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

128
Chapter 5. Times of trouble. Taking a stand
with God as its absolute ruler. 46 Besides, if it is true that the crimes of the
prince do not invalidate the right of his innocent heirs, and if it is true that
the people are not allowed to vindicate their freedom and to choose another
form of government, then the Dutch had no right to deny the heirs of Philip
II their lawful inheritance. If Boxhorn would follow up on his own line of
reasoning then he should have concluded that the Dutch Republic should
never have existed.
Boxhorn’s answer to I.B.’s theories and reproaches is the De majestate regum
principumque (On the Majesty of Kings and Princes), a long scholarly tract dedicated
to all the kings and princes of the Christian world. 47 In this tract Boxhorn
fiercely attacks I.B.’s preference for a polyarchy. He depicts I.B.’s polyarchy
as a commonwealth in which the majority governs. This, however,
Boxhorn states, is impossible, since those who obey will always far exceed
those who govern. I.B.’s plea for majority rule is really nothing more than a
covert defense of anarchy, the death of every form of rule. This makes I.B. not
only the enemy of kings, but also of the nobles and patricians that rule the
Dutch Republic. 48 Boxhorn has turned the tables: not he, but I.B. is the real
threat to the patria.
46 I.B., Ad dissertationem Clarissimi Viri D.M.Z.B. De jure primogenitorum, Responsio, pp. 17-18.
47 Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn, De majestate regum principumque ac praerogativa et iure primogenitorum
in adeundo principatu, liber singularis. Quo varia traduntur, & Anonymo respondetur (Petrus Leffen; Leiden,
1649). Knuttel 6383. To the opinion of this author, the Dutch pamphlet ’t Secreet van de Engelsche mis … (?;
?, 1649. Knuttel 6381), which is a reaction to I.B.’s Ad dissertationem and which has been ascribed to Boxhorn
(see Wansink, Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse universiteit, p. 244), has not been written by Boxhorn.
First of all, in ’t Secreet Boxhorn is referred to in the third singular form: ‘he, Boxhorn.’ Although
Boxhorn was familiar with this form (he had edited a version of Caesar’s works), he never seems to have
used it himself. Second, the pamphlet is pretty vulgar. I.B. is called ‘a reincarnated Devil’ (‘een ghevleysden
Duyvel’, p. 4) and ‘a creature removed from Hell’ (‘een uyt de Helle afgebracht gebroedtsel’, p. 5),
while an elaborate argumentation is missing. Finally, the text is preceded by two poems that mock the
death of Isaac Dorislaus (1595-1649), Cromwell’s ambassador at The Hague, who was murdered on May
12, 1649, by Scottish royalists. These three points do not suggest that Boxhorn is the author of ’t Secreet.
Thus, it seems there is a third player. Since it is almost impossible to find out who this third person was,
or could have been, ’t Secreet is left out of the discussion here. We will also not further discuss the Dutch
pamphlet Mis-verstant Vanden Heer Professor Boxhorn, a reaction to ’t Secreet written by I.B., because it
does not hold any new argumentation. To this we can add that in the De majestate Boxhorn only refers to
I.B.’s Ad dissertationem. For an overview of the works involved in the discussion between Boxhorn and
I.B., see Van de Klashorst, Blom and Haitsma Mulier, Bibliography of Dutch Seventeenth Century Political
Thought, pp. 55-58. There, on p. 57, the authorship of ’t Secreet is not attributed to Boxhorn.
48 Ibidem, p. 92. ‘Neque enim in Monarchia modo sed & Optimatum ac Populi, herili etiam ac
paterno imperio, pauciores sunt qui imperant, quam qui obsequuntur. Hi numerare hic sese jubentur,
ne obsequantur. Omnis igitur imperii, quodcunque tandem illud sit (in quocunque enim plerumque
obsequuntur plures, quam imperant) jugulum hic petere Anonymum, nemo non intelligit.’ This is not
true. In his first reaction to Boxhorn I.B. claims that nothing is more detestable and worse than anarchy.
‘Anarchia nihil est quidem miserabilius et detestabilius.’ I.B., Ad dissertationem Clarissimi Viri D.M.Z.B.
De jure primogenitorum, Responsio, p. 6. Boxhorn is deliberately trying to denounce I.B.’s credibility by
making it look as if I.B. is defending anarchy. In the Institutiones politicae, however, Boxhorn actually
defends polyarchic regimes, that is, rule by more than one person, against the criticism that they would
lack effective power. Boxhorn, Institutiones politicae, II.6, pp. 319-27. See chapter 8.