Latin and the Vernacular between Humanism and . The University Discourse and the Crisis of 1618

David Kromhout

1 A Reader Twice Addressed?

In 1618 the Dutch lawyer and entrepreneur (1577–1660) published his remarkable collection of emblems, Proteus, sive Silenus Alcibiades.1 The book was an immediate success and was reprinted numerous times during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Its structure was tripartite, each part related to the same set of engravings, but with texts from different angles. The first part was addressed to the youth and contained poems pertaining to the nature of love. The second part presented a general moralistic interpretation of the same engravings, and the third an outright Calvinistic one. Later edi- tions would rearrange the poems and the work would become famous under its Dutch title: Sinne- en minnebeelden (Book of Moral and Love Emblems). The book features two introductions, one in Latin and the other one in Dutch. The introductions both contain Cats’s general pedagogical program, namely that he tries to seduce the youth into reading his book, first by way of an attractive frontispiece, secondly by means of the beautiful engravings and the sweet sub- ject of love. Cats assumes that once the youth has started reading and appreci- ating the first part of the book, they will continue reading, eager to learn more about Cats’s moral lessons. A cursory comparison of the two introductions to Cats’s Sinne- en minne- beelden may lead the reader to conclude that the Dutch introduction, follow- ing the Latin, is a literal translation of the Latin. However, a page count will occasion suspicion; whereas the Latin introduction is only five pages long, the Dutch introduction extends to nearly fifteen pages. Supposing the reader is

1 On Cats, see: Domien ten Berge, De hooggeleerde en zoetvloeiende dichter Jacob Cats (’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1979). On the bibliographical history of the separate editions of the Sinne- en minnebeelden, see: Jacob Cats, Sinne- en minnebeelden: Studie-uitgave met inleiding en commentaar, ed. Hans Luijten, Monumenta literaria neerlandica (Den Haag: Constantijn Huygens Instituut, 1996).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi 10.1163/9789004280182_014 Latin And The Vernacular Between Humanism And Calvinism 267 able to understand both Latin and Dutch, further scrutiny will show that the first page of the introduction is a literal translation, but that thereafter the two introductions start to diverge. Indeed, closer examination reveals remark- able differences between the two introductions. The Latin introduction has virtually no references to the Bible, referring instead to classical examples. In contrast, the Dutch text is longer, seemingly apologetic in character and is saturated with references to biblical scripture. A simple explanation for the differences would be that Cats wished to create two separate impressions: one for those who understood Latin and another for a wider readership. This would suggest that Cats was not as Calvinistic as he is generally thought to have been. However, this explanation seems unlikely considering the fact that Cats had been profoundly influenced by the English Puritans and would remain a Calvinist throughout his life. These differences can also be explained in another way, namely as exam- ples of two different discourses in the Dutch Republic that were both strug- gling to gain or maintain the upper hand. One discourse can be connected to the humanists associated with Leiden University. It is the discourse that is dominant within the University and the higher echelons of society. The other discourse is connected with the larger Calvinist section of the society of the Dutch Republic. As most of the churchgoers had not had much instruction in the Latin language, it was the vernacular that was the mode of expression pre- dominating within this discourse. What Cats seems to be doing here is show- ing that he is at home in both discourses. There is a tension in Cats’s Sinne- en minnebeelden between the humanist and Calvinist discourses which reflects the tension that existed in contemporary Dutch society. A suitable way to describe this tension in the Dutch Republic between 1600 and 1620 is to see it as an interplay of oppositions in which the dynamics of Latin and the vernacular occupy their own position. There were oppositions of class, religion, political views, and locality. One of them was the opposi- tion between Stadholder Maurice of Orange (1567–1625) and Land’s Advocate Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619). Maurice of Orange had acquired a great reputation as a victorious military strategist in the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600) and his many other military successes in the war against . He was in favor of renewing the war after the expiry of the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–1621). Van Oldenbarnevelt, Land’s Advocate of the States of Holland and West Friesland and of the States General, preferred a diplomatic solution and endeavored to negotiate a peace with Spain. An important argument for Van Oldenbarnevelt was that the wars had been expensive and that Dutch trade and commerce would benefit more from peace than from the resumption of hostilities.