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

336
Chapter 10. Conclusion
Besides editing the work of classical authors like Tacitus, he also published
several works on Dutch history. In addition to this, Boxhorn’s philological
exercises led him away from the classical languages Greek and Latin towards
‘barbaric’ languages like Turkish or Celtic. The ‘passionate humanist’ Nicolaas
Heinsius (1620-1681), who was the son of Daniel Heinsius and at the time
of Boxhorn’s death in the service of queen Christina of Sweden, could not
appreciate this ‘neglect’ of the classics in favour of Dutch history and barbaric
languages by his father’s former protégé. 17 We can conclude that as far as
interests are concerned, Boxhorn’s humanism differs from that of more traditional
humanist scholars like Scaliger and Daniel Heinsius.
Concerning the literary style and the content of his works Boxhorn can
rightfully be considered a Tacitist. Boxhorn’s ‘political Tacitism’, however, is as
ambiguous as the ideas of the Roman historian himself. On the one hand, Boxhorn
could use Tacitus to argue in favour of power being exercised by one man
and to defend the subjection of the well-being of private individuals to the wellbeing
of the commonwealth. On the other hand, he could also use that same
Tacitus to warn against the evil machinations of devious monarchs, cunning flatterers
and would-be usurpers, and to offer his audience a range of measures to
counter them. But the use of Tacitus for Boxhorn did not remain restricted to
offering political insights and advice. In Tacitus Boxhorn also found support for
his historical relativism. This relativism, which is one of the main characteristics
of Boxhorn’s historical and political thought, is an argument for connecting Boxhorn
with the early modern tradition that made a more critical use of Tacitus. 18
Besides Tacitus, Boxhorn’s political works also betray a strong influence
of Aristotle. For example, Boxhorn followed Aristotle in the Stagirite’s positive
analysis of aristocracy and the specific polity, a move that sets Boxhorn
apart from the ‘monarchical’ Aristotelian tradition at Leiden University. However,
on some crucial points Boxhorn’s political ideas also differ from those of
Aristotle. First of all, Boxhorn does not seem to have believed that man is a
political animal, a social being who is naturally inclined to live with his fellow
men. In Boxhorn’s analysis of the commonwealth and its origin the state does
not appear as a ‘creation of nature’, but as an artificial construction, whose
hierarchical division into rulers and subjects even goes against the nature of
man. 19 Second, the content of the Institutiones politicae suggests that the goal of
17 F.F. Blok, Nicolaas Heinsius in dienst van Christina van Zweden (Ursulapers; Delft, 1949), p. 45.
“Heinsius, Nicolaas (1620-81)”, in Van Bunge et al. (eds.), The Dictionary of Seventeenth and Eighteenth-
Century Dutch Philosophers, Vol. 1, pp. 407-8, with quote on p. 408.
18 I owe this point to Jan Waszink.
19 Aristotle of course does hold ‘that the state is a creation of nature’. Aristotle, Politics, 1252b1 [I:2], p. 13.