Why did Hugo de Groot have to escape in a book chest again?

Around 1600 Hugo de Groot was proof that Holland could achieve miraculous things under its own power. He was seventeen years old at the time, wrote poems in Latin, as well as continuously reflecting on the most diverse learned subjects. Less than twenty years later, De Groot (1583-1645) was proof that Holland was growing up in a nasty way. He was held partly responsible for the liberal religious rule of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. The latter’s head rolled in May 1619; Hugo de Groot was told that he would be imprisoned for the rest of his life in the impregnable state prison Slot Loevestein.

In 1621, De Groot became proof that emerging world powers always create their own myths of hope and fear: he escaped in a bookcase that carried his literature in and out of his cell on a daily basis. The story is indestructible, and very suitable for explaining the hitches in Dutch tolerance to school children. It was also the reason to declare a ‘Hugo de Grootjaar’ in 2021, including an exhibition at Loevestein Castle.

A surprise was the appearance of a new biography, No peacemaker is without contradictions, by Henk Nellen. The surprise lies in the simple fact that relatively recently, in 2007, Nellen published a biography of De Groot that is more than twice as extensive. Nellen himself indicates that his new book is not a ‘thickened replica’ of his earlier, much-praised, biography. What is it then? The main facts of life are explained again, but Nellen always dives into the depths. Subjects that were only touched upon in the large biography are still dealt with extensively here, such as De Groot’s rather complex tolerant view of Jewish immigrants, which was less fundamental than has been assumed, and is mainly based on the idea that Jews will eventually convert to Protestantism. had to be converted. Nellen also elaborates on De Groot’s alleged leaning towards Catholicism.

theological feud

The 2007 biography excels, among other things, in a very precise reconstruction of the infamous Truce disputes between Arminians and Gomarists, and how this theological feud also set national politics on fire. In the new biography, Nellen further refines the story about the File Disputes. Those were years in which both sides radicalized and tried to put each other out of action. The party of country lawyer Johan van Oldenbarnevelt made great appeal to the legal qualities of De Groot, who in pamphlets and speeches not only preached mutual tolerance, but also tried to sell the Remonstrant position more and more emphatically as orthodox. It was a risky strategy for the minority party. In 1618 the curtain fell for Van Oldenbarnevelt and his followers, including Hugo de Groot. The show trial that followed was a torture for the lawyer. He panicked, his legal ingenuity failed him. He told his interrogators more than was necessary and got Van Oldenbarnevelt in extra trouble.

When the state lawyer heard the death sentence pronounced early on 12 May 1619, De Groot, who was imprisoned in an adjacent room, witnessed it verbatim. According to Nellen, these events would scare De Groot for life, or even traumatize them. De Groot got away with imprisonment, managed to escape and found refuge in France, where he was not only regarded as a world-renowned lawyer, but from 1635 also as ambassador to Sweden.

In Paris he enjoyed a good life, and yet the wounds of his fall healed very slowly. Many old friendships, such as those with Daniel Heinsius and Constantijn Huygens, had cooled down or turned into violent quarrels. An old college friend like Cornelis Pijnacker, now working as a diplomat, was also received coolly during a visit to De Groot in Paris, and encountered the distrust of the exile, which increasingly developed into depression or even paranoia. Even close friends suspected De Groot of spying on him.

Cardinal Richelieu

Exercising his honorable ambassadorship for Sweden became increasingly difficult for De Groot. As a representative of a modest nation, he got little done. He often felt belittled, especially by the great French statesman Cardinal Richelieu. De Groot developed strong anti-French sentiments, which were also expressed in letters, the contents of which often quickly became known in French circles. It was De Groot’s hot-tempered and insensitive side that kept getting him into trouble.

De Groot withdrew more and more into his study. His fame as a scholar only increased. International visitors to Paris who hoped to visit him for a while, or otherwise exchange a few words, were often rebuffed. It was blunt, but also a sheer necessity to save time for his scientific projects. De Groot’s reflections on the law of war (De iure belli ac pacis, 1625) and maritime law (Mare liberum, 1609) are still most appealing to posterity. Nellen makes it plausible that De Groot’s greatest ambitions lay in the field of theology and church organization.

De Groot believed that the Protestant split from the Catholic Church ultimately undermined Christianity as a whole and led to unnecessary wars and casualties. He advocated a radical return to the simplicity of early Christianity. Simplicity advocated in lengthy Bible commentaries and theological treatises, that is. With his repeated pleas, De Groot raised the suspicion that he wanted to become a Catholic. Those rumors spread throughout Europe. There are still De Groot experts who believe that the definitive accession was only a matter of time. Nellen maintains that De Groot had very good reasons for not joining the Church of Rome: a number of books that had made him world famous, such as De iure and Mare liberum, were on the Index of forbidden books. To rewrite these groundbreaking treatises in a conservative Catholic sense would have been too great a sacrifice for the idiosyncratic jurist. I suspect Henk Nellen is right.

Henk Nellen: No peacemaker is without critics. Hugo Grotius, scholar, statesman, reviled conciliator. Athenaeum – Polak & Van Gennep, 416 pp. € 30,-

●●●●●

A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of January 21, 2022

---