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

Chapter 9. The working of politics. The Disquisitiones politicae
that political science has two sides, a theoretical one and a practical one, and
that the first is subordinated to the last. We might even go as far as to say that
each work represents one of the two sides of the scientia politica: while in the
Institutiones politicae Boxhorn followed the more theoretical side of politics, in
the Disquisitiones politicae he took up and explained the more practical side.
What gives the Disquisitiones politicae its distinctive mark is that Boxhorn’s
explanation of the practical side of politics did not restrict itself to an appeal
to imitate the past slavishly. On the contrary! Although Boxhorn, just like
Machiavelli had done before him, used historical examples to teach his students
what kind of action was needed in this or that situation, his constant critique
on those who wanted to protect or reinstall ancient laws or customs just
because they were ancient and his warning to follow ancient examples, even
if they had been succesfull in the past, shows that he, in opposition to Machiavelli,
shared the assumption of Guicciardini that ‘every historical event was
unique, and that each maxim must be modified by present circumstances
before it was applied’. 74 Indeed, Boxhorn’s very questioning of the value of
past experiences undermines the whole concept of imitatio that rests upon the
assumption that because there is no real difference between the past and the
present (similitudo temporum) and that because human behaviour is consistent,
the past could and should be imitated. In chapter 7 we have already seen
that Boxhorn’s historical thought, centred as it is on explaining the causes and
consequences of changes, does not easily match with this line of reasoning. 75
It is even harder to reconcile with Boxhorn’s standpoint that nothing remains
fixed and that everything is liable to changes. Changes, moreover, as the Disquisitiones
politicae makes clear, that are not always the same. 76 And that is of
74 Salmon, “Stoicism and Roman Example”, p. 211. Machiavelli, for example, believed that ‘in
order for a religion or a republic to endure, it has to be taken back frequently toward its origins’ (Discorsi,
III.1, p. 259), a theory that is closely connected to another principle Machiavelli adhered to, namely
that ‘men who are born in a country conform more or less to the same nature for all time’ (Discorsi, III.43,
p. 370). For the difference between Machiavelli’s and Guicciardini’s approach to history and politics, see
chapter 2 of this thesis.
75 This seems to contradict with the praise Boxhorn gives to history for providing men with ‘precepts’
that they could follow. The paradox can be explained by pointing out that Boxhorn adhered to
the apparent equally paradoxical view that historical examples taught men that men should be very
careful in following them and that decisions should not be made on the basis of past examples, but on
the basis of present and future demands. We should also not forget that Boxhorn praised history for
its imitational value in an inaugural oration which he held after he had been given the task of holding
public lectures on history. Thus, the rhetorical aspect of this praise should be taken into account.
76 Boxhorn, Institutiones politicae, I.16.1, p. 251. ‘Equidem rerum omnium humanarum, aeterna
quadam lege, quaecunque, optimâ licet ratione instituta, & confirmata, tandem aut mutantur, aut evertuntur,
quod perinde in Rebuspublicis locum habet, quarum quaedam aut mutationes aut eversiones
sunt.’ Idem, “Oratio de Eversionibus Rerumpub. et Earum caussis”, pp. 1-2. ‘Ita agitur cum rebus
humanis ut occulto quodam naturae instinctu immutentur. Orbis Fabula est, in qua personam, & accipit
homo, & deponit; donec veram absolvat. Abeunt quippe omnia in hunc nascendi et pereundi gyrum.
Longaevum aliquid in hac machina nihil aeternum.’
321