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

Chapter 3. Biography
The picture that can be distilled from Sorbière’s story is that Boxhorn opposed
or at least disagreed with the Remonstrants and one of their ‘stars’, Grotius,
and that he did so out of bad intelligence or self-interest. 229
However, if Boxhorn indeed belonged to the Counter-Remonstrant camp
he was definitely not a religious zealot. 230 This can be deduced from the moderate
position he took in social issues. 231 Furthermore, as we shall see, Boxhorn
held political ideas about religion that would not have been appreciated
by orthodox Calvinists. 232
Concerning the question where Boxhorn stood in the divide between Orangists
and supporters of the States Party modern scholars have vented different
views. Ernst Kossmann has claimed that Boxhorn was not an Orangist. 233 In
his discussion of Boxhorn’s Institutiones politicae Harm Wansink has stated that
‘if one would apply his ideas to the political relationships in Holland, then the
impression is made that a moderate States Party writer is speaking here’. 234 Richard
Tuck, on the other hand, has described Boxhorn as a ‘pro-Orange’ writer, 235
while Charles-Edouard Levillain has put Boxhorn forward as the leading example
of the Orangist vision that liberty and personal rule can co-exist. 236
As this thesis will demonstrate, Boxhorn certainly did not oppose the
princes of Orange. Nor was he against the office of stadholder. On the other
hand, Boxhorn also made it clear that the stadholder is a subordinate who
owes obedience to his superiors, the provincial States. All in all, however,
Boxhorn can more easily be rated among the Orangists than among the supporters
of the States Party.
anis, quorum excidere gratia, clavum Reipubl. tenentium, non est hominis bene rem familiarem gerere quaerentis.’
229 For his part, ‘Grotius distrusted fellow scholars like Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn … because they
maintained close connections with Heinsius’. Nellen, Hugo de Groot, p. 561.
230 If Boxhorn was indeed a Counter-Remonstrant, then Ernst Kossmann, who claimed that Boxhorn
was not a Counter-Remonstrant, was wrong. Kossmann, Political Thought in the Dutch Republic, p. 43.
231 This does not mean that the positions Boxhorn took in social issues were always or sometimes
in opposition to Boxhorn being a religious man. According to Droixhe, ‘Boxhorn’s position on usury
would tally with the convictions of the religious man – son and grand-son of ministers – described by
his biographers’. Droixhe, “Boxhorn’s Bad Reputation”, pp. 365-66.
232 See chapter 8.
233 According to Ernst Kossmann, this can be deduced from Boxhorn’s Commentariolus. Kossmann,
Political Thought in the Dutch Republic, p. 43.
234 ‘… een gematigd staatsgezinde schrijver …’ Harm Wansink remarks that Boxhorn’s view that
monarchy is the best form of government argues against Boxhorn being a moderate States Party writer.
Yet, he immediately denounces the importance of Boxhorn’s view that monarchy is the best form of
government, claiming that it ‘appears a typical academic stand, to which he [i.e. Boxhorn-JN] himself
seems to attach not that much value.’ Wansink, Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse universiteit, p. 176.
235 Tuck, Philosophy and Government, pp. 252-53.
236 Charles-Edouard Levillain, “William III’s Military and Political Career in Neo-Roman Context,
1672-1702”, in The Historical Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2 (2005), pp. 331-32. Both Levillain and Tuck refer to
Boxhorn’s commentaries on Tacitus, in which Boxhorn explained that ‘in every form of command, even
in a principate, there is freedom …’. See chapter 8, footnote 105, for a full citation and the Latin original.
83