As the philosopher Aaron Ben-Ze’ev has noted, ‘external timing refers to a specific point of time that, in retrospect, is thought to have had a good or bad effect on the outcome’. He has argued that external romantic timing can be a case of luck, like accidentally sitting next to each other on the train. Still, it can also mean recognising the right circumstances and actively making the most of them.²⁹ For Hester and Daniel, the latter scenario applied. During the siege of Antwerp they both stayed in Holland for distinct purposes. In May 1584, just a month or two before Farnese’s attack on the Scheldt city, Hester and her brother Jacques della Faille fled their hometown to reside with their aunt in Haarlem. In September, Daniel made the journey to Delft, the political centre at the time. The merchant served as a representative for Antwerp and the States of Brabant to the States-General, and was sent to organise support for the Antwerp Calvinists. Subsequently, Daniel took it upon himself to convince Hester to marry him. They were acquainted from their time in Antwerp and shared a mutual interest in each other. Away from Marten, Hester’s brother, who disapproved of the union, the couple managed to devise a plan to be together.³⁰

Besides timing, time itself is of the essence for a romantic relationship to flourish. Sociologist Mira Moshe has argued that the way we handle our relations nowadays is grounded in economic tradition. Individuals treat time like an investment, a venture that can be measured through so-called ‘temporal coins’. People are under the impression that their efforts from the past and present will eventually pay off in the future. From this point of view, breaking up a long-term relationship is problematic because it could be considered a temporal loss. However, when a relationship proves effective, both parties want to intensify their temporal investments to maximise their time together and to create as much temporal profit or benefit as possible.³¹ This section examines how our correspondents from the sixteenth century also made temporal investments in order to establish an engagement between Daniel and Hester.

Economic transformations characterised the sixteenth-century Low Countries, and Antwerp became Western Europe’s trade and financial centre.³² The desire of early modern merchants to acquire more profit also pervaded the romantic sphere. The marriage negotiations between Daniel and Hester were no exception. Their wedding was first and foremost set up as a strategic alliance of two mercantile families, with the highest pay-outs for the Van der Meulens, since Della Faille was one of the wealthiest and most well-connected families at the time.³³ On 22 September 1584, a month after Daniel had moved to Holland for his diplomatic and, subsequently, romantic mission, Andries wrote to Hester – whom he already called his toecomende suster (‘future sister’) – the following:

In Andries’s letter, an important future goal is set: Daniel marrying Hester. The brother opens his argument emotionally. He facilitates the coming together of these individuals because he knows it will make them happy. Here, he links an optimistic emotion with the institute of marriage – a romantic narrative. As Manon van der Heijden has noted, Catholic theologians emphasised marriage for reproductive purposes, while Protestant Reformers advocated ‘marital love’ as its most desired outcome.³⁵ Hence, the Reformation brought a change of moral expectations regarding the prospects of conjugal life, one that Andries also processed in his rationale for an engagement. Next, Andries uses vermoghen to indicate his part in pursuing the objective, meaning power, capacity, or resources, all crucial elements for influencing family politics. Of interest here is Andries’s claim of making temporal investments in the ‘happily-ever-after’ of the two lovers because he too – as part of Daniel’s family – will share in the future profits of this marriage. The eldest son of the Van der Meulens advocates the positive impact a union would have on both families, for which he uses the word profijtelijck (‘profitable’). This means that Daniel and Hester and other supporters of their union pay the temporal price (i.e., investments of time and energy) of the romantic relationship. Andries continues:

This citation mirrors the earlier emotional argument for an engagement, yet it reverses the perspective by associating any postponement in the engagement with negative feelings (al te swaer soude vallen). In this context, a brief timeframe is perceived positively due to its association with minimal investment and maximum results.

Overall, the confidence with which Andries tackles the issue of Hester and Daniel best fits the futural orientation of anticipation from Bryant and Knight’s typology. The anthropologists describe this mode of future thinking as follows: ‘Anticipation is more than simply expecting something to happen; it is the act of looking forward that also pulls [one] in the direction of the future and prepares the groundwork for that future to occur.’³⁷ In other words, a person stands with one foot in the present and the other in the future. A crucial textual clue for anticipation is Andries’s reference to Hester as a ‘future’ or, to be more precise, ‘forthcoming sister’ (toecomende suster) prior to engagement. In Bryant and Knight’s understanding, anticipation is the most intense futural orientation. This means that the anticipated – in this case, familial unity and happiness resulting from marriage – gains prominence within the existing regime of temporalities in which our protagonists operate. The question is, however, what happens when anticipation is hampered by conflict.

At the time of Daniel’s courtship, Andries could only assert himself from Antwerp because of the office he had held here as an alderman since 1580, a position that was accompanied by important responsibilities during the siege: ‘I have been very desirous to come with my brother [to Haarlem], but have been prevented from doing so by the straitened occupations of my office, which gives me much pain.’³⁸ Clearly, the occasion of the siege – a rupture in time – slowly got a grip on the correspondents’ lives, awakening or foregrounding certain roles and accompanying temporal orientations, followed by negative feelings. Early on, the siege caused a delay in the anticipated engagement. On 3 October 1584, Andries wrote to Daniel that ‘I do not think that anything can be done regarding your case (Uwe saecke)’, referring to Daniel’s courtship, ‘because of the great inconvenience of the times’.³⁹ The rupture left Andries unable to consult with Hester’s brothers. At the same time, he advised Daniel to make ‘as much effort as possible’ with Hester and devote all his time to the matter.⁴⁰

The engagement’s progression hinged on Jan della Faille, Hester’s eldest brother, joining Daniel, Hester, and Jacques in Holland. Once in their midst, they could more easily persuade him to agree to the marriage.⁴¹ Marten would remain in Antwerp, deliberately excluded from the discussion, also for reasons that benefit his brothers, who were cautious about granting him complete authority over the family affairs.⁴² However, the rupture made bringing this future-oriented action to fruition challenging. On 5 October, Andries reported that Jan could not travel until conditions were less perilous.⁴³ Five days later, the alderman noted a further deterioration in Antwerp’s situation, expressing concern about its impact on Jan’s journey, but ‘time will tell’.⁴⁴ In the following weeks, Jan remains worried by the conflict, ‘his body struck by fear’ because of the dangers he may encounter along his way up north.⁴⁵ Nonetheless, Andries assured his brother that he would make every effort to facilitate Jan’s departure ‘so that the matter is not delayed by the inconstancy of time’.⁴⁶ Thanks to Andries’s labours, Jan was eventually able to take the journey before 9 November.⁴⁷

These future narratives reveal and recognise different areas of influence, namely that of the awaited in-laws and the prevailing political climate. Naturally, these factors affect the timeline Andries had envisioned for Daniel’s courtship. Uses such as ‘inconstancy of time’ (onghestadicheyt des tijts), ‘great inconvenience of time’ (groote onghelegentheyt des tijts), and ‘time will tell’ (den tijd zal leeren), as well as derivatives of ‘(to) fear’ (ick vreese; de vreese; vreesachtich), vividly demonstrate how the sense of rupture is articulated in Andries’s writing – his is a discourse of crisis. As Bryant and Knight argue, periods of violence and terror can render the future uncertain and unknown, hindering the capacity for anticipation.⁴⁸ However, according to Andries’s writings, contemporary events should not delay pursuing the desired future of a union between Van der Meulen and Della Faille. He attempted to keep the domains of courtship and rupture separate for as long as possible. Still, this could not be done due to their temporal entanglement – a crucial aspect of pluritemporality. By way of contrast, his brother-in-law Louis de Malapert adopted a more critical stance.⁴⁹ He employed the term dese gheleghentheyt van thijde (‘this occasion of time’) to evaluate the anticipated engagement in a more pessimistic, or realistic light. Unlike Andries, he believed that the current circumstances were not favourable to engage in family politics, given the impossibility to converse in person.⁵⁰

The siege of Antwerp not only prevented many from travelling but also caused no little anxiety. Together with objections from the Della Failles, this resulted in an intensification of temporal investments by the proponents of Daniel and Hester’s marriage. The plan was never abandoned, meaning that the potential profits of the union were perceived as being great enough to warrant such unexpected and increased investments of time and energy, accompanied by an extended timeline with no clear horizon. In addition, the correspondence indicates that the situation in Antwerp was considered temporary and should not get in the way of a wedding, a momentous event within the early modern life cycle that provided stability and continuity for the individuals and families involved. The uncertainty and fear colouring the present timespace were swept away by an optimistic and durable prospect for an ‘ordinary’ future. This perspective likely stemmed from past experiences grappling with chaos and warfare during the Dutch Revolt. As discussed in the introduction, the Van der Meulens had previously left Antwerp for several years, only to re-establish themselves along the Scheldt when it was once again considered safe for Protestants. These previous encounters with upheaval likely contributed to the perception that a state of rupture was transitory, just another crisis waiting to be resolved.

In early modern times, marriage as a tool or strategy can be explained on two levels. First, it could be deployed to shape the present in favour of the lovers and their respective nuclear families, forming a horizontal bond. Simultaneously, it could influence the lives of subsequent generations via legacy and inheritance, which entails a vertical relationship.⁵¹ Incidentally, these horizontal and vertical connections can also be interpreted as short-term and long-term future thinking. As the previous section has shown, arranging a marriage between persons of repute could involve (a lot of) family politics. In the case of Daniel and Hester, familial negotiations were primarily left to the eldest sons of each family, as the respective fathers were both dead.⁵² However, other authoritarian figures also oversaw the mercantile family regime. At Della Faille, these were Jan’s brothers, Jacques and Marten. Together with Jan, they were named as executors of their father’s estate – the family legacy – and in this capacity they supervised Hester’s future.⁵³ On the other side, Elizabeth Zeghers used her power as a matriarch to ensure that the engagement between her son and Hester came to fruition.⁵⁴

A letter written by Daniel’s sister Sara clearly displays Elizabeth’s involvement as a family manager. On 29 October 1584, Sara conveyed their mother’s wish for Daniel to refrain from his intention to visit them in Antwerp. Elizabeth pressed her son to conclude his pending affairs (Uwe voorgenomen saeck), another reference to the proposed engagement. Consequently, Daniel was forbidden to return to his hometown, despite the critical condition of his youngest sister, Marie, who was battling tuberculosis (de loose). According to Sara, she ‘gets weaker every day’, ‘heaves white foam’, and ‘spits up a spoonful of clear blood’.⁵⁵ Her days seem numbered. Sara recognizes this as part of God’s plan. However, she also expresses that witnessing a loved one battling an illness for an extended period remains a sorrowful experience.⁵⁶ Despite the gloomy situation in the family’s residence, Daniel’s availability as a brother was compromised as he needed to prioritise his role as a suitor. The difference in futural orientations within the Van der Meulen family regime, concerning the lives of siblings Daniel and Marie, is highlighted by the following commendation formula:

Sara’s letter reveals several dichotomies, including female-male, young-old, sickness-health, and short-long life. It is, however, obvious whose temporal necessities are given precedence. Marie passed away on the morning of 9 November; Daniel and Hester were engaged on 22 November. Daniel thus secured his future without bidding farewell to his sister.⁵⁸ Investing time in future affairs and their expected profits – which in this case translates into upward social mobility – was given priority over investment in expiring matters, such as a sick (and young, female) relative; a clear trade-off between temporal and by extension socio-economic gain and loss.

Within the early modern family, mutual responsibility was not solely based on pecking order but also on friendship, a term used for affectionate relationships with other individuals, including relatives. Friendship, alongside marriage, was a meaningful way to strengthen horizontal ties between non-marital family connections.⁵⁹ Sadler emphasizes the importance of creating ‘functional relationships’ among kin. He notes that being siblings was not enough; it was also necessary to be friends who met both physical and emotional expectations, which were influenced by the power dynamics within the social circle.⁶⁰ Hence, friendship was accompanied by hierarchies and, more importantly, expectations – a futural orientation closely related to anticipation and placed second in Bryant and Knight’s typology. They point out that the difference between the two orientations is their ‘thickness in the present’ and their ‘relationship with the past’.⁶¹ Whereas anticipation draws the future into the here and now, expectation concerns a more far-reaching horizon that includes (im)possibility; our expectations might (not) be met. The anthropologists describe it as ‘a conservative teleology’ because of its ‘implicit and assumed reliance on the past’.⁶²

In the context of Andries and Daniel’s relationship – prompted by the hierarchy of older and younger brothers – Andries’s earlier description of Daniel as his ‘dearest friend in the world’ (den liefsten vriendt die ick inder weerelt hebbe) exemplifies his sentiments towards his brother, or at the very least how he conveyed their relationship to others. Additional interpersonal expectations were established through nuanced textual cues, such as Andries’s sign-off in his letters to Daniel: ‘Your servant brother, always willing, Andries van der Meulen.’⁶³ ‘Always’ refers to a timeless and steadfast commitment, signifying an enduring fraternal bond. One could, of course, argue that it is part of the greeting formula, a standardised way to end a letter. Still, nowhere else in the Van der Meulen correspondence of 1584-1585 is this temporal adverb used as consistently as in Andries’s letters to Daniel. The power of repetition could have considerably affected Daniel’s expectations of Andries. Moreover, the combination of the spatial ‘world’ and temporal ‘always’ suggests that their friendship is larger than the current timespace. Andries’s argument to Hester, namely that he makes temporal investments not only from the standpoint of his patrimonial role but also with his brother’s welfare in mind, his future happiness, encourages this assumption.

Back to the present, how did the ongoing rupture affect the expectations of relatives and friends in the context of Daniel and Hester’s marriage story? A wedding, especially one that had been so vocally supported and welcomed by various family members, naturally included expectations such as the attendance of loved ones at the celebrations. While the Dutch Revolt positively influenced the bringing together of Daniel and Hester, it turned out to be problematic for the wedding ceremony that took place in the Walloon church of Haarlem, ‘a fully Calvinist affair’.⁶⁴ A majority of the couple’s friends and relatives from the Southern Netherlands were unable to attend due to the evolving war. Others refrained from attending because of their disapproval of the marriage, including Marten and relatives who had remained in the Church of Rome. The ceremony, originally scheduled for 16 December, three weeks after the engagement (as per Protestant tradition), was ultimately held on 24 December.⁶⁵ A number of relatives were unaware of the time adjustment, including Andries. Consequently, he penned the following to Daniel on 7 December 1584:

Andries had to compromise as a result of the different roles he fulfilled, namely as alderman of the endangered city of Antwerp (connected to rupture), paterfamilias (vertical relationship), and fraternal friend (horizontal bond). He sympathised with his younger brother’s wishes to have his nearest and dearest at the wedding. Still, he was responsible for protecting both the city of Antwerp and the family’s well-being. As an alderman, he could not attend the festivities anyway, but neither did he wish his mother, wife, and sister to go to Haarlem given the current conflict and limited time horizon (again, he assumed that the wedding would take place on 16 December). He prevented the family from travelling out of fear for their health and safety, especially that of the matriarch Elizabeth’s. Apparently, their closest friends came to the same conclusions. When Daniel and Hester’s anticipated union was to be celebrated, fear reigned instead. The influence of rupture in this instant demonstrates that within the temporal regime of the early modern mercantile family, collective well-being trumped personal desires, and vertical responsibilities exceed horizontal expectations.

In Protestant tradition, marriage is regarded not as a sacrament, as in Catholicism, but as a sacred alliance, signifying the union of man and woman in becoming as one.⁶⁷ This marital commitment signified a profound transformation, representing a new phase in life in which other roles, like parenthood, may emerge. However, a married couple consists of two persons who also bring their own experiences and expectations into the alliance.⁶⁸ This section explores the correspondence leading up to and following Daniel and Hester’s wedding celebrations. It will focus on two main themes: the envisioned prospects tied to their marriage (representing a shared future) and the communicated expectations linked to their distinct roles as husband and wife (reflecting individual experiences of marriage). Of course, this analysis will consider the impact of rupture on Daniel and Hester’s love life.

On 12 December 1584, cousin Peeter Janssens wrote to Daniel:

We can discern two futural orientations tied to distinct temporal horizons in this bidding. The first is anticipation and pertains to ‘future niece’ (toekomende nicht), indicating an imminent wedding associated with a specific date. The shift from 16 to 24 of December is of little consequence, as the plan is set to materialise promptly, thanks to the intensification of temporal investments undertaken. The second is hope, formatted as a wish. It orientates the new life phase – with God’s help – in an optimistic direction; Peeter prays that Daniel and Hester’s time together will be blissful. Bryant and Knight describe hope as a future of blocked or unrealised potential: ‘Hope is about something that doesn’t presently exist but potentially could; hope is based on more than a possibility and less than a probability.’⁷⁰ Moreover, it concerns an orientation in motion, a positive movement towards something. In their chart, hope comes in at number five (out of six), which means that the hoped-for is not considered the most relevant within the pluritemporal spectrum, undoubtedly since there is so little control or social engineering involved.⁷¹ Logically, this orientation will receive fewer temporal investments than the anticipated or the expected. Incidentally, hope encompasses various definitions that may not entirely align with Bryant and Knight’s explanation.⁷² In a Calvinist context, hope also takes on a distinctive meaning. Here, it is often understood as a form of assurance or confidence in God’s promises. Unlike some other Christian traditions where hope may be seen as a wishful desire for a positive outcome, Calvinists emphasise a more certain and grounded expectation. After all, they believe in the sovereignty of God, meaning that everything that happens, both good and bad, is part of a divine plan. As such, hope finds its foundation in God’s steadfast nature.⁷³

Andries also sent his well-wishes on behalf of the family in Antwerp, writing the following message on 13 December 1584:

This future narrative explicitly mentions the transformation from bachelorhood to marital status. Andries hopes for veel gheluckx (‘much happiness’) and vrede (‘peace’) as characteristics of Daniel and Hester’s – whom he now considers a sister – joint life. Within the context of rupture, both Peeter and Andries present married life as a ‘Time of Stability or Peace’, which is directly opposed to the ‘Time of Crisis or War’ in which Daniel and Hester got wed.⁷⁵ Within this Calvinist framework, their hopeful statements serve as a beacon guiding Daniel and Hester towards a stable, bright, and enduring future, steering them away from the turbulence of the present.

Once the two were married, the family brokers could take a step back, and the spouses themselves needed to get to work to plan the rest of their lives together. Attaining the potential of a harmonious, content, and joyful marriage was a responsibility that rested not solely in the hands of God. Andries offered valuable counsel to secure the future of the newlyweds. In a letter dated 30/31 December 1584, he advised Daniel to fulfil his wife’s every desire, creating an environment of assured, steadfast, and unbreakable love.⁷⁶ Furthermore, he noted:

This citation illustrates that youthful love was seen as impulsive, uncertain, and delicate in the early modern period, and was compared to the unpredictability of the weather. Andries advised Daniel to place his focus on being a devoted husband and lover, prioritizing it over other responsibilities. As premarital love was not the norm, engagements were often brief.⁷⁸ Therefore, Daniel needed to exercise patience to give his marriage the opportunity to thrive. According to Barclay, from the Reformation onwards ‘early modern society placed more weight on love as an action or a set of actions (than a “feeling”).’⁷⁹ Her deduction is consistent with the way Andries addresses his brother. The importance of temporal investments for future benefits of romantic love is evident, suggesting that the following principle held true in the past as well: ‘Romantic relationships […] are not based on a single night; they are about the ongoing development of a couple’s flourishing.’⁸⁰

The beginning of Daniel and Hester’s marital timeline mirrored that of the siege of Antwerp. Daniel’s political duties in Holland took a backseat due to the time required for courtship and wedding preparations. Nearly a month after their union, it was imperative for Daniel to refocus on his diplomatic responsibilities, especially with the advancing Habsburg army. He relocated to Delft, where the States-General were based at the time.⁸¹ In contrast to their heart desires and the advice offered by Andries, the married couple unexpectedly found themselves living apart, diverging significantly from the best wishes the couple had received for their joint future. That reality did not align with prior hopes and expectations becomes evident in Daniel’s emotive letter to Hester on 7 March 1585:

The patience Daniel had to exercise as a new husband in order for love to grow he now passed on to Hester, allowing him to fulfil other roles, in his case his diplomatic responsibilities caused by the current war. Daniel invoked the promises of loyalty and love (trowe ende lieffde) as the central binding force between the two lovers during these troubled times. Sadler writes that ‘the development of a constant and secure mutual affection and emotional attachment […] provided a strong basis for their interactions with the outside world’.⁸³ The danger here, of course, lies in the fragility of that mentioned love. Lastly, as with hope, we can also place the use of patience in a Calvinist framework. Patience is a key virtue rooted in the belief in God’s providential control over all aspects of life. It serves as a foundation for enduring trials, maintaining faith, and living a life aligned with God’s will.⁸⁴ This religious doctrine shapes a narrative regime in which emotions and temporal experiences mutually influence one another: first enduring in the present, but ultimately attaining happiness in the future.

Daniel and Hester’s marriage, once at the forefront of the discussed temporal framework, gradually receded into the background after its consummation. This suggests a conflict between two distinct occasions: the romantic (couple time) and the political (vocation time), constantly demanding attention and therefore alternating temporal investments. Again, the demands arising from the rupture appear to overshadow the futural orientations tied to horizontal bonds, as previously exemplified in Daniel’s relationship with Andries. The correspondence clarifies how Daniel’s new role as paterfamilias concerns Hester’s experience of time, making her prone to disappointment when marital promises fail to materialise. As her husband, he invokes a Calvinist narrative of patience to somewhat rationalize the situation and prevent or de-escalate possible tensions between the couple. Moreover, the letter sheds light on Daniel’s emotional state, marked by internal conflict due to the responsibilities and expectations tied to his roles, manifesting as a sense of sadness. It is worth noting that this emotion might also be one he was expected to convey for Hester’s sake.

Arguably the most significant insight gleaned from this study is that the future, particularly in the context of marriage, is depicted as both constructive and optimistic, even though Antwerp, the home ground of the families examined, was under siege – an event that generated a timespace marked by anxiety and fear, traditionally seen as impediments to human agency. Nonetheless, the Van der Meulen correspondence underscores the idea that rupture was perceived as a temporary setback, most likely based on previous experiences with turmoil. In anticipation of a forthcoming return to normalcy, time investments were made to materialize the next logical step in the life of our correspondents: marriage. Daniel and Hester’s union was conceived as a partnership that would not only enhance their own lives but, more significantly, those of their immediate families. Here, the cyclical nature of life – progressing through various life stages with their associated events and expectations – aligns with the linear trajectory of improvement, ensuring the family’s enduring prosperity.

The realization of the marriage plan encountered obstacles; familial disagreements and Antwerp’s siege produced an unconventional and more lengthy timeline than initially envisioned. Nevertheless, the plan’s completion had everything to do with the influence exercised by the senior members of the merchant family on the existing pluritemporal regime. Through their place in society and the household, family managers could construct futures by taking actions themselves or giving orders to others. Pay-offs were based on the number of people a particular future scenario would benefit. Ideally, scenarios included both horizontal and vertical interests – the former focused on social relations in the current timespace, and the latter involving socio-economic improvement, legacy, and inheritance – ensuring continuity.

This article has demonstrated that the temporal ambitions of the Van der Meulen and Della Faille families were driven by a mercantile and patrimonial culture: the interests of the individual were balanced with the best outcomes for the collective. Their approach to the future and handling of rupture likely mirrored that of other nuclear families in their community. A close examination of the types of futural orientations and the level of temporal investment at a particular moment in life allows us to discern which objectives hold greater significance within a specific temporal framework. Moreover, by investigating other people’s temporal experiences through such a synchronic study of pluritemporality, it becomes feasible to uncover both commonalities and variations in past future thinking within a society, and potentially even across different times and regions.

Lastly, this essay has shown that the organisation of social structures significantly impacted how early modern people oriented themselves towards the future and how imagined futures were constructed, even on the micro level. In addition, it has presented both rational and emotional motivations behind what we might call domestic planning. Because of its focus on the nuclear family, my research interfaces with what is called family strategy, an element within the wider history of the family and household.⁸⁵ The concept of strategies embraces ‘choices, risks, uncertainties, and constraints’ – issues inherently related to future thinking.⁸⁶ For historians of the early modern era accustomed to employing the concept of strategies, incorporating concepts like temporality and future orientation could offer deeper insights into the prospects of historical figures, how they articulated them, and how they navigated or adjusted to changing times. This would be one way to improve our understanding of both short- and long-term future thinking in the premodern world.