Het proces en de vrijlating van Michael Ophovius

De aanslag op Heusden in 1623 nogmaals tegen het licht gehouden

Samenvatting

The Trial and Release of Michael Ophovius: The Attack on Heusden in 1623 Re-examined

Michael Ophovius has always been a well-known Bosschenaar, especially because of his prominent role during the negotiations about the capitulation of ‘s-Hertogenbosch and the undersigning of the treaty in September 1629. As a bishop, he could hardly function during the rebellion and was forced to leave the city a few months after the capitulation. Although unable to work as a bishop, he continued living in the spirit of the Dominicans, the order to which he had belonged since 1585. When he became a pastor, he continued to preach to people to join, remain faithful, or to return to the true Catholic faith. In 1623 and 1624, Ophovius was imprisoned, at first in Heusden, but later in the Prison Gate (Gevangenpoort) in The Hague, because he had tried to persuade the governor of the fortified city of Heusden to choose for the Spanish side. Until now it is assumed that this failed corruption was a ‘one-man action’; that of Godefroij of Horne, a distant cousin of the governor.

As far as can be judged, lack of resources and the descriptions by war historians formed the pillars that support this conclusion. New sources – especially minutes of the States of Holland, resolutions of the States General and document folders on the exchange of prisoners and the trial – shed new light on the Ophovius affair. Based on our research, we conclude that historians did correctly report on the corruption itself. They only wrote a few lines about the prisoner exchange (involving Ophovius) and the procedure of his release. We believe that explicit consideration should be given to the possibility that Godefroij of Horne did not act alone, but that Ophovius had fallen victim to an ambush, and that the governor of Heusden and perhaps even Prince Maurits were involved. The main reason for laying the ambush from the perspective of Holland and the Dutch Republic was obviously gaining control of an impor- tant prisoner, which then could be used for barter. This view is supported by the absence of a conviction of Ophovius for high treason, the difficult negotiations, the constant blackmailing 253 of Ophovius by holding him liable for any delays, and the donation of Holland’s share in the county of Horne to the governor by the States General. Through this study, a clear picture of the negotiation process arose. Ultimately, a prisoner exchange was managed involving some fifty prisoners of the Republic – including Ophovius – who were exchanged for two hundred and forty or more prisoners of Archduchess Isabella and the Spanish king. Research in Brussels archives might provide additional information about the Ophovius affair.