by the king, eventuallycausing them great trouble.120

Hinrick was perceived as a foe to the Hanseatic merchants in general (‘viandtgemeinen Copmans’), and the initiator of a feud, for which he was to be excludedfrom the Hanse.121 He left the Kontor in 1542 and stayed for some time at theBergen castle, apparently on the invitation of the captain, before disappearing fromBergen altogether.122 Thereafter he was sighted in Brussels,123 and rumour had it


113 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1542) and 873 (31.08.1545).114 The context was the prolonged conflict between the Norwegian-Danish King and the Emperor

Charles V, on amongst others dynastic matters, see the analyses in Häpke, Die Regierung Karls V, pp.211-215; Sicking, Zeemacht en onmacht; compare K. Fritze and G. Krause, Seekriege der Hanse: daserste Kapitel deutscher Seekriegsgeschichte (Berlin 1997). In 1542, the king decided that Overijsslers(traders from Kampen, Deventer and Zwolle), as direct subjects of the Emperor, were to be bannedfrom trade in the royal territories. All their goods were confiscated, and the traders were not allowedto leave Bergen; see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (7.09.1542), nr. 1355 (1542) and 1672 (1.11.1542);NAU 1 nr. 415 (20.08.1542); in 1543, Overijsslers asked the king to let them trade in Bergen becausethey were first of all Hansards; see DNA Copenhagen, Tyske Kancellis udenrigske afdeling til 1770,Hansestæderne A I. 1. Compare chapter ‘The Ins and Outs of the Trade Politics’.

115 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (24.06.1543): ‘alleine syn egen nut vnde beste (…) de gemeine wolfartvnde handel verhindert hefft’ (only his own profit and interests (…) has hindered the general benefitand trade).

116 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 934 (1542) and nr. 1672 (1543; 24.06.1543); NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543). The kingdenied it in 1542, claiming he had never heard of Van Hasselt; see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1355 (1542).

117 NGL II/2 nr. 416 § 26: ‘Ithem schal nenn kopmann jennige privata edder sunderge friheidth vanherenn effte herenn brevenn mer alse de gemene kopman hebbenn edder ann sick bringenn tho vordelesick edder sine guder bi pene des kopmans gerechticheit.’ (No merchant is to gain private or specialfreedoms from lords or through letters of lords which exceed the rights of the [Kontor] merchants, tohis own benefit or the trade with his goods, the punishment being the loss of rights).

118 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (24.06.1543).119 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543; 24.06.1543); NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543).120 NAU 1 nr. 426 (4.12.1542) and 427 (9.12.1542), referring to NAU 1 nr. 415 (20.08.1542).121 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (1542) and nr. 934 (1542). I thank Jeroen Benders for pointing out the spe-

cific connection with ‘feud’ in the word ‘viandt’. Compare Benders, Bestuursstructuur en schriftcul -tuur, p. 163.

122 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (3.12.1542); NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543).123 AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (probably 1543); AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (16.08.1543).

that he resided for some time in Deventer, Hattem, and Amsterdam.124 He musthave known that the Hanseatic towns were looking for him so that they could tryhim for rebellion, and therefore he came up with a skilful ploy, which involved themanipulation of evidence from his earlier heresy charges in order to counter thecharges of rebellion. Hinrick appealed to Emperor Charles V and presented hisown version of the events at Bergen, claiming that as a staunch Catholic in a Prot-estant Kontor he had been the victim of unjust persecution. According to him, hehad been nothing but an obedient member of the Kontor, and his so-called ‘heresy’consisted of nothing more than his refusal to convert to Protestantism. In his view,all other charges were slander, fueled by hatred and envy.125 Apparently, his aimwas to convince the emperor of his innocence by exploiting the well-known factthat Charles V was anti-Protestant,126 and he seems to have reached this aim.127 Theemperor allowed him to continue trading, though there is no evidence that he everreturned to Norway, Deventer, or Lübeck.

How were the problems which Hinrick caused – his behaviour which conflictedwith the principles of the Kontor – resolved by this very same Kontor? In fact, sev-eral parties tried to pull the strings: the Bergen Kontor, his hometown, Lübeck andthe Norwegian authorities. This reflected the fact that Hinrick committed his of-fences as a Kontor member, that he was a Deventer burgher, that Lübeck was theKontor’s forum for appeal, and that the offences had been committed in Norwe-gian territory. Moreover, the resolution of the Van Hasselt case revealed the changewhich had been going on in the Kontor and in the Hanse, namely that the towns oforigin were gradually assuming the responsibility for trying their own burghers ac-cused of rebelling against the Kontor authority. This policy had been to a certainextent already introduced in the beginning of the fifteenth century, but its actualimplementation probably did not take place until the sixteenth century.128 Its va-lidity for the Bergen Kontor and Hinrick van Hasselt appeared in a source onevents in the 1530s, and the rule was enforced when Hinrick van Hasselt was ac-cused of disobedience in the 1540s.

Concerning Van Hasselt’s first offence, namely his heretical and riotous behav-iour in the 1530s, it seems that the Kontor took the initiative to seize and imprison


124 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (16.08.1543; 20.09.1543 and undated letters).125 AHL, ASA, Externa Danica nr. 800 (1543) and Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (undated draft). It must be not-

ed that there is no evidence at all that there were tensions between Catholics and Protestants in theKontor at that time: on the religious aspects of the life in the Kontor after the Reformation; see A.Graßmann, ‘Das Hansekontor zu Bergen: Kirche und Wohltätigkeit’, pp. 78-93, in Graßmann (ed.)Das Hansische Kontor zu Bergen, and C. Veltmann, ‘Die Hanse, Westeuropa und die Ausbreitung derReformation. Eine Skizze über die Rolle von Hansekaufleuten im europäischen Konfessiona -lisierungsprozess’, HGBll 123, 2005, pp. 61-83.

126 See for instance H. Kleinschmidt, Charles V. The World Emperor (Stroud 2004) pp. 157-187.127 AHL, ASA, Externa Danica 800 (undated); see also AHL, Bergenfahrer 1672 (9.01.1544 and

16.08.1543).128 Chapter ‘Group Administrators’; 1412, HR I/6 nr. 70 § 4; 1518, HR III/7 nr. 108 § 72; 1521, HR III/7

nr. 413 § 281; 1535, HR IV/2 nr. 90 § 4.

him.129 However, the Kontor was not the only party involved in this case: appar-ently, the Norwegians were as well, because Van Hasselt was imprisoned in theBergen castle. Thus, the first time he stayed at the castle, he was there involuntari-ly.130 It is possible that he had proclaimed his views to the whole town, not only theKontor, and that the ecclesiastical powers intervened, as a bishop in Bergen stillcalled him a heretic in 1545.131 The captain of the castle at that time, probably EsgeBille, at first wanted to send Hinrick to the king, but the Kontor aldermen insistedthat as a Hansard, he should be judged in his hometown of Deventer.132 The rule ofextradition to the hometown was not discussed in detail, but it appears that the al-dermen saw fit to evoke it, possibly in order to hinder the Norwegian authoritiesfrom interfering in Kontor affairs. Yet it seems that the Bergen captain had the fi-nal word. In the end, Hinrick was released from prison after having revoked hisheretical statements and expressed his deep remorse,133 although rumour had it thata pecuniary offer had proved more persuasive.134 After this resolution, he returnedto the Kontor and continued about his business, apparently unhindered by the al-dermen or other Kontor traders.135 According to the aldermen, however, he hadsince sworn vengeance to the Kontor, declaring that his sole aim was to bring aboutthe demise of the Hanseatic settlement.136

Two tendencies were at work during the second phase of dealing with the trou-ble caused by Hinrick van Hasselt: a common concern to resolve the problem, andto some extent disagreement on how to actually do so. The initiative for legal ac-tion was again taken by the Kontor aldermen, who this time expelled Hinrick andhis accomplices from the Kontor in 1542 for rebellious behaviour and breaches ofthe rules. Thereafter, a flurry of correspondence started, circulating between theKontor, Deventer, and Lübeck, where the deeds of Van Hasselt were reported indetail. It is clear that it was of great importance to all parties that everyone be well-informed. They acted as one party when they approached the Danish-Norwegianking,137 the German Emperor, or his regent of the Low Countries, to present theirversion of the events, among other things that Hinrick’s ‘heresy’ had had nothingto do with his being a Catholic.138 In these outward actions and writings they ap-


129 NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543); compare the AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543 and 10.06.1544).130 AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (probably 1544); NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543).131 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (31.08.1545), compare nr. 1672 (1542 and 24.06.1543).132 AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (probably 1544); according to O. Wahl, Esge Bilde. Lensherre paa

Bergenhus 1529-37 (Bergen 1927) [BHFS, 33] p. 266, Bille left for Denmark after 1536.133 NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543); compare AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (24.06.1543).134 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543).135 NAU 1 nr. 447 (21.06.1543); AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543).136 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 873 (1542), nr. 934 (1542) and nr. 1672 (24.06.1543; 10.06.1544); NAU 1 nr. 447

(21.06.1543). They also wanted all involved traders, that is also Philip Janszoon and Hinrick van Mer-ckel, to be expulsed from the Hanse, see NAU 1 nr. 483 (1544).

137 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1355 (1542).138 AHL, ASA, Externa Danica nr. 800 (1542); AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (16.08.1543, 15.12.1543 and

an undated draft). In at least two of the letters sent between the parties, Hinrick was called ‘the piousman’, which is one of the rare examples of sarcasm in Hanseatic sources; see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr.

peared as Hansards, concerned only with the resolution of a conflict with insubor-dinate Hanseatic traders.

When it came to resolving the matter internally, however, there was less consen-sus between these parties. Theoretically, it was established that Hinrick van Has-selt and his accomplices should answer to the charges and be punished in Deven-ter.139 Yet in practice, the Lübeck council apparently could not resist interfering.Already in 1542 they had stipulated that Hinrick should receive an ‘exemplary pun-ishment’ (‘anderen tot exempell’),140 a phrase which resounded in later writings.141

Lübeckers stressed that legal procedures should go more quickly,142 arguing thatsimilar cases had been handled very strictly in Lübeck.143 They were moreover ofthe opinion that not only Hinrick van Hasselt and his associate in Bergen, DirckSchonekamp, should be punished, but also their associates in Deventer, Hinrickvan Merckel and Philip Janszoon, proposing that they all be expelled from theHanse, as indeed the Bergen Kontor had already decided.144 It seems that Lübeck-ers even went as far as to suggest a trial transfer to their own town,145 as they im-plied that the Deventer council had been partial to the offenders, while they wereobliged to judge them following the guidelines of the recesse.146

These assertive statements of the Lübeck council, and probably also the judg-ments by the Kontor, clearly annoyed the Deventer councillors. In a 1544 letter toKampen, they called it the humiliating mingling by Lübeckers into what the coun-cillors perceived as a Deventer affair. They emphasised that the recesse of theHanseatic towns gave them full rights to proceed independently, and surely theywere capable of dealing with the case themselves.147 On the other hand, they wereanxious to solve the problem, as Hinrick van Hasselt had put all of the traders inBergen – including the Deventer Bergenvaarders – in a disadvantageous position.148

In their correspondence with Lübeck, the Deventer councillors motivated theirslow and cautious approach to the matter by a lack of sufficient evidence. SeveralDeventer burghers had voiced doubts about the guilt of Hinrick and his accom-plices, and so the council needed written proofs in order to convict them.149 Ac-cordingly, the Deventers explained to Lübeck, it was not negligence which was de-


1672 (1543 and 29.01.1544).139 AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (1542); AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (17.12.1542); NAU 1 nr. 427

(9.12.1542) and 467 (1544). A direct reference was made to the recess of 1535; see AHL, Bergenfahrernr. 1672 (16.08.1543).

140 AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (1544).141 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (17.12.1542 and January 1544); AHL, ASA Externa Danica nr. 800 (1544);

NAU 1 nr. 499 (3.08.1545); UA, Schepenen tot 1577, nr. 830.142 NAU 1 nr. 483 (1.12.1542).143 NAU 1 nr. 483 (13.03.1543).144 NAU 1 nr. 483 (15.03.1543); TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430.145 NAU 1 nr. 467 (26.02.1544).146 TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430; NAU 1 nr. 427 (9.12.1542).147 NAU 1 nr. 467 (26.02.1544).148 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (10.06.1544); NAU 1 nr. 467 (26.02.1544).149 TAL Deventer 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430; AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543).

laying resolution on the matter. By no means did they want to create the impres-sion of laxity in the prosecution of offences.150 In the end, Deventer decided in 1545that Hinrick van Merckel was not directly involved in the misdeeds of Hinrick vanHasselt and Dirck Schonekamp, as he had only received goods from Norway andwas not personally involved in the dealings there. All three Overijssel town coun-cils (Kampen, Deventer and Zwolle) wrote on behalf of Van Merckel, declaring hisinnocence and stressing that he had never even been to Bergen.151 Van Merckel wasobviously an influential person in Deventer: after 1546 he became a member of thetown council.152 It is clear that Lübeckers were not entirely satisfied with this. Theypointed out that even if Van Merckel had not actively participated in the trade, hemust have allowed Schonekamp to conduct the illegal business. Moreover, Lübeck-ers thought that the fact that Van Merckel had defended Schonekamp in Bergen wasin and of itself sufficiently incriminating. Eventually, the Lübeckers accepted thata fine would suffice. Schonekamp, Van Merckel, and Janszoon were to made to pay100 guilders, half of which was to go to the Bergen Kontor, and half to Deventer.153

Moreover, the three traders were to swear an oath that they would keep thepeace.154 Hinrick van Hasselt apparently escaped punishment by disappearing fromthe Kontor and Deventer; the Deventer council maintained that they had doneeverything in their power to seize him, including closing up and searching the townwhen it was rumoured that the was hiding there, but all of these attempts came tonought.155

Approaching this case and its resolution from the group perspective, it becomesapparent that two issues were at play. First of all, the misdeeds of Hinrick and hisassociates were treated as offences committed by specific Kontor traders, withoutdrawing in the whole group of Overijsslers in the Kontor. The problem of heresy,for example, was resolved by his hometown, conform with the newly establishedprocedure for acts of disobedience, but the heretical statements of Hinrick werepresented as his personal views. Also in the second phase of problems with Hin-rick, the Kontor meticulously reported the nature of the offences and all those in-volved in his misdeeds, but again, Overijsslers were not accused of being a group


150 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (29.01.1544 and an undated draft). The Deventer council also closely fol-lowed the negotiations on the question of property between Schonekamp, van Merckel and Janszoon,concerning a captured ship from Amsterdam, loaded with goods. It seems that the matter was eventu-ally resolved; see AHL, Bergenfahrer nr.1672 (copy of 10.06.1544, a letter of March 1543 mentioned).

151 UA, Schepenen tot 1577, nr. 830; NAU 1 nr. 498 (22.07.1545) and 499 (3.08.1545) and 499 (1545);AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (4.03.1546).

152 H. Kronenberg and H.H. Röell, Van Markel (Marckel) (’s-Gravenhage 1952) p. 1; Dumbar, DeventerI, pp. 87-93; on Van Merckels participation in the business of Van Hasselt, see the TAL Deventer,Rechterlijk Archief, Liber Attestationum 6d, 1542, fol. 539 and Sententiën 7a, fol. 176, 197 and 209;also in the same archive 690, Schepenen en Raad nr. 430.

153 UA, Schepenen tot 1577, nr. 830; NAU 1 nr. 498 (22.07.1545) and 499 (3.08.1545); AHL, Bergenfahrernr.1672 (4.03.1546).

154 NAU 1 nr. 499 (3.08.1545); on this vow, the so-called ‘oorvede’ (‘Urfehde’), especially in the Deven-ter context, see Benders, Bestuursstructuur en schriftcultuur, pp. 155-169.

155 AHL, Bergenfahrer nr. 1672 (1543).

proned to commit such breaches of rules, as was the case in the 1468-1477 conflict.Similarly, the Lübeck council expressed their views on the persecution of the ac-cused as specific traders, and did not lay the responsibility on all of the Overijsselor Deventer burghers in Bergen, the Bergenvaarders in Deventer, or the inhabitantsof that town. Finally, the Deventer council also weighed the responsibility of thesetraders as individuals, and not as Deventer Bergenvaarders or members of the Kon-tor. In general, the actions of Hinrick and his associates were treated as a case of oneagainst all: the latter being the Kontor, his hometown, and the interests of theHanseatic League.

On the other hand, it is evident that another issue was also at stake: to what ex-tent all were against one. Apart from the issue of dealing with the problems andconflicts caused by these traders, the issue of the boundaries of power in resolvingthe case also played a major role. Due to the changes within the Hanse on Kontormatters, the case of Van Hasselt could no longer be treated as an internal Kontoraffair, with the Lübeck council serving as the ultimate judge. The legal link betweena Deventer burgher in Bergen and his home council had become formally stronger,and indeed gained supremacy over his link with the Kontor, or Lübeck as a forumof appeal. Therefore the interference of Lübeck was considered somewhat out ofplace by the Deventer council. Instead of a model whereby all Kontor traders werefirst comprised in the Kontor ingroup, their membership in the ingroups of theirhometowns became increasingly salient within the general Hanseatic context. Thiswas closely connected to the advancing disintegration of shared interests within theHanseatic League.156

Conclusions

The approach in this chapter was to present three cases of conflicts and problemsin a process-oriented way, making full use of the available sources, some consultedfor the first time in an analysis, and analyse them from the perspective of groupmembership. The three analysed cases of conflicts and problems with Overijsslersall have their particular characteristics. The first one concerned the question of le-gality in offering security, the second a humiliating punishment and a host of otherissues perceived as injustices or breaches of rules, and the third heresy and rebel-lion. In the first case study, the resolution was sought within the long-establishedstructure of judgment by the Kontor and Lübeck, in the second the authority ofHanseatic towns was called upon, and in the last case study the new rules gave theoffenders’ hometowns the right to have the final word.

From the group perspective, the cases were perceived and conducted at differentlevels. They were seen as matters of individual traders in the Kontor, where only


156 Postel, ‘Der Niedergang’; Hammel-Kiesow, Die Hanse, pp. 104-116; Friedland, Die Hanse, pp. 176-181.

the Kontor ingroup was of importance, and where the hometown of the offenderintervened only as a provider of evidence, or an advocate (in the fifteenth century),or a judge (in the sixteenth century). However, a conflict where Overijsslers wereinvolved could also become a conflict between groups within the Kontor, althoughit must be noted that the party of the Kontor administrators in the conflict oftenrepresented the interests of the Wends. The perceptions of individuals or groups inconflict depended largely on the context, and possibly also the number of griev-ances accumulated at a certain moment. A telling example is the 1464 case, first dis-cussed in the Kontor and in Lübeck as an individual case, but which later turned upas one of the many charges in the conflict between the Kontor and Overijsslers, andpresented as a typical case of Overijssel disobedience. There were both ties and ten-sions between those who had close relations: individual traders conducting busi-ness together, groups living side by side in the Kontor, and the hometowns ofBergenfahrer and Bergenvaarders operating within the Hanseatic League. In short,the three cases are and remain snapshots, yet they show that the perceptions onOverijsslers as individuals in a heterogeneous Kontor ingroup, or as members of agroup within the Kontor, depended on the context and were susceptible to change.There was no stiff opposition between Overijsslers and Kontor administrators, orOverijsslers and Lübeckers within the Kontor.


university of groningen traders, ties and tensions …bers of the bergen kontor, all of them from...

Documents