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

Chapter 3. Biography
tion to the debate that was held in the Dutch Republic during the seventeenth
century on usury. In this work Boxhorn pays attention to history, but ‘is …
absolutely not active in the field of the Bible’. 221 Boxhorn’s avoidance of a theological
discussion in both works has perhaps something to do with the fear
of getting into trouble. In a letter to Pontanus, Boxhorn writes concerning Salmasius’s
De usuris (On Usury, 1638), one of the contributions the Frenchman
made to the usury-debate, the following: ‘It seems that his opinion hardly
meets with the approval of the theologians. You know how dangerous it is to
deploy one’s intellect in this sort of subjects, especially when it goes against
the opinion that is accepted by all, and leads to another and new opinion.’ 222
In public debates it was prudent not to go against the grain of the wrong people,
especially not of the theologians, some of whose meddling Boxhorn could
not always appreciate. 223
Finally, at the end of this biography one more theme should be discussed.
That is Boxhorn’s position in the religious-political divide between Remonstrants
and Counter-Remonstrants, and between Orangists and supporters of
the so-called ‘States Party’. 224 I have not made an inquiry into Boxhorn’s religious
beliefs. Considering Boxhorn’s family background and circle of friends
it is tempting to place Boxhorn in the Counter-Remonstrant camp. 225 Another
221 Veegens, De banken van leening in Noord-Nederland tot het einde der achttiende eeuw, p. 143. ‘Gelijk
SALMASIUS ook in zijn werken zijn hoedanigheid van litterator aan den dag legde, zoo verloochent BOX-
HORN hier zijn historische studiën niet, maar deelt belangrijke bijzonderheden over de geschiedenis der
tafelhouders mede. Het onderwerp wordt niet uitgeput: BOXHORN beweegt zich bijv. volstrekt niet op
Bijbelsch terrein …’
222 Boxhorn to Pontanus, July 15, 1638. Boxhorn, Epistolae et poemata, p. 112. ‘Salmasii de Usuris
librum vidisse te opinor. Theologis sententiam suam vix probasse videtur. Nosti quam periculosum sit
in ejusmodi argumentis ingenium exercere; praesertim cum contra receptam ab omnibus sententiam in
aliam, & novam itur.’
223 See chapter 6.
224 Making a division between Orangists, on the one hand, and supporters of the States Party, on
the other, can be questioned. I am still inclined to follow this division, if only for convenience sake. By
Orangists I mean people who supported the prince of Orange and attributed an important role to the
office of the stadholder for the good functioning of government and the well-being of the Dutch Republic
and its constituent parts. The supporters of the States Party were persons who opposed the House
of Orange and diminished the importance of the office of the stadholder for the good functioning of
government and the well-being of the Dutch Republic and its constituent parts or even opposed the
institution of the stadholderate as such.
That Remonstrants cannot automatically be equated with supporters of the States Party or Counter-
Remonstrants with Orangists is best demonstrated by the example of Oldenbarnevelt, whose religious
beliefs would put him in the camp of the Counter-Remonstrants, but whose political choices would
make him a supporter of the States Party.
225 Boxhorn came from a family of ministers. Besides his grandfather Hendrik, uncle Marcus, father
Jacobus, and brother Hendrik, Boxhorn’s cousin Marcus Zuerius (c.1600-1653) and nephew Jacobus
Zuerius were also both Reformed ministers. Van Lieburg, Repertorium van Nederlandse hervormde predikanten
tot 1816, Vol. 1, p. 243. As has been said above, Boxhorn’s grandfather Hendrik Boxhorn was
a leading figure in the Calvinist offensive to suppress and drive back the influence of Catholicism at
Breda. His brother Hendrik served as a minister in the forts of the Dutch Republic in the Southern Netherlands.
Both these men, then, were in the front line in the battle between Protestantism and Catholi-
81