——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Transcribers note:
To improve the reading of the Vol. I, The Index at the end of the Vol. II.
which covers both volumes has been copied to Vol. I. and The Errata has
been corrected.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
OGIER GHISELIN
DE BUSBECQ
VOL. I.
[Illustration: AVGERIVS GISLENVS BVSBEQVIVS.
_Te voce, Augeri, mulcentem Cæsaris aures
Laudauit plausis Austrius Ister aquis.
Te Ducis Ismarij flectentem pectora verbis
Thrax rapido obstupuit Bosphorus e pelago.
Te gesfisfe domum pro nata Cæsaris, ingens
Sequana conspexit, Parisÿq3 lares_
_I. Lernutius._]
THE
LIFE AND LETTERS
OF
OGIER GHISELIN DE BUSBECQ
SEIGNEUR OF BOUSBECQUE
KNIGHT, IMPERIAL AMBASSADOR
BY
CHARLES THORNTON FORSTER, M.A.
_Late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge: Vicar of Hinxton_
AND
F. H. BLACKBURNE DANIELL, M.A.
_Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge: Barrister-at-Law_
Πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω
_IN TWO VOLUMES_
VOL. I.
LONDON
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1881
(_The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved_)
TO
MONSIEUR JEAN DALLE
MAIRE OF BOUSBECQUE
AS A SLIGHT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS KINDNESS
AND THE VALUABLE ASSISTANCE WE HAVE
DERIVED FROM HIS RESEARCHES
THESE VOLUMES ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
PREFACE.
We ask to be allowed to introduce the Reader to a kind and genial
cicerone, who can take him back, three centuries deep, into the Past,
and show him the Turk as he was when he dictated to Europe instead of
Europe dictating to him; or conjure once more into life Catherine de
Medici, Navarre, Alençon, Guise, Marguerite the fair and frail, and
that young Queen, whom he loved so well and served so faithfully.
CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.
PAGE
LIFE OF BUSBECQ 1
TURKISH LETTER I. 75
” ” II. 174
” ” III. 192
” ” IV. 315
_Errata._
The references in footnotes on pp. 105-250, to other passages in this
volume after p. 72, should be advanced by 2 pages, e.g. _for_ 163,
_read_ 165.
LIFE OF BUSBECQ.
[Illustration]
LIFE OF BUSBECQ.
_Introductory._
The days are now past when students were content to take their history
at second hand, and there is therefore the less reason to apologise for
introducing to the reader, in an English dress, the letters of one who
was an eyewitness and actor in some of the most important events in the
sixteenth century.
Several of the most striking passages in Robertson’s _History of
Charles V._ are taken from Busbecq; De Thou has borrowed largely from
his letters; and the pages of Gibbon, Coxe, Von Hammer, Ranke, Creasy,
and Motley, testify to the value of information derived from this
source. It must not, however, be supposed that all that is historically
valuable in his writings has found a place in the works of modern
authors. On the contrary, the evidence which Busbecq furnishes has
often been forgotten or ignored.
A remarkable instance of this neglect is to be found in Prescott’s
account of the capture of Djerbé,[1] or Gelves, by the Turks. The
historian of Philip II. has made up this part of his narrative from
the conflicting and vainglorious accounts of Spanish writers, and does
not even allude to the plain, unvarnished tale which Busbecq tells—a
tale which he must have heard from the lips of the commander of the
Christian forces, his friend Don Alvaro de Sandé, and which he had
abundant opportunities of verifying from other sources.
The revival of the Eastern Question has drawn attention in France[2]
to the career and policy of one who was so successful as an ambassador
at Constantinople, and the life of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq has been
the subject of two treatises at least since 1860, while a far more
important work dealing with our author’s life is about to issue from
the press. Of this last we have been allowed to see the proof-sheets,
and we take this opportunity of expressing our obligation to the
author, Monsieur Jean Dalle, Maire de Bousbecque. His book is a
perfect storehouse of local information, and must prove invaluable
to any future historian of the Flemings. It is entitled _Histoire de
Bousbecque_.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hardly any author was
so popular as Busbecq. More than twenty editions[3] of his letters
were published in the literary capitals of Europe—Antwerp, Paris,
Bâle, Frankfort, Hanau, Munich, Louvain, Leipsic, London, Oxford and
Glasgow. His merits as a recorder of contemporary history are briefly
sketched by a writer of that period, who thus describes his despatches
to Rodolph: ‘C’est un portrait au naturel des affaires de France sous
le régne de Henri III. Il raconte les choses avec une naïveté si grande
qu’elles semblent se passer à nos yeux. On ne trouve point ailleurs
tant de faits historiques en si peu de discours. Les grands mouvemens,
comme la conspiration d’Anvers, et les petites intrigues de la cour
y sont également bien marquées. Les attitudes (pour ainsi dire) dans
lesquelles il met Henri III., la Reine Mere, le duc d’Alençon, le roi
de Navarre, la reine Marguerite, le duc de Guise, le duc d’Espernon, et
les autres Courtisans ou Favoris de ce tems-là, nous les montrent du
côté qui nous en découvre, à coup seur, le fort et le foible, le bon et
le mauvais.’[4]
All who have studied the letters of Busbecq will endorse this opinion;
nor is it possible for anyone even superficially acquainted with his
writings, not to recognise the work of a man who combined the rarest
powers of observation with the greatest industry and the greatest
honesty.
He was eminently what is called ‘a many-sided man’; nothing is above
him, nothing beneath him. His political information is important to the
soberest of historians, his gossiping details would gladden a Macaulay;
the Imperial Library at Vienna is rich with manuscripts and coins
of his collection. To him scholars owe the first copy of the famous
Monumentum Ancyranum. We cannot turn to our gardens without seeing the
flowers of Busbecq around us—the lilac, the tulip, the syringa. So much
was the first of these associated with the man who first introduced it
to the West, that Bernardin de Saint Pierre proposed to change its name
from lilac to Busbequia. Throughout his letters will be found hints for
the architect, the physician, the philologist, and the statesman; he
has stories to charm a child, and tales to make a grey-beard weep.
Of his careful and scientific investigations it is almost unnecessary
to cite examples. Never having seen a camelopard, and finding that one
had been buried at Constantinople, he had the animal dug up, and a
careful examination made of its shape and capabilities. On his second
journey to Constantinople he took a draughtsman with him, to sketch
any curious plants and animals he might find. He sent his physician to
Lemnos to make investigations with regard to Lemnian earth—a medicine
famous in those days; while he despatched an apothecary of Pera to the
Lake of Nicomedia to gather acorus[5] for his friend Mattioli, the
celebrated botanist.
While furnishing information of the highest value, Busbecq never
assumes the air of a pedant. He tells his story in a frank and genial
way, not unlike that of the modern newspaper correspondent. If to
combine amusement and instruction is the highest art in this branch
of literature, he would have been invaluable as a member of the staff
of some great newspaper. Among books, Kinglake’s _Eothen_ is perhaps
the nearest parallel to Busbecq’s Turkish letters; the former is more
finished in style—Busbecq evidently did not retouch his first rough
draft—but it does not contain one tithe of the information. Such is the
author for whom we venture to ask the attention of the English reader.
Even to those who can read the elegant Latin in which he wrote, it is
hoped that the notes and articles appended may be found interesting and
useful. They have been gleaned from many different quarters, and to a
great extent from books inaccessible to the ordinary student. This is
specially the case with the _Sketch of Hungarian History during the
Reign of Solyman_. In no modern writer were we able to find more than
scattered hints and allusions to the history of Hungary during this
important epoch, when it formed the battle-field on which the Christian
and the Mussulman were deciding the destinies of Europe.
The object of Busbecq’s mission was to stay, by the arts of diplomacy,
the advance of the Asiatic conqueror, to neutralise in the cabinet the
defeats of Essek and Mohacz. In this policy he was to a great extent
successful. He gained time; and in such a case time is everything. What
he says of Ferdinand is eminently true of himself.[6]
There are victories of which the world hears much—great battles,
conquered provinces, armies sent beneath the yoke—but there is also
the quiet work of the diplomatist, of which the world hears little. In
the eyes of those who measure such work aright, not even the hero of
Lepanto or the liberator of Vienna will hold a higher place among the
champions of Christendom than Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq.
_Removal of the Rubbish._
For the rebuilding of a house, it is absolutely necessary to remove the
rubbish with which the site is encumbered. Unfortunately, the process
is equally necessary in writing the life of Busbecq. There is rubbish
of ancient date and rubbish of modern date, which cannot be ignored and
must be removed. With regard to one story, a writer of the present time
is specially bound to protest. It is to be found in the treatise of
Monsieur Rouzière, entitled, _Notice sur Auger de Busbecq, Ambassadeur
du Roi Ferdinand_ 1^{er} _en Turquie, et de l’Empereur Rodolphe II.
en France_. There is the more need for warning the reader against it,
because Monsieur Rouzière ushers in his narrative with a long tirade
against similar inventions. ‘He is not,’ he tells us, ‘a professor of
history, or one of those knights of the quill who wander from town to
town discovering documents which, like the Sleeping Beauty, are waiting
for the champion who is to break the enchanter’s spell.’ Monsieur
Rouzière is specially bitter against ‘un Américain qui vient de mourir
en parcourant l’Europe pour faire des découvertes historiques, et
qui à l’Escurial avait fait la trouvaille d’une relation sur la mort
de don Carlos écrite par son valet-de-chambre.’ With this preamble,
he introduces his readers to the following story, which is simply a
romance of his own creation:
‘When Charles V. came to Flanders for the purpose of installing his
sister Mary, Queen of Hungary, in the government, he visited Comines,
in company with Gilles Ghiselin, Seigneur of Bousbecque, father of the
Ambassador. As they were entering the town, the Seigneur, entreating
Charles to wait for a few moments, knocked at the door of a house,
which, though unpretentious, had a dignity of its own. Out of it issued
a boy with sparkling eyes; so interesting was his appearance, that
the words, ‘O! what a lovely child!’ burst from the emperor’s lips.
The Seigneur bade the boy kneel down. ‘Ogier,’ said he, ‘look well at
your lord; when you are older you will serve him as faithfully as your
father and grandfather.’ He then informed the emperor that, not having
any legitimate children, he had allowed all his love to centre on this
offshoot, who, he fondly hoped, would one day be admitted into his
family.’
Monsieur Rouzière is certainly not fortunate in his story;[7] the
Seigneur’s name was George[8] and not Gilles, and he had, moreover,
three legitimate children. A house at Comines is shown as the scene of
this event, but from inquiries made on the spot, we have ascertained
that there is no tradition connecting it with Busbecq earlier than the
publication of Monsieur Rouzière’s treatise in 1860. He is a lively and
amusing writer. It is the more to be regretted that he has not regarded
the line which separates biography from romance.
Monsieur Huysmans, the well-known French artist, has also laid the
foundation of several errors in the striking picture which has been
purchased by the Belgian Government, and now adorns the Hôtel de Ville
of Belgian Comines. Its artistic merits make one regret the more that
he did not select one of the many dramatic events in Busbecq’s life,
instead of giving us a scene which not only is not recorded, but never
could have happened. In the first place, the date 1555 is wrong; in
no case could the scene have taken place earlier than 1556. Secondly,
Monsieur Huysmans has been led into error by a loose translation in the
French version of Busbecq’s letters by the Abbé de Foy. For some time
Busbecq was confined to his house by the Turkish authorities. De Foy,
in speaking of this curtailment of his liberty, uses the expression
‘une étroite prison’ (whence, by the way, some have supposed that
Busbecq was confined in the Seven Towers). Monsieur Huysmans, led
astray by this phrase, and imagining that the Ambassador was confined
in a prison, straightway concluded that if he was imprisoned he must
have been _arrested_. On this he grounded the subject of his work,
‘Soliman fait arrêter Busbecq, diplomat Flamand, Constantinople,
1555.’ There is also a striking error in the persons represented in
the picture. When Busbecq first arrived at Constantinople Roostem was
in disgrace, and Achmet held the post of chief Vizier. The latter had
only consented to accept the seal of office on condition that the
Sultan undertook never to remove him. The Sultan kept his word. When it
was convenient to reinstate Roostem, he did not deprive Achmet of the
seal of office, but _of his life_. The execution of Achmet is one of
the most striking scenes recorded by Busbecq. Unfortunately, Monsieur
Huysmans had not studied his subject sufficiently, for in his picture
Roostem is in office, and Achmet stands by as a subordinate.
As to errors of a less recent date, they are, for the most part, such
as an intelligent reader of Busbecq’s letters may correct for himself.
For instance, it is not hard to prove that the author of the life
prefixed to the Elzevir edition is wrong in stating that Busbecq’s
father died before the Ambassador went to England, when we find that
he had an interview with him after his return from our island. Neither
is there much danger of the veriest tiro being led astray by De Foy’s
suggestion that, when Busbecq came to England for the marriage of
Philip and Mary, he had long conversations with Henry VIII., who
tried to induce him to enter his service. There is, however, danger
in Howaert’s[9] statement that Busbecq accompanied the younger sons
of Maximilian to Spain, and introduced them to Philip. The story is
not impossible in itself, nor is it even improbable. But there is this
suspicious circumstance about it; those who mention it do not seem to
be aware that Busbecq did accompany the two elder sons of Maximilian,
Rodolph and Ernest, to Spain in the capacity of ‘_Écuyer trenchant_.’
This latter fact is established on the best of authorities, namely,
the Patent of knighthood issued by the Emperor Ferdinand to Busbecq,
a copy[10] of which we have, through the kindness of a friend, been
enabled to procure from the archives of Vienna.
That Busbecq accompanied the four younger Archdukes to Spain is perhaps
doubtful, and still more doubtful is the story grafted on to it by
later hands, namely, that Busbecq pleaded the cause of the Netherlands
before Philip II., obtained the recall of Alva and the substitution
of Requesens in his place. No facts could be more interesting if they
should but prove to be true; unfortunately they are at present without
authority.
_Bousbecque and its Seigneurs._
It is from the seigneury of Bousbecque that Ogier[11] Ghiselin takes
the name by which he is best known, Busbecq (Latin, Busbequius).
Properly of course his name is identical with that of the seigneury,
but, by common consent, the Ambassador is known as Busbecq, while
the name of the place, after numerous variations—Bosbeke, Busbeke,
Bousbeke, &c., has settled down into the form Bousbecque.[12]
It will be necessary therefore to speak of the man by one name and the
place by another.
The geographical position of Bousbecque has an important bearing on
the biography of the Ambassador; as the place is not marked in English
maps, a plan of the district is given in this volume showing the
relative positions of Bousbecque, Comines, Wervicq, Halluin, &c. It
will be seen that Bousbecque lies on the river Lys, about two miles
from Comines. In the times with which we shall have to deal, it formed
part of the County of Flanders; it is now part of the French frontier,
and is included in the Département du Nord.
The neighbourhood of Bousbecque has a history extending to early times,
for close to it stands Wervicq, marking with its name the Roman station
of Viroviacum; in Bousbecque itself Roman paving-stones have been dug
out on the road now known as the ‘Chemin des Oblaers;’ whence it may
be assumed that the road mentioned in the itinerary of Antoninus, as
running from Tournay to Wervicq, passed through Bousbecque.
The depth of the river Lys, which is an affluent of the Scheldt,
exposed the neighbouring country to the attacks of the Northmen; the
hardy pirates sailed up the stream, and built their castles and forts
on the banks of the river. Their descendants became the seigneurs, or
lords, of the territories which their ancestors had won.
A distinction must here be drawn between the seigneury of Bousbecque
and the parish (now commune) of Bousbecque. The parish of Bousbecque
contained a great many other seigneuries besides that from which it
takes its name; notably, for instance, the seigneuries of la Lys and
Rhume. The first mention of Bousbecque occurs in a deed, without
date, but necessarily between 1098 and 1113; in it Baudry, bishop of
Tournay, conveys to the Collegiate Chapter of St. Peter, at Lille, the
whole tithes of Roncq and half the tithes of Halluin and Bousbecque
(Busbeka).[13]
In 1159, Wautier, Seigneur of Halluin, husband of Barbe daughter of
the Count of Soissons, conveys to the Abbey of St. Aubert, with the
consent of his wife and his children—Wautier, Roger, Guillaume, Alix,
and Richilde—his share of the tithes of Iwuy. The Roger here mentioned,
married Agnes de Bousbecque; hence we see the high position held at
that early date by the family of Busbecq;[14] a daughter of their house
was considered a proper partner for a nobleman of royal family, the
grandson of a Comte de Soissons.
Adjoining the seigneury of Bousbecque lay the seigneury of la Lys, and
in 1298 both these seigneuries are found in the possession of the same
person, mention being made in the archives of Lille of ‘William de la
Lys, sire de Bousbeke, fius Monseigneur William de la Lys, ki fu sire
de Bousbeke.’
Thus for a time the title by which the family was known was not
Bousbecque, but la Lys.
In December 1348, was signed the Treaty of Dunkirk, by the Earl of
Lancaster, the Earl of Suffolk, and Sir Walter Manny on the part of
England, and on the part of Flanders, by ten delegates of rank; among
their names is found that of Jehan de la Lys.
About this time the seigneuries of la Lys and Bousbecque passed to
the house of Pontenerie; William of that name marrying Marie de la
Lys, heiress of the seigneuries, and assuming—no doubt as one of the
conditions of the contract—the name of la Lys. His children were
severally known as, Guillaume, Jeanne, and Marie de la Pontenerie, dit
de la Lys.
Again there was a failure in the male line, and Marie, the youngest
daughter, brought the seigneuries to Bauduin de Hingettes.
Their son, Jehan de Hingettes, married a Halluin, and dying in
1466, his daughter Adrienne de Hingettes, dit de la Lys, became
representative and heiress of the family. She married Gilles Ghiselin
I., and thus the seigneuries of la Lys and Bousbecque passed into the
possession of the noble house of Ghiselin.[15]
On the marriage of Adrienne to Gilles Ghiselin I. the title of la Lys
was dropped, and that of Bousbecque resumed.
Gilles Ghiselin I., Seigneur of Bousbecque, knight of Jerusalem and
Cyprus, was a man of considerable importance, and from the following
notice it would appear that he was a man of high character. In 1474
there was a dispute between the dean and chapter of Messines[16] on the
one side, and the abbess, convent, and church on the other. It appears
that the bailiffs of the abbess had arrested a man in a house belonging
to the dean and chapter. The chapter resented this intrusion on their
rights, and the case was submitted to two men for arbitration, Gilles
Ghiselin I. and Guillaume Wyts.
_George Ghiselin I., great uncle of the Ambassador._
Gilles Ghiselin I., died in 1476, leaving six children by his wife
Adrienne; two of whom, George and Gilles, were destined to occupy a
prominent part in the history of their time.
George, the elder, succeeded to the seigneury of Bousbecque; his
grandmother was a Halluin, and he also was married to a member of the
same house.
It is not improbable that he owed his promotion to a high place in
the Burgundian Court to the influence of Jeanne de la Clite, dame de
Comines, the wife of Jean Halluin, Seigneur of Halluin, and the head of
that important family.
At any rate this lady had an influence at the Court of Burgundy
which it is impossible to overestimate, and we find her husband’s
relations,[17] the Ghiselins of Bousbecque, occupying high positions
in the ducal household.
In June 1478, Mary of Burgundy, daughter and heiress of Charles the
Bold, was married to the Archduke Maximilian, afterwards Emperor;
George Ghiselin was appointed one of his chamberlains, and a member of
his council.
On August 7, 1479, there was a great battle at Guinegatte, between
Maximilian and the French. The latter were at first successful, their
men at-arms defeated Maximilian’s horse, and chased them off the field,
while the free-archers began plundering the baggage, and murdering the
non-combatants. But the battle had yet to be decided. Maximilian’s
army did not consist solely of horse, for there were two divisions of
Flemish pikemen on foot. To the surprise of Philippe de Comines, who
gives an account of the battle, the Flemish infantry were not shaken
by the defeat of the cavalry; the firm front which they showed was
probably owing to a custom which the Burgundians had adopted from their
English Allies. Their officers, who in this instance consisted of two
hundred of their own nobles and gentlemen, _fought on foot_. These two
divisions were severally commanded by the Count of Nassau and the
Count of Romont. As soon as a French force could be collected, it was
brought up to crush the Flemings; the Count of Nassau’s command was
hard pressed, and in spite of a gallant resistance, Maximilian’s guns
were taken, and turned on the Burgundians. At this critical moment,
the Count of Romont charged with his division, retook the guns, and
sweeping on, captured the whole of the French artillery, thirty-seven
pieces, with their camp and commissariat stores. This battle is
generally spoken of as an indecisive one, because Maximilian retired
instead of following up his success. His strategy may have been bad,
but, as to the great victory he gained, there can be no doubt. On the
Burgundian side, we have the account of Molinet, who tells us that the
French lost ten thousand men, thirty-seven guns, and their camp with
all its stores. On the French side, we have the account of Philippe
de Comines, who endeavours to represent it as a drawn battle; but he
does not disguise the effect which the news of this defeat had on his
master, Louis XI. He was with him when the tidings came, and _from
that very hour_, he tells us, _the French king determined to make
peace with Maximilian_. It was on the field of Guinegatte[18] that
George Ghiselin, Seigneur of Bousbecque, in company with nine other
gentlemen, received knighthood at the hand of Maximilian. It seems
certain that he was fighting on foot, with his retainers, in the ranks
of the Flemish pikemen.
The scene now changes from the battle-field to the scaffold. The
Flemings, as represented by their four members—Ghent, Bruges, Ypres,
and the belt of villages known as the Francq—were anxious for peace
with France. They had also serious grievances against Maximilian (now
King of the Romans) and his ministers. They declared that the latter
had misappropriated the revenues, and the former been more grievous in
his exactions than Philippe le Bon or Charles the Bold.
They also objected to having German troops quartered in the country.
Early in 1488 the smouldering fires of insurrection burst into a flame.
Curiously enough, Maximilian’s treatment of a friend and relation
of the Busbecqs was the proximate cause of the outbreak. Adrien de
Vilain,[19] Seigneur of Rasenghien, had been one of the leaders of the
Gantois after the outbreak in 1485. He had subsequently retired to
Lille, with the approval of Maximilian, who had given him a pardon.
Here no doubt he felt safe in the neighbourhood of the Ghiselins of
Bousbecque and other friends; but one day he was seized by Charlot de
Menneville and a party of the Count of Nassau’s archers, who carried
him off, and imprisoned him in the castle of Villevorde. His relations
were naturally incensed at this breach of faith, and one morning, when
the warden of the castle had gone to Brussels, Vilain’s first cousin,
Adrien de Lickerke, rode into Villevorde with thirteen of his friends;
leaving the rest in the town, he proceeded to the castle with three of
his companions, and knocked at the gate. The porter at first refused
to admit them, but by dint of entreaties, backed by the offer of a
handsome reward, his scruples were at last overcome. On entering, they
asked for Adrien Vilain. The porter replied that he was no longer in
the castle; but a glance into the court-yard disproved his words, for
there was the prisoner drearily pacing up and down in his gown. De
Lickerke went up to him. ‘You have been here long enough, fair cousin,’
quoth he, ‘come back with us.’ Vilain’s gown (the civilian dress), was
quickly exchanged for a soldier’s doublet, and a hat placed on his
head. The porter, seeing their intentions, attempted to raise an alarm,
but they hustled him against the wall, and nearly killed him. Quitting
the castle with the prisoner they joined their friends in the town, and
taking horse rode for their lives. Avoiding Brussels, they made for
Tournai, some seventy miles distant, not sparing the spur till they
were in a place of safety.
Whether Maximilian had authorised the seizure of Vilain or not, at any
rate he was deeply annoyed at his escape. De Lickerke was now a marked
man; probably he thought that his safety lay in boldness, for he put
himself at the head of 3,000 Gantois, and one wintry night (January
9, 1488) took Courtrai[20] by surprise, making the inhabitants swear
allegiance to Philippe (Maximilian’s infant son) and the Gantois.
The King of the Romans was at this time at Bruges, where the States
were assembled to conclude a peace with France. The Gantois had
committed themselves; it was time for the Brugeois to rise. On the
last day of January, 1488, the guild of carpenters made the first move
by seizing two of the gates of Bruges,[21] those of St. Catherine and
Ghent. Maximilian, with his officers, attendants, and body-guard lay at
the Palace (Prinssenhof), not far from the centre of the town; with him
were Pierre Lauchast, Carondelet the Chancellor, George Ghiselin, and
other faithful followers.
It is difficult to say whether his best plan would have been to remain
quiet, or to follow the example of Philippe le Bon,[22] put himself at
the head of his guard, and fight his way out of the city. Unfortunately
for himself and his friends, he took a middle course. On February 1,
between five and six in the morning, he marched into the market-place
with his household troops. Leaving the larger portion of them there,
he proceeded with his personal attendants to the gates of Ghent and
St. Catherine, where he met with scant courtesy from the guard of
carpenters.
Meanwhile the troops in the market-place had been standing round a huge
bonfire, and it occurred to their commanding officer that it would be
a good opportunity to put them through their drill. He gave the order
for them to execute a German[23] manœuvre, ‘Faison le limechon à la
mode d’Allemagne,’ and marched them round the square in fours. Next he
gave the order for them to bring their pikes to the charge; there was a
crowd looking on, and, imagining they were about to be attacked, they
fled in confusion and dismay. Maximilian, hearing the uproar, returned,
and led his men back to their quarters. No blood had been shed, but the
mischief had been done.
At twelve o’clock the same day the trades of Bruges met at their
several halls, arms were served out, flags were unfurled, and columns
of citizens streamed into the market-place. There they formed a
regular encampment, planting their fifty-two banners, throwing up
entrenchments, and arming them with cannon.
The Brugeois were now masters of the situation. On February 5, at the
request of the Gantois, they compelled Maximilian to leave his palace,
and lodged him in the famous grocer’s shop in the market-place, known
as the Cranenburg. But the king of the Romans was not the chief object
of their wrath; it was against his ministers that they vowed their
direst vengeance. A reign of terror commenced; rewards were offered
for the apprehension of Pierre Lauchast and others connected with the
treasury. Maximilian’s friends and advisers were compelled to seek
safety in concealment or in flight.
George Ghiselin had his head tonsured, and assumed the dress of a
mendicant friar of the Augustin order. In this disguise he attempted
to leave the city. Unfortunately he was recognised at the gate, and
arrested.
Shortly afterwards he was called up for examination before the town
judges, in company with Jehan Van Ninove, and a sergeant named
Bontemps. The court had not sat for a full hour, when the dean of the
carpenters brought a detachment of his men to the door, and threatened
to break it open. The judges, seeing that resistance was useless,
allowed them to seize the unfortunate prisoners, whom they straightway
carried off to the market-place, and there examined after their own
fashion.
The deans of the different trades had enclosed a space for the purpose
of holding their consultations; in the middle of this enclosure stood a
rack, specially constructed for torturing victims of different sizes.
Hard by was a scaffold of unusual size, and there, waiting for his
prey, stood Maistre Charles, the executioner of Bruges.
Jehan Van Ninove’s turn came first. He was frightfully tortured,
his legs being actually dislocated. Whilst he was being racked,
proclamation was made that he had agreed with Pierre Lauchast to bring
the troops of the guard into the town for the purpose of intimidating
the citizens of Bruges. Bontemps was then tortured, but George Ghiselin
was respited. The unfortunate prisoners had now no doubt as to what
their ultimate fate would be, and they all three asked to be executed,
and forgave those who had compassed their death.
There was one listening on whose ears the words fell with no unwelcome
sound; Maistre Charles[24] had an eye to his fees, and determined
that there should be no delay on his part. In a trice he was on the
scaffold, getting out his swords and preparing his bandages. Then,
louder than thunder, swelled the shouting in the market-place, some
demanding their immediate execution, and some its postponement. The
latter prevailed. Maistre Charles was disappointed of his prey, and the
unhappy men were sent back to prison.
On February 28, the leading spirits of the insurrection being absent
from the town and engaged in an attack on Middelbourg, the town judges
made a most meritorious effort to save the lives of these victims of
mob law. They called them up for sentence.[25] Maistre Charles was
again in high glee; his swords and bandages were all ready, and his
palm itching for the fees. He must have been greatly cast down when
the judges passed a merely nominal sentence on George Ghiselin and
his companions; they were to beg pardon in their shirts of the deans,
make some pilgrimages, and distribute certain sums in charity; the
only object of the sentence being to satisfy the people. There was now
a gleam of hope for the unhappy men; but, unfortunately, Middelbourg
surrendered the same day, and the ringleaders, returning in triumph,
were furious at this attempt to frustrate their vengeance. They seized
the unfortunate prisoners, and racked them again in the market-place.
On the next day, February 29, 1488, Maistre Charles once more made his
preparations, and this time he was not disappointed. Bontemps, whose
turn came last, was pardoned by the mob, now glutted with blood, but
the rest were all executed, and amongst them died that gallant knight,
George Ghiselin, Seigneur of Bousbecque.
_Gilles Ghiselin II., Grandfather of the Ambassador._
George Ghiselin left no children, and on his death the seigneury of
Bousbecque passed to his brother Gilles. The latter appears to have
entered the public service at an earlier period than his elder brother.
Gilles won his spurs from Charles the Bold, and George from Maximilian.
At home and at court, Gilles Ghiselin II. must necessarily have
been brought into contact with a man of world-wide fame—Philippe de
Comines,[26] the father of modern history. Living within two miles of
each other during their boyhood, and connected by marriage, they were
both at an early age introduced into the household of Charles the Bold.
The famous Duke of Burgundy made a point of gathering[27] round him and
educating his young nobles. Philippe de Comines entered his service
when he was about seventeen years old, and it is not improbable that
Gilles Ghiselin II. joined his court at the same time. It will be
necessary here to give some account of the posts which the two young
men severally filled. In the ducal household[28] there were fifty
bread-servers, fifty cupbearers, fifty carvers, and fifty equerries,
each of whom in battle was accompanied by a swordbearer, and the whole
body was commanded by four captains. Thus the officers of Charles the
Bold’s house were formed into an organised band of picked troops. In
this body Philippe de Comines was enrolled as a cup-bearer, ‘_écuyer
échanson_,’ and Gilles Ghiselin II. as a carver, ‘_écuyer trenchant_.’
They were both at a later date appointed chamberlains to the duke,
and members of his council; they were also both knighted by their
Sovereign, and not improbably on the same occasion.
Philippe de Comines is supposed to have won his spurs on the occasion
of the Burgundian and French armies entering Liege, an event rendered
familiar to English readers by the pages of _Quentin Durward_. Gilles
Ghiselin II. may have received the accolade at the same time.
In August 1472, Philippe de Comines deserted his master, and threw in
his lot with Louis XI. of France. Gilles Ghiselin remained constant
to the house of Burgundy in sunshine and in shade. He accompanied his
master in his numerous campaigns, and was with him at the fatal battle
of Nancy.[29]
Gilles Ghiselin must have taken part in many a victory, but it is only
the disastrous defeat that is recorded by his descendant on his tomb.
That inscription must have been placed by one who valued loyalty above
success, and merit above reward. We know who caused that inscription to
be engraved; it was his grandson, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq.
The death of his master on the fatal field of Nancy, January 1477,
apparently marks the termination of Gilles Ghiselin’s military career.
Though he did not become Seigneur of Bousbecque till after his
brother’s death in 1488, there was probably some family arrangement
by which he resided at the château, and represented its absent
lord. During his service under Duke Charles, he must have acquired
considerable wealth, for shortly after his return to Bousbecque he
built the noble church[30] which still stands as a memorial of his
munificence. He also rebuilt, or more probably restored, the seigneur’s
château, the family residence of the Busbecqs, and there with his wife,
Agnes Gommer, he settled down to lead the life of a country gentleman.
He was, however, too valuable a man to be left without work. In 1480,
three years after the battle of Nancy, he was appointed High Bailiff
of Ypres, ‘grand bailly de la ville, salle et châtellenie d’Ypres.’
This important town, which formed one of the four members of Flanders,
is situated about ten miles north of Bousbecque. About six miles from
either of these places lies Messines, of which his sister Marie was
lady-abbess. The castles of Halluin and Comines were both in the hands
of his relations; while in the important town of Lille, Gilles Ghiselin
and his wife had a magnificent hotel, whither after her husband’s death
Agnes Gommer retired to end her days. It will be seen, therefore, that
Gilles Ghiselin II., the grandfather of the Ambassador, was, at this
period of his life, a man of very high position and influence. Unlike
his brother George, he did not accept any office in the household of
Maximilian. It would appear that if Gilles Ghiselin II. was a loyal
subject, he was no less a loyal Fleming, and had little taste for the
service of the German Archduke, who had been married by his Sovereign.
That this is the true reading of his story may be gathered with fair
probability from the records of Bousbecque church. It was built by
Gilles Ghiselin about 1480. In 1485 a window was presented to this
church, blazoned with the arms of Ghent and Rasenghien, by a distant
relation of the family, Adrien Vilain, Seigneur of Rasenghien, whose
story has already been told. Now in 1485 Adrien Vilain was one of
the leaders of the Gantois in opposing Maximilian. It may fairly be
inferred that his views met with some sympathy from his friend at
Bousbecque. To admit such a window into his church was not the way to
curry favour with Maximilian.
With regard to Maximilian’s son Philippe le Beau, Gilles Ghiselin was
in a different position. He was the child not only of Maximilian, but
also of Mary of Burgundy, and the grandson of his old master Charles
the Bold. Moreover, the early education of Philippe had been entrusted
to the neighbour, connection, and doubtless intimate friend and ally of
the Busbecqs, Jeanne de la Clite,[31] of whom mention has already been
made. She probably exercised considerable influence over the selection
of the officers of the young prince’s household, and it is not
surprising to find that Gilles Ghiselin II. filled the post of _écuyer
trenchant_.[32]
It is not probable that Philippe le Beau had like his grandfather fifty
squires to discharge the duties of this office. It is more likely that
Gilles Ghiselin II. was his sole _écuyer trenchant_, though it is
possible that he may have had one or two coadjutors.
On attaining his eighteenth year Philippe was united to Joanna the
second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. In its political
issues this marriage was probably the most important event of its kind
in the history of the world. Philippe was already Sovereign of the Low
Countries, as his mother’s heir; through his father he was entitled
to the reversion of the possessions of the house of Hapsburg, and had
practically a claim on the Imperial title. Joanna, on her part, was
destined to become by the death of her brother and her nephew heiress
of Spain, and to transmit not only Spain itself, but vast empires in
the western hemisphere to the descendants of this marriage.
Of Philippe and Joanna were born two sons, Charles V., the famous
Emperor, and Ferdinand, who was born in Spain, and brought up there
by his grandfather Ferdinand of Aragon, to whom his brother resigned
Austria, Styria, and the Tyrol, and who succeeded eventually to the
Imperial title. The last of these two princes specially commands
our notice, for he it was who invited young Ogier Ghiselin into
his service, and sent him first to England, and afterwards to
Constantinople.
In November 1501 Philippe and Joanna left the Netherlands for a visit
to Spain. The Count of Nassau was entrusted with the government of the
country, and with the care of their children whom they left behind
them. Their family then consisted of Charles, the future Emperor, and
his two sisters, Leonora[33] and Elizabeth.[34] Mechlin was appointed
as their residence, and an establishment was created for them, in which
the post of _premier écuyer trenchant_ was assigned to Gilles Ghiselin,
who had been the faithful servant of their father and their great
grandfather.
Gilles Ghiselin did not live to see his young master and mistresses
ascend the thrones, to which they were destined; he died in 1514, full
of years and honours.
The careers of George and Gilles Ghiselin had an important bearing on
the destinies of Ogier; his credentials to Ferdinand were the eminent
services of his grandsire and great uncle.
Possibly the calm courage with which he faced the prospect of death
and torture at Constantinople, may have arisen in some degree from the
memory of what his ancestors had been.
In Bousbecque church still stands the monument which marks Ogier’s
regard for the grandsire he never saw.
To this object he devoted what was probably the first large sum he was
able to save from his salary as ambassador.
It bears the date 1559, and the following inscription:—
CY GIST MESSIRE GILLES CHEVALIER SEIGNEUR DE BOUSBEKE
FILZ DE FEU GILLES AUSSY CHEVALIER EN SON TEMPS S^R DUDICTE
BOUSBEKE DU HEULLEHOF ET WASTINES &C EN SON TEMPS ESCUIER
TRENCHANT A FEU DUC CHARLE DE BOURGOGNE LE SERVIT A LA
JOURNEE DE NANSY ET DEPUIS AU DICT ESTAT A TRES PUISSANT
ROY PHILIPPE DE CASTILLE ET PREMIER ESCUIER TRENCHANT A
MESSEUR LES ENFFANS DU ROY QUAND IL SE PARTIT DES PAYS
DEMBAS POUR ESPAIGNE LEQUEL TERMINA VIE PAR MORT LE XVIII^E
JO^R DU MOIS D’APVRIL ANNO XV^CXIIII ET DAME AGNIES GOMMER SA
COMPAIGNE EN SON TEMPS DAME DESPLANQUES, ET DE LE PHALESQUES
LAQUELLE TERMINA VIE PAR MORT LE SECOND JOUR DE JUILLET
XV^CXLI PROES DIEU POUR LEURS AMES.
_Jeanne de la Clite and her son George Halluin._
Hitherto the family history has been traced, but before proceeding
further, it will be necessary to describe the man to whom the
Ambassador must have owed more than to anyone else.
This was George Halluin, son of Jeanne de la Clite, cousin of Philippe
de Comines,[35] and an intimate friend of the great Erasmus. Mention
has already been made of alliances between the Busbecqs and the
Halluins; in the map it will be seen that Bousbecque lies half way
between Halluin and Comines, being about two miles distant from either.
Towards the end of the fourteenth century, Colard de la Clite I.
married Jeanne de Wazières, Lady of Comines, and thus became seigneur
of the place. He had two sons, (1) Jean de la Clite I.,[36] Seigneur of
Comines, guardian of Philippe de Comines; (2) Colard de la Clite II.,
dit de Comines, father of Philippe de Comines.
Jean de la Clite I. married Jeanne de Ghistelles, and had a son, Jean
de la Clite II., who was united to Jeanne d’Estouteville.
The sole child of the pair last mentioned was Jeanne de la Clite, who
was destined to exercise so important an influence on the current of
modern history.
It will be seen therefore that Jeanne de la Clite was the
granddaughter, and Philippe de Comines the nephew, of Jean de la Clite
I., but though the girl belonged to a younger generation, she was older
than her cousin Philippe, having been born in the Castle of Comines in
1440, while the historian was born in the same place in 1445.
Philippe de Comines, being yet a child when his father died, was handed
over to the care of his uncle; and there is a manifest probability that
he and Jeanne were brought up together. His name is famous, she was one
of the most accomplished women of her age. As she was so much older,
it is probable that hers was the predominating influence: what that
influence was likely to be may be traced in the education she bestowed
on her son.
Charles the Bold, as has been already stated, made his court a sort of
school for young men of noble birth; it was not likely therefore that
he would neglect the education of his only child.
He provided for it by appointing Jeanne de la Clite as _première
gouvernante_ to the young princess.
On three remarkable occasions in the life of Mary of Burgundy we meet
with Jeanne de la Clite; (1) when tidings came of the disastrous defeat
of Nancy, and the death of Duke Charles, the Chancellor Hugonet asked
Jeanne de la Clite[37] to break the news to her young mistress before
he himself made the official announcement; (2) when it was proposed to
marry the princess to the Dauphin of France, a sickly child of eight,
Jeanne de la Clite[38] put her veto on the project. Her interference
was not altogether approved of by the Burgundian Council, but it was
decisive; (3) Mary of Burgundy’s first-born, Philippe le Beau, was
baptised when six days old. Jean Molinet, the court chronicler,
thought it necessary to record the order in which the great nobles and
ladies went to the ceremony: of Jeanne de la Clite[39] we read that she
stopped behind to take care of her young mistress.
After Mary’s accession to the throne, Jeanne de la Clite became her
_première dame d’honneur_; her next office was _gouvernante_ to
Philippe le Beau, who lost his mother when he was scarce five years
old. She saw her young charge grow up, and became _dame d’honneur_ to
his wife, the unfortunate Joanna of Spain, accompanying her in that
capacity to Spain in 1501.
She had been _gouvernante_ to Mary of Burgundy, and in all probability
she was present at the birth and christening of her grandchildren,
Charles and Ferdinand, but her long connection with the royal family
was now to terminate. Of her own choice she retired to Comines, and
spent her last days in ministering to the welfare of her people.
Her important duties had not prevented her forming domestic ties.
Early in life she was married to Jean Halluin, or Halewin, Seigneur of
Halluin, and chief of what may be termed the Halluin clan,[40] bringing
as her marriage portion the important seigneury of Comines. Five
children were the fruit of this marriage, three daughters, Wautier, who
died young, and George Halluin.
The last succeeded to the seigneuries of Halluin and Comines, and
also to the title[41] which had been bestowed on his mother for her
eminent services. George Halluin was born in 1470, his father died in
1473, so that, from his earliest infancy, his mother must have had the
supreme direction of his education. Probably no woman was ever better
fitted for the task. It is remarkable that Philippe de Comines, who
was an excellent modern linguist, regretted deeply his ignorance of
the ancient languages, when we couple this circumstance with the fact
that his cousin and playmate, Jeanne, gave her son an education which
made him one of the first Latin scholars of his age. With regard to
his literary merits, we can produce two unimpeachable witnesses; the
one is a man whose name was for centuries familiar to the schoolboy,
Jean Despauteres, the writer of Latin grammars, the other is the great
Erasmus.
Long before his mother had resigned her influential position at the
Court, George Halluin had grown to man’s estate. A brilliant career,
accompanied with wealth and high honours, seemed the manifest destiny
of the young Seigneur. He was a gallant knight, placed at the head, not
only of numerous vassals, but also of an important clan. His advice
was sought by his Sovereign, and his voice in the council chamber was
listened to with respect.[42]