historical and political thought in the seventeenth - RePub - Erasmus ...

104
Chapter 4. Times of success. Defending the fatherland
that it was possible for the king of England to exercise dominion over the
sea. 62 Both the Apologia and the copy of the Magnus Intercursus that had been
attached to the pirate edition of Mare Clausum that had appeared in the Dutch
Republic in 1636 did not straightforwardly attack the theoretical possibility
that the king of England could indeed exercise dominion over the sea. But
they did offer an alternative historical reading to some of the ‘facts’ Selden
had put forward in Mare Clausum to defend his thesis, thereby undermining
the credibility of Selden’s account.
There is no evidence that Boxhorn was behind the pirate edition of 1636
that contained his Apologia and his copy of the Magnus Intercursus. But his
correspondence with Pontanus shows that he kept himself informed of the
attempts that were made to defend ‘the dignity of our commonwealth’ against
Selden’s work. 63 Boxhorn had high hopes that the States General would allow
the treatise that his colleague Theodor Graswinckel (1601-1666) had prepared
on their instruction to be published. 64 But in the end the States General backed
down; bounded hand and foot to their war with Spain and with tensions running
high in the Baltic, the Dutch did not dare to challenge the English so
openly, afraid that this would drive Charles I into the arms of Spain. 65
62 Christianson, Discourse on History, Law, and Governance in the Public Career of John Selden, p. 250.
See also Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea, p. 273. ‘It was, however, the second book of Mare Clausum
which gave it its chief political importance. It was appropriate and necessary that the claims of Charles
should be justified in the domain of law and custom; it was still more necessary that they should be
supported by weighty precedents existing in the history of England – that some of his predecessors had
been styled Lords of the Sea, and had exercised sovereign jurisdiction over foreigners even on their own
coasts.’
63 Boxhorn in a letter to Pontanus, March 21, 1637. Boxhorn, Epistolae et poemata, p. 88. ‘Clarissime
Cognate, ex litteris tuis libens admodum intelligo parata jam illa omnia quae Seldeni Clauso Mari feliciter
opponere occeperas. Doleo tamen, (quod indicare magis, quam scribere voluisti) honestos conatus
tuos prohiberi. Caussam hercle non video. Cur enim improbabuntur eruditorum inter se de tam illustri
argumento velitationes? Nec enim malae in remp. artes sunt ejuscemodi laudata semper exercitia
ingeniorum. Nihil etiam aut adversus serenissimi Britanniarum Regis Majestatem, aut reipubl. nostrae
decus scripto tuo, si rectè novi prudentiam tuam, inseruisti. Sed quid omnino aut tibi, aut libro tuo
factum sit scire velim. Imo exemplar ejus ad me curare non dedignaberis.’
64 Boxhorn in a letter to Pontanus, April 29, 1637. Ibidem, pp. 90-91. ‘Et tu vero, vir clarissime, ita
reserasti clausum pridem Mare, ut hactenus non videam quomodo illud denuò à Seldeno possit recludi.
Non possum quin apud te deponam versiculos, quos nuper hujus argumenti occasione effudi; libera
nunc igitur tolerabit, vincula Thetis? Quid mare, quid faciles quid meruistis aquae? Qui vos infami conclusit
carcere nuper, Hoc meruit, quod vos non meruistis aquae. Certè tuum erat ostendere, quemadmodum luculenter
satis ostendisti, quantum non tam eruditioni suae, quae summa est, quam vel ingenio, vel adulationi
indulserit vir magnus. Habent profecto quo nomine & serenissimus Rex vester, & haec Respubl.
tibi debeant. Librum tuum nonnulli Ordinum nostrorum, quos compellare mihi licuit, diligenter excussere,
& imprimis placere intellexi. De edendo Graswinckelii opere, quod ejusdem argumenti, etiamnum
dubitatur. Futurum tamen existimo, ut tandem prodeat. Erit etiam in eo haud dubie quod non displicebit.’
Boxhorn in a letter to Pontanus, July 8, 1637. Ibidem, p. 95. ‘De editione operis Graswinckeliani nihil
certi adhuc ab Ordinibus statutum. Quin tamen proditurum sit tandem, nullus ambigo.’
65 Initially the States of Holland had ordered Cunaeus to assess Selden’s book and to advise them on
the best way to react. After examining Cunaeus’s advise (April 10, 1636) the States of Holland decided that
Mare Clausum should be judged as ‘the work of a private person’ (‘voor niets anders aen te sien als voor een
Werck van een particulier Persoon’). Therefore, no official answer was in order. The States General, how-