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

2
Chapter 1. Introduction
formed a part of ‘the academic study of Politica’, were ‘pedantically coward,
tasteless, scholastic, full of ignorance and of wrong, damaging and seditious
opinions’. 2 However, Hobbes’s and De la Court’s attack on academic learning
should not make us forget that both Hobbes and the brothers De la Court
had enjoyed an academic education. Hobbes had studied some five years at
Oxford and had also briefly resided at Cambridge. 3 Johan and Pieter had both
studied at Leiden University, where the former is said to have been a student
of Boxhorn. 4 Thus, with their attack on academic learning Hobbes and De la
Court were attacking an important part of their own education, the influence
of which, at least in the case of the brothers De la Court, made itself felt in
their work. 5
The traditional academic learning against which Hobbes directed his attack
was the scholastic Aristotelian tradition that found its roots in the works of
the great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) and their reception in the
Middle Ages by the Italian theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas
(1224/25-1274). 6 Contrary to what the French philosopher René Descartes
2 D.C., Politike discoursen handelende in Ses onderscheide boeken, van Steeden, Landen, Oorlogen, Kerken,
Regeeringen en Zeeden (Johannes Ciprianus vande Gracht; Amsterdam, 1662), i-iii. English translation
and Politica quotation taken from Martin van Gelderen, “The Low Countries”, in Howell A. Lloyd,
Glenn Burgess and Simon Hodson (eds.), European Political Thought, 1450-1700: Religion, Law and Philosophy
(Yale University Press; New Haven/London, 2007), p. 406.
3 Quentin Skinner, “Introduction: Hobbes’s life in Philosophy”, in idem, Visions of Politics, Vol.
3: Hobbes and Civil Science (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1 st ed. 2002, 2005), p. 3, and idem,
“Hobbes and the studia humanitatis”, in idem, Visions of Politics, Vol. 3, pp. 39-40.
4 E.H. Kossmann, Political Thought in the Dutch Republic: Three Studies (Koninklijke Nederlandse
Akademie van Wetenschappen; Amsterdam, 2000), p. 42.
5 According to Martin van Gelderen, ‘De La Court’s break with the traditional study of politics
was perhaps less sharp than Pieter claimed it to be. In structure and vocabulary, the main work of the
brothers, Political Balance, still followed many of the conventions of the discipline which the brothers
condemned so strongly’. Van Gelderen, “The Low Countries”, p. 406. It is not certain how long the
brothers De la Court studied at Leiden University. Johan enrolled on October 5, 1641, but when he left
Leiden University is unknown, at least to this author. Pieter matriculated twice at Leiden University.
The first time was on October 17, 1631, the second time on November 10, 1643. Pieter was still at Leiden
University in February 1648. Johan and Pieter were both born and raised at Leiden. The average time
students from Leiden and environs stayed at Leiden University was almost six years. Album studiosorum
Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXV-MDCCCLXXV: accedunt nomina curatorum et professorum per eadem
secula (Martinus Nijhoff; The Hague, 1875), pp. 239, 327, 345, and Willem Otterspeer, Groepsportret met
dame, Vol. 1: Het bolwerk van de vrijheid: de Leidse universiteit, 1575-1672 (Uitgeverij Bert Bakker; Amsterdam,
2000), pp. 264, 375.
6 Hobbes called the ‘Vain Philosopy’ that was taught at the universities ‘Aristotelity’ ‘since the
Authority of Aristotle is onely current there’. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 462. Hobbes had no high opinion of
Aristotle. He told the English antiquarian John Aubrey (1626-1697) ‘that Aristotle was the worst teacher
that ever was, the worst politician and ethick’. Quoted from Quentin Skinner, “Hobbes and the Classical
Theory of Laughter”, in Tom Sorell and Luc Foisneau (eds.), Leviathan after 350 Years (Oxford University
Press; Oxford, 2004), p. 139. Source: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926461-9.pdf
(Date: 27/06/2011). In Leviathan Hobbes tells his readers ‘that scarce any thing can be more absurdly
said in naturall Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles Metaphysiques; nor more repugnant
to Government, than much of that hee hath said in his Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part
of his Ethiques’. Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 461-62.