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

Chapter 5. Times of trouble. Taking a stand
While he makes I.B. the enemy of every legitimate ruler, Boxhorn stands for
the majesty of kings and the obedience that subjects owe to their lawful rulers.
49 At first sight Boxhorn takes a quite radical pro-monarchical standpoint.
The kings are God’s anointed and as such they may not be harmed; they
are the fathers of their people, and like fathers they need to be obeyed; bad
kings, indeed, even tyrants need to be obeyed at all times. Boxhorn supports
these arguments with a mass of examples and references to the Bible, classical
authors, and ancient and modern history. 50 On the other hand, Boxhorn keeps
a window open for those who are oppressed. Citing Grotius’s De iure belli ac
pacis (The Rights of War and Peace, 1625), Boxhorn holds that collectively a people,
as if they are acting like one person, can depose a king who has become a
tyrant. 51 Furthermore, fathers who give orders that run contrary to reason or
nature do not need to be obeyed and tyrants may be killed. 52
The latent contradiction between these two opposite stands comes most
clearly to the fore in the work of John of Salisbury (1115-1180) that Boxhorn
quotes. According to Salisbury in his book Policraticus (1159), both kings and
tyrants are God’s anointed and his servants. As such, they need to be honoured
and obeyed. The only recourse left to subjects is to pray for salvation. 53
Here, via the words of Salisbury, Boxhorn stresses passive suffering. Salisbury,
however, also concludes that there is a form of tyranny that so far exceeds a
public crime that everyone who ‘does not prosecute’ the person responsible
for that tyranny ‘transgresses against himself and against the whole body of
the earthly republic’. This form of tyranny is the ‘oppression of laws which
should themselves command emperors’. 54
49 Boxhorn explicitly explains that, regardless of the form of government, obedience is due to all
rulers. To substantiate this thesis he refers to Paul’s letter to the Romans 13:1, that speaks of powers
in the plural form. Boxhorn, De majestate, pp. 88-89. This interpretation of Romans 13:1 was particular
popular among those who attacked the prerogatives of kingship. See, for instance, Hall, Grounds and
Reasons of Monarchy, p. 24.
50 To name but a few: 1 Samuel 24:7-11; Psalm 105; 1 Peter 2:13-15; Tacitus, The Annals, IV.28-29, and
VI.8; idem, Agricola, XXXXII; Seneca, Controversies, IV.27; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
IV.20.31.
51 Boxhorn, De majestate, p. 23, and Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, I.4.11.
52 Ibidem, pp. 23-24. Here Boxhorn refers to the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (first century
AD).
53 John of Salisbury, Policraticus, VIII.18, and VIII.20.
54 Ibidem, III.15. Boxhorn, De majestate, p. 77. ‘Cum multa sint crimina majestatis, nullum gravius est
eo, QVOD ADVERSVS IPSVM JVSTITIAE CORPVS EXERCETUR. Tyrannis non modo publicum crimen,
sed, si fieri posset, plus quam publicum est. Si enim crimen majestatis omnes persecutores admittit, quanto magis
illud, quod leges premit, quae ipsis debent imperatoribus imperare? Certe quisquis hostem publicum non persequitur,
in seipsum, & in totum Reipub. mundanae corpus delinquit.’ ‘Although there are many forms of high
treason, none of them is so serious as THAT WHICH IS EXECUTED AGAINST THE BODY OF JUSTICE
ITSELF. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public. For
if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when
there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely, whoever does not
129