² Gemeentearchief (hereafter, GA) Amsterdam Rechterlijke Archief (hereafter, RA) 343, folios 52ff.

³ Rudé, George, The Crowd in History. A Study of Popular Disturbances in France and England 1730–1848 (New York, 1964), p. 6Google Scholar, and especially ch. 4, “Labor disputes in eighteenth-century England”, pp. 66–79.Google Scholar

⁴ Hobsbawm, E. J., Labouring Men. Studies in the History of Labour (London, 1978), p. 7Google Scholar, Primitive Rebels. Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Manchester, 1978), p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵ Reddy, W. M., “The Textile Trade and the Language of the Crowd at Rouen 1752–1871”, Past and Present, 74 (1977), pp. 62–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Reddy, W. M., The Rise of Market Culture. The Textile Trade and French Society, 1750–1900 (Cambridge, 1984), especially ch. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Kaplan, S., “Réflexions sur la police du monde du travail, 1700–1815”, Revue Historique, 103 (1979), pp. 17–77.Google Scholar

⁷ Dobson, C. R., Masters and Journeymen. A Prehistory of Industrial Relations, 1717–1800 (London, 1980).Google Scholar

⁸ Griessinger, A., Das symbolische Kapital der Ehre (Ulm, 1981)Google Scholar; cf. Elkar, Rainer S. (ed.), Deutsches Handwerk in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Sozialgeschichte – Volkskunde – Literaturgeschichte (Gottingen, 1983)Google Scholar, and Thamer, Hans-Ulrich, “On the Use and Abuse of Handicraft: Journeymen Culture and Enlightened Public Opinion in 18th and 19th Century Germany”, in Kaplan, Steven L. (ed.), Understanding Popular Culture. Europe from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century (Berlin, New York and Amsterdam, 1984), pp. 275–300.Google Scholar

⁹ Sewell, William H., Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a critique of this see Hunt, Lynn and Sheridan, George, “Corporatism, Association and the Language of Labor in France, 1750–1850”, Journal of Modern History, 58 (1986), pp. 813–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sonenscher, Michael, “Journeymen, the Courts and the French Trades 1781–1791”, Past and Present, 114 (1987), pp. 77–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Mythical Work: Workshop Production and the Compagnonages of Eighteenth-Century France”, in Joyce, Patrick (ed.), The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 31–63Google Scholar, The Hatters of Eighteenth Century France (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar, Work and Wages: Natural Law Politics and the 18th-Century French Trades (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar, and Rule, J., The Experience of Labour in 18th-Century Industry (London 1981).Google Scholar See also the essays contained in Kaplan, S. L. and Koepp, C. J. (eds), Work in France, Representations, Meanings, Organization and Practice (Ithaca, 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Joyce, , The Historical Meanings of Work.Google Scholar

¹¹ Geary, Dick, “Protest and Strike: Recent Research on ‘Collective Action’ in England, Germany, and France”, in Tenfelde, Klaus (ed.), Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung im Vergleich (Munich, 1986), pp. 363–387.Google Scholar

¹² The painting hangs in the Centraal Museum, Utrecht, , and is reproduced in Ach Lieve Tijd (Haarlem, 1986), p. 83.Google Scholar

¹³ Oldewelt, W. F. H., “De zelfkant van de Amsterdamse samenleving en de groei der bevolking”, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 77 (1964), pp. 39–56Google Scholar (GA Amsterdam RA 298, folio 157v).

¹⁴ Driesen, F. (ed.), Pieter de la Court, Het welvaren van Leiden (Leiden, 1911), p. 160.Google Scholar On De la Court see Mulier, E. O. G. Haitsma, The Myth of Venice and Dutch Republican Thought in the Seventeenth Century (Assen, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁵ GA Haarlem RA 66–I, folio 179.

¹⁶ See Rediker, Marcus, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World 1700–1750 (Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁷ A minor incident happened in 1702 when some twenty soldiers gathered before the town hall of Den Haag to protest about the non-payment of wages due to them (Alge-meen Rijksarchief (hereafter, ARA) Hof van Holland 5658, folios 218–219).

¹⁸ For an overview see van Zanden, J. L., “De economie van Holland in de periode 1650–1805: Groei of achteruitgang? Een overzicht van bronnen, Problemen en resultaten”, Bijdragen en Mededelingen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 102 (1987), pp. 562–609.Google Scholar Important contributions to the discussion have been made by English and American authors such as Jan de Vries, J. C. Riley, R. T. Griffiths, and Jonathan Israel. For a guide to the English literature on the Netherlands in general see King, P. K. and Wintle, M., The Netherlands (World Bibliographical Series, vol. 88 (1988)).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lucassen, Jan, Migrant Labour in Europe 1600–1900: The Drift to the North Sea (London, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁰ See issue 2 of the Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 15 (1989)Google Scholar, which was devoted to the role of collective protest in the history of the Netherlands. See particularly, Tilly, Charles, “History, Sociology, and Dutch Collective Action”, pp. 142–158Google Scholar, and Dekker, Rudolf, “Some remarks about collective action and collective violence in the history of the Netherlands”, pp. 158–165.Google Scholar See also Dekker, R. M., Holland in beroering. Oproeren in de 17de en 18de eeuw (Baarn, 1982).Google Scholar

²¹ Posthumus, N. W. (ed.), Bronnen voor de geschiedenis van de Leidsche textielnijver-heid (hereafter, LTN) 6 vols ('s-Gravenhage, 1910–1922), IGoogle Scholar, nos 15, 27, 28, 122, 130, 154–158, 508–524 and 527–529; van Dillen, J. G. (ed.), Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam 1512–1672, 3 vols ('s-Gravenhage, 1929–1974), IGoogle Scholar, nos 1214 and 1216; GA Haarlem Stad, I, nos 190 and 236, and cf. 442; van Gelder, H. E., “De ‘draperye’ van Den Haag”, Jaarboek Die Haghe 1907, pp. 229–351Google Scholar, and cf van Herwaarden, J., Opgelegde bedevaarten (Assen, 1978), p. 350Google Scholar for details about an ordinance against uitgangen in Schiedam.

²² In Delft in the first half of the fifteenth century weavers were forbidden to hold meetings; cf. Timmer, Emilia Maria Anna, Knechtsgilden en knechtsbossen in Nederland. Arbeidersverzekering in vroeger tijden (Haarlem, 1913), p. 7Google Scholar, and Fruin, R., Het oudsteder tot dusver bekende keurboeken van Delft, pp. 71 and 74.Google Scholar

²³ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, I, no. 73.Google Scholar

²⁴ LTN I, no. 508Google Scholar; cf. no. 620.

²⁵ LTN II, no. 1076.Google Scholar

²⁶ Herman de Boer, Dick Edward, Graafen grafiek. Sociale en economische ontwikkelingen in het middeleeuwse “Noordholland” tussen 1345 and 1415 (Leiden, 1978), p. 284.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ancher, A. J. M. Brouwer, De gilden ('s-Gravenhage, 1895), p. 142.Google Scholar

²⁸ “Stakende vleeshouwers in 1576”, Rotterdams Jaarboekje 1922, p. 98Google Scholar; GA Leiden RA 3–5, folios 225ff.

²⁹ GA Dordrecht manuscript 135a.

³⁰ LTN II, nos 79, 80 and 87.Google Scholar

³¹ The Reformed Church was involved in this conflict because some of its members had participated in the protest. This involvement of church authorities, however, was exceptional. Haarlem, GA, Kerkeraad Hervormde Gemeente resolutions of 21 09 and 23 11 1608Google Scholar; GA Amsterdam Archief Hervormde Gemeente 3, resolutions of 1, 8, 15 November 1607, 31 January, 11 September, 9 November 1608, and 26 March, 2 and 9 April 1609.

³² Noordegraaf, L., “Textielnijverheid in Alkmaar 1500–1850”, in Alkmaarse Silhouetten. Uit de geschiedenis van Alkmaar en omgeving (Zwolle, 1982), pp. 39–65.Google Scholar

³³ Stad, GA Haarlem, Resolutie Burgemeesters, 12 11 1627.Google Scholar

³⁴ Court meetings certainly took place in 1616 (Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, II, no. 343Google Scholar), 1618 (Ibid., no. 444), 162 (Ibid., no. 1057), 1631 (Ibid., no. 1382), 1638 (Ibid., III, no. 354), 1661 (Handvesten ofte privilegiën ende octroyen, mitsgaders willekeuren, cosuimen, ordonnantiën en handelingen der stad Amstelredam, 5 vols (Amsterdam, 1748–1778), III, pp. 1345, 1346 and 1348)Google Scholar, 1682 (Ibid., p. 1349), 1691 (Ibid., pp. 1348–1350), 1692 (Ibid., p. 1350), 1710 (Ibid., p. 1351). There are indications of meetings held in 1628 (Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, II, no. 1166Google Scholar), and 1633 (Ibid., III, no. 61). Cf. Kernkamp, G., “De ‘droogscheerderssynode’”, in Geschiedkundige opstellen uitgegeven ter eere van H. C. Rogge (Leiden, 1893), p. 105.Google Scholar Shortly after 1700 masters complained about the court meetings of the shearers (GA Amsterdam RA 687, no. 85). In a sentence passed in 1724 court meetings are mentioned (GA Amsterdam RA 610, folios 219ff.). In 1737 there was “commotion” among the shearers (GA Amsterdam gilden 929), which possibly refers to court meetings. It is possible also that in 1765 court meetings were held (Handvesten Amsterdam, IV, p. 197Google Scholar; Nederlandse Jaarboeken 1765, p. 183).Google Scholar Van Dillen mentions a protest of shearers in 1744 (van Dillen, J. G., Van rijkdom en regenten. Handboek tot de economische en sociale geschiedenis van Nederland ('s-Gravenhage, 1970), p. 183)Google Scholar, but he is probably confusing this with the strike of the cotton printers in that year.

³⁵ For a more extensive treatment see Dekker, R. M., “Arbeidsconflicten in de Leidse textielindustrie”, in Diederiks, H. A. et al. , Armoede en sociale spanning. Sociaal-historische studies over Leiden in de achttiende eeuw (Hilversum, 1985), pp. 69–87.Google Scholar

³⁶ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, I, no. 120.Google Scholar

³⁷ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, pp. 73–75.Google Scholar

³⁸ Handvesten Amsterdam, III, p. 1349.Google Scholar

³⁹ Handvesten Amsterdam, III, p. 1351.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Handvesten Amsterdam, IV, p. 197.Google Scholar

⁴¹ LTN IV, no. 316; cf. no. 318.Google Scholar

⁴² GA Amsterdam RA 337, folios 84v–88, 95, 102 and 128.

⁴³ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, III, no. 1384.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Handvesten Amsterdam, IV, p. 1174.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Some industries are known to have had volatile labour relations, but they need to be studied in more detail. See, for example, for a study of the biscuit bakery in Wormer, Mol, C., Uit de geschiedenis van Wormer (Wormerveer, 1966), p. 106.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ GA Amsterdam RA 337, folios 84v–88, 95, 102, 128.

⁴⁷ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 74.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Blok, A., “Infame beroepen”, Symposion, 3 (1981), pp. 104–139Google Scholar; Blok, A., “Eer en defysieke persoon”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 18 (1980), pp. 211–231.Google Scholar See also the same author's Infamy (Cambridge, forthcoming). On the subject of honour see also Burke, Peter, The Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Italy (Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Rooijakkers, Gerard and Romme, Tiny (eds), Charivari in de Nederlanden. Rituele reacties op deviant gedrag (Amsterdam, 1989)Google Scholar, for references to the international literature on this topic. See also Koorn, Florence, “Illegitimiteit en eergevoel. Ongehuwde moeders in Twente in de achttiende eeuw”, in Vrouwenlevens 1500–1800 (Jaarboek voor Vrouwengeschiedenis, vol. 8) (Nijmegen, 1987), pp. 74–99.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ GA Amsterdam RA 382, folios 6v–9v.

⁵¹ GA Leiden RA 3–M, folios 109–109v.

⁵² Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 76.Google Scholar

⁵³ GA Gouda Stad 326, folio 146; see also 316, folio 114v.

⁵⁴ GA Amsterdam RA 349, folios 168 and 182.

⁵⁵ GA Amsterdam NA 6237, folio 1343 (11 11 1702)Google Scholar; cf. folio 1517.

⁵⁶ Dekker, R. M., “De staking van de Amsterdamse katoendrukkersknechts in 1744”, Textielhistorische Bijdragen, 26 (1986), pp. 24–38.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, pp. 73 and 75–76.Google Scholar See also Delforterie, C. W., “lets over de stakingsonlusten van 1701 te Leiden”, Rijnland (1964), pp. 104–109.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Dekker, Rudolf M., “Women in Revolt. Collective Protest and its Social Basis in Holland”, Theory and Society, 16 (1987), pp. 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 80.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ GA Amsterdam RA 338, folio 24v.

⁶¹ GA Amsterdam RA 122v–126.

⁶² Nederlandsche Jaerboeken 1748, pp. 356–357.Google Scholar

⁶³ W. M. and van der Goes, A., Briefwisseling (1659–1673), ed. Gonnet, G. J., 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1899–1909), letter 247 (29 06 1671).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, III, no. 1384.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Kroniek Historisch Genootschap, 24 (1868), p. 458Google Scholar; van Hels-dingen, L. J. van Beuningen, “Eene werkstaking … in het jaar 1672”, Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje voor 1904, p. 100.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Van der Goes, and Van der Goes, , Briefwisseling, letter of 29 06 1671.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ GA Gouda Stad, 326, folio 146; cf. 316, folio 114v.

⁶⁸ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Met ontroerd Holland, 3 vols (Harderwijk, 1749?), I, pp. 249–252.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Handvesten Amsterdam, V, p. 1305Google Scholar; Timmer, , Knechtsgilden, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

⁷¹ GA Haarlem Stad, Resolutie Burgemeesters, 12 11 1627.Google Scholar

⁷² GA Amsterdam RA 338, folios 22v–25v, especially 24v–25, and 49v–51.

⁷³ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, pp. 81–82.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ GA Amsterdam Notarieel Archief 78, folios 171–172.

⁷⁵ Handvesten Amsterdam, III.Google Scholar For a study of the problems in 1717 see Posthumus, N. W. (ed.), Bescheiden betreffende de provinciale organisatie der Hollandische lakenbereiders (Amsterdam, 1917), p. 155.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ G A Amsterdam R A 687, no. 85.

⁷⁷ LTN VI, no. 217.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Timmer, , Knechtsgilden.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Handvesten Amsterdam, III, p. 1349.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Leeson, R. A., Travelling Brothers. The Six Centuries' Road from Craft Fellowship to Trade Unionism (London, 1979), p. 153.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 77.Google Scholar

⁸² GA Haarlem Stad, Dictum Hof van Holland, 31 03 1500.Google Scholar

⁸³ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 80.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Idem.

⁸⁵ LTN IV, 391 note 1Google Scholar; GA Gouda Stad 326, folio 146; GA Rotterdam Stad 496, p. 211 (17 11 1637)Google Scholar; Posthumus, , Bescheiden lakenbereiders, no. 7 (Haarlem)Google Scholar;Ibid., nos 5, 6 and 8(Hoorn).

⁸⁶ G A Amsterdam R A 382, folios 6v–9v.

⁸⁷ GA Den Haag RA 109, folios 48v–50.

⁸⁸ See, for instance, GA Brielle Stad, Keuren en ordonnantiën 1596–1644, folio 145 (1 05 1623).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Bruijn, J. R. and van Heslinga, E. S. van Eyck, Muiterij. Oproer en berechting op schepen van de VOC (Haarlem, 1980).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Wagenaar, J., Amsterdam, 4 vols (Amsterdam and Harlingen, 1760–1788), I, p. 507Google Scholar; GA Amsterdam RA 298, folios 48v–53; 575, folio 153v; Joost van den Vondel, De volledige werken, Diferee, H. C. (ed.), 2 vols (Amsterdam, s.a.), I, pp. 275–276.Google Scholar

⁹¹ GA Amsterdam Stad, Resoluties Vroedschap 24 09 1635 (cf. 15 04 1636)Google Scholar; Kroniek van het Historisch Genootschap (1867), pp. 1, 30 and 87.Google Scholar

⁹² Wagenaar, J., Amsterdam, I, p. 585Google Scholar; Hollandsche Mercurius (1652), pp. 91–93Google Scholar; GA Amsterdam RA 309, folios 90–98; 581, folios 159–161v, Keurboek M, folios 165v–167v; Amsterdamsche beroerte voor-gevallen door de moetwil van eenige matrosen (Amsterdam, 1652)Google Scholar; Oprechte beschrijving van al hetgeen tot Amsterdam is voorgevallen (Amsterdam, 1652).Google Scholar

⁹³ GA Amsterdam Stad, Scheltema III Afd. IV, 41 (stadsmissivenboek 1678–1681, folio 6v).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Resoluties van de Staten van Holland (printed); resolutie of 19 July 1640.

⁹⁵ Brandt, G. and Centen, S., Geschiedenis van Enkhuizen (Hoorn, 1745), Vervolg, p. 349.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Capellen, A. van der, Gedenkschriften 1621–1654, ed. van der Capellen, R. J., 2 vols (Utrecht, 1777–1778), I, p. 164.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ ARA Hof van Holland Resolutie Gecommitteerde Raden 25 06 1637Google Scholar; Resoluties van de Staten van Holland (printed), resoluties of 15 04 1636, and 13 and 14 10 1637.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Wagenaar, J., Amsterdam, IV, pp. 65 and 75Google Scholar; ARA 1st Afd., coll. Rademacher 237, letter of 22 08 1738Google Scholar; Met ontroerd Holland, I, pp. 252, 253, 295 and 296.Google Scholar GA Amsterdam Keurboek S, folios 239v and 250; RA 613, folios 105–106v; Het dagboek van Jacob Bicker Raye, eds Beijerinck, F. and de Boer, M. G. (Amsterdam, s.a.), pp. 56 and 74.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Vierlingh, Andries, Tractaet van dyckagie, ed. de Hullu, J. and Verhoeven, A. G. ('s-Gravenhage, 1920), p. 100.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ GA Leiden RA 3–6, folio 282 (sentence passed on 17 06 1611).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ ARA Hof van Holland 5480 (26). For such protests in nearby Zeeland see Nederland-sche Jaarboeken 1773, p. 795.Google Scholar See also Lepoeter, G. J., “De bedijking van de Reigers-bergerpolder in 1773”, Historisch Jaarboek voor Zuid- en Noord-Beveland, 9 (1983), pp. 15–34.Google Scholar An earlier protest in Holland took place near Hardinxveld in 1737 although it remains unclear whether the riot was caused by discontent over wages. ARA Staten van Holland, Resoluties Gecommitteerde Raden of 9 09 1737.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Sonneveld, W., “Van een staking in 1776”, Nederlandse Historiën, 7 (1973), pp. 277–280.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Sprenger, J. and Vrooland, V., “Dit zijn mijn beren”. Een onderzoek naar de arbeids-verhoudingen bij de aanleg van het Noordhollands kanaal (Amsterdam, 1976)Google Scholar; Brugmans, I. J., Paardenkracht en mensenmacht. Sociaal-economische geschiedenis van Ne-derland 1795–1940 ('s-Gravenhage, 1969), p. 194Google Scholar; cf. Geelhoed, Alex, “Spades are Trumps. Strikes of Navvies at the Construction of the Utrecht–Arnhem Railway”, in van Voss, Lex Heerma and Diederiks, Herman (eds), Industrial Conflict (Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 147–165Google Scholar; Haarlem, GA, resoluties burgemeester en wethouders van Houtrijk en Polanen, 14 06 1841Google Scholar; Vries, Herman, unpublished paper, and interview in the Schager Courant of 6 05 1982.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ancher, Brouwer, De gilden, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, III, no. 57.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Posthumus, N. W. (ed.), De nationale organisatie der lakenkoopers tijdens de Republiek (Utrecht, 1927)Google Scholar; Posthumus, , Bescheiden lakenbereidersGoogle Scholar; Kernkamp, , “De ‘droog-scheerderssynode’”, pp. 85–132.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Handvesten Amsterdam, III, p. 1266.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ GA Amsterdam RA 388, folios 49v ff.

¹⁰⁹ GA Amsterdam RA 337, folio 102.

¹¹⁰ LTN VI, p. 217.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ LTN VI, no. 339.Google Scholar

¹¹² LTN VI, no. 340.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, II, no. 343.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ LTN II, no. 318 (26 06 1643).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Europische Mercurius 1718, pp. 196–197.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ GA Leiden RA 3–13 folio 204, sentence passed on 27 08 1643, folios 211–212Google Scholar: LTN IV, no. 319, p. 393 note 1 (1642 instead of 1643), no. 329, p. 424 note 1Google Scholar; GA Leiden RA 3–14, folio 8v, sentence passed on 3 05 1644Google Scholar; LTN IV, no. 338Google Scholar; GA Leiden RA 3–14 folios 57v, sentence passed on 3 07 1645Google Scholar; folio 41, sentence passed on 17 April 1648; RA 4–M, folios 24–28v, 31v–56v, 70–70v, 98–99 and 109–109v. See also van den Heuvel, H. M., De criminele vonnisboeken van Leiden 1533–1811 (Leiden, 1977–1978).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ GA Amsterdam RA 337, folios 84v–88, 95, 102 and 128.

¹¹⁸ GA Amsterdam RA 338, folios 22v–25v and 49v–51; RA 597, folios 76v–77v.

¹¹⁹ Several historians have claimed that strikers in the Dutch Republic occasionally did receive the death penalty. In this they are repeating a remark by N. W. Posthumus, who mistook a sentence demanded for a sentence pronounced.

¹²⁰ Spierenburg, Pieter, The Spectacle of Suffering. Executions and the Evolution of Repression: from a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge, 1984).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Kroniek Historisch Genootschap, 24 (1868), p. 458Google Scholar; van Helsdingen, Van Beuningen, “Eene werkstaking … in het jaar 1672”, p. 100.Google Scholar

¹²² See here Taken, Claudia, “Kollektief protest in Amsterdam in de 18e en 19e eeuw” (Ph.D., University of Amsterdam)Google Scholar; van Deursen, A. T., Het kopergeld van de Gouden Eeuw, 4 vols (Assen, 1978–1980), I, pp. 20–23Google Scholar, and Posthumus, N. W., De geschiedenis van de Leidse Lakenindustrie, 3 vols (Den Haag, 1908–1939), II, p. 1170.Google Scholar

¹²³ Nierop, Leonie van, “Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Amsterdamse scheeps-bouw”, Jaarboek Amstelodamum, 48 (1933), p. 38.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Dillen, Van, Bronnen Amsterdam, III, no. 282 (1640).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Dillen, Van, Rijkdom, p. 297.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Dekker, , Holland in beroering, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ GA Schiedam Stad 270 (11 12 1748).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ de Jongste, J. A. F., Onrust aan het Spaarne. Haarlem in de jaren 1747–1751 (n.p., 1984), pp. 246–249.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Dekker, R. M. (ed.), Oproeren in Holland gezien door tijdgenoten (Assen, 1979), pp. 129–173.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Prak, Maarten Roy, Gezeten burgers. De elite in een Hollandse stad, Leiden 1700–1780 (n.p., 1985), pp. 91–99Google Scholar, “Burgers in beweging. Een politieke analyse van de Leidse onlusten van 1748”, forthcoming in a book edited by J. Aalbers and L. Kooijmans. See also Prak, Maarten Roy, “Civil disturbances and urban middle class in the Dutch Republic”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 15 (1989), pp. 165–173.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Dekker, , “Arbeidsconflicten”, p. 79.Google Scholar

¹³² Dekker, Rudolf M., “Revolutionaire en contra-revolutionaire vrouwen in Nederland, 1780–1800”, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 102 (1989), pp. 545–564.Google Scholar The most important local study of popular politics in this period is Te Brake, Wayne P., Regents and Rebels. The Revolutionary World of an Eighteenth-Century Dutch City (Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar

¹³³ Jäger, Wolfgang, “Mehrheit, Minderheit, Majorität, Minorität”, in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, III (Stuttgart, 1982), pp. 1021–1062.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Sonenscher, Michael, “The Sans-culottes of the Year II: Rethinking the Language of Labour in Revolutionary France”, Social History, 9 (1984), pp. 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁵ Drees, Marijke Eleonore Meijer, De treurspelen van Thomas Asselijn (ca. 1620–1701) (Enschede, 1989).Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Gayot, G., “La longue insolence des tondeurs de draps dans la manufacture de Sedan au XVIIIe siècle”, Revue du Nord, LXVIII (1981), pp. 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the literature mentioned in notes 6 and 9.

¹³⁷ Sewell, , Work and Revolution in FranceGoogle Scholar, and Hunt, Lynn and Sheridan, George, “Corporatism, Association and the Language of Labor in France, 1750–1850”, Journal of Modern History, 58 (1986), pp. 813–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁸ Dobson, , Masters and JourneymenGoogle Scholar, and Rule, , The experience of labour in 18th-century industry.Google Scholar For a more general picture see Rule, John, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England, 1750–1850 (London, 1986).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Griessinger, , Das symbolische Kapital der EhreGoogle Scholar; Elkar, , Deutsches Handwerk in Spätmittelalter und fruher NeuzeitGoogle Scholar, and Thamer, , “On the Use and Abuse of Handicraft”.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ The province of Zeeland offers a unique example of a conflict which was fought out in pamphlets. Cateau, Benjamin, Goede raad aan Jan Poley (Vlissingen, 1786).Google Scholar The pamphlets are not preserved, but the case is mentioned in the Nieuw Nederlandsch Bio-grafisch Woordenboek, 10 vols (Leiden, 1911–1937), VII, p. 284.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 15 vols (Haarlem, 1977–1983), XII pp. 137 and 162.Google Scholar The lack of strike activity before that year is confirmed by MacLean, J., “Arbeidsconflicten in de periode 1813–1872”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 16 (1979), pp. 292–313.Google Scholar

¹⁴² In her memoirs Aletta Jacobs writes that she did not recollect there being strikes during her youth, in the middle of the nineteenth century: Jacobs, Aletta H., Her-inneringen (Nijmegen, 1978), p. 11.Google Scholar On the word staking see Woordenboek der Neder-landsche Taal, XV ('s-Gravenhage, 1940), pp. 502–503.Google Scholar