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

134
Chapter 5. Times of trouble. Taking a stand
for his politica students and had dictated it to them at his private lectures. The
lecture notes that were the result had become so widespread that they had
finally ended up in the hands of a bookseller, who had them published, without,
however, mentioning Boxhorn’s name. 70
Several sources seem to confirm Sorbière’s story. 71 However, neither they
nor Sorbière’s story can give a decisive answer to the question if Boxhorn him-
70 Sorbière, Lettres et Discours de M. de Sorbiere, sur diverses Matieres Curieuses, pp. 438-39. ‘Ie
vous ay envoyé un Petit livre assés curieux; Commentariolus de Statu Provinciarum federati Belgii, de la
publication duquel on a esté fasché en ce Provinces, pource qu’il donne une Idée fort nette du gouvernement
de cette Republique, et que cela devoit demeurer inter Arcana Imperii. Boxhornius avoit dressé
ce Commentaire pour ses écholiers en politique, et le leur avoit dicté en particulier: mais le secret a
esté éventé, et il s’en est fait tant de copies, qu’enfin un Libraire l’a mis sous la presse, sans y mettre
son nom; et l’edition a esté plutost venduë, qu’on n’a eu le loisir de s’en formaliser.’ See also Wansink,
Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse universiteit, pp. 239-40. The bookseller was Johannes Verhoeve at The
Hague. Verhoeve was also responsible for the Dutch translation and publication of Graswinckel’s promonarchical
dissertation on the government of England (see footnote 4 above). He would also publish
Boxhorn’s Disquisitiones politicae (see chapter 9, footnote 1). Unless stated otherwise, in this thesis all
references to the Commentariolus refer to the 1649 Verhoeve edition.
71 See Baselius, “Historia vitae & obitus”, viii-x, with the following quote on ix-x. ‘Sed & Politicam
discipulos suos docebat: non vulgarem modo & tritam, nudis praeceptis consistentem … sed &
ex Historiis desumptam adeoque practicam, imo παϱαδειγματικήν. Hinc natae disquisitiones Politicae,
postmodum juris publici factae, sed tacito authoris nomine, quae & saepius recusae sunt. Hinc & natus
commentariolus de statu foederati Belgii, eodem modo editus, saepius item recusus & in Belgicam
linguam versus.’ The 1649 Verhoeve edition of the Commentariolus does indeed not mention the name
of the author.
The Royal Library in The Hague holds two handwritten manuscripts of the Commentariolus. One of
them is bound together with a handwritten copy of Boxhorn’s Disquisitiones politicae. Both are signed by
one Albertus Becker, whose identity I have been unable to find out. (No Albertus Becker, for example,
is listed in the album studiosorum of the University of Leiden nor in that of Utrecht.) It is possible that
Becker was one of the many students who studied at Leiden, but never officially enrolled as students
at the town’s University. (See Wansink, Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse universiteit, p. 5.) The differences
between the text of Becker’s handwritten copy of the Commentariolus and the text of the Commentariolus
as it was published in 1649 by Verhoeve suggest that the 1649 Verhoeve edition was not available
to Becker. Thus, it is very likely that Becker’s handwritten copy of the Commentariolus predates the 1649
Verhoeve edition. Becker may have been one of the students who attended Boxhorn’s private lectures
on politics or, if he did not, he could have copied his version of the text of the Commentariolus from the
text of someone who did. See Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn, Status politicus uniforum Ordinum Belgicarum
Provinciarum dictatus. Edidit Albertus Becker (?, ?). KB, 76 H 30.
The other manuscript of the Commentariolus is dated 1643. It contains three different handwritings.
The first handwriting is the actual Latin manuscript of the Commentariolus. The second handwriting are
notes on this Latin manuscript. This handwriting is in Dutch. The third handwriting are small notes,
mostly in Dutch, scattered around the manuscript. They refer to both the Latin content of the Commentariolus
in the first handwriting and to the Dutch notes in the second handwriting. The manuscript is
attributed to Johan de la Court, who was at that time enrolled as a student at Leiden University. Kossmann,
Political Thought in the Dutch Republic, p. 42, and Wansink, Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse universiteit,
p. 240. Noel Malcolm has therefore suggested that Johan de la Court ‘may have been responsible
for the unauthorised printing’ of the Commentariolus, since ‘the work bears a suspicious resemblance
to Johan’s own notes on the lectures, which he heard in 1643’. Malcolm, “Hobbes and Spinoza”, p. 547.
However, due to a lack of material for comparison, Johan de la Court’s authorship cannot be maintained
for certain. A comparison with Pieter de la Court’s notes in a copy of the Aanwysing der heilsame politike
gronden en maximen van de Republike van Holland en West-Vriesland (Hakkens; Leiden/Rotterdam, 1669.
KB, 393 C 22) and his notes in a copy of the Interest van Holland (?; Amsterdam, 1662. KB, 73 B 17), on the
other hand, teaches us that the third handwriting is almost certainly that of Pieter de la Court. However,
when Pieter de la Court wrote his notes in the manuscript of the Commentariolus remains uncertain. See
Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn, Status Foederatarum Belgii Provinciarum, excerptús ex ore Clarissimi viri D.M.
Zuerii Boxhornii Eloqúentiae in Academia Lúgduno Batava professoris ordinarij. Anno 1643. Edidit [Pieter de