Hugo Grotius: Historical Writings

Historical Writings 15 Jan Waszink .................................................................................................................... 15.1 Introduction Although Grotius’ historiographical activity spanned most of his lifetime, his true historical works occupy a less prominent place in his published oeuvre: only the relatively short treatise De Antiquitate reipublicae Batavicae of 1610 has attracted wider attention in the scholarship, as the Annales et Historiaede rebus Belgicis has done to a degree. As a result, Grotius the historian is a much less prominent figure in the general perception today than Grotius the lawyer or Grotius the advocate for Christian unity. Other historical works published during Grotius’ lifetime are less studied, such as Grollae obsidio on the siege of Groenlo of 16291 and the treatise De origine gentium Americanarum of 1642. Although the Parallelon rerumpublicarum2 of c. 1600 has not even survived in full and may never have been intended for printed publication, the Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis on the Dutch Revolt and the Historia Gotthorum3 were ready for publication at any time, but were left in manuscript form at their author’s death. The Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis is arguably Grotius’ main historical work and, while he was preparing it for publication in the 1630s4 as part of a collection of his own most important works, he expressed the expectation that it would bring him lasting fame with posterity.5 In most of Grotius’ other main works, historical sections, approaches or methods figure prominently, ranging from the important historical chapters in De jure praedae commentarius (1604–6) to the advanced use of classical and biblical history in De jure belli ac pacis (1625) and the Annotationes in libros Evangeliorum, his annotations to the New Testament (1641). It is often rightly pointed out that, throughout his oeuvre, Grotius’ approach remained that of the humanist, in the sense of the ‘Late humanism’ of Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) and Joseph Scaliger (1540–1609), that informed the interests and approaches within the Arts faculty in the University of Leiden during Grotius’ years of study there. This approach gave particular prominence to the study of history, combining it with the Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 316 Jan Waszink naturalist, or ‘realist’, tendencies of the time, which were also present in such varied fields as astronomy, physics, medicine – e.g. anatomy and botany – politics and law. The influence of this realism, and its manifestation as ‘reason of state’ in the study of history and politics, is one of the major influences on Grotius’ thought – not only his scholarly thought, but also his stance in the actual politics of the province of Holland in the 1610s. In contrast to the traditional humanist historiography, with its stress on exemplarity, these late humanist writers brought a far more critical and sceptical approach from their reading of history to their consideration of politics. They rejected the idea of an inherent connection between virtue and success, thus proposing a fundamentally different and controversial view of the relationship between ethics and politics.6 The ‘secularising’ tendencies – in the sense of the opposite force to confessionalisation – that can be perceived in Grotius’ life and works must also be viewed in this connection. Thus, given the pivotal place of the relationships between natural law, sociability, scepticism and reason of state in the current debate on Grotius’ thought as a whole, it is evident that a consideration of his historical thought must be included. Another, related, aspect of Grotius’ oeuvre that the study of his historical thought brings to light is the flexibility of his political and rhetorical positions, i.e. the caveat that each of his works should be interpreted within its own discursive and historical context, as will appear below. 15.2 Two Approaches to Ethics, Law and Reason of State A major tension within Grotius’ oeuvre is that between the two approaches to reason of state that it embodies.7 This bipolarity reflects what is perhaps the most crucial issue at stake in the methodological debates on history and politics of his time: the division between legal normativity and moral optimism on the one hand and scepticism, moral pessimism and reason of state on the other. The constitutional line of thought in De antiquitate expresses a legitimation, and in effect a glorification, of the Dutch Revolt, which also appears in the historical chapter 11 of the unpublished De jure praedae and in Commentarius in Theses XI.8 A chief mark of Grotius’ reasoning here is the ‘constitutional optimism’ that it expresses. The wellbeing of all is secured if the magistrates and social elites stand up to defend the rules and liberties laid down in the age-old privileges of the provinces, Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 317 towns and nobility against the rulers eager for domination. Much in the spirit of Renaissance civic humanism, this is also a call to the elites in society to take their responsibilities as a ruling class seriously, submit private to common interests and avoid the dangers of luxuria. This view of politics and history leaves little space for the legal and constitutional flexibility inherent in Machiavellism and reason of state thought. This rejection is combined with a patriotic rhetoric. The mental world of Lipsius’ Politica and the politique reception of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) and Tacitus – which put political concerns over religious and constitutional ones – is far away from these texts; as is the ‘Tacitist’ scepticism regarding man’s social nature and moral motivation. Also, religious policy and the religious aspect of the Dutch Revolt remain unmentioned. The Revolt is depicted as an exclusively political conflict over liberties, taxation and constitutional rights. From the perspective of Grotius’ oeuvre as a whole, it seems only logical to connect these views with the rejection of ‘Carneades’ in the later Prolegomena to De jure belli ac pacis (DJBP Prol. 3–6) and the Grotian view of human reason and sociability. On the other hand, however, and at precisely the same time, Grotius’ Annales et Historiae (written between 1600 and 1612) present a sceptical and ‘realist’ account of politics and history, which produces a different, and distinctly unglorifying, image of the early Dutch Revolt. Here the chief sources of inspiration appear to be precisely Lipsius’ political thought and his turn to Tacitism. The title, Annales et Historiae, is a direct and unmistakable reference to Tacitus, and indeed the work brings in the full package of reason of state thought from Tacitism as represented by Lipsius, with its sceptical and politique ideas about religious policy and the characteristic disenchanted picture of man’s moral motivation, self-interestedness and political psychology. The literary style of the Annales et Historiae is a highly accomplished imitation of Tacitus’ Histories and Annals on Roman society under the emperors of the first century. This style is characterised – among other things – by brevity and compression, unusual diction and grammar, sententiae and euphemism.9 The resulting picture of the Dutch Revolt, at least in the Annales, puts the emphasis not on virtue, glory or faith on either side, but on their failure: lack of solidarity and commitment, selfishness, naivety, religious obstinacy10 and just bad luck on the Dutch side; arrogance, rigidity and cruelty on the Spanish side; and political gambling or aloofness with the French and the English. Any sense of Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 318 Jan Waszink heroism or patriotism is conspicuously absent from these pages. This distinctly unglorifying image of the Revolt sits uneasily with the spirit of the years around 1610 when the Twelve Years Truce with Spain had given de facto recognition to the Dutch Republic as a new state on the European political stage – precisely the sentiment expressed by Grotius himself in the simultaneously written De antiquitate. 15.3 Religious Policy Throughout the Annales et Historiae, organised religion, whether Catholic or Protestant, is presented in a negative light, as a source of division, intransigence and chaos in society. This depiction starts early in Book 1: [In the middle ages] the bishops of Rome (. . .) established a virtual dominion over religion, with overall control for themselves, cardinals as associates, and thence a long series of connected authorities. (. . .) These Romans made everything religious their province, issued new decrees, ruled anew on established matters, took Scripture from the hands of the common people, declaring it pernicious if untaught curiosity should form judgments about the most important matter of all. Thus it was easy to arrange everything for their own authority and profit; and priestly license descended to such a degree of vice that they themselves admitted the need for remedies. (AHRB Annales 1.22) And, although originally the Reformation might have brought improvement,11 these promises were never lived up to: Not much different from [Lutheranism] was another doctrine, distinguished by Zwingly’s talent and that of Calvin, which would have united with that of Augsburg a long time ago if in religious matters it weren’t an established fact that everything leans more to stubbornness than concord. (AHRB Annales 1.55) This view of organised religion is complemented by a conception of religious policy as a political tool that governments employ for secular purposes, depending entirely on political circumstances. Grotius thus follows again the lines set out by Lipsius in the Politica of 1589. That this perception extends beyond the pages of the Annales is shown by the policy principles formulated in the Amsterdam oration of 1616 about the religious troubles in the Dutch Republic, where the very same logic is turned into political counsel.12 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 319 In the Annales, Philip II’s (1527–98) refusal of any compromise regarding Catholic faith is depicted not as religious zeal, but as a tactical error that hardened the resistance against his rule and legitimised it in the eyes of his subjects. Moreover, Grotius presents Philip in a Machiavellian light by presenting his submission to the pope as disingenuous and determined by political opportunism: As the real reason [behind his religious policies] it can be conjectured that Philip had decided to let the pope’s authority work for him in many matters. (. . .) Now Philip had turned the Pope into his instrument by showing docility, and the most trusted people around him by largesse; and this seemed to provide abundant warranty and pretext. (AHRB Annales 1.31) Nevertheless, Grotius makes an even stronger claim of Machiavellian behaviour by the greatest hero of the Dutch Revolt, William of Orange (1533–84). He writes that, during the Cologne peace negotiations of 1579, Orange feigned a zeal for Protestantism as a cover for his own political purposes: (. . .) the Emperor, to whom as we said the attempt to arrange peace was entrusted, had sent delegates to Cologne. [. . .] Orange however, who had never doubted that any peace with the King would result in danger to him, since the Low Countries were then divided and he himself was right in the middle between all these parties, and was therefore hated, feared not without reason that he would be surrendered to foreign and domestic enemies alike. On the other hand, to turn away from the negotiations and the German referees was difficult and damaging to his reputation. More in the dark, to achieve the same, he made sure the religious issue would be insisted upon, and other things which no one expected the King to agree with. (AHRB Annales 3.25)13 Grotius makes a comparable claim regarding Queen Elizabeth (1533–1603) in 1585: But the wise woman foresaw the accusation of having pilfered someone else’s dominion: and avoided the involvement of her own fame and fortune by such a close tie in doubtful circumstances. It seemed wiser to have secret bases of support spread over the Low Countries, [. . .]. However, she promised help, [. . .]. At the same time, she pretended to act for the sake of religion, the security of which she demonstrated, by referring to the events in France and Scotland, to be entrusted to her without any desire for another one’s possessions. (AHRB Annales 5.7) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 320 Jan Waszink Grotius thus shows himself unafraid of introducing flavours of reason of state and outright Machiavellism into his analysis of the Revolt and its politics. 15.4 Divine Providence in Grotius’ View of History Grotius’ position on the question whether there is divine supervision over human historical events varies according to the genre he is writing in. Here, poetic and rhetorical levels must be distinguished from philosophical and historical ones. In his poetry, the notion of divine supervision is freely admitted in the text, for example in his Induciae Batavicae on the Twelve Years Truce (1609–21).14 On the wings of literary imagination, and often of an elegiac tone, God or a personification of Faith can be given a direct role in the mechanics of history. This mode of speaking is perfectly comparable with that in contemporary poetic reflections of the Revolt, such as for example the various tragedies on William the Silent15 or the Virgilian epos on his exploits by Georgius Benedicti Werteloo.16 It is not evident, however, that such literary tropes represent Grotius’ actual historical thinking. Similarly, the highly rhetorical dedication in De antiquitate presents the hardships of the Revolt as a deliberate trial by God of a nation that He has destined for glory.17 Although this seems to be largely rhetorical in nature and purpose, one might argue that the statement could also, and at the same time, express a deeper-seated faith in God’s ultimate intentions for His creation; evidently Grotius was not an irreligious person. On the other hand, De antiquitate contains no other references to a divine plan or influence, or any other connection between Providence and the Revolt that takes this connection to a level firmly beyond the rhetorical. The work in which we should expect to find Grotius’ most fundamental thinking on the philosophical aspects of history and historiography is the Annales et Historiae.18 In this work, references to a divine influence can be found only at a few places, such as the following one on God’s help towards the lifting of the siege of Leiden: [This siege] brought everything into peril, as the Spanish had taken hold of the heart of Holland, and there was no force to resist them except God’s help and a stubborn hatred of the faithless tyranny (. . .) (AHRB Annales 2.53)19 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 321 Apart, however, from conventional phrases like these, the idea of a divine supervision of events is hardly ever brought into the narrative. The role of a divine will or providence in history remains very limited, and where it appears in less commonplace phrasings, their purpose seems rather to complicate or deny the idea of a divine ‘agenda’ behind the events than to assert it.20 This is exemplified by the following passage on the events right before the capture of the town of Den Briel in 1572 by the unruly ‘Sea-Beggars’ – a chance event that would re-launch the war and consequently acquired a status as one of the founding moments of the Republic: At that point in time however the Almighty’s Providence decided to employ this lot as her helpers: in the history of the Low Countries war it has pleased her almost invariably to deceive human planning and confidence in such a way that great hopes and a happy outcome were never together in the same place. (AHRB Annales 2.25) A comparable passage that marks the transition between the Annales and the Historiae at the very beginning of the latter part of the work plays with a cosmic perspective on events: The fifteen hundred and eighty-eighth year to Christ’s name was on its course down, foresaid by the astrological calculators to become the last year of humankind –whether accessing the future be a futile skill, and one that doesn’t reach beyond our credulity; or that prediction an error from human miscalculation of Fate’s magnitude, and part of Heavens’ threats a colossal fleet: which the Spanish, from great hopes as much as from great anger, now that there was peace both with France and the Turks, hastened to completion, equipped with arms against themselves. (AHRB Historiae 1.1) This sentence introduces the spectacular story of the Spanish Armada. The location of the Netherlands struggle in a cosmic perspective is deliberately tragic and religious in tone and its emplacement at the central hinge point of the work suggests quite definitely that the idea of presenting the Revolt’s history in this kind of perspective has indeed occurred to Grotius. But only the idea: for the passage actually mocks those who regard human religion and knowledge as a basis for reliable knowledge of the Creator’s will and plans. This connects the sentence with the previous quoted passage, and indicates that Grotius is, in fact, resisting such religious interpretations of the Revolt. This squares entirely with the Tacitean, secular interpretation of politics, and the sceptical element in Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 322 Jan Waszink that strand of thought. And, in turn, this realpolitische reading of the Revolt squares with his Staatsgezinde parti-pris in the political and intellectual controversies of the Truce and beyond. 15.5 Grotius’ Ideal of the Statesman-Historian In the Annales et Historiae, the scholarly and political concerns in the tense period of the Truce intertwine in a striking and intense manner. Grotius attempted to employ his knowledge of literature, especially that of Tacitus, the magister in politicis,21 to exert a conciliatory influence on the quarrels in the Republic by demonstrating what he saw as the true character of the Revolt. The problem of consolidating the government’s position in a context of increasing opposition occupied Grotius’ thought intensely. His attempt to help restore concord and unity was first and foremost a scholarly endeavour and characterises the world of thought that had produced him. In the Annales et Historiae, Grotius presents himself as a political insider and historian at the same time, who hopes to build bridges between the warring factions by presenting the truth of a solid historical analysis of the Revolt.22 Remarks on the project of the Annales et Historiae in Grotius’ correspondence inform us about his views of the historian’s role in politics, which appears to be something very specific.23 First, a remark on the selection of facts to be presented refers to an important dichotomy in historiography as seen by the humanists: that between mere narrations of facts, chronicles – the ‘lower’ form of historiography – and the ‘higher’ historiography that is based on it, i.e. the historiography that produces narratives with a literary and philosophical flavour, in which moral judgments are passed, praise and blame are meted out, and insight is granted into the deeper truths of history. Thus, the selection and combination of the available material, the development of historical explanations and vision, and the phrasing of the Revolt’s story in Tacitus’ style, which presupposes a certain judgment and ‘insight’, belong to the higher historian’s task. When discussing the usefulness (fructus) of the Annales et Historiae, Grotius makes a direct connection between the Leicester period (1585–7) and the Truce controversies. In a 1614 letter to one of his informers, Jean Hotman de Villiers (1552–1636), who had been Leicester’s secretary in the Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 323 Low Countries, Grotius emphasises the usefulness of Hotman’s material in the present circumstances; it appears that, in his view, he might serve the public peace and the Staatsgezinde cause alike by spreading his interpretation of the Revolt (1BW 389). During the years in which he wrote the Annales et Historiae, Grotius communicated his thoughts on historiography in letters to people such as the Heidelberg councillor, Georg Lingelsheim (ca. 1557–1636), and the great French politician and historian, Jacques-Auguste de Thou (1553–1617). These letters indicate that it was Grotius’ ambition to become a statesman-and-contemporary historian after the ideal image he cherished of De Thou.24 However, Grotius takes the traditional humanist uses of history25 a significant step further. The classical topos held that an Achilles needs a Homer in order to secure his fame with posterity. When Grotius, pensionary of Rotterdam and a member of the States of Holland, writes to De Thou that he wants to help overcome the Truce controversies by means of his historical writings, Achilles (the statesman) and Homer (the historian) merge into one and the same person. His inside knowledge of the actual events and their backgrounds, combined with his insight into the true motives and causations, inform and define not only his historical work, but also steer the events themselves. The choice of Tacitus’ political and psychological acumen as his model works both on the political stage and in the historical work. Thus, in this ideal, the Tacitean statesmanhistorian occupies a pivotal place in politics and society: through his person and work, the events and contemporary historiography influence each other. For Grotius, historiography is no longer merely a related activity for the educated councillor, with or without political implications, but a direct instrument of government for rulers.26 To Grotius, his older contemporary De Thou came close to this ideal. It is clear from their correspondence that, at the time, Grotius aspired to become such a statesman-historian himself. He repeatedly compares himself to De Thou and complains about his own uneducated compatriots.27 This bold ideal is characteristic of the high ambitions and expectations that Grotius fostered in his ‘Holland years’. Tacitean acumen belongs to the core of his ambitions on both the political and the historiographical level. From the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth century, the Annales et Historiae enjoyed a solid reputation as historiographical work. Eighteenthcentury historians valued Grotius’ impartiality and his Tacitean judgment regarding the true causes and motives of events.28 The turning point seems Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 324 Jan Waszink to come with the great Dutch historian, Robert Fruin (1823–99), who wrote extensively on Grotius, but very little on the Annales et Historiae or any other of Grotius’ historical works. Fruin’s judgment on Grotius as a historian shows that he saw him primarily as a humanist, that is, a literary, scholar, who produced a literary rendition of a period of history, rather than a critical historical investigation in the sense that the term had for Fruin, who was an admirer of the ‘historical positivism’ of Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886).29 Given Fruin’s influence, his judgment has undoubtedly contributed to the relative obscurity of the Annales et Historiae since the nineteenth century, in addition to the fact that – near the end of that century – Grotius was ‘canonised’ as foundational thinker of the then-emerging international law. This development put his juridical oeuvre at the foreground and made the author primarily a jurist in the public perception. 15.6 Historical Approaches in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625) and the Annationes in Libros Evangeliorum (1641) In these works, Grotius brings in historical issues and perspectives on virtually every page. With respect to his historiographical aims, his concerns are those of the ‘cultural historian’ in the humanist sense of the word. He employs ancient circumstances and cultural, religious or legal practices to explain classical or biblical texts and languages. Grotius is less occupied with the identification of specific items of geography or chronology in the way Antiquarian scholars of his age were. Dating from the later period of his life, De jure belli ac pacis and the Annotationes display many similarities on the level of method and approach, and legal and theological thought appear to overlap in many places. The opening page of the Annotationes, for example – addressing the Greek title, Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, The New Testament – is an exposition of the basic theory of legal obligations, whereas – conversely – chapters 1.1–2 of De jure belli ac pacis are to a large extent a theological enquiry into the legitimacy of war as such. The historical aspect of Grotius’ work on the New Testament is among its most important characteristics. In his 1983 study on Grotius as an interpreter of the New Testament, Henk-Jan de Jonge labels Grotius the most successful of the seventeenth-century commentators on the New Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 325 Testament because of precisely this contextual, historicising approach. According to De Jonge, Grotius: endeavoured to understand the books of the New Testament as a product of the time when they were written; to this end he tested and revised traditional ideas on their genesis by the application of other known historical data.” By contrast, other 17th-century exegetes tried only “to use the ancient texts to underpin a modern dogmatic system and to counter the dogmatic systems of those of different persuasions.” For De Jonge, this difference makes Grotius’ Annotationes “indeed the most important 17th-century explanation of the New Testament and the only commentary of those times that is still regularly referred to.30 Significantly,Grotius’ biblical exegesis does not belong to the tradition of theological exegesis, but to the tradition of philological annotation such as had been conducted since the 15th century by Christian humanists with linguistic and historical interests.31 For example, De Jonge points at Grotius’ demonstration that 2 Peter cannot have been written by Peter the Apostle, but must stem from the time of Trajan (r. 98–117), and that 2 Thessalonians was written earlier than 1 Thessalonians. Another example is Grotius’ discussion, at the opening of his notes on the Gospel of Luke, of some methodological problems with establishing the truth about the historical figure of Christ, especially that of distinguishing between the relative reliability of the various available accounts, since some of the biblical authors themselves had faced the exact same problem and dealt with it with varying degrees of success – a reasoning that also underscores the man-made nature of the Scriptural text. According to Grotius: at the time Luke was writing there was already a considerable number of books about the deeds of Christ; obviously the weight of events had drawn many to the topic. But while several people were collecting whatever information went around, not surprisingly they mixed truths and non-truths, like the oldest author of the Egyptian Gospel did. (. . .) Others however, like Matthew and Mark, wrote down what they knew from observation or had heard from reliable authors; and since they were far beyond any accusation of negligence themselves, they have not closed off the possibility to add something to the fruit of their work on such a rich topic to another who might wish to do so. Add to this the fact that it is likely that at this time, Matthew’s book existed only in Hebrew; while Mark, writing in Greek, wrote a summary overview of events rather than a proper history. Nevertheless I do not believe, as some do, that Luke wrote at an earlier time than Matthew and Mark (. . .) (Annotationes, 594) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 326 Jan Waszink 15.7 History in De Jure Belli ac Pacis Grotius uses a wealth of historical illustrations in De jure belli ac pacis. Moreover, the programmatic rejection of ‘Carneades’ at the very opening of the work connects it directly to late-humanist debates on moral scepticism and reason of state that arose from, and centred on, the interpretation and use of the historical record. Given the evidence adduced so far – especially the role of reason of state in the Annales et Historiae and in the politics of the period of the Truce – it becomes clear that this rejection is the result of a continuous development of Grotius’ judgments and ideas, and that De jure belli ac pacis is also indebted to the tradition of reason of state-thought in several ways. We can, thus, expect to find many elements of late-humanist realism, and indeed reason of state itself, in the treatise of 1625. First, Grotius’ use of historical information is a clear case in point. His approach to history is of the ‘realist’ or naturalist and not the ‘exemplary’ type. The historical record of mankind constitutes a body of factual knowledge, a kind of raw data set from which lessons for the present can be derived, which – as for Lipsius – may provide effective rulers with an understanding of human behaviour and the nature of evil, precisely in order to combat it better. Along similar lines – and just as in the commentary on the New Testament – De jure belli ac pacis uses historical information and classical literature in general to observe and understand practices and ideas in the past, with a view to identifying the unchanging basic principles of the relations between human individuals and communities. The choice of ancient history and literature to fulfil this role is not only explained by Grotius’ deep familiarity with this literature, but also by the fact that ancient history provided both a common cultural basis and point of reference for all European nations beyond the partialities of contemporary conflicts. To give just one example from De jure belli ac pacis, Grotius writes on the question whether subjects of one prince may serve under another: Another query is often made, whether it be all one, if subjects take up arms, not by themselves, but fight under others engaged in war. The Cerites in Livy clear themselves, by saying, their subjects took up arms without any publick Order. The same was the defence of the Rhodians. And indeed the best founded opinion is, that such a thing ought not to be deemed permitted, unless there are apparent Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 327 reasons for believing that there was an intention to permit it; as we see now that is sometimes practiced, in Imitation of the old Aetolians, who accounted it lawful, “to plunder the plunderer” (Gellius). (DJBP 3.20.31) Regardless of its origins in the sceptical spheres of late humanism, this use of history as a neutral, non-exemplary dataset on human behaviour remains perfectly compatible with Grotius’ notion of sociability in his natural law thought, and the normative and moral outlook of the Prolegomena. For the sake of a streamlined discussion, Grotius herds the entire complex of ideas from scepticism, Machiavellism and reason of state under the single common denominator of the sceptical philosopher, Carneades (214–129 BCE),32 and then states his programmatic rejection of this straw man’s view of politics and international relations (DJBP Prol. 3–6). Nevertheless, elements of reason of state logic are not absent from De jure belli ac pacis. The obvious example is the pivotal role of the principle of self-interest in Grotius’ natural law thought – though balanced by man’s reason and sociability, which is generally understood as stemming from the very same spheres of thought that Grotius refers to by the label ‘Carneades’. However, more specific examples are in evidence too, in De jure belli ac pacis, such as Grotius’ view of the admissibility of a pre-emptive strike: But I can by no means approve of what some authors have advanced, that by the law of nations it is permitted to take up arms to reduce the growing power of a prince or state, which if too much augmented, may possibly injure us. I grant, that in deliberating whether a war ought to be undertaken or not, that consideration may enter, not as a justifying reason, but as a motive of interest. So that where we have any other just cause for making war, it may for this reason too be thought prudently undertaken. And this is all that the authors before cited do in effect say; but to pretend to have a right to injure another, merely from a possibility that he may injure me, is repugnant to all the justice in the world: For such is the condition of the present life, that we can never be in perfect security. It is not in the way of force, but in the protection of Providence, and in innocent precautions, that we are to seek for relief against uncertain fear. (DJBP 2.1.17, my emphasis) Thus, while emphatically and elaborately denying the moral and legal legitimacy of pre-emptive strike, Grotius allows space for it in practice by suggesting a ‘prudently undertaken’ workaround. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 328 Jan Waszink 15.8 Grotius and the Antiquarian Tradition The analysis of De antiquitate showed it to be both relevant and alien to the then-innovative antiquarian tradition of scholarship. This picture is more or less confirmed by the treatises on the American peoples that Grotius wrote towards the end of his life, De origine gentium Americanarum from 1641 and De origine gentium Americanarum dissertatio altera from 1643.33 The two treatises provide a fascinating, and perhaps paradoxical, opportunity to observe Grotius’ basic approach and reflexes as a historian.34 It should be noted first that the treatises are not presented as proper works of history or even scholarship. The original treatise has the format of a pamphlet; it holds a very brief and sketchy argument of just thirteen pages; its conclusions are emphatically presented as provisional (‘probabiliora’ and ‘coniecturae’) rather than definitive and scholarly. There are no notes of any kind and the work is written in a very simple and accessible Latin style, noticeably different from Grotius’ usual scholarly style. The format, too, is extremely simple and sober; the pamphlet carries only author, title and year on the title page, no publisher, place, dedicatee or other information.35 The whole looks like an intervention in a public or political debate rather than a contribution to a scholarly one – although the omission of metadata makes it very difficult for a reader to identify which parti-pris Grotius’ intervention would have been supposed to serve. In 1641, Grotius finished a draft of the treatise and requested through his network to have it ‘peer-reviewed’, anonymously, by Johannes de Laet (1581–1649), who was recognised as a leading specialist on the Americas. He was one of the directors of the Dutch West India Company (WIC) and author of a ‘Yearly Report’ on the progress of the WIC in the period from 1621 to 1636.36 From 1619 to 1621, the passionate Counter-Remonstrant De Laet sat on the Synod of Dordt, the Church council that had sealed the victory of Calvinism over the politics and theology of Grotius’ States party. This might explain Grotius’ move to ask for his treatise to be reviewed anonymously. De Laet made suggestions for improvements that Grotius ignored. After the publication of De origine, De Laet then wrote a treatise to oppose it,37 which was answered by Grotius with the Dissertatio altera, to which De Laet wrote another reply. This controversy has attracted a fair deal of attention in modern scholarship.38 In the original Dissertatio, Grotius claims to be the first to raise the question of the origins of the original inhabitants of the Americas. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 329 Characteristically, he begins by turning to classical history. Throughout the two treatises, there is a concern to harmonise and connect recent discoveries and observations from the New World with classical, biblical and medieval history and language from the Old World. This, however, does not exclude a critical approach to Scripture and the classics, but, characteristically for the humanist, there is little interest in information outside the sphere of language and literature, and indeed even Grotius’ use of those sources looks haphazard and selective. A heavy emphasis is put on the supposed Norwegian origins of the original inhabitants of North America, which is curious as Grotius was the Swedish ambassador in Paris at the time. For Central America, Grotius proposes that the inhabitants arrived from Ethiopia; and that those of South America originally came from southeast Asia via the largely hypothetical ‘Southland’ beyond Strait Magelhães.39 Following some of De Laet’s own remarks, several modern authors view the controversy in terms of the ‘querelle des anciens et des modernes’, i.e. between – old-fashioned – humanist scholarship and – progressive – sceptical and empirical research.40 After pointing out that the question of the origins of the inhabitants of the Americas has indeed been discussed before by the Jesuit explorer, José de Acosta (1540–1600), and observing that these peoples display enormously varied and different languages and cultures, De Laet writes ‘with the result that in this case there is no place for the customary research approach using resemblances in language, character and practices’.41 In this manner, he opens a distinction between humanist scholarship and a different type of research. Grotius’ conclusions about the origins of the inhabitants of South America illustrate the controversy in a nutshell. The fact that Grotius claims to have turned to contemporary descriptions, eye-witness accounts and maps suggests that he was aware of the dangers involved in his usual humanist approach.42 At his time of writing, the ‘Southland’, or at least some outlines of it, still appeared on world maps as ‘Terra Australis Incognita’ or ‘Magellanica’. Thus, at least, Grotius’ geography was potentially plausible and founded on recent empirical documentation, as it was available when he wrote.43 It is fascinating to note that this Southland began to disappear from the maps precisely after 1640. De Laet points out that the idea is becoming outdated since recent explorations have revealed that, beyond the islands southeast of Strait Magelhaes and the Strait of Lemaire, there seems to be just a wide sea leading into the ocean; which Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 330 Jan Waszink makes the very idea of a land connection with southeast Asia questionable.44 In fact, this is the recurring tenor of De Laet’s objections to Grotius’ views: that the latter is insufficiently informed about the actual situation and the newest reports from the New World. So, although Grotius did indeed turn to contemporary and first-hand information, he was insufficiently aware of the pace at which the new knowledge was changing and expanding. One might suspect that it was this new phenomenon of changing facts and developing knowledge that he was insufficiently awake to, rather than a lack of openness to ‘unclassical’ sources of information. Current scholarship has failed so far to come up with an explanation why Grotius wrote these treatises.45 Nellen and others suppose that Grotius’ aim was to show that all inhabitants of the Americas came from known territories in the Old World, in order to save the biblical worldview that all humans descended from Adam. Against Grotius’ view, that of De Laet, who followed Acosta in this, would allow for the possibility of a kind of ‘polygenetism’. It seems highly unlikely, however, that this was the issue at stake. First, Acosta and De Laet took the hypothesis that a migration from the Old World to the New had happened via an, as yet undiscovered, passage at the east end of the Eurasian continent as their starting point: thus, their theory in no way excluded the possibility of a common descent from Adam. Conversely, Grotius’ ‘Southland’ hypothesis for the origins of the South Americans complicated, or even excluded, a ‘monogenetic’ explanation rather than supporting it. Moreover, this supposed intention with Grotius to save the literal truth of the biblical account is neither expressed in the text nor supported by his free and secularising approach to Scripture elsewhere in his oeuvre. Finally, it remains unexplained why Grotius would find a sketchy pamphlet the best format to contribute to this type of scholarly debate. Unfortunately, Scandinavia’s contemporary political map fails to provide clear answers as well. Grotius was Sweden’s ambassador to France at the time, and Sweden’s most important activity in the Americas was the foundation, in 1638, of a colony on the Delaware.46 However, it is not easy to see how claiming Norwegian descent for the inhabitants of Northern America would have served Swedish interests at a time when Sweden and Denmark-Norway were regularly in and out of war. The Second Treaty of Brömsebro in 1645 awarded three Norwegian provinces to Sweden but, in so far as any territorial claims were involved at all, this occurred too late to help explain Grotius’ pamphlet of 1641. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 331 15.9 Conclusion: Grotius and the Discipline of History; an Innovator? With respect to the historical aspect of Grotius’ oeuvre, five main themes have emerged: (1) the polarity, in his historical works proper, between constitutionalism and patriotism on the one hand, and reason of state and scepticism on the other; (2) Grotius’ ‘secularising’ reading of history; (3) the close correlation between scholarship and politics; (4) Grotius’ use of sources and his relation to contemporary developments in antiquarianism; and (5) the important role of historical perspectives in his other works, such as De jure belli ac pacis and the Annotationes on the New Testament. Although, for Grotius, history was always subservient to political ends and this led him to creative overinterpretation of sources in some cases, this does not mean he has not contributed to the discipline as such or to its methods. For him, the progress of the historical discipline lay in the movement towards secularism and realism/naturalism, not so much in the antiquarian direction. In his correspondence of the 1630s, Grotius includes the Annales et Historiae among his chief achievements and expresses his expectation that the work would earn him a lasting fame with posterity. The chief methodological thrust of the work is an attempt at analysis of the true logic behind human history; i.e. of the real causes, motives and effects, regardless of the demands of moral exemplarity and religious teleology. Obviously, this separation runs parallel to the rise of reason of state in politics itself and the gradual ‘emancipation’ of politics from the demands of ethics and religion; as Grotius’ ideas on the statesman-historian show, politics and the writing of history were intimately connected activities. The belated publication of the Annales et Historiae in 1657, however, robbed Grotius of a good part of his actual influence on the field, for, by that time, the secular and realist view of history and politics was no longer as controversial as it had been in the period around 1610. Nevertheless, the work’s quality of realist analysis ensured that it enjoyed a reputation as ‘the’ work on the Dutch Revolt from its publication up to some point in the eighteenth century. These conclusions apply to the interpretation of the historical record. On the other hand, it is also obvious that, with respect to the creation of the historical record, Fruin’s judgment of Grotius makes sense. Grotius’ approach to his task is not that of a critical historical researcher in the ‘modern’ sense of the word, but that of the (late-)humanist. Although he Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 332 Jan Waszink uses a wide array of sources, these are limited to written materials: composed historical narratives – ancient, medieval and modern ones – documentary sources such as letters, diaries, treaties, decrees, laws or pamphlets, as well as etymological and linguistic evidence.47 Grotius displays only limited interest in information outside these realms, and never really adopts the innovations of the antiquarian branch of scholarship. The antiquarian notes to De antiquitate were written and added, not by himself, but by Petrus Scriverius (1576–1660). The recent characterisation of the Historia Gotthorum as a work in the antiquarian tradition has been criticised as questionable if one takes the concern with physical objects and data as a defining mark of antiquarianism, for indeed the work indicates scant use of such information to confront the written record with. The same might be said of De origine gentium Americanarum, although in that work Grotius’ use of new empirical evidence is less limited than some of the scholarship suggests. 15.10 Addendum: Consistency within Grotius’ Oeuvre A recurrent problem also highlighted by this historical cross-section is the internal consistency within Grotius’ oeuvre.48 A good part of the older scholarship on Grotius is built on a conception of his life and works as one continuous effort to promote justice and peace. The ongoing study of his Individual works, e.g. DA DJP AH OP IHR DJBP Annot. Interests or concerns in a given period, e.g. | Constitutionalism | Natural law | Religious policy | International law | Religious peace | Poetry| Philology| etc. Grotius' (expanding) knowledge of literature, philosophy, scholarship etc Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 333 individual works, however, especially those from before 1618, has been making it progressively difficult to uphold this idea of principled consistency. In this chapter, we have seen the very different approaches to political ethics between two perfectly contemporary works, De antiquitate and the Annales. For the interpretation of Grotius’ works, this question is urgent since it concerns the question if or to what extent we can use the content of one of his works to understand that of another. On the practical level, there seems to exist a difference of approach between scholars who examine Grotius’ work from a strictly ‘historical’ perspective, aspiring to reconstruct and understand the author’s actual thought processes when he composed a given work at a given time, and those who approach the works or the oeuvre from a more ‘philosophical’ perspective, looking for its value for thought and debate in the present. In this approach, elements or arguments from a different work may legitimately be invoked, or perhaps even elements from another author with whom Grotius may reasonably be understood as being ‘in conversation’ on the given topic. But however this may be, in each case we do need some vision of the nature of the relationships between Grotius’ works. Since they are all products of the same mind, they cannot be entirely disconnected from each other. To understand these relationships, I propose the model above which consists of three levels. The basic level is Grotius’ enormous knowledge, expanding over the course of his life, and built up from his reading of literature, scholarship, philosophy plus everything else such as the news facts of his time. The impetus towards the composition of the individual works is the middle level, that of the concerns or pursuits that entertained him at any given time, some of which have a permanent presence throughout his life, and some of which are more limited to particular periods. For example, the concern with constitutionalism and the legitimacy of the Dutch Revolt properly pertains to his earlier life, whereas the struggle for inter-confessional peace or even integration is a concern of his later years. The third level is that of individual works. Their content is rooted in the first level, that of Grotius’ wide reading and knowledge, and informed and prompted into being by the concerns of the middle level. Many of Grotius’ individual works are strongly tied to their particular, political and discursive, contexts, audiences and purposes – for example, De antiquitate, De jure praedae, Mare liberum, Annales et Historiae, Ordinum pietas, Historia Gothorum. As a result, there is no ‘direct’ consistency between the individual works at the third level: any Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 334 Jan Waszink coherence or overlap they may have only derives from their common basis in the first level and, in some cases, from their connections at the middle level. It follows that great circumspection is required when we use elements from one work to explain another. One may ask whether this means that a greater degree of consistency should be expected between the works with a less direct relation with a particular interest at the time of writing – De jure belli ac pacis, the Annotationes to the New Testament, perhaps the plays and other theological works.49 Obviously, in principle, this model could be valid for any author. A remaining question is whether or to what extent Grotius is exceptional with respect to (in) consistency within his oeuvre. In Grotius’ case, this question can only be approached through collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts. Translations of Grotius’ Works Used Annals of the War in the Low Countries, ed. J. Waszink (Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae; Assen, forthcoming) The Rights of War and Peace, ed. R. Tuck (Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics; Indianapolis, 2005) Further Reading Damon, D., D. den Hengst , M. van der Poel, J. Waszink,: ‘Dossier: Tacitus and Grotius’, Grotiana N.S. 29 (2008) and 30 (2009). Waszink, J., ‘Tacitism in Holland: Hugo Grotius’ Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis’, in Rhoda Schnur (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bonnensis: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Bonn, 2003; Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 315, 2006). Waszink, J., ‘Lipsius and Grotius: Tacitism’, History of European Ideas 39 (2013) 151–68. Notes 1 Celebrating the conquest of Groenlo by the Dutch Stadholder Frederick Henry (1584–1645) in 1627, it was written with the purpose of currying the Stadholder’s favour with a view to Grotius’ aspired return to Holland; see Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 335 H.J.M. Nellen, ‘The significance of Grollae Obsidio in the development of Grotius’ relations with the fatherland’, Lias 11 (1984) 1–17; and J. Pluijm, ‘Grollae Obsidio’, Grols verleden, Tijdschrift voor de historie van Groenlo en directe omgeving (2008). The Parallelon probably circulated in manuscript among Grotius’ acquaintances, and was only published in 1801–3. It appears that, by 1605, Grotius had lost interest in having it printed, A. Eyffinger, ‘Het Parallelon Rerumpublicarum van Hugo de Groot’, in Z. von Martels, P. Steenbakkers and A. Vanderjagt (eds.), Limae Labor et Mora. Opstellen voor Fokke Akkerman ter gelegenheid van zijn zeventigste verjaardag (Leende, 2000), 127–44, at 132. The work makes a strong connection between the virtuousness of a society and its historical success; its rhetorical brilliance, however, seems to carry more weight than any attempt at serious historical investigation. Eyffinger argues that it should be read as a serious critical analysis of and warning against rising moral defects in Dutch society around 1600 resulting from the success of the Revolt, i.e. especially luxuria and lack of unity. See L. Janssen, Hugo Grotius, Antiquarianism and the Gothic Myth. A Critical Study of the Ideological Dimension and Methodological Foundation of the Historia Gotthorum (1655) (Leuven, unpublished dissertation, 2016) and the forthcoming edition of Grotius’ foreword to the HG in Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae. First finished in 1612, published 1657; see ‘Nawoord’ to Grotius, Kroniek van de Nederlandse Oorlog. De Opstand 1559–1588, transl. J. Waszink (Nijmegen, 2014); and the forthcoming edition of the Annals (see ‘Translations of Grotius’ Works Used’). See the references in note 49. As expressed in the strongly sceptical opening chapter of Politica book 4; see J. Waszink, ‘Introduction’ to J. Lipsius, Politica. Six books of Politics or Political Instruction. ed. and transl. J. Waszink (Assen, 2004), 81, 207; Waszink, ‘Lipsius and Grotius: Tacitism’, History of European Ideas 39 (2013) 151–68; Waszink, ‘Henry Savile’s Tacitus and the English role on the Continent: Leicester, Hotman, Lipsius’, History of European Ideas 42 (2016) 303–19, at 11–12. See the related debate between readers of Grotius, such as Richard Tuck, who emphasise the role of self-interest in Grotius’ ‘system’, and those who focus on Grotius’ assertion of a principle of sociability; a summary of this discussion in C. Brooke, ‘Grotius, Stoicism and ‘Oikeiosis’, Grotiana N.S. 29 (2008), 25–50, at 25–31. See P. Borschberg, ‘ “Commentarius in Theses XI”. Ein unveröffentlichtes Kurzwerk von Hugo Grotius’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 109 (1992) 450–74; Borschberg, ‘‘Grotius, the social contract and political resistance. A study of the Unpublished Theses LVI’ in: IILJ Working Paper 2006/7. For further discussion see J. Waszink, ‘Tacitism in Holland: Hugo Grotius’ Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis’, in Rhoda Schnur (ed.), Acta Conventus Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 336 Jan Waszink 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Neo-Latini Bonnensis: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of NeoLatin Studies (Bonn, 2003) (Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 315; 2006); Waszink, ‘Your Tacitism or mine? Modern and early-modern conceptions of Tacitus and Tacitism’, History of European Ideas 36 (2010), 375–85. A view of Dutch society also expressed in Lipsius’ (in)famous 1595 adviceletter to the Archdukes, see Iusti Lipsi Epistolae (ILE) vol. 8, ed. J. Delandtsheer (Brussel, 2004), no. 950102S and Waszink, intro to Lipsius, Politica 27–8, 127. E.g. AHRB Annales 1.23. Waszink, J., ‘Lipsius and Grotius: Tacitism’, History of European Ideas 39 (2013) 151–68, 13–4. For a fuller discussion of this and the next passage, see Waszink, ‘Tacitism in Holland’ and Waszink, ‘Lipsius & Grotius’. On the absence of sources for this claim by Grotius, see Grotius, Kroniek, 246–7. H. Grotius, Occasional poetry (1609–1645) ed. M. van Oosterhout (Nijmegen, unpublished dissertation, 2009), e.g. chapter 4 on the Truce, 305 sqq, e.g. 310 r. 280 ‘Adstabat Pietas’ etc. See ref. in Waszink, ‘Your Tacitism or Mine’, 383, n. 48. G.B. Werteloo, De Krijgsdaden van Willem van Oranje, ed. coll. class c.n. E.D.E.P.O.L. (Leiden, 1990), e.g. the allegorical Religio in book 1, vs. 158–238. Grotius, De Antiquitate, Ded. § 2. Whether Grotius perceives a direct divine influence on historical events partly overlaps with the question whether there is ‘dramatic structuring’ in the AHRB; see Waszink, ‘Your Tacitism or mine’, 382–4. Similarly Annals 2.21. Compare Lipsius’ characterisation of Tacitus’ works as serious, useful, political discussion rather than interesting stories ‘which serve more to delight the reader than to instruct him’ in the dedication to Maximilian in Taciti Historiarum et Annalium libri qui exstant (Antwerp,) 1574), also printed as Iusti Lipsi Epistolae 1, 74 07 00M. Characterisation by Lipsius. For a fuller discussion and lit. reff., see J. Waszink, ‘The ideal of the StatesmanHistorian. The case of Hugo Grotius’ in: J. Hartman, J. Nieuwstraten en M. Reinders (eds.), Public Offices, Personal Demands: Capability in Governance in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic (Newcastle, 2009), 101–23. For Grotius’s correspondence regarding the AHRB, see J. Waszink, ‘Hugo Grotius’ Annales et Historiae de rebus Belgicis from the Evidence in his Correspondence, 1604–1644’, Lias 31–2 (2004) 249–68. Waszink, ‘Correspondence’; Waszink,’Tacitism in Holland’. E.g. intellectual fructus; the creation of gloria and of exempla to the living; guidance in political deliberations. Grotius, BW 1, ep. 315 of 5 February 1614 and ep. 409 of 5 June 1615 (both to J.A. de Thou). BW 1, ep. 128 (1608), 169 (1609), 409 (1615); the complaint in ep. 22 (1601). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 Historical Writings 337 28 E.g. Jean Leclerc and Jan Wagenaar, as well as Grotius’ biographers Brandt and Cattenburgh, C. Brandt en A. van Cattenburgh, Historie van het leven des heren Huig de Groot [..] (Dordrecht en Amsterdam, 1732); the latter praise the AHRB extensively as a successful emulation of Tacitus and Thucydides (p. 34–5). On the reception of the AHRB see further A. Janssen, ‘Grotius als Geschichtsschreiber’ in: The World of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) (Amsterdam, 1984), 161–78, esp. 1647; H. Muller, De Groots Annales et Historiae (Utrecht, unpublished dissertation, 1919), chapter 5; Grotius, Kroniek, 248–52 and notes. 29 ‘History, as understood by Grotius, belonged to the sphere of philology; its main aspect was form, and this had to modelled on the examples from Antiquity. Indepth and extensive research, [and] critical evaluation of transmitted information was less important. This is why Grotius considered himself fit to write history, and was seen as such by others,’ R. Fruin, Verspreide Geschriften, eds. P. Blok, P. Muller and S. Muller Fz. (The Hague, 1901), vol. 3, 405–6; see also Muller, De Groots Annales et Historiae, 159–61. 30 H.J. de Jonge, ‘Grotius as an interpreter of the Bible, particularly the New Testament’, in: R. Feenstra et al. (eds.), Hugo Grotius: A Great European 1583–1645 (Delft, 1983), 59–65, esp. at 64 and 59; de Jonge, ‘The study of the New Testament´, in: Leiden University in the seventeenth century. An exchange of learning (Leiden, 1975), 113–29. I thank prof. De Jonge for his comments on this paragraph. 31 Ibid., 60–1. De Jonge’s view has been contested recently by N. Hardy, Criticism and Confession, the Bible in the Seventeenth Century Republic of Letters (Oxford, 2017), esp. ch. 5. For Hardy, Grotius was as entangled in confessional controversy as other theologians of his day, only less systematic and more eclectic than orthodox Calvinist or Catholic theologians, 230–40; a point that may be true without detracting from the above-mentioned methodological merits of Grotius’ work on Scripture. Hardy is right, however, in pointing out that Grotius’ view of the power relation between states and churches ‘was informed in large part by historical scholarship’, 239–40. 32 For this reading, see e.g. A. Eyffinger and B. Vermeulen, Hugo de Groot. Denken over Oorlog en Vrede (Baarn, 1991), 25–7; A. Droetto, ‘Il Tacitismo nella storiografia Groziana’, in Studi Groziani di Antonio Droetto, (Torino, 1968), 101–51, at 149; and see C. Brooke, ‘Grotius, Stoicism and ‘Oikeiosis’, Grotiana N.S. 29 (2008) 25–50. 33 See H.J.M. Nellen, Hugo Grotius. A Lifelong Struggle for Peace in Church and State, 1583–1645 (Leiden, 2015), 684–90 and lit. notes there. 34 See C. Laes and T. Van Houdt, ‘Over Goten Germanen en Indianen: de controverse Grotius-De Laet’, De Zeventiende Eeuw 25 (2009) 120–36, at 125, for a similar point; they analyse the controversy from the perspective of its rhetoric, 131–36. 35 There are at least two impressions, as appears from differences in the typesetting between the digital copy at The Internet Archive (https://archive.org/ details/hugonisgrotiideo00grot), and that in Leiden UL. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021 338 Jan Waszink 36 Published as Iaerlyck Verhael van de verrichtinghen der geoctroyeerde WestIndische Compagnie in Leiden in 1644. 37 Ioannis de Laet Antuerpiani, Notae ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii De Origine Gentium Americanarum: et Observationes aliquot ad meliorem indaginem difficillimae illius Quaestionis (Amsterdam, 1643). 38 See B. Schmidt, ‘Space, time, travel: Hugo de Groot, Johannes de Laet, and the advancement of geographic learning’, Lias 25 (1998), 177–99; Van Houdt and Laes, ‘Goten, Germanen, Indianen’, notes for lit. reff. 39 Nellen, Grotius, 687–8, incorrectly simplifies Grotius’ view to one that ‘the peoples of the Americas (. . .) had arrived from Norway (via Greenland), parts of Africa and the Far East’. 40 Esp. Schmidt, ‘Time, space, travel’, 195–8; followed by Nellen, Grotius, 688. 41 ‘Quo fiebat, ut usitatae indagandi viae per linguarum aut morum institutionumque similitudinem, hic nullum haberent locum’, p. A2–3. 42 See Grotius’ defence of his method in the reply to the critics in the Dissertatio altera, 6–7. 43 See R. Shirley, The Mapping of the World. Early Printed World Maps 1472–1700 (Holland Press Cartographica 9; London, 1983), vol. 9, 350–400. 44 De Laet, Notae, 59. Although on 16 he still calls the idea of a land connection with New Guinea a ‘communis et versimilis opinio’. 45 Van Houdt and Laes, ‘Goten, Germanen, Indianen’, 123–5; Nellen, Grotius, 684. 46 In cooperation with Dutch and German stakeholders, Sweden founded New Sweden on the Delaware and brought settlers to expand it in the subsequent period. After 1648 there was competition with Dutch attempts to settle in the area, which led to a Dutch takeover in 1654. The Swedish settlements however remained in place as an ‘independent’ Swedish nation until they came under English rule in 1681; see P.S. Craig, ‘Chronology of colonial Swedes on the Delaware 1638–1713’, Swedish Colonial News 2.5 (2001). 47 On Grotius’ use of sources in the AHRB, see Grotius, Kroniek, 244–8. 48 This paragraph comes out of discussions at the conference The intellectual lives of Hugo Grotius at Princeton, 4–6 May 2018. I thank the organisers, Leo Russel and Morgens Laerke, and especially Timothy Harrison, Jane Raisch, Freya Sierhuis, Eric Nelson and Mary Nyquist for their comments on this topic. 49 In this respect, it is relevant to see Grotius’ plans for publication of his main legacy. The idea comes up in May 1639, 10BW 4119 and 4132. In November 1639, 10 BW 4367, he formulates a list: the Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum, Anthologia Graeca, Annales et Historiae, Historia Gothorum (none of these had been published at the time). The development of this project, to be executed by Blaeu in Amsterdam, keeps figuring in the correspondence until his death. From 1640 onwards, the discussion includes a new edition of DJBP; see Waszink, ‘Correspondence’, 263. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiteit Leiden / LUMC, on 12 Sep 2021 at 13:27:11, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182751.021