Otto Gerritsz van Oist was Beheaded for His Participation in Jan van Arkel's 1436 Attack on Utrecht

                   "Beheading of Anabaptist Martyrs" ~1640 by "School of Rembrandt van Rijn"

                        

It hasn't been proved that Otto Gerritsz van Oist was the father of Willem Ottens, but for the reasons put forth in my last post, in my opinion he's the best candidate, and the only candidate that can explain the family's recurring use of various forms of the surname Swaim.

I recently found another source that gives a bit more detail about the incident mentioned by Abraham Kempt in relation to Otto Gerritsz van Oist, and based on the new information I've had to revise the outcome of that incident for Otto Gerritsz., as the title of this post indicates. I had not property translated Kemp's passage and hadn't realized that he'd said the 17 men of van Arkel who had been captured had been executed by the Utrecht authorities. Kemp had not used a word meaning executed, but rather the word om gebrocht (now spelled om gebracht) meaning simply killed or slain. My error was partly in misinterpreting this word of Kemp's, but also Kempt himself appears to have chosen too general of a word for the act that had occurred. Of course in an execution a person is always killed, but because an execution is a very specific subset of killing, Kemp should have used a word that would convey that specifice meaning. As we will see, the author of this new account of this incident uses the word onthooft (onthoofd), which means beheaded/decapitated. In the Netherlands at that time most beheadings were due to executions, so this word conveyed the concept of execution, but also the specific method of execution. It may have been meant to imply other information abou the execution, as in England beheading was the method of execution always used on the nobility; however, I don't know whether or not this was true in the Netherlands. The picture I included above shows religious "heretics" being beheaded, so perhaps not; but on the other hand, the executions of heretics at that time were being conducted at the behest of Spaniards rather than the Dutch, and they possibly had different ideas on the social proprieties of the various forms of execution.

 From my erroneous reading of Kemp's account of the 1436 attack on Utrecht led by Jan van Arkel van Heukelom, I had somehow had the impression that the 17 men captured by Utrecht had been set free. However, after reading the account of that incident presented in the source that I had newly discovered, which was a book written in 1758, I came to believe that those 17 men, including Otto Gerritsz van Oist, had indeed been executed. There was one sentence in this account that leaves that conclusion somewhat ambiguous, but on the whole I think there's little doubt that the 17 men were executed.

This new source is:

Utrechtsche jaarboeken van de vijftiende eeuw (googleusercontent.com)

A translation of a short version of this title might be The Yearbook of Utrecht in the Fifthteenth Century, Part One. It was published in 1758 and involves events in Utrecht during through much of the first half of the 1400's. The author was Kasper Burman, about whom I know nothing.

The event in which we're interested is described on pages 469-470, the text of which is:

In het begin van dit jaar is de Stadt Utrecht, ſchoon alomme bevredicht, en met niemand oorlog voerende of twiſt hebbende , dan alleen met Wal raven van Meurs en zyne aanhangeren , in groot gevaar geweeſt van overvallen te worden . Deze aanſlag was geſineet door Jan van Arkel, Heer van Heukelom , de eenigfte overgebleve manlyk oir van het oudt en aanzienlyk geflacht der Arkels: Ik vinde niet , dat eenig ongelyk door de Utrech tenaars hem aangedaan is , waar door hy wettige redenen gehadt heeft ,om tot dit beſluit te komen . Waarom ik met den Heer Kemp ( [Beſchryv, van Gorinchem bladz. 254]) vaſt ſtelle , dat de begeerte om wraak te oeffenen , over 'tgeen voortyrs door de Utrechtenaars tegens het huis van Arkel, (waar van wy hier boven verhaal hebben gedaan) begaan was ,hem hier toe heeft aangezet. Deze eenigvolk by een vergadert hebbende,heeft vooraf eenige gewapende mannen Stadtwaarts aan gezonden , zelfs hen met zyn heir op de hielen volgende , naar alle waarſchynlykheit om door die een der poorten te doen overvallen en ver meeſteren , en om dan de Stadt met zyn volk te lichter te overrompelen. Doch deze aanſlag is mislukt, dewyl de eerſtkomende gevangen zyn ge. worden , en hy dus genootzaakt te rug te trekken.

Dewyl nu dit vyandlyk voornemen geſmeet, en by na ter uitvoer gebracht was, zonder aanzeggin ge van oorlog , zoo heeft de Raadt zeventien dier gevangenen ter dood veroordeelt, te weten , Jan , Dirk , Wouter en Steven van Grootenveld , Roever van Bolk , Jan Roever van Bolk , Alard van Weſe , Gelis Dirks zoon van Meerten , Wouter Jan Reiners zoon , Joban Gysberts zoon , Johan Dirks zoon , Govert die Buyn , Otto Gerrits zoon van Oift, Remkyn die Weert, Willem van Hamme, Gerit Krauwel, en Gerit Stevens zoon; en zyn vier andere gevan genen losgelaten. De eerſtgemelde zyn alle den xix, February onthooft , en heeft de Raadt, om dezę buitengewoone gerechts-oeffeninge by te wonen , door eenę Stadesbode aan Jonkheer van Brederode, Dirk van der Merwe, en HeerJan van Langerak en zynen broeder verzocht in de Stadtte komen , en de Steden Amersfoort , Deventer , Campen en Zwolt daar van kenniſſe gegeven . Alle deze gevangenen hebben op Hafenberg gezeten , en zyn eenige mannen geſchikt, om toe te zien, dat zy des nachts pięt ontkwamen , welke wakers ieder nacht gekre, gen hebben aan bier een braspenning , zoo als my gebleken is uit des eerſtens Cameraars rekeninge , uit welke ik ookgezien hebbe , dat te dezer tydt de Stadt een Zegel heeft laten maken , wegende vier loot zilvers,om hunne brieven daarmede te zegelen.

This book is unfortunately this is one of those old books in which the font uses the letter f to indicate the lowercase s in addition to the lowercase f . This was common in English as well as Dutch books, but it can lead to some ambiguity as to the meaning of a few words. 

In this text, the man spelled “Otto Geritsz. van Oist” is spelled as “Otto Gerrits zoon van Oift”:

For comparison, here again is the text from Abraham Kemp's book:

Both fonts used the “f” for "s", but, oddly, in different places. The top (Burman) text used the "f" in Oist but not it "Gerrits," whereas the Kemp text used the "f" in "Geritsz" and the other "s"-like symbol in "Oist". Presumably the Kemp text was making some distinction in sound difference by using this symbol in "Oist", but the difference was probably subtle and possibly lost on ears attuned to the standard Dutch of the day. 

Since these small differences in transcribing Otto Gerritsz' name appear to make no difference in our understanding of who he was, they are of little importance us. However, the translation of the text itself makes a great difference in our understanding of the events in which he was involved in 1436, and we want a translation that conveys the exact meaning that Burman intended to convey in his Dutch text. Since I don't speak Dutch and my knowledge of Dutch history is not very detailed, I'm definitely not the best person to translate Burman's text. Therefore, no one should consider my translation to be the best translation possible. Nonetheless, it's the only one available right now, so here it is: 

At the beginning of this year [1436], although the City of Utrecht was everywhere peaceful and not at war with anyone except with Walraven van Meurs and his followers, it was in great danger of being attacked. This attack was conceived by Jan van Arkel, Lord of Heukelom, the only surviving male of the ancient and distinguished family of the Arkels: I do not think that anything ill was done to Jan van Arkel by the Utrechters that gave him a legitimate reason to attack Utrecht. I therefore conclude along with Mr. Kemp that he was motivated by the desire to exact revenge for what was previously committed by the people of Utrecht against the house of Arkel (of which we have told above).

Having gathered his army, Jan van Arkel sent some armed men ahead of the others, the rest of the men following behind, the intention being to overtake the gates, go through them and overwhelm the people of Utrecht with the army. But this attempt failed, and the following named men of Jan van Arkel were taken prisoner, and Jan van Arkel was compelled to withdraw with those who weren't captured.

Now that this nearly-successful enemy attack was thwarted, which had occurred without a declaration of war, the Utrecht Council sentenced to death seventeen of the prisoners of Jan van Arkel's army; to wit, Jan, Dirk, Wouter and Steven van Grootenveld, Roever van Bolk, Jan Roever van Bolk, Alard van Wese, Gelis Dirk's zoon van Meerten, Wouter Jan Reiner's zoon, Joban Gysbert's zoon, Joban Dirk's zoon Govert die Buyn , Otto Gerrits zoon van Oist, Remkyn die Weert, Willem van Hamme, Gerit Krauwel, and Gerit Stevens zoon. Four other prisoners were released. On the 19^th of February the aforementioned men were beheaded.

The Utrecht Council requested the following men to attend these extraordinary court proceedings, sending a City Messenger [Stadesbode] to invite Jonkheer van Brederode, Dirk van der Merwe, and Heer Jan van Langerak and his brother to come to the City; and also the cities of Amersfoort, Deventer, Campen and Zwoll were informed of the proceedings.

All these prisoners had been at Hasenberg, and had arranged a few men to see that they escaped by night, who every night had received a beer and a brass penny, as I have seen from the first Camerar's account....

[Or perhaps the last paragraph means that the guards were posted to prevent an escape by night, and were paid for their service in beer and coin]

(end of translation)

So Burman is saying:

The attack occurred at a time when Utrecht was at relative peace with its neighbors, the only major controversy being that involving a man named Walraven van Meurs and his followers.  Van Meurs was a "counter-bishop" in a succession controversy over who was the proper bishop of Utrecht. This controvery involved more than simply religion, since the bishop of Utrecht was also its ruler, and the bishop's power also extended to Overijssel, which was larger than Utrecht itself. Burman says that Jan van Arkel's attack on Utrecht had nothing to do with the then-current controversies regarding Utrecht, but was probably due to a desire for revenge for Utrecht's part in the van Arkel family's destruction that had occurred about 24 years previous to 1436. Jan van Arkel's attack was also made without a formal declaration of war, and Burman may be implying that this made the attack particularly egregious. 

Jan van Arkel sent 17 men ahead of the rest of the main army, the number of which is not given, and those 17 men were somehow captured and apparently Jan van Arkel's attack on Utrecht ended, which must mean that he had relied almost entirely on the effectiveness of a sneak attack. I doubt very much that Jan van Arkel's forces came anywhere close to being as numerous as Utrecht's.

The 17 men of van Arkel were imprisoned in Hasenberg, which housed Utrecht's city hall, and Utrecht's city council voted to execute the 17 men. Various Overijssel cities were informed of the proceedings, and the nobles van Brederode, van der Merwe, and two van Langeraks were asked to attend the proceedings, probably because some of the prisoners were nobles and the city wanted witnesses that their judgement was fair and unbiased. From the Geni tree it appears that Jan van Langerak's grandmother was a van Arkel van Heukelom, so he was probably presumed to be an impartial witness. The van Brederode was probably Reinoud II van Brederode (1415-1473); it was probably his son Walraven II that Jan Zweym Willems later worked for.

The 17 men were found guilty and were executed on February 19, 1436.

The one ambiguity here lies with Burman's sentence saying that the 17 men had arranged to escape at night by bribing the guards with beer and money, but Burman doesn't say that any of these men actually did escape, so therefore it must be assumed that all of them were, in fact, beheaded. 

Four other men had been captured but released, although Burman doesn't explain why they were released rather than also executed.

I've found one other source that mentions this incident (citing Burman), although much more briefly than even Kemp's account and also nameds only 9 of the 17 executed men:

         De Navorscher, P. Leendertz, 1877 (De Navorscher (googleusercontent.com)

This translates to:

Roever van Bolk and Jan Roever van Bolk, with Jan, Dirk, Wouter and Steven van Grootveld, Gerit Krauwel, Alard van Wese and Jelis van Meerten Dirksz. by the council of the city of Utrecht condemned to death as captive fellows of Jan van Arkel, lord of Hoekelom, who had forged an attack against Utrecht, Feb 19. 1436 beheaded (Burman, Utr. Jaarb., I, 470).

Here's my re-translation of Kemp's text:

At the beginning of the year 1436 Johan van Arkel, the 8th lord of Heukelem (and the only remaining male branch of the Arkel lineage before 1412) made an attack on Utrecht. This attack was not part of the dispute there [probably the “Utrecht Schism”], because the house of Arkel had fallen before 1413. But those he had sent armed had fallen into the hands of the Utrecht men and 17 of those men of Johan van Arkel were on Monday after Lent, in the evening, and were slain/executed on the on the Zulle.

 These 17 men were Johan, Dirk, Wouter, and Steven van Grootenveld, Roever van Bolk , van Roever van Bolk, Alard van Wese, Gelis Dirksz. van Meerten, Wouter van Remersz. Johan Gijsbertsz. Johan Dirksz., Gevert die Buyn, Otto Geritsz. van Oist, Remkijn die Weert, Willem van Hamme, Gerit Krauwel, and Gerit Stevensz. Also 4 other of Johan van Arkel's men were captured but afterwards released.

The word Zulle took some time to understand, but one source (zulle - Wiktionary) gave the the definition as "a horizontal structural member of a building near ground level bearing the upright portion of a frame, like for a door or gate; a sill." This now made sense, because a Zulle was probably the structure used for executions. I'm not certain that this is true, but it's likely.

Thus, the correct translation is probably something like: "the 17 men were brought on Monday after Shrove Tuesday [the beginning of Lent] and on the 19th of February were executed on the execution structure."

         Does the execution of Otto Gerrits van Oist in 1436 match                                          with what we know of Ot?

In his genealogy, H. den Hertog estimated Gerrit Ottens' birth year as about 1435/40 and Willem Otten's birth year as about 1440. For their father to be Otto Gerritsz van Oist they would have to have been born a couple years before these years, but it's very close. Since Otto Gerritsz died on February 19th of 1436, the latest Willem Ottens could have been born would be about October of 1436, if Willem Ottens had been born as the result of a going-away marital encounter of Otto Gerritsz and his wife (whose identity is unknown). Such a birth might have been more common than one would expect, particularly for soldiers, but of course we have no evidence that this was the case with Willem Ottens. Children were often born two years apart, so probably a good estimate for the birth years of Gerrit Ottens would be 1433 and for Willem Ottens 1435. (As I mentioned, the name of the mother of Gerrit Ottens and Willem Ottens is unknown. My guess is that she was either a van Os, a van Malsen, or a van Haaften. However, as I said, this is merely a guess)

If Otto Gerritsz was the father of Gerrit Ottens and Willem Ottens, then this would mean that Otto Gerritsz had left behind at his death two young children that his wife would have to care for. She may have promptly remarried, as was often the case, but we have no information on this. 

Otto Gerritsz' death in 1436 would explain why Gerrit and Willem Ottens had no siblings, although they may have had half-siblings from their mother by a different father, and who would not have used the surnames van Oist or Zweym, if they used any surnames at all. 

Otto Gerrits' death by execution for waging an undeclared war on Utrecht could also explain why the family apparently never used the surname van Oist. Otto Gerrits' death was no doubt traumatic for his widow, and the means by which it had happened would likely have added to the emotional impact. The widow might no longer want to have been associated with that surname, and this is perhaps why Gerrit Ottens and Willem Ottens had apparently always used only their patronymic names.

Willem Ottens' children, however, did use surnames--den Hartoch, van Megen, Zweym, van Deventer--but none used van Oist. However, Jan Willem's use of the surname Zweym did provide a clue to the origin of the name van Oist, because the van Oist family at that time were the lords of Swalmen and lived in Swalmen, as the family in the Land of Arkel must have known.  

Oddly enough, the Swaim/den Hartog line descended neither from Jan Zweym Willems nor Adriaen Willems den Hartoch, but rather from their brother Claes Willem Ottens, who used the alias Wyntgen van Deventer. 

Otto Gerritsz' 1436 death might also have been the source of the family's land ownership in the Land of Arkel. It's possible that Jan van Arkel Heukelom was required to compensate the families of those who'd died in Utrecht due to his ill-advised attack; alternatively, he may simply have wanted to reward their families for the men's loyalty to him, perhaps with an eye to future military excursions. The easiest way to compensate the families may have been to give them land that Jan van Arkel already owned, which may have been considerable. Some of this land was probably in the 28-morgen Arkel homestead land that I mentioned in more detail in my post on the Rijswijk (Holland) Sweyms. If this is true, then the other 16 ex-prisoners might also have received some land within the Land of Arkel and there might be records of that. On the other hand, any such land transfers might purposely not have been properly documented in the Arkel leenkamers, given the nature of the reason for them.

Or perhaps van Oist had never actually been Otto Gerritsz' true surname. Perhaps he'd used that name s his nom de guerre, perhaps to prevent embarrassment to his family. Perhaps he was a Rijswijk (Holland) Sweym and had used the name of his cousins van Oist because they lived far away in Limburg. 

                                                      Irony

If indeed Otto Gerritsz van Oist was Ot, the father of Gerrit Ottens and Willem Ottens, as I believe he was, it's ironic that for years many of his descendants believed that Ot was a van Arkel, when in fact it was by following a van Arkel that had gotten him killed. The subject of the drawing at the start of this post is the beheading of Anabaptist martyrs who were willing to die for their religious beliefs; although Otto Gerritsz van Oist wasn't an Anabaptist, I thought this drawing nonetheless appropriate because Otto Gerritsz, too, had died as a martyr, but as a martyr to the ambitions of the van Arkel family, whose remaining members no doubt dreamed of restoring the family to its former position of glory. By 1436, that dream had no chance to ever come true: the power of the van Arkel family had been forever broken by the confiscation of the lands that had been the source of the family's wealth and thus its power; Jan van Arkel, the last lord of Arkel, had been dead for eight years and his legitimate son Willem for nineteen years; and there was no real chance that the family could ever regain what it had lost. The 1436 military action by Jan van Arkel van Heukelom was possibly the last attempt by a van Arkel to regain the family's former power, but it failed at the cost the lives of seventeen men who died for someone else's dream. Jan van Arkel van Heukelom, on the other hand, apparently lived for another 29 years.