The Burgher and the Whore: Prostitution in Early Modern Amsterdam (25 page)

to as the Devil’s Corner (Duivelshoek). In addition they both had ‘whore chambers’, where prostitutes lived under the watchful eye of a maid. Both would accompany their girls to the cruising lane in the evenings, both were married, and both acted as ‘correspondents’, in other words police informers.
51

From their interrogations it becomes clear how married men would be approached, seduced into committing adultery, then betrayed and forced to pay.Their terminology emerges too, giving a taste of under- world argot.The girls were instructed to ferret out information about whether a client was married or Jewish. If he was, the deputy would be alerted.This was called an ‘exploit’ (
exploot
).A distinction was made be- tween a ‘pure exploit’ (
zuiver exploot
), whereby a man entered a whore- house on his own initiative to go to bed with a prostitute,and a‘contrived

exploit’ (
gemaakt exploot
), such that the man was brought into the house and seduced by women who intended from the start to inform on him, a practice known as
laten schoppen
, literally ‘to have someone kicked’. Deputy Schravenwaard would be sent word of such ‘exploits’, some- times by means of pieces of paper bearing his wax seal that he had given the women, since those involved could not always read or write. He would send his men to the scene, or occasionally go with them.

Poxy Anna named three exploits in which she was involved, Hen- dreyne the Mussel four, while Schravenwaard himself confessed to two, although the bailiffs’ accounts show that he earned money from more cases than that. It was not particularly easy to get hold of a ‘fat catch’ (
vette bink
) on anything like a regular basis, since the number of poten- tial victims was fairly limited: the man had to be married, or a Jew, and well off, and although the exploit might be risky if he held any sub- stantial position of power in the city he would nevertheless have to be prepared to pay a considerable sum to avoid public scandal.

Moreover, many potential victims were well aware of the risks of visiting brothels. They knew, for example, that anyone found in bed would have to pay a larger fine—a prostitute’s bed was the tangible symbol of adultery, just as the marriage bed was the symbol of matri- mony—and therefore he might prefer to have sex on the floor. For a lucrative ‘exploit’ it was important to persuade the man to get into bed and if he refused he might sometimes be laid on the bed afterwards, while drunk or asleep. The prostitute would then lie down next to him, at which point the constables would be fetched.

Schravenwaard’s reputation actually made catching Amsterdam adulterers more difficult. This is illustrated by the case of a man, not named in the records, who was lured into a trap by Poxy Anna. He knew Schravenwaard personally, and the deputy in turn admitted he ‘knew him very well, for he has eaten and drunk with him some five and twenty times’. Sharing food and drink amounted to a symbolic ratification of social contact.
52
‘To have eaten and drunk with him’ and ‘never to have tasted anything wet or dry with her’ are further exam- ples from the Confession Books of statements that indicate whether or not someone belonged to a person’s circle of acquaintances.
53

The man will therefore have known about Schravenwaard’s practices and he was extremely cautious when Alida Brakel, the prostitute who had addressed him on the street and enticed him to go with her, showed him into the room where Poxy Anna and two other women were

sitting. He immediately asked whether they knew Schravenwaard, to which Anna responded indignantly,‘If that’s what you’re thinking you’d better leave, for what are you doing here then?’ They all understood perfectly well what she was talking about. Singing loudly, the man went into the other rooms to determine whether anyone else was around. He found no one but still had his suspicions and would not accept any- thing to eat or drink. Nevertheless he allowed himself to be seduced by one of the women, who ‘caressed him with great affection and groped at his breeches’, although she did not manage to get him onto the bed, only the floor. Two constables appeared immediately. The man said, ‘What is this, goes it that way here?’ and called out that they must fetch his good acquaintance Schravenwaard. He came, but not with a pardon. It cost the man
3
,
000
guilders, an enormous sum.
‌
‌

Deputy Bailiff Schravenwaard and the West Frisian hay-farmer

Farmers coming to Amsterdam on business, eager to lighten their bulging moneybags when the day’s work was done by amusing them- selves in the big city, were traditionally portrayed as easy prey to swin- dling whores. Both
Het Amsterdamsch Hoerdom
and
Boereverhaal van geplukte Gys
feature such characters. In the summer of
1738
Johanna den Hartog (Poxy Anna) had a farmer put her way as a ‘fat catch’.The exploit was organized by one Dirk van Dusseldorp, a regular guest at her tavern. Dirk had met hay-farmer Paulus Annis, known as Paul the

R
ich, through his own work as a haymaker. In this case it was Dirk who made contact with Schravenwaard.

One day in August the plan was carried out. After work Dirk took the farmer with him to the tavern and whorehouse, where he treated his companions to drinks. Seven bottles of wine and an unknown quantity of Dutch gin were consumed by Annis, Dirk, Johanna, and the prostitute Willemijn Biesheuvel, who was heavily pregnant. Once the farmer was drunk, Dirk said to him:‘I’ve got a girl, you must have a girl too.’ Annis answered:‘If I must have a girl, then I want that girl,’ pointing at Willemijn, but when Willemijn started to fondle Annis he fended her off: ‘Away, away, I’m a married man.’ Eventually they laid the farmer dead drunk on a bed and pulled off his clothes.Willemijn went and lay beside him and then the deputy was fetched.

Schravenwaard found the farmer in bed in his undergarments, still blind drunk and muttering,‘What’s going on?’ and ‘What have I done?’ He let the deputy handcuff him and take him to Het Witte Wambuys, although on the way someone stepped into the breach for the farmer by saying that Annis was a respectable man who had been tricked. This passer-by, who gave evidence during the trial, demanded that the deputy bailiff go with him to the chief officer to talk about the case, but Schravenwaard refused, ‘saying with the most manifold and horrible curses: The devil! I must have money for this’. He then warned Annis

‘that he would be whipped and put in the
R
asp House’, and therefore publicly shamed. At the inn Schravenwaard turned on Annis, threaten-

ing to kick him downstairs, until eventually the farmer,‘in extreme dis- tress’, gave him
1
,
500
guilders. Willemijn, who had also been arrested, was set free, which elicited the question from Annis:‘Why is this wench allowed to go?’ Schravenwaard answered:‘To catch more devils.’

At first Schravenwaard denied all the charges. He told his interroga- tors he had thought they were all ‘pure exploits’ and that he had played no part in preparations of any kind.As the investigation went on, how- ever, more and more witnesses came forward, accusing him of extor- tion and abuse of power. Several brothel-keepers claimed he had tried to compel them to play the same game by threatening them with im- prisonment, as well as the arrest of their girls. One prostitute, Johanna de Koning, and her bawd Geertruy Kroonenberg testified that he had invited them to his house for a cup of coffee and put a proposal to them.‘You are far too quick-witted and pretty a wench to lodge with anyone,’ he said to Johanna. ‘You must live by yourself from now on, then you’ll be able to do me better service and bring me some married man or other.’ Geertruy was ordered to rent a house; he had already arranged everything. Should they refuse to cooperate, the Spin House awaited them. Two other women gave evidence that Schravenwaard had tried to force one of them to have a sexual relationship with him; in return he would rent a house for her in a good neighbourhood and bring ‘real gentlemen’ there. She need have no fear of pregnancy, since ‘if it’s on the brink. . . I’ll take it out and throw it overboard’, an in- triguing—and rare—reference to coitus interruptus. Schravenwaard, in short, was a dishonourable rogue, no better than a brothel-keeper.

In interrogating the accused, Bailiff Ferdinand van Collen kept re- peating that immediately on taking office he had given strict orders to stamp out all whorehouses, so Schravenwaard ought to have arrested

Poxy Anna, the Mussel, and all their whores.The deputy bailiff at first defended himself with denials and excuses, but eventually he arrived at a defence that cut rather more ice, namely that you cannot use inform- ers and prosecute them at the same time. He pointed out that corre- spondents were never arrested by other deputies, nor by the constables. All he had done, he repeatedly insisted, was to follow the customs and practices of his predecessors and colleagues.
‌
‌

Profits and punishments

Naturally all those involved were in it for the money. Of the
1
,
500
guilders collected from Paulus Annis, the correspondents were given
375
guilders each.The official share for such services was one-eighth, but a quarter was customary; the ‘outspoken damsel’ of
D’Openhertige Juffrouw
had negotiated payment of a quarter of the proceeds around

1681
.
54
The organizer of the ‘exploit’, Dirk van Dusseldorp, had nego- tiated in advance a reward of half the total,
750
guilders, while bawd and informer Poxy Anna was given
100
guilders and prostitute Wille- mijn Biesheuvel forty. The remainder will have been divided among those who had assisted them. In other instances too the sums specified ran into dozens, sometimes hundreds of guilders.Although a great deal of preparation time went into these ‘exploits’ and there were many people who had to be given their share, these were substantial sums of money to people in the lowest ranks of society.

The profits were considerable and so were the penalties. On
15
May, Poxy Anna and the Mussel were sentenced to stand on the scaffold with notices pinned to their chests, to twelve years in the Spin House, and to banishment for twenty-five years.Their husbands were not ar- rested.The other women involved received the usual punishments for prostitution. Willemijn Biesheuvel was heard only as a witness. Dirk had fled the city, and despite extensive efforts he was not caught.
55
Schravenwaard’s officers were reprimanded; the two constables who had allowed him to escape and whom the court suspected of accepting pay-offs were suspended for six months.
56
Finally, Jan Schravenwaard was sentenced. He was dismissed from his post, banished from the city for twelve years, and declared ‘dishonourable and inhabile’. He also had to pay back the
1
,
500
guilders extorted from Paulus Annis and reimburse all the costs of the proceedings against him and the others.

As far as the Confession Books are concerned, this is the end of the case, yet Bicker
R
aye writes in his diary:‘His colleague François Sper- mondt was removed from his post, also for roguish tricks.’ The Confes- sion Books make no mention of a case against Deputy Bailiff Spermondt, in fact he is nowhere named, but among the bailiffs’ pa- pers is a dossier headed ‘Documents in the case of H Timmerman versus the deputy bailiff, François Spermondt, accused of extortion
‌
‌

and convicted of it and removed from office,
15
May
1739
’. It contains two lengthy depositions, dated
16
and
17
April, by Hendrik Timmer- man, a widower who had been caught in bed with a prostitute, and Abraham de Haan, his ‘very close friend’, who came to his aid on the fateful evening in question.
57

The case of Deputy Bailiff François Spermondt

‘On
11
February of this year
1739
,’ Abraham de Haan begins his story, ‘in the evening at around eleven o’clock or half past ten’, the landlord of Het Witte Wambuys came to his door with a note from Timmerman and the request to go with him immediately. On the way the innkeeper reassured the startled man.‘There is no difficulty; he [Timmerman] has been found with a wench and is being held, but everything will be arranged, it has already been settled, all that now remains is to find the money.’

At the inn de Haan found his friend with Deputy Spermondt in the front-house (the front room on the ground floor). Timmerman admit- ted he had been caught in bed with a woman and said it was now a matter of finding
200
guilders before midnight, since otherwise he would be taken to the holding cells the next morning for a ‘public reprimand’. De Haan offered to sign a promissory note or bond, but Spermondt claimed he could not accept it in lieu of payment without permission from the bailiff, who would now be in bed. He had already done all he could to reach a favourable agreement with the bailiff, out of ‘old affection’, Spermondt said, since he had been at school with Timmerman.

Nothing could alter the fact that de Haan needed to find money immediately. He did not have enough to hand, and neither did the innkeeper, who was usually willing to lend considerable amounts in cases like this—at a steep rate of interest.There was no option but to

do what Timmerman had wanted to avoid at all costs: to send to his own house for the money. De Haan hurried to his friend’s home, told his shocked sisters what was going on, and was given the sum required. He ran as fast as he could, but it was past midnight when he arrived back, so he had to pay for two days’ detention at the inn, bringing the total cost to
273
guilders.Timmerman was free to go, but the deputy strongly advised him to visit the bailiff the following day to thank him for his ‘merciful treatment’. He promised to do so. By one o’clock he was home.