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

Chapter 1. Introduction
(1596-1650), who just like Hobbes opposed the academic Aristotelian tradition,
conceptualised scholasticism to be, namely ‘a central core of beliefs’, this
scholastic Aristotelian tradition was not a single uniform body, but rather
consisted of a ‘complex plurality of Aristotelianisms’ as research of the last
few decades has pointed out. 7 Nor was this scholastic Aristotelian tradition
a static whole in which changes did not occur. For example, the beginning of
the seventeenth century saw the rise of ‘political Aristotelianism’, a new Aristotelian
school of thought whose representatives treated politics as a secular
science, independent from theology. Among those representatives were Henning
Arnisaeus (1575-1636) and Hermann Conring (1606-1681), both professors
at the University of Helmstedt, which was one of the three universities
that ‘stood at the centre of political studies’ in Germany. 8
Besides the rise of political Aristotelianism another important development
that took place in the seventeenth century was a change in the relationship
between the study of politics and the study of history. In the old humanist
view history was seen as the handmaiden of politics, supplying the latter with
historical examples of proper conduct and political action. In the course of
the seventeenth century politics transformed into a more empirical, historical
study in which account was taken of time and place. Historical investigations
into the specific interests of rulers or nations – the national ratio status – grew
in importance. At the same time the study of the past became more scientific
and empirical, with attention for sources and historical causation that was not
only explained in terms of providence or the whims of Fortuna. In addition
to this, the seventeenth century also witnessed the relative independence of
politics and religion.
The general developments and observations given above form the general
background to this study. If we want to get a proper understanding of Boxhorn’s
historical and political thought and to connect them with these general
developments and observations a series of steps need to be taken. First, a
more indepth investigation of early modern historical and political thought is
necessary. This will be provided for in chapter 2. The results of this investigation
will give us a broad intellectual context against which we can compare
Boxhorn’s historical and political thought.
7 For an overview article, see Michael Edwards, “Aristotelianism, Descartes, and Hobbes”, in The
Historical Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2 (2007), pp. 449-64, with quotes on p. 458.
8 For a recent discussion of political Aristotelianism, see Robert von Friedeburg and Michael J.
Seidler, “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”, in Lloyd, Burgess and Hodson (eds.), European
Political Thought, pp. 156-66, with quote on p. 160. I will discuss political Aristotelianism and its
characteristics more extensively in chapter 2.
3