Foundation Musick's MonumentAmok on St. Paul's Day: How Harpsichord Maker Louis Dulcken Defied the Ruling Elite of Hasselt
Every year around the feast day of the Conversion of Saint Paul (January 25), tension hung in the air in the Overijssel town of Hasselt. It was the day the magistrate was elected. In practice, however, little ever changed: a small network of patrician families divided the offices among themselves. In the winter of 1771–1772, a remarkable resident decided to stir up the hornet's nest: master harpsichord maker Johannes Lodewijk (Louis) Dulcken wanted to become mayor. It led to a political feud filled with burned documents, an imprisonment under the stairs, and a protracted battle that reached the Stadtholder.
🇩🇪 Aufruhr an Pauli Bekehrung: Wie der Cembalobauer Louis Dülken die Machtelite von Hasselt herausforderte
🇳🇱 Amok op St.-Pauli: Hoe klavecimbelbouwer Louis Dulcken de machtselite van Hasselt tartte
Louis Dulcken (Johannes Lodewijk) wants to become mayor of Hasselt (Overijssel).
Henk Poelarends
Although Louis has had problems with some residents and the magistrate of Hasselt, he is well regarded by many others. In the run-up to the election of a new magistrate at St-Pauli on 25 January 1772, Louis hatches a plan to become mayor of Hasselt. Every year, the same people were elected to the magistracy. And when someone died, there was always a family member to fill the vacant seat. The members of the magistracy were desperately trying to secure their positions. Political power had to remain within a limited number of families. These posts did not yield much money, but they did confer prestige. The people of Hasselt regularly take issue with the fact that the same people are always elected, and this causes unrest in the St Pauli area. But they do not have much influence. Nor can Louis simply be elected mayor. The church council has rejected his application to become a member of the Reformed Church, and the magistrate refuses to accept him as a citizen.
And both are necessary to become mayor. There is another possibility. As the supreme authority, Prince William V must approve the election of the members of the magistrate. On rare occasions, he intervenes and appoints someone other than the person the magistrate wishes to see appointed.
In the autumn of 1771, Louis drew up a petition addressed to Prince William V and had it signed by members of the influential skippers’ guild and other prominent residents. The petition highlighted Dulcken’s achievements and good conduct, and stated that he deserved to become mayor. This move did not go unnoticed.
Rumours that Louis Dulcken, master harpsichord maker, was preparing a campaign to become mayor of Hasselt also reached Mayor Peter Heisman, who urgently convened the magistrate on 7 January 1772. They discussed what course of action to take. They feared that this move would undermine their authority. They realised that Dulcken could not be elected because they had rejected his application for citizenship, but if he were to appeal to Prince William V, one could never be sure what might happen.
Hasselt, October 19, 1770
At the meeting of the Aldermen and Councillors
Having been presented by the president a petition from L: Dulken, requesting therein the citizenship for him L: Dulken,
it was deliberated upon and decided not to grant the citizenship to the aforementioned L: Dulken,
of which notice shall be given to the gentlemen of the council [vroedschap].
Before taking any action, they first wish to seek advice from lawyer Sandberg in Zwolle. Mayors Heisman and De Vries are sent as representatives and make a quick return trip to Zwolle. Heisman has visited Sandberg several times in recent years to discuss matters relating to Dulcken with the lawyer. It appears that he has ‘the Dulcken case’ in his portfolio. Sandberg’s advice is straightforward: invite Dulcken to the town hall, question him and demand that he hand over the petition with the collected signatures. The magistrates hold a meeting that very afternoon and all agree with the advice. The town messenger is instructed to go to Dulcken’s house in Nieuwstraat to fetch him. A short while later, Dulcken arrives at the town hall and there, standing beneath the painting ‘The Judgement of Count William the Good’ by Nicolaes van Galen, he is required to hand over the petition to the mayor.
De Rechtspleging van Willem de Goede (190 x 213 cm) Gesigneerd door N v Galen en gedateerd 1657 vanaf 1657 tot heden OUDE RAADHUIS HASSELT
VIDEO Van den Hove- Griensliefs
After further deliberation, it was decided to keep the aforementioned
J.L. Dülken in detention under the stairs,
although as a matter of superabundance [for the sake of completeness] J.L. Dulken states that he cannot
surrender [the document], yet offers to dictate the same
verbatim.
Dulcken refuses. He says that it is a private document and that the honourable judges must not hold it against him that he cannot comment on its contents. Dulcken is allowed to leave the room and the magistrate retires to deliberate. It is decided to demand a penalty of two silver ducatons should Dulcken refuse to cooperate. When Dulcken is summoned back in, he stands by his refusal. The document has been burnt, so he cannot hand it over. They can go and collect the two ducatons. Dulcken disappears behind the door again, and the magistrate deliberates and decides to demand four silver ducatons. Dulcken is summoned in once more, and the document is demanded again. Dulcken replies that, although he is of the opinion that they cannot compel him to hand over the document, he is also unable to do so, ‘as he no longer has it in his possession’. And if the gentlemen wish to have his coat, they may also have his camisole (jacket) as well. ‘Even if the gentlemen were to demand four hundred guilders’. The magistrates deliberate again and decide to imprison Dulcken in the town hall, in the cellar beneath the stairs. When this is communicated to Dulcken, he makes one last-ditch attempt to prevent it. He is willing to quote the petition word for word so that the magistrates can write it down. To no avail. The mayors do not agree to this.
The magistrate is keen to obtain the names of the signatories. They want to know who the signatories are. The skippers and other prominent residents can then be pressured into withdrawing their support for Dulcken. On 11 January, Secretary Exalto D’Almaras travelled to Zwolle to discuss Dulcken’s detention with Sandberg. Sandberg probably advised him to release Dulcken because the magistrate’s legal position was not strong. It is not possible to determine exactly how long he was imprisoned. He was probably released well before St Paul’s Day, 25 January. When the magistrate released Dulcken, he was presented with a bill for ‘the costs of detention, for which he was not even entitled to a breakdown’.
But the story does not end there. Dulcken submits or sends his petition to Prince William V in the hope that the Prince will not approve the magistrate election of 25 January. He does not include the supporting signatures but informs the Prince that they have been burnt. Unfortunately, his petition is rejected on 8 February, and the magistrate of Hasselt is notified of this on 13 February.
Hasselt, February 13, 1772
At the meeting of the Aldermen and Councillors
Read was the letter from His Serene Highness together with the petition of J.L. Dülken, whereby his request mentioned in said petition was rejected and referred back to the Magistrate of this town as his competent judge; having deliberated upon this, it was agreed to appoint the Secretary — as is hereby done — to confer and consult with the advocates engaged in this matter.
After deliberation, they forward the rejection to lawyers Hubert and Fabius in Zwolle. They attach further documents to it. They ask the lawyers what they should do next regarding Dulcken. Having read everything, the lawyers advise that Dulcken be arrested once more and forced to tell the truth. Dulcken must state “where, when, in whose presence and why he carried out the burning”. And he must confirm under oath that he is telling the truth.
It is unlikely that matters went that far. The magistrate knew from experience that this would be a futile endeavour. But it was also probably impossible in practical terms, as Dulcken was often away from the city, travelling about to sell his harpsichords.
Grevensteijn later wrote to the States: ‘for he was treated from time to time by the Magistrates of Hasselt in such a way that he was unable to earn a living for his wife and children, since, without lawful grounds, they would simply seize him by the scruff of the neck, have him imprisoned in a criminal prison, and keep him there for several weeks on end, as though he were guilty of a grave crime’. Grevensteijn sees no legal justification whatsoever for this measure; on the contrary, it is pure spite on the part of the magistrate. A year later, Dulcken settled in Antwerp, taking two of his apprentices with him: the harpsichord makers Reusch and Schnell.
Back to Antwerp
On 18 August 1772, he applied to the Magistrate’s Court for a certificate of good conduct, after which he settled in Antwerp in the autumn of 1772. His eldest son, Johannes Lodewijk (Louis Jr.), went with him. His wife, mother and other children remained in Hasselt. The workshop in Hasselt came to a standstill, and on 16 April his three apprentices – Johan Gerlach Lauch (who had been in his service for 10 years), Johann Lodewijk Reusch (who had been in his service for 6 years) and Johann Jacob Schnell (who had been in training for six years) – seized several harpsichords due to unpaid wages. Despite these unpaid wages, Reusch and Schnell travelled with him to Antwerp and continued to work for their master there. On 10 September 1773, he advertised himself in the Gazette as: “Jean Louis Dulcken, (eldest son of the late Daniël Dulcken), master organ and harpsichord maker, currently in Antwerp, with the intention of eventually taking up residence there,”.
Dulcken had experimented with the construction of the pianoforte in Hasselt and, from 1774 onwards, devoted himself to this craft in Antwerp.
In the Gazette of 6 July 1775, he states: “that he has had two harpsichords brought here, namely a ‘Steirt-Stuk’ and a ‘Forte piano’ of his own design, which are a new invention, as one can imperceptibly and with ease diminish and break up the sound of the instrument,” This makes him one of the co-inventors of the pianoforte and marks an important step in its further development into the piano.