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

Chapter 5. Times of trouble. Taking a stand
self was in anyway involved in the publication of the Commentariolus. As far
as the evidence goes, we can only say that Boxhorn never distanced himself
from the publication of the Commentariolus, what can be interpreted as a sign
that, although the Commentariolus was probably published years after Boxhorn
had taught it to his students, he at least still agreed with its content. If we
compare the date of the intellectual conception of the Commentariolus – which
was probably somewhere in the early 1640s – to the date of its first publication
we can see why this could be the case. 72 Both in the early 1640s and in the
years 1649-50 it was feared that the whole fabric of the Dutch Republic stood
on the brink of collapse. 73 In 1640-41 it was suspected that the provinces, Holland
in particular, were deliberately undermining the Union. In 1649-50 it
looked as if the conflict between the States of Holland and William II would
bring down the state, thereby confirming the fears Boxhorn had expressed the
year before. 74 Thus, in both cases there was a need to evaluate and explain the
la Court?] ([Leiden?], 1643). KB, 70 G 12. I would like to thank Jan Hartman and Arthur Weststeijn for
their help on the issue of the handwritings in this particular manuscript of the Commentariolus.
72 Boxhorn’s discussion of a treaty between the Dutch and Portuguese (Commentariolus, VII.12)
and a Dutch expedition to Chile (Commentariolus, VIII.46) indicate that Boxhorn had dictated at least
some parts of the Commentariolus after 1640. The treaty Boxhorn is referring to is probably the ten-years
truce which the Dutch and Portuguese signed in June 1641, after the latter had revolted against Spain.
The Dutch expedition to Chile to which Boxhorn is referring took place between early 1643, when the
Dutch fleet had set sail, and March 1644, when the Dutch fleet had returned to the Dutch Republic.
From Boxhorn’s discussion of the Dutch expedition it becomes clear that at the time this part of the
Commentariolus was written down the Dutch fleet had already left the Republic ‘for some months’ (‘…
ante menses aliquot …’) to try to forge an alliance with the native peoples of Chile against the Spaniards.
Since Boxhorn seems to be unaware of the negative outcome of the expedition – no alliance was made in
the end – this particular part of the Commentariolus can be dated between mid-1643 and the beginning of
1644 by which time the information about the Dutch failure to conclude an alliance with the Indians of
Chile would have reached the Dutch Republic. Boxhorn, Commentariolus, VIII.46, pp. 137-38, with quote
on the latter. I owe the information on the Dutch expedition to Chile and its consequences for dating
this particular part of the Commentariolus to Alexander Bick, whom I want to thank for his help on this
particular subject. I suspect that Boxhorn stopped teaching the content of the Commentariolus and, as
we shall see in chapter 9, also that of the Disquisitiones politicae, around the time he started to preside
public disputations on politics. Boxhorn got permission to hold these public disputations on May 29,
1643. Molhuysen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Leidsche Universiteit, Vol. 2, pp. 275-76. The first of these
public disputations was held on June 10, 1643. Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn, Dispvtationvm politicarvm De
Regio Romanorum Imperio prima, de Romuli Principatu … Ad diem 10. Iunij, horis pomerid. in Aud. Philos.
(Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevier; Leiden, 1643).
73 Groenveld, “Unie, religie, militie”, pp. 67-87.
74 See chapter 4. Groenveld, “Unie, religie, militie”, pp. 67, 79-80; Frijhoff and Spies, Hard-Won
Unity, pp. 73-77; Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 674. Modern scholars have given different interpretations
of the debates of 1648-50. Simon Groenveld has claimed that they were about the right balance of
power within the Dutch Republic. Simon Groenveld, De prins voor Amsterdam: reacties uit pamfletten op
de aanslag van 1650 (Fibula-Van Dishoeck; Bussum, 1967), p. 33. According to Jan Poelhekke, the discussions
concentrated on the ‘national myth’ of the Dutch ‘war of liberation’ and on ‘the foundations’ of
the Dutch Republic. J.J. Poelhekke, “Kanttekeningen bij de pamfletten uit het jaar 1650”, in idem, Geen
blijder maer in tachtigh jaer: verspreide studiën over de crisisperiode 1648-1651 (Walburg Pers; Zutphen, 1973),
pp. 35-36, with quotes on the latter. Herbert Rowen has downplayed the ideological differences between
the States of Holland and William II. He has held that there were no fundamental differences; both parties
accepted the aristocratic nature of the Republic and its provincial government. According to Rowen,
the real issue was if the stadholder was the leader of the state by hereditary right or not. Herbert H.
135