Thank you for this question. The motives of the author, who calls himself a “zekeren liefhebbere des vaderlants” (“a certain devotee of the fatherland”), are clear from the two verses on the title page. He states: “Van eendracht en vrede spreken, en is niet quaet: // Maer ick pryse hem, die vrede soect metter daet.” So he would rather appreciate it if the author of the original pamphlet would effectively be seeking to conclude peace. This becomes immediately apparent from the first refutation of the original pamphlet, on fol. A2 verso, where the anonymous author of the Brussels reply says, that the pamphlet is only meant to agitate, to threaten and to frighten (“alleenlyck om ons te beroeren, dreygen, vervaert te maecken”).
Comments
why would a Brussels printer print a tract against Dutch reunification plans? 70 arguments that is a lot.
Lode Goukens — December 16, 2013
Dear colleague,
Thank you for this question. The motives of the author, who calls himself a “zekeren liefhebbere des vaderlants” (“a certain devotee of the fatherland”), are clear from the two verses on the title page. He states: “Van eendracht en vrede spreken, en is niet quaet: // Maer ick pryse hem, die vrede soect metter daet.” So he would rather appreciate it if the author of the original pamphlet would effectively be seeking to conclude peace. This becomes immediately apparent from the first refutation of the original pamphlet, on fol. A2 verso, where the anonymous author of the Brussels reply says, that the pamphlet is only meant to agitate, to threaten and to frighten (“alleenlyck om ons te beroeren, dreygen, vervaert te maecken”).
Best wishes, and happy holidays!
Goran
Goran Proot — December 18, 2013