Liminary Poetry in Latin and Dutch. The Case of Pieter Bor's Nederlantsche Oorlogen

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004280182_005

This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV

Liminary Poetry in Latin and Dutch. The Case of Pieter Bor’s Nederlantsche Oorloghen

Harm-Jan van Dam

1 Introduction

Write a book and receive a handful of poems. That was the usual situation in Early Modern Europe: most serious books were introduced by one or more poems composed by the author himself and his friends. This liminary poetry—a term I prefer over ‘verse’ in this context—has many diffferent func-tions. It may praise the author and commend him and his work to the public; it may dedicate the book in question to someone; it may summarize its con-tents. And while doing one or more of these things, the liminary poem may also be a publisher’s advertisement, a self-presentation by the author that is part of his self-fashioning and it may also boast the size and importance of that author’s social network. 1 In addition, the liminary poem composed in celebra-tion of a new book is a subspecies of occasional poetry in general.2 At the same time it, is also an instance of a paratext as defĳined in Gérard Genette’s epochal Seuils: ‘a certain number of verbal or other productions (. . .) surrounding and

1 I will discuss liminary poetry more at length and more in detail in the published version of my plenary lecture given at the fĳiftheenth congress of the International Association of Neo-Latin Studies (Münster 6–11 August 2012): ‘Poems on the threshold: Neolatin carmina liminaria’. See also J.W. Binns, Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The Latin

Writings of the Age (Leeds, 1990), pp. 165–171 (seminal), and H.-J. Van Dam, ‘Taking Occasion by the Forelock: Dutch Poets and Appropriation of Occasional Poems’, in Y. Maes –J. Papy – W. Verbaal (eds), Latinitas Perennis. Volume II: Appropriation and Latin Literature, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 178 (Leiden – Boston, 2009), pp. 95–128 (118–122); on lim-inary poems by the Dutch seventeenth century poet Bredero, see G. Stuiveling, G.A. Bredero’s

Verspreid Werk (Leiden, 1986), pp. 28–36. On the poetics of self-fashioning, see Tom Deneire’s contribution to this volume.

2 On occasional poetry see e.g. A. Smeesters, Aux rives de la lumière. La poésie de la naissance

chez les auteurs néo-latins des anciens Pays-Bas entre la fĳin du XVe siècle et le milieu du XVIIe

siècle, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 29 (Leuven, 2011), pp. 1–13, my own ‘Taking occasion’ and Deneire’s chapter in this volume (n. 1 (all with literature)), also E.K. Grootes, ‘ “Ter begraefenisse van den hooghgeleerden heere, Peter Schryver”. Iets over de ontstaans-situatie van gelegenheidspoëzie in de zeventiende eeuw’, Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der

Nederlandse Letterkunde, 1996–97 (1997), 3–16.

60 van dam


extending (the text)’,3 such as prefaces, dedications, page numbers, colophons and indices. However, somewhat surprisingly in a book titled ‘Thresholds’, Genette did not discuss liminary poetry.

One might expect that the language of liminary poetry is adapted to that of the book it introduces but this is not completely true. As a rule, Latin works are introduced by poetry in Latin or Greek and not in the vernacular, but Dutch books may have liminary poems in both Dutch and Latin or in other languages. Sometimes Dutch works in Latin have liminary poetry in French but these are exceptions. Thus the last poem of the introductory series in the tragedy Auriacus by Daniel Heinsius (1602) is a French poem by David de Licques.4 In Heinsius’ Liber adoptivus, in which poetry for his compositions is collected, two other poems in French are found: another poem by De Licques (edition 1617, pp. 640–642)—not, however, the poem from Auriacus—and one by Richard Jean de Nérée (1579–1628), a French preacher who had lived in the Netherlands since 1601 (ibid., 630–637). He also composed French liminary poetry for Latin books by other Leiden scholars such as Dominicus Baudius, Petrus Bertius and Lucas Trelcatius. He translated two Latin sermons by Heinsius into French (1613),5 and is chiefly known as the French translator of the Acts of the Synod of Dordt but he had a more frivolous side as well: in P.C. Hooft’s Emblemata

amatoria / Afbeeldinghe van minne / Emblèmes d’ amour (1611) the French texts are his, and for the wedding of Hugo Grotius he made a rather wanton French epithalamium—which is one reason why he was not chosen as the French translator of Grotius’ religious pamphlet Ordinum Pietas (1613). This poem is not included among the Greek and Latin wedding poems for Grotius in his Poemata collecta.6 In the anonymous Thronus Cupidinis paratextual poems in Dutch and French and Latin precede the text. However, this is not a Latin work but a book of emblems in these three languages, so it is no surprise that the prelims combine them as well.7

3 G. Genette, Paratexts, English translation by Jane E. Lewin (Cambridge, 1997), p. 1. The French original, Seuils, dates from 1987. Genette coined the term ‘paratexte’ in his 1981 Palimpsestes (p. 9).

4 A French Protestant nobleman (†1616), see J. Bloemendal, Daniel Heinsius, Auriacus sive

Libertas saucia (1602), 2 vols. (Voorthuizen, 1997), 2, 54–55. For the poem itself and a Dutch translation: ibid., 1, 222–227.

5 P.R. Sellin, Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England: with a short-title checklist of the works of Daniel

Heinsius (Leiden, 1968), Checklist, number 389.6 See Biografĳisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme, 1 (1978),

207–208 (Posthumus Meyjes), Hugo Grotius, Briefwisseling, ed. P.C. Molhuysen, I (1928), 143 (18 August 1608), pp. 126, and 283 (13 September 1613), pp. 261–262.

7 See <http://www.dbDutch.org/tekst/_thr001thro01_01/index.php>, last consulted on 22 May 2013. This concerns the third edition (1620) of this 1617 work. Books of emblems—by defĳini-

61liminary poetry in latin and dutch


For this paper written within the scope of Dynamics of Neo-Latin and the

Vernacular I have examined books written in Dutch with liminary poetry in both Latin (and a few times in Greek) and Dutch. I was inspired by a long note in J.W. Binns’ erudite and stimulating book on Latin writings in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England. He mentions a hundred and one English books with Latin liminary poems printed between 1550 and 1640; most of them have liminary poetry in English as well.8 What are the dynamics of this paratex-tual coexistence of poems in Latin and in the vernacular? Is there a hierarchy expressed in order and layout? Is there a strict separation of ‘Latinless’ and Latin poets or do the same authors write in Dutch and in Latin? What do these facts imply for the self-representation of the poets and the author of the book, for the intended public(s), and for the policy of the publisher?

Obviously severe restriction of the material has been necessary: after a few introductory remarks I will concentrate on a case study of Pieter Bor’s History

of the Dutch Revolt and the War against Spain, eleven volumes altogether, pub-lished during a period of forty years (1595–1634). This restriction will, of course, limit the scope of any conclusions, but as long as we try to take into account text and context of Bor’s books and his network of friends and relations more general tendencies can be shown.9

2 Background

In this paragraph I will give some background on the literary use of Dutch and Latin (and French). This will be followed by three instances of liminary poetry that can serve as foils for the case study of Bor’s liminaria. So far, we have seen that Dutch poetry is never encountered in the prelims of Latin works, and French preliminary poetry only exceptionally. Around 1600 French was in use in parts of Europe as the foreign language of the nobility besides Latin as that of education, but in the Northern Netherlands after 1585 cultural and economic

tion intermedial and dynamic productions—seem to have a diffferent status: Otto Vaenius’ 1618 Latin Emblemata amatoria (Leiden: W. Blaeu) has both Latin and several Dutch lim-inary poems, see <http://emblems.let.uu.nl/va1618.html> (last consulted 28 May 2013) and Stuiveling, G.A. Bredero’s Verspreid Werk, p. 35.

8 Binns, Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, chapter 10, n. 40, pp. 499–502. Some random checking showed that perhaps not all of this poetry is really liminary, but that does not detract from the fact that the combination of English with Latin was common practice.

9 For a more extensive discussion of the characteristics of Bor’s work and its liminary poems, see below.

62 van dam


factors were more important for its prestige.10 The aforementioned example of De Néree shows that someone who consistently writes vernacular poetry in a Latin environment may nevertheless feel at home in Latin enough to translate professionally from it; or vice versa that a qualifĳied theologian might forsake Latin in favour of the vernacular as long as that vernacular was French and not Dutch. More generally it suggests that avoiding a specifĳic language does not prove lack of competence, and that writing in only one language does not prove monolingualism.

In the Netherlands around 1600 diverging language-related developments were at work. Since the late Middle Ages middle-class citizens had gathered in Chambers of Rhetoric. The main concern of their members, ‘rederijkers’, was originally drama and lyric, but in our period they played an important role in the ‘purifĳication’ of the Dutch language, that is, purifĳication of French influ-ence, mainly in the lexicon.11 Prof essors and students of the new university founded in Leiden in 1575 put strong emphasis on Latin and Greek philology and humanist classical learning; however, on the other hand, this focus on the past and on origins produced a strong interest in the origins of the ‘national’ Dutch language and history among those same scholars, just as it happened in other countries.12 One turning point in the appreciation of poetry in the ver-nacular was the publication in 1616 of the Nederduytsche poemata, Dutch poetry composed by Leiden’s prestigious professor of rhetoric and classical philology and renowned Neo-Latin and Greek poet Daniel Heinsius and presented by another academic and antiquarian, Petrus Scriverius.13 As well as a growing group of professional scholars, preachers and administrators educated in Latin

10 See N. Thurn, Neulatein und Volkssprachen. Beispiele für die Rezeption neusprachlicher

Literatur durch die lateinische Dichtung Europas im 15.–16. Jahrhundert (München, 2012), 483–4844, On French (and Latin) in the Dutch Golden Age, see J.P. Guépin, Drietaligheid (‘s-Hertogenbosch, 2003), W. Frijhofff, Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw. Een verkenning, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 73, 2 (Amsterdam, 2010).

11 See Frijhofff, Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw, A. van Dixhoorn, Lustige Geesten. Rederijkers

in de Noordelijke Nederlanden (1480–1650) (Amsterdam, 2009), M. v.d. Wal – C. van Bree, Geschiedenis van het Nederlands (Utrecht, 20095). I also make use of material brought together by Eva van Hooijdonk for her dissertation within the Dynamics project (for more information, see the chapter ‘Dynamics of Neo-Latin and the Vernacular: History and Introduction’ in this volume).

12 See for example several essays in D. van Miert (ed.), The Kaleidoscopic Scholarship of

Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575). Northern Humanism at the Dawn of the Dutch Golden Age (Leiden, 2011).

13 See the contributions to this volume by Ümmü Yüksel and Guillaume van Gemert.



in the Latin school and the University, there was also an important class of pro-fessional men without Latin education: engineers, surveyors, cartographers, primary school teachers of mathematics and the like. For those professions a polytechnic was founded in 1600 as an annexe to Leiden University where teaching, in Dutch, focussed on everything related to warfare and siegecraft.14 The ‘instruction’ for this new institution was drawn up by Simon Stevin, the right-hand man of Prince Maurice of Orange in technical matters of siegecraft.

Stevin (Bruges 1548 – The Hague 1620) was not only a pioneering engineer, mathematician and student of mechanics, but also a passionate champion of the Dutch language. In several works he propagates the Dutch language as the best vehicle for science: in his Uytspraeck van de weerdicheyt der Duitsche tael (‘About the dignity of the Dutch language’, Preface to his Weeghconst, ‘Art of weighing’, 1586), his Dialectike (1595), and his Wijsentijt (‘Age of sages’, the begin-ning of his Eertclootschrift, ‘Geography’, of 1608).15 It was indeed for good rea-son that the volume of Dutch poetry by twenty poets published under the title Den Nederduytschen Helicon was dedicated to Stevin, ‘rich in art and language’.16 If w e would expect liminary poetry anywhere at all, and Dutch poems in par-ticular, it would be in the almost fĳifteen books of this former member of a Chamber of rhetoric, with his extensive network and connections in academic circles as well as among advocates of the vernacular. However, if we examine Stevin’s works, it turns out that only three of them have liminary poetry—these being the three earliest books—one in Latin, one in French and one in Dutch. In his Problemata geometrica we fĳind two Latin poems, one by his publisher Johannes Beller, and one by a certain Vuithemius. In the Arithmétique there are three Latin poems: by Dominicus Baudius, Francis Bertie and Jan de Groot, curator of Leiden University, father of Hugo Grotius and Stevin’s collaborator in scientifĳic and other enterprises, and one poem in French, also by Jan de Groot. In the Weeghconst we fĳind two poems by Jan de Groot, one in Latin and one in

14 The institution had started in 1594 as a fencing school under Ludolf van Ceulen, who became one of the professors at the new polytechnic, the Nederduytsche Mathematique (Dutch School of Mathematics): W. Otterspeer, Groepsportret met Dame (Amsterdam, 2000), 1, 198–202.

15 Nieuw Nederlands Biographisch Woordenboek (hence NNBW), 5, 516–518 (Van der Woude – Blok), E. Dijksterhuis, Simon Stevin (Den Haag, 1943), more literature at Digitale bibliotheek

der Nederlandse letteren <http://www.dbDutch.org/auteurs/auteur.php?id=stev001> (last consulted on 23 May 2013).

16 Den Nederduytschen Helicon, Eygentlick wesende der Maet-dicht beminders Lust-

toneel . . . (Haarlem: J. de Meester voor P. van Wesbusch, 1610), see W. Vermeer, ‘Den Nederduytschen Helicon’, in E.K. Grootes (ed.), Haarlems Helicon. Literatuur en toneel te

Haarlem rond 1800 (Haarlem, 1993), pp. 77–92. Stevin is ‘Konst ende Tael-rijcken’.

64 van dam


Greek.17 That this champion of Dutch only received poems in Greek, Latin and French is ironic. Part of the explanation may lie in the fact that most of them are found in the only two books he composed in Latin and French. His not receiving any liminary poetry in his other books, around ten works in Dutch, is a curious fact which I cannot explain. Surely his network was large enough and technical subjects did not prevent the insertion of poems and books in Dutch certainly had liminary poems—and also the Latin and French translations of his works equally lacked liminary poems. Stevin remained a Roman Catholic all his life, but this only demonstrates the flexibility of Dutch society during his lifetime, where anti-Catholic propaganda and laws could exist alongside toleration of a Catholic as a close collaborator of Stadtholder Maurits rather than demonstrating that it would deny Stevin liminary poetry. However that may be, as far as liminary poetry is concerned, the works of Stevin, a defender of the Republic and the Dutch language and also the author of a political essay in vigorous, modern Dutch,18 are in remarkable contrast with those of Bor, also in Dutch and on a patriotic subject.

In 1622 Hugo Grotius published a long didactic poem in Dutch, the Bewys

van de Ware godts-dienst, which he had composed three years before, during his imprisonment, in response to a request by his friend Gerardus Vossius to compose a popular, edifying work. The book was primarily meant for Dutch sailors as a support for their religious convictions in contacts with pagans and heretics or as an aid in converting those. The text was preceded by an irenic, anonymous poem of two pages, in Dutch as well, composed by his brother Willem as the motto by which it is signed shows (‘Wie doet goed?’, ‘Who does good?’).19 Five years later Grotius published a Latin reworking in prose, the fĳirst version of his most popular work, De Veritate religionis Christianae.20 One

17 Problematum geometricorum in gratiam D. Maximiliani, Domini a Cruningen . . . editorum:

libri V, Auctore Simone Stevinio Brvgense (Antwerp: Beller, 1583); L’arithmetiqve de Simon

Stevin de Bruges (Leiden: Plantijn, 1585); Simon Stevin, De beghinselen der weeghconst (Leiden: Raphelengius, 1586). See H.-J. van Dam, ‘Hugo de Groot: Filoloog en dichter in Leiden’, in H.J.M. Nellen – J. Trapman (eds), De Hollandse jaren van Hugo de Groot (1583–

1621) (Hilversum, 1996), pp. 67–86.18 Het burgherlick leven, Vita politica Anhangh (Leiden: Raphelengius, 1590), see the edition

by Pim den Boer (Utrecht, 2001).19 Hugo de Groot, Bewys Van den waren godsdienst. In ses Boecken gestelt (s.l.: s.n., 1622), see

J. ter Meulen – P.J.J. Diermanse, Bibliographie des écrits imprimés de Hugo Grotius (Zutphen, 1995 = La Haye, 1950) (hence TMD), number 143–154.

20 Sensus librorum sex, quos pro veritate religionis Christianae Batavice scripsit Hugo Grotius (Leiden: Joh. Maire, 1627); in the second and later editions De veritate religionis christianae, see TMD, 944–1090.



could expect that a Latin poem would introduce this book, either a transla-tion of the Dutch poem by his brother or perhaps a new composition by him. However, there is no liminary poem at all. Nor is Willem’s poem translated in the German translation of the Bewys, made by Martin Opitz and published in 1631, although Opitz did translate Dutch poetry by Daniel Heinsius.21 Willem de Groot could have translated his own poem into Latin; for his brother’s Poemata

collecta he wrote a series of liminary poems in Latin. Apparently translation of liminary poetry in a translated book does not occur—I have never encoun-tered it—whereas translation of liminary poems within one book, Greek and Latin, or Dutch and Latin as we will see in Bor, is not uncommon. Poems may also be transferred unchanged from one edition of the same book to another, as happens in Bor’s books.

Via his father, Hugo Grotius was closely associated with Stevin. He trans-lated his book on calculating the latitude at sea into Latin, Havenvinding,

Limeneuretike. In several (Latin) poems and prose works he extolled his coun-try, such as the Parallella Rerumpublicarum and De antiquitate reipublicae

Batavae. He also composed poetry in Dutch.22 But unlike his friend Daniel Heinsius he never wrote a liminary poem in Dutch. One of his liminary poems for Bor is even emphatically classical. However, there is one very strange limi-nary production of his hand, a Latin sonnet in Farnaby’s edition of Seneca’s tragedies, a sonulum Hendecasyllabicum as it is called.23 The rhyming sonnet is a poetical form, utterly strange to Latin, whereas it is frequent, for example, among the Dutch liminaria in Bor’s work. Grotius’ poem is not in macaronic language, it is macaronic literature.

If these few examples show anything it is how much variety there exists in the languages of liminary poetry, and how difffĳicult it is to draw broad conclu-sions, although we may hope that by their bulk the liminary poems in Bor’s books will at least show some tendencies.

21 Hugo Grotius, Von der Wahrheit der Christlichen Religion, Auß Holländischer Sprache Hochdeutsch gegeben. Durch Martin Opitzen (Breslau: David Müller, 1631): TMD, 152, see the contribution by Guillaume van Gemert in this volume.

22 Parallellon rerumpublicarum liber tertius (Haarlem: A. Loosjes, 1801–1803) (not published in Grotius’ lifetime): TMD, 750, Liber de antiquitate reipublicae Batavae (Leiden: Raphelengius, 1610): TMD, 691–692, Grotius’ Dutch poetry is in Verscheyde Nederduytsche

Gedichten (1651, 1659) and in Oovergebleeve Rym-stukken (1722, 1731): TMD, 215–218 and 220–221.

23 L. & M. Annæi Senecæ tragoediæ: post omnes omnium editiones recensionesque editae

denuo & notis Tho. Farnabii illustratae (London: Thom. Snodham, 16242), p. [A 4v] (not in the fĳirst edition of 1613). On p. [A 4r] there is a conventional Latin epigram of two distichs by Daniel Heinsius.

66 van dam


3 Pieter Bor

3.1 Bor’s HistoryPieter Christiaansz. Bor (Utrecht 1559 – Haarlem 1635) was the son of a phar-macist. He did not have much formal education, certainly no Latin schooling, but learned French, which was necessary for his profession as notary. He set up as a notary in Haarlem in 1578, but lived in several other cities of Holland, notably in Leiden from 1591 until 1602, before returning there. In the early nine-ties he started his great enterprise, to record the Dutch Revolt and the War against Spain out of ‘an extraordinary desire of historical knowledge’.24 In 16 02 the States of Utrecht offfered their offfĳicial collaboration, and in 1615 the States of Holland put all kinds of offfĳicial papers at his disposal and allowed him a subsidy. His (late) marriage in 1612 had allied him to the head clerk (grifffĳier) of the Court of Holland, and thus had already given him access to documents. His job as steward of the North Holland estates gave him the spare time which he needed for his work. Bor’s History actually consists of many offfĳicial documents connected by factual reports and his own commentary.25

In 1595 he published the fĳirst three books dedicated to the beginnings of the troubles; in 1601 three new books appeared. Both editions were published in Utrecht by the offfĳicial printer for the States of Utrecht, Salomon de Roy, and dedicated to the States. In 1603 a new and revised edition of these six books appeared in The Hague; they treated the years 1555–1573. After a long interval the rest of his work appeared from 1621 until 1634, with Govert Basson in Leiden and Michiel Colijn in Amsterdam: a revised edition of books 1–6 extended with 7–9 as volume 1 and of books 10–18 as volume 2 in 1621, books 19–22 and 23–27 as volume 3.1 and 3.2 in 1626, volume 4 with books 28–32 in 1630 and the last volume with 33–37 in 1634 (only in Amsterdam).26 In 1617 Bor brought out his

24 ‘een ongemeene liefde tot de kennisse der Historien’: De Boekverkoopers aen den Leeser, 1 October 1679, see A.E.M. Janssen, ‘Pieter Bor Christiaenszoon (1559–1635), geschiedschrijver van “waerheyt ende onpartijschap” ’, in P.A.M. Geurts – Id., Geschiedschrijving in Nederland: studies over de historiografĳie van de nieuwe tijd, 2 vols (Den Haag, 1981), 1, 21.

25 On Bor, see NNBW, 6, 160–164 (J.M. Blok), E.O.G. Haitsma Mulier – G.A.C. van der Lem, Repertorium van geschiedschrijvers in Nederland 1500–1800 (Den Haag, 1990), number 75 (via dbnl, last consulted 25 May 2013), Janssen, ‘Pieter Bor Christiaenszoon (1559–1635)’, 21–38, A.C.G.M. Eyfffĳinger, The Poetry of Hugo Grotius, I 2 A/B 3 (Assen, 1988), 204.

26 The title of the 1595 volume is Oorspronck begin ende aenvang der Nederlantscher

oorlogen/beroerten ende Borgerlijcke oneenicheyden . . ., that of later volumes (Van de)

Nederlantsche oorlog(h)en/beroerten ende Borgerlijcke oneenicheyden . . . For full titles and



version of the fĳirst six books in verse, the Liedekens (‘Songs’) to be sung to the tunes of psalms.27

3.2 The Liminary Poems

In these editions we fĳind a profusion of liminary poems in both Dutch and Latin. Altogether there are 78 diffferent poems, 49 in Dutch and 29 in Latin.28 Thirty-nine diffferent poets are at work; twenty-three write only in Dutch, seven only in Latin, and nine in Dutch and Latin.29 The Dutch poems count 1313 lines altogether, the Latin ones 1127 lines. This means that on average the Latin poems are longer, but we should take into account that the longest Latin poem with its almost 300 lines, by Hugo Grotius, far exceeds all other poems in length.30 Over the course of time the balance in language shifts from Latin to Dutch, but the Latin share remains substantial: in 1601 there were eight poems in each language, in 1603, seven were in Dutch, six in Latin, in 1626 ten against four and three against zero, but in 1630 and 1634 Latin returned with nine and eight in Dutch against six and four in Latin. A related slight decrease in the importance of Latin poems may be seen in the order within the books. If we put aside the poems by Bor himself, which always open the volumes, the 1595, 1601 and 1603 editions fĳirst have all Latin poems followed by the Dutch ones—as does the 1621 volume—whereas all the later books open with Dutch poetry and then vary Dutch and Latin. We have no information at all on these matters

details, see the table in Janssen, ‘Pieter Bor Christiaenszoon (1559–1635)’, 37–38. I refer to the editions and volumes by quoting year (e.g. 1601) and, if necessary, year + number of volume (e.g. 1626.2).

27 Den oorspronck, begin ende aenvanck der Nederlandtscher oorlogen . . . Beschreven deur Pieter Chrsn. Bor ende nu deur den selven in Liedekens vervaet (Leiden: Basson, 1617).

28 Out of 87 poems in total, one occurs three times (Dutch), and seven poems (three Latin, four Dutch) are found twice. Numbers include the 1617 Liedekens, Bor’s poetic version, with fĳive Dutch poems, 130 lines altogether (including a six-line poem that also occurs in the prose work), which was probably aimed at a diffferent public. For a complete survey, see the tables in the Appendix.

29 Based on the following assumptions: that anonymous poems which open the volumes up to 1617 are by Bor himself (see note 31 below), that IvB and I. van Burch are identical, that the three anonymous poems of vol. 3.2 are all by Petrus Scriverius, just as the one opening volume 4, but not the four-line poem in volume 5–6. I include the three Dutch poets in the Liedekens.

30 I have excluded repeated poems fom this count, and again included the Liedekens, with 130 Dutch lines. Grotius’ Latin poem in 1601 has 296 lines, the next longest is Barlaeus’s Dutch one in 1626 with 132 lines.

68 van dam


but my hypothesis is that the publisher was (mainly) responsible for the order of poems and the author for the acquisition of poems; perhaps one or more brokers played a part here as well.31

The fĳirst fact that strikes one is that there are so many poems in Latin for a Dutch book written by someone who reputedly did not know the language. True, one function of the liminary poem is self-presentation, and a Latin poet may advertise his skills without regard for the author’s understanding; it may also be argued that Latin poetry increased a book’s prestige and sales fĳigures. But I cannot believe that Bor could not understand at all the poetry addressed to him, in which he is often apostrophized, nor that poets would try so hard to praise him if they knew he could not understand.32 It is worth noting too that language as such is virtually never problematised. Only once, in the poem by Jacob Cats in 1626, we fĳind praise of Bor’s Dutch, in the punchlines of the poem: ‘En ghy die van het landt een recht beminner zijt, / Leert hier u eygen Tael, en leeft hier uwen tijdt’ (‘You who are devoted to this country / learn your own language here and live in your time’). The topos which informs Cats’ whole poem is found in several other poems as well: why look to Greece and Rome and writers of the past instead of reading this new book on the history of our times? But that is voiced equally in Latin and in Dutch poems; language plays no part in it.33 This disregard for the language theme may be compared to the lack of interest in the poetic form that is shown in the liminary poems for Bor’s Liedekens: disregarding Bor’s poetry, they all deal exclusively with the historical content, which had already been treated by him in his prose work. It should be noted that within Bor’s own work too some Latin elements have remained: in his text we fĳind several engravings of sieges which Bor used as

31 I assume that not only poems written by P.B. and P.B.C. are from Bor’s hand, but also the anonymous 6 line poem in praise of history and its function as a mirror which opens the 1601 and 1626.1 editions and the Liedekens: ‘histori tijts ghetuygh, vermeldet het verleden . . .’. On specifĳic brokers, see my ‘Poems on the threshold: Neolatin carmina

liminaria’; on brokering and patronage poetry in general, see R.R. Nauta, Poetry for Patrons.

Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Leiden, 2002), pp. 21–22, 67, 193–194.32 In quoting individual poems I refer to author and year (and, if necessary, volume) of Bor’s

edition. In quoting specifĳic passages I add the page number or the line number within the poem (‘p.’ or ‘line’). Apostrophe: e.g. Merula 1601 line 4: ‘Borraee’, Rijcxius 1601 line 47: ‘macte animi, praeclare’, Swanenburch 1601 line 15: ‘Macte animi . . . Borri inclyte’, Van Tethroede 1621 line 19: ‘Magne senex’, Gerard Boot 1634 line 37: ‘rerum clarisssime scriptor’.

33 Cats 1626 lines 27–28. The topos in Dutch: van Mander 1601, Mellema and IVB in 1603, Ampzing 1626.1, in Latin Schrevelius 1630, G. Boot 1634.



sources for his argument. Most of them are provided with Latin tetrastichs.34 In the Nederlantsche Oorloghen (and elsewhere) engraved portraits are sup-plied with a poem and a circumscription. Although these are in Dutch, in the engraving the Latin abbreviations are always kept: fec.(it) and sculp.(sit); read-ers were expected to recognize these standard terms.35 My provisional con-clusion is that Latin in itself was not experienced as a corpus alienum in this Dutch, patriotic book.

3.3 Networks, Language, Themes, Translations

Now I will discuss the various editions, authors and poems in more detail, though it is impossible to be exhaustive in this chapter. The two early Utrecht editions difffer vastly in the number of liminary poems. The fĳirst one opens with a poem by Bor himself directed against carping critics, Totten Zoilisten (‘Against the Zoilists’), Zoilus being a byword for a know-all critic coined after a fourth-century BC sophist and critic of Homer.36 Both the term and the quasi-apotropaic use of an opening or closing poem against jealous persons, invidi, are frequent in Latin and Neo-Latin works. This poem is reused in 1603. In 1617 Bor published two tragicomedies in Dutch prose; the second liminary poem, probably composed by him, is also directed ‘Against Censors’, Tot den

Berispers.37 Nijd, or Invidia (‘Envy’), is also a theme in Mellema’s sonnet in 1603, Barlaeus’ long poem in 1626 and the Latin poem by Bor’s nephew Gerard in the same book.38 There are two more liminary poems in this fĳirst appear-ance: a long Latin one by Paullus Merula, professor of History in Leiden, and a short one in Dutch by Eduard Mellema, son of a Haarlem poet and learned

34 E.g. 1621.1 p. 200 (Steenwijk), p. 210 (Coevorden). For these tetrastichs, see the contribution by Eva van Hooijdonk to this volume. I have done no systematic research into these engravings, but I have seen no prints with epigrams by Grotius.

35 Thus also Aetatis LXVI and Jac. Matham fecit in Bor’s portrait in the 1626.2 edition, with a Dutch poem by Scriverius under it, also in the anonymous poem of 1634.

36 His name is often used in Martial’s epigrams and entered later literary criticism from there, I think. The Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal gives one earlier instance, from 1595.

37 P.B.C., Twee Tragi-comedien in prosa, d’eene van Appollonius Prince van Tyro, ende d’ander

van den zelven, ende van Tarsia sĳn Dochter . . . (Den Haag: Meuris, 1617).38 Mellema, p. 3: ‘De som door onverstant en afgonst u sijn nidich’ (‘many people out of

stupidity and envy are jealous of you’), Barlaeus, p. 123: ‘De waerheyt niet vervalscht door gunste of door nydt’ (‘truth unforged by favour or envy’), G. Bor, pp. 11–12: ‘Ringaris licet ut rumpantur et ilia, / quaedam ut carpas’.

70 van dam


accountant. Bor prepared his book in Leiden from 1591 onwards.39 In that year Merula took over the courses of Justus Lipsius who had left Leiden in March; in 1592 he was made a professor. He worked on a Latin History of the War against Spain and was appointed historiographer of the States of Holland in 1598. Before that time he had been an advocate at the Court of Holland in The Hague, where Janus Dousa, curator of the University, was a councillor.40 Bor with his ‘extraordinary desire of historical knowledge’ must soon have come to the notice of Merula and Dousa or perhaps they were a reason for his settling in Leiden. So in this fĳirst volume Latin poetry and classical topoi are prepon-derant, in Bor’s own poem, and in the long, difffĳicult composition by Merula, who published his edition of the archaic Latin poet Ennius in this same year, which left its mark upon the poem.41

The fĳirst work by this unknown notary may have been an economic risk for the Utrecht publisher, and apparently liminary poetry was not easy to come by, but its success and probably Bor’s more developed network resulted in a considerable growth in liminary poems for the next three books. This went on until the new edition of 1621, when the publisher and the author had no time or no confĳidence for recruiting poems and they inserted only a few old poems;42 then again the work proved successful and liminary poems increased.

Merula and Mellema may be seen as representing two important groups of contributors to Bor’s books: the Leiden (later also Amsterdam) academic ‘Latin’ circle and a ‘Dutch’ group of Haarlem and Amsterdam-based profes-sional men, intellectuals and members of Chambers of Rhetoric. Unfortunately a number of contributors remain unknown (to me): A.L.D. (1601), and D.V.I.R (1603), P. Schep (Liedekens), S.I. van Tethroede Harlemensis (1626.1), I.F. van der Zevender, T. Leeuwius, P. van O(o)strum (1630), E.G.V and D.I.V.H. (1634).43 Of

39 From 1591–1602 Bor lived in Leiden, where he was allowed to work as a notary, see Janssen, ‘Pieter Bor Christiaenszoon (1559–1635)’, 30–31 (cf. n. 24).

40 NNBW, 2, 901–902 (Haak), Haaks biography of Merula (Zutphen, 1901) is still valuable. On Mellema °1544, see NNBW, 10, 601 (Wumkes). There only his sonnet in 1621.1 is mentioned.

41 Q. Ennius, Annalium libb. XIIX (Leiden: Paets – Elzevier, 1595). Merula’s poem is full of Ennian turns; a few examples: Praeda’st (p. 15), exuendod and facul (p. 16), incicurum (p. 26), muri’ (p. 40), templa caerula (p. 41), longurio (p. 42).

42 In 1621.1 the Latin poems by Dousa and Heinsius and the Dutch ones by Henrix and Mellema were repeated; the Dutch sonnet by Dousa had not appeared earlier in Bor, but since Dousa had died in 1604 it was also old; on the one remaining poem, by IVB I have no information. In 1621.2 all liminary poetry is lacking.

43 Some are mentioned in Van der Aa’s Biografĳisch Lexicon merely as having composed a liminary poem for Bor’s book: Tethroede, Zevender, Leeuwius, van Ostrum. Leeuwius may be related to T. Leeuwius (Dirck van Leeuwen) 1548–96, the fĳirst student to inscribe



them A.L.D., writing in an old-fashioned metre in Dutch, probably also D.V.I.R., Schep, Zevender, Leeuwius, van Oostrum, E.G.V. and D.V.I.H., who all write in Dutch, would have had a rhetorical and professional background. Tethroede composed in Latin and Dutch and probably came from the same intellectual Haarlem backround.

In the 1601 work and the revised 1603 edition, the two groups are clearly rec-ognisable: the Leiden, Latin academics, brought together, I suggest, by Merula and Dousa: Vulcanius, professor of Greek, van der Kammen, comptroller of the Count’s Chamber of Holland (‘rekenmeester van de grafelijkheidskamer’), and his colleague Ventidius Rycxius, Hugo Grotius, then advocate at the Court of Holland, Justus Swanenburch, from 1610 town secretary of Leiden, and the learned poet Damas van Blijenburg;44 and the Dutch authors mainly from Bor’s Haarlem and Amsterdam circle: the Amsterdam rhetoricians Gideon Fallet and Cornelis Ketel, both, like Bor, friends of the Haarlem artist Karel van Mander, a key fĳigure in Haarlem intellectual life, the Amsterdam notary Salomon Henrix and the Haarlem pharmacist and poet Johannes Detringh. 45

himself at Leiden University, a friend of Dousa and correspondent of Lipsius, see C.L. Heesakkers, Een netwerk aan de basis van de Leidse Universiteit. Het album amicorum van

Janus Dousa (Leiden, 2000), pp. 223–229. One T. Leewius occurs with his coat of arms and motto nihil est sine numine felix in an anonymous album in 1634; a J.F. van der Zevender (sans varier) signed the same album, see Dietsche Warande, 2 (1889), 284, 286 (via dbnl, last consulted 30 May 2013). I assume that S.P.S (1630) = Scripsit Petrus Scriverius. It is quite possible that in D.V.I.R. and D.I.V.H. the D. stands for Dominus and H. for Harlemensis, less probably R. for Roterodamensis.

44 On Vulcanius (1538–1614), see H. Cazes (ed.), Bonaventura Vulcanius, Works and Networks:

Bruges 1588 – Leiden 1614 (Leiden, 2010). I suppose that D.I. van der Kammen, who adds to his signature in Bor ‘D. & Mr Ra. ap. Hollan. L.M.P.’ = (Dominus) Jan van der Cammen (1583 – 07-08-1602): Repertorium van Ambtsdragers, s.v. The name ‘Rycxius’ stands for Fento Ryccen ca. 1556–29 May 1636, comptroller since 1596: ibid., Grotius inscribed a copy of his Sacra in quibus Adamus Exul (1601) to him with a Latin poem, see B.L. Meulenbroek (ed.), De dichtwerken van Hugo Grotius, 1 B (Assen, 1971), 217–218, also Molhuysen, Briefwisseling van Hugo Grotius, numbers 2624 and 2708 (I owe the identifĳication of Rycxius to Eva van Hooijdonk). On Swanenburch, see Molhuysen, Briefwisseling van Hugo Grotius, 1, 540 with Molhuysen’s note; on Blijenburg (1558–after 1616), famous as the editor of the Veneres

Blyenburgianae (Dordrecht: I. Canin, 1600), a volume of Neo-Latin love poetry, see NNBW, 4, 175–176 (van Dalen).

45 On Fallet, see van Dixhoorn, Lustige Geesten, p. 277; on Ketel (1548–1616), painter (both with hand and foot!), sculptor and poet, like Fallet a member of the Amsterdam Chamber d’Eglantier, ibid., pp. 279, 281, RKD (Rijkskunsthistorische Documentatie) number, 44136 in the database RKD artists: <http://www.rkd.nl/rkddb/(S(ddkvvwbgnimfvbeqr2lbotsl))/detail.aspx> (last consulted on 27 May 2013); on Van Mander and the Haarlem circle,

72 van dam


Apparently Bor was satisfĳied with much of his liminary poetry, since many poets from 1601 are encountered again in the second edition of 1603, but with new poems. The three liminary poems of 1595 are included here and one son-net by Mellema from 1601; fĳive Latin poets from 1601 made a new contribution, together with two anonymous Dutch poets found for the fĳirst time.

In 1626 a new phase begins: the prestige attached to the Leiden academ-ics had still been much in evidence in the 1621 edition, which opened with three old poems, one in Latin by the famous professor Daniel Heinsius taken from the 1603 edition, and two by Janus Dousa, founding father of the uni-versity, who had died seventeen years earlier. In 1626, however, Dutch poetry becomes preponderant in number; it takes fĳirst place in the book, before the Latin poetry, and of the ten poets who write in Latin, only two do not write in Dutch as well, Daniel Heinsius and Bor’s nephew Gerard, head of the Latin school in Dordt.46 The academics from Leiden University are now repre-sented by Petrus Scriverius, philologist, antiquarian and another key fĳigure in Haarlem intellectual life and Caspar Barlaeus, sent away from Leiden during the religious troubles and from 1632 professor at the Amsterdam Athenaeum Illustre. However, there is a clear emphasis on Dutch: Scriverius’ fĳive or so con-tributions are exclusively in Dutch, and of Barlaeus’ poems one is in Latin, the two other ones in Dutch. On the other hand, many of the other poets who composed poems in Dutch contributed in Latin as well, or are known to have been well versed in Latin: Jacob van der Burgh (1621 as I.v.B. and 1626.1 as I.V. Burch) translated some Latin poems by Caspar Barlaeus into Dutch, the same Barlaeus who argued that he should write in Latin instead of in Dutch but here writes in Dutch himself.47 Jacob Cats (1626.3.1) studied in Leiden and wrote many Latin poems, although here he kept to Dutch; Cornelis Boei (1630.4) was

see van Dixhoorn, Lustige Geesten, pp. 276 fff. and below; on Henrix, see Van der Aa, Biographisch woordenboek, 8, 1, 264 and J.I. van Doorninck, Vermomde en naamlooze

schrijvers . . . Deel 1: schuilnamen en naamletters (1883) via dbnl. As a notary he passed acts for burgomaster C.P. Hooft and for the marriage of the poetess Tesselschade Roemer Visser. He also composed a liminary poem in French for Jodocus Hondius’ Theatrum

artis scribendi (after 1594 and before 1614, perhaps in Amsterdam by Corn. Claesz.); on Detringh, a pharmacist like Bor’s father: A.J. Van der Aa, Nieuw biographisch, anthologisch

en critisch woordenboek van Nederlandsche dichters (Amsterdam, 1845), 2, 39. He composed a sonnet for Van Mander’s Schilderboek (Haarlem: P. van Wesbusch, 1604), and his name is mentioned in a long enumeration of poets in the Nederduytschen Helicon, p. 74 (see n. 16).

46 1611–1665: NNBW, 4, 221 (Van Dalen). Heinsius’ 1626 poem is taken over from 1603.47 NNBW, 9, 114–117 (Prinsen). On his poetry, his relations with Barlaeus and Huygens,

and especially on the interpretation of the discussion about Latin and Dutch between Barlaeus and Huygens, see T. Deneire, ‘Ruzie in het Latijn over de volkstaal. Een poëtische



a prolifĳic Latin and Dutch poet, well known in literary circles in The Hague and Leiden.48 Daniel Mostart (1634) translated Seneca and helped Vondel with his Horace.49 Of the authors of poems in Dutch after 1621 only Van der Zevender, Leeuwius, Van Oostrum and the anonymous E.G.V. and D.I.V.H are too obscure to comment on their Latin. In other respects as well, Dutch and Latin poems now approach each other: in both metre is restricted to only a few forms, for Dutch the alexandrine, whether in a sonnet or not; the old-fashioned forms of the rhetoricians are a thing of the past.50 For Latin there are no more tri-meters or alternating hexameters and iambic metre, only elegiac distichs or hexameters.51

There are many agreements as regards content between the Dutch and Latin poems: almost every poet mentions as Bor’s distinctive qualities his truthful-ness and impartiality: fĳides, fĳidelis, fĳideliter, verum, waerheydt, trouwigheydt and onpartijdigh, sine studio are found everywhere; they also fĳind their way to the title-page of the 1621 edition ‘warachtelijck ende onpartijdelijk beschre-ven’ (‘described truthfully and impartially’).52 The wickedness of the Duke of Alva is a favourite subject and the horrors of the Inquisition, presented as the source of all evil by many poets, are even more popular.53 Another shared

dialoog tussen Caspar Barlaeus en Constantijn Huygens herbezien’, Spiegel der Letteren, 54 (2012), 1–33.

48 See NNBW, 1, 381–382 (Brugmans), P.J. Meertens, Letterkundig leven in Zeeland in de

zestiende en de eerste helft der zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1943), pp. 45–46, also H.-J. van Dam, ‘Batavian Woods’, in P. Galand – S. Laigneau-Fontaine (eds), La Silve. Histoire

d’une écriture libérée en Europe de l’antiquité au XVIIe siècle (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 606, 614.49 NNBW, 10, 653–654 (Prinsen)50 Except for Bor’s 1603 poem in 1626.1.51 Throughout the book Latin metres are rather simple: no lyric metres or far-fetched epodic

ones. That may well be due to the language of the book, its author and its public.52 Fides: Dousa 1601 epigramma line 8, Merula 1601 line 4, Vulcanius 1601 line 3, Rycxius

1603 line 8, Schrevelius 1630 epigramma line 3, G. Boot 1626.1 line 1, Ghetrouw: Dousa 1601 sonnet, Verum: Schrevelius 1626.1, Vere: Rycxius 1603 line 15, Merula 1595, Waerheydt: IVB 1621.1 last line, Ketel, van Mander, Henrix (all 1601), D.V.I.R 1601 last sonnet line 1, Zevender 1626.1. At length: Scriverius 1626.1 both poems, 1626.2 fĳirst (anonymous) poem, Arn. Boot 1630 second poem. When Bor’s studium is praised (Van Tethroede 1626.1 line 22), his hard work is meant (naerstigheydt: Ampzing 1626.1 line 18, G. Boot 1630 second poem line 10: vlyt), cf. labor: Vulcanius, Rijcxius, Blijenburch (all 1601).

53 Alva: Merula 1601 calls him immisericors and Nero, Swanenburch 1601 refers to his rabies, Detringh 1601 to his venijn (‘poison’). Inquisition in Latin: Merula 1595, Dousa 1603 Elegia, Swanenburch 1601, the last two with the slogan ure, seca (secta usta in Dousa line 29), ascribed to the inquisitors, in Dutch Henrix 1601 both poems, D.V.I.R. sonnets 1 and 4, Barlaeus 1626.1 lines 66 fff., Zevender 1630.

74 van dam


but rarer topic is the wish for peace: Hugo Grotius’ Latin epigram has a clear pacifĳist message; peace is also a theme in the religious sonnet by G.C., under-standable in 1603; but in two poems by Scriverius from 1626 and 1630 peace is also thematized (‘Pays’).54 In the 1626 and later editions most poets incite Bor to fĳinish his work, express their hope that he may be given the time, or admire his vitality. Before that, they already predicted his immortality (mostly in Dutch) or his fame (mostly in Latin).55 One topos is possible only in Dutch, the frequent word play on ‘Bor’ and ‘bron’ (source), Bor as the clear source of historical truth.56

Within this intricate web of liminary poems we also see dialogue and dynamics: intertextuality, ‘Latin’ characteristics in Dutch poetry and vice versa as well as bilingualism. In Dousa’s long Latin elegy (1603), the author proclaims himself the herald (praeco line 79) of Bor’s fame, but a lesser one than Heinsius and Grotius. In this learned poem Dousa draws on the antiquarian works of Varro on Roman religion and language, and he has Latin marginalia to empha-size this, but apart from presenting Dousa as a poeta doctus they also offfer opportunity for an indignant outcry against the murder of William of Orange. This dovetails with another marginal remark when Dousa calls Inquisitio the fourth Fury, and for this conceit refers to Heinsius’ recent tragedy Auriacus on the murder of Orange.57 Thus grand old man Dousa presents himself as a Latin scholar and the Leiden group as one whole, as patriots and supporters of Bor. Similar explicit networking is done by Rycxius (1601), who compares historiographers of Dutch history, in Latin or in Dutch: in Latin Dousa father and (deceased) son, and in Dutch Emanuel van Meteren, who is suppar, nearly equal, to Bor, but he summarizes the events, whereas Bor gives all the facts. Therefore Fama will assign him the crown and seat him next to the Dousas in

54 On the pacifĳism in Grotius’ Epigramma (TMD 254), also in his 1617 Poemata, 333–334, see Eyfffĳinger, The Poetry of Hugo Grotius, pp. 203–205, G.C. 7: ‘soeckt vrede en verdrag’, (‘search out peace and a treaty’); in Scriverius 1626.2 ‘Pays’ is in the fĳirst and last line, in 1630.1.26 the broken gun is extolled: ‘Breeckt ‘tOorloghs-strijdgeweer, en leert de Vrede kennen’ (‘break the gun of war and get to know peace’).

55 Immortality: Fallet 1601, Van Mander 1601, Barlaeus 1626.1, Boei 1630, van Oostrum 1630 and [1634], D.I.V.H. [1634] end, Arn. Boot 1630 in both poems. Fama: Dousa 1601 epigram, Rijcxius 1601 line 53, Merula 1595 end, Swanenburch 1603 line 18, Ampzing 1626.1 end, etc.

56 Van Mander 1601, Henrix 1601 both poems, Detringh 1601, A.L.D. 1601, D.V.I.R. 1603 sonnet 5 line 6, G.C. 1603 lines 2–3, Cats 1626.1 line 26, Ampzing 1626.1 lines 15–16, Zevender 1630, G. Boot 1630 second poem, end. The metaphor of the clear mirror is used in both Latin and Dutch, but refers to the function of history as example.

57 For praeco, see also praeconia 77, Grotius and Heinsius are praised in pp. 65–69. On Orange Dousa notes ‘magni illius Arausiae principis, per summum, heu, scelus interfecti’. On Heinsius’ Auriacus, see n. 4 above.



heaven. In this way Rycxius places himself—and Bor too—within the Latin Dousa circle.58 The Dutch network is not thematised in this way, but its mem-bers do write poetry that is both Dutch and classical: easily the most difffĳicult Dutch poem is the sonnet by Karel van Mander (1601), mainly because of its brevity, but it is also full of classical allusions, such as Moeoner and Mincer in lines 1–2 = Homer and Virgil, living in Lydia = Maeonia, and on the banks of the Mincius (Mincio) respectively. Van Mander is the centre of an intellectual circle of which Bor himself was a member: he wrote a liminary sonnet and another poem for Van Mander’s Schilder-boeck of 1604 (*7v), Joh. Detringh (1601 here) composed a sonnet (**1r), Schrevelius (1626.2) a poem (**1v), Cornelis Ketel (1601) two ‘winkel-liederen’ (**5v–6v) and another poem (**7v–r). Gideon Fallet (1601) belonged to this circle as well. Schrevelius helped Van Mander with Latin translations.59 The opening—and only Latin—liminary poem in the Schilder-boeck is by Petrus Scriverius, who here writes exclusively in Dutch (six poems (?): 1626.1, 1626.2, 1630). Scriverius (1576–1660) changed language at his discretion. He edited Latin classical authors, notably Martial and composed all kinds of Latin poetry. On the other hand, he published Daniel Heinsius’ Nederduytsche poemata with an introduction aimed at raising the level of ver-nacular poetry and criticising the poetry of the rhetoricians. He was a noted antiquarian, who published widely on the history of Holland and of Haarlem, where he lived as a boy, writing sometimes in Latin but mostly in Dutch. He was prominent in the same circle as Bor, and we would perhaps have expected to see his poems before 1626.60 The position of his poems shows his impor-tance: they summarize books, comment on the title-page and they all appear at the beginning. Here Scriverius clearly presents himself as a Dutch poet but, besides his Latin friends Dousa and Hugo Grotius, he is the only poet to use

58 ‘demetrius suppar tibi, qui contentus in arctum / res luculentas ducere, / Hoc satis ad laudem duxit. Tu facta referre / Pro magno habes negotio’ (pp. 29–32). The Annales by Father (and son) Dousa appeared in 1601 as well.

59 See n. 45. Schrevelius must refer to the then conrector of the Latin school in Haarlem, rector from 1609 to 1620, rector of the Latin school in Leiden from 1625–1642. His son Cornelis (°1608) succeeded him there. However, Schrevelius’ fĳirst name was Theodorus / Diederik / Dirk, while the poems are clearly signed here with I. Schrevelius. The identifĳication is certain, since he signs his Latin poem in 1626.1 as ‘Scholae Lugduno.Batae praefectus’. Dirk was an important fĳigure in Van Mander’s circle and remained part of Haarlem intellectual life after his departure to Leiden. See van Dixhoorn, Lustige Geesten, pp. 278, 280–281, 283.

60 See P. Tuynman, ‘Petrus Scriverius. 12 January 1576–30 April 1660’, Quaerendo, 7 (1977), 4–45 and S. Langereis, Geschiedenis als ambacht. Oudheidkunde in de Gouden Eeuw:

Arnoldus Buchelius en Petrus Scriverius (Hilversum, 2001). Closer research into Scriverius’ Latin work and his role in academic life is a desideratum.

76 van dam


the marginalia of the scholar (1626.1). Between the two networks, academic and intellectual, Latin and Dutch, we see many overlaps and cross-references.

Grotius’ Silva in Annales . . . Borrhii (1601) is by far the longest and most learned poem in the book.61 It is a summary of the three books with abun-dant marginal remarks referring to classical authors, including some Greek, and to technical historical matters. Its high-flown (not to say pompous) style fĳits the hexametric metre. In this same year Grotius, at only eighteen years old, was appointed historiographer of Holland, and his poem seems part of his self-presentation as a serious Latin historian. Here the diffference with the sober Dutch 16-line summary of volume 5–6 given by Bor himself in 1634, ‘Verclaringhe van de print des tijtels’ (explanation of the title page) could not be greater. On the other hand, Grotius’ poem is in the same vein, albeit a bit over-the-top, as Scriverius’ summaries and Barlaeus’ long and learned poem in Dutch (1626.2).

The most popular Dutch form here is that of the sonnet, in twenty-one poems altogether; its use decreases after 1603 when it had lost most of its nov-elty. Here we fĳind a counterpart to Grotius’ Latin sonnet62 in the fĳive sonnets composed by D.V.I.R.: these are original because their 70 lines have to be read as a continuous narration disregarding the lyrical character of the sonnet and its volta. Here Dutch lyric becomes (Latin) epic.

The interplay between Dutch and Latin is most manifest where the same author writes in both languages. The earliest example is that of Dousa with two Latin poems (1601, 1603) and two sonnets (1601, 1621). In 1595 he had already composed a long introduction in Dutch verse to Hendrik Spiegel’s edition of the Chronicle by Melis Stoke. Around 1600 he exchanged Dutch poems with Heinsius and he translated the Basia by Janus Secundus into Dutch but his two sonnets here are curiosities. When he contributed a sonnet in 1601, Dousa apparently wished to present himself not only as a Latin academic poet but as a modern Dutch poet as well, pursuing his enthusiasm for Dutch poetry as he had already expressed it in 1578.63 For the later volumes some poets wrote both a Latin poem and a self-translation of it, without drawing explicit attention to

61 The poem is in Grotius’ Poemata (1617), pp. 46–55, also in B.L. Meulenbroek (ed.), De

dichtwerken van Hugo Grotius (Assen, 1977), 1 2A 2 (185–201), 1 2B 2 (295–312), see TMD, 245. The various versions have many small textual diffferences. On the signifĳicance of Grotius’ title Silva, see H.-J. van Dam, ‘Wandering Woods again: From Poliziano to Grotius’, in J.J.L. Smolenaars – Id. – R.R. Nauta (eds), The Poetry of Statius (Leiden, 2008), pp. 45–64.

62 Cf. supra, p. 65.63 See C. Heesakkers – W. Reinders, Genoeglijk bovenal zijn mij de Muzen. De Leidse Neolatijnse

dichter Janus Dousa (1545–1604) (Leiden, 1993), pp. 57–65.



this. It should be pointed out that we cannot be certain which language came fĳirst in composing: the Dutch poem invariably follows the Latin one, but that is no proof of the chronological priority of the Latin text. If I presume in what follows that Latin came fĳirst, this is just a hypothesis. Apart from that, trans-lation and paraphrase are especially difffĳicult to distinguish in Early Modern literature; in the case of Schrevelius’ Latin poem (1626.1) with 18 hexameters and his Dutch one following upon it with 36 alexandrines we tend to speak of paraphrase: much in the latter poem is not in the former. On the other hand, not only is the general message identical, many Dutch phrases do translate the Latin; to give only a few examples ‘Historiae quem vexit aethera penna’ (1 (Bor) ‘whom the pen of History brought to heaven’) / ‘die met zijn vlugghe pen tot in den Hemel vliecht’ (4) (‘who with his swift pen flies to heaven’), ‘Ducis Albani rabie’ (7 ‘by the rabies of the Duke of Alba’) / ‘den Albaenschen Hont, dorstigh nae’t Menschen bloet’ (17 ‘the Alban dog, thirsty for human blood’), ‘triplicem nectae lauri coronam’ (17 ‘a threefold wreath of laurel’) / ‘een drie ghevluchte croon’ (38 ‘a threefold wreath’). The two poems by young Christiaan van Rodenburg (1634), another nephew of Bor, both of 32 lines, echo each other but with less resemblance than in Schrevelius’ case.64 The poems by Tethrode (1626 3.1, both of 24 lines) and by Ampzing (1630, 6 and 12 lines) are translations.65 In the case of Tethrode the superscription of the second, Dutch poem ‘De selve’, ‘The same’ may indicate that it is a translation.66 Formal restrictions (metre / rhyme), a diffference in syllables (more in Latin / less in Dutch) and in language (shorter in Latin / longer in Dutch) prohibit of course, as in all poetry translations, exact correspondence, but this is a skillful rhyming Dutch translation. The Latin Parca is ‘God’, Bor’s age is less explicit in Dutch: ‘magne senex’ (‘grand old man’) / ‘waerde Bor’ (‘dear Bor’), in Latin he deserves to be immortalized by the Muse while he tells the famous facts of his country, in Dutch there is no Muse and Bor is promised the favour of his country and the crown of life.67 Samuel Ampzing translated his six lines of Latin into twelve

64 On Rodenburg (1608–1668) son of one of Bor’s sisters, who became a succesful politician and lawyer, see NNBW, 2, 1223–1224 (van Kuyk).

65 The 1630 poems by Gerard Boot and Barlaeus, each with the same number of lines in Dutch and Latin are not translations as far as I can see.

66 It is signed Idem, ‘Same’, which I take to refer to the author.67 Parca / God 19 / 18, senex / waerde 20, 23–24 ‘Dignus quem Patriae, quem coelo, Musa

perennet / Dum Patriae memoras inclita facta tuae’ // ‘Dies ghy wel waerdich zyt te hebben tot een loon, / Den gunst vant Vaderlandt en oock des levens Croon’.

78 van dam


Dutch alexandrines (1630) mainly by amplifying the same thought in Dutch.68 Thus for example its opening:

Quae rursum monumenta tui Borraee laboris

Bella sub Auriaco Principe gesta canunt

Which new monument to your labours, Bor,sings of the wars waged under the Prince of Orange?

Wat komt hier weer een werk van arbeyd aenghetreden

Een werk van onsen krijg met onse vuyst ghestreden

What new work of labours steps forward herea work of our war waged with our fĳists

Auriaco Principe in line 2 returns in Dutch in line 3 as Mauritz, while Auriacis in 3 is onsen Prinz (= Princeps) in 5. Clementia numinis (‘the mercy of the deity’) in 5 becomes de Heer (‘the Lord’) and God in 9 and 11, Nestoreos annos (‘as many years as Nestor’) becomes bij sijnen ouden dagh veel jaeren (‘many years added to his old age’) in 10 and een nieuwe frische jeugd (‘new fresh youth’) in 11. The authors of these double poems wished fĳirst of all, I think, to present themselves as versatile poets, fluent in two languages and skillful in translation. Perhaps they also wanted to make sure that at least one of their poems was understood by all readers, but those readers completely without knowledge of Latin cer-tainly missed an important point.

4 Conclusions

Much more could be said about this series of poems but it is high time for some conclusions.

Pieter Bors Dutch History of the Dutch Revolt and of the War against Spain was recognised as a work of great importance for the ‘national’ identity of

68 The verbosity of the Dutch here may be an argument for the priority of the Latin. On this learned preacher (Haarlem, 1590–1632), see NNBW, 1, 117–118 (Knipscheer). He belonged to the Haarlem-Amsterdam network of rhetoricians, and wrote in Dutch on Dutch language and Dutch literature, and a work in praise of his home town as well, Het lof der Stadt

Haerlem (1616), but he also translated a treatise by his father (who left his wife with Samuel and six more young children for another women) into Latin.



Holland or the Seven Provinces. Two groups of authors contributed poetry to Bor’s work. They are distinct in theory, academic, Latin, classical versus pro-fessional, Dutch, rhetoricians, and they are presented as two groups in many editions. However, we saw above all how they belong together: Their networks overlap, only a few poets belong exclusively to one group, for most ‘Dutch’ poets can write in Latin, while academics such as Heinsius, Scriverius, Barlaeus are also part of the civic, intellectual group. In Holland the networks of rhetori-cians and humanists were inextricably interwoven at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century.69 Most poets present them-selves as monolingual, writing Dutch more often than Latin. Yet Bor’s liminar-ies also show that knowledge of Latin was more widespread or common than is sometimes assumed: for most contributors it can be proved that they knew Latin, and it is hard to imagine that almost half of these poems would remain a complete mystery to its addressee and many buyers. This means that we must distinguish between some knowledge of Latin, good knowledge, the ability to write it, and real literary expertise in it. Composing a good Latin poem is a much rarer skill than reading and understanding (most) of a Latin text. If Dutch poets had to be ‘helped’ in translating from Latin this implies that they had a good knowledge of the language rather than none at all. As long as we do not confuse bilingualism with fluency or put oral, written and literary pro-fĳiciency on a par, we can see that bilingualism or multilingualism was com-mon among a fair part of the middle class in the Dutch Republic.70 Some poets remain strictly within their cultural borders but many do combine languages in diffferent poems or even by self-translation; or sometimes they transgress into the other language’s territory, as Grotius and D.V.I.R. did, but also Van Mander with his classical approach or Scriverius with his Dutch poem and marginal remarks.71 Language does not seem to be an issue as regards ‘national’ identity

69 As has been stated before; for Haarlem, Amsterdam and Leiden, but also the province of Zeeland, see especially van Dixhoorn, Lustige Geesten, pp. 276–293.

70 J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin language (Cambridge, 2003) in his fĳirst chapters persuasively argues for taking the notion of ‘bilingualism’ in a very broad sense, and shows how bilingualism or rather multilingualism was the default situation in the Roman Empire. Frijhofff, Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw, pp. 10 fff. also emphasizes the role of bilingualism in seventeenth-century Holland in all kinds of situations. In modern literature a parallel is often drawn between the use of Latin or French in the sixteenth and seventeenth century and English nowadays. See also T. van Hal, ‘A Man of Eight Hearts: Hadrianus Junius and Sixteenth-Century Plurilinguism’, in van Miert (ed.), The

Kaleidoscopic Scholarship, p. 191.71 Some poets mix genres or subjects: Detringh remains within the pharmacological

discourse, more apt for prose or didactic poetry, and Blijenburgh combines elements from love poetry (dulcis, iucundus, florere, a chariot drawn by swans) with didactic poetry.

80 van dam


within these liminaries: patriotic feelings are expressed in equal measure in both languages. In later volumes the balance shifts in some respects: patriot-ism becomes less important—understandable when the described events play over thirty years earlier—and changes into the hope that Bor will fĳinish his work. Dutch gets the upper hand in numbers and hierarchy. In one respect at least Latin and Dutch poets have collaborated perfectly—by immortalizing Bor’s work.



Appendix: Liminary Poetry in Bor

Bor, Oorspronck (1595)72

author language metre length

P.B.73 Totten Zoylisten Dutch –74 8 linesPaulus Merula Latin iambic trimeter 71 linesEd. Mellema Dutch – 8 lines

Bor, Vande Nederlandtsche oorlogen (1601)75


Ianus Dousa, Epigram Latin distichs 10 linesPaulus Merula Latin iambic trimeter 41 linesBonaventura Vulcanius Latin distichs 22 linesD.I. van der Kammen Latin hexameter 20 linesRycxius, V. Latin hexameter / iambic

dimeter52 lines

Hugo Grotius Silva Latin hexameter 296 linesIustus Swanenburch Latin distichs 22 linesDamasus Blyenburch Latin hexameter 24 linesG. Fallet Dutch alexandrine? 36 linesI. van der Does (Ianus Dousa) Dutch sonnet 14 linesC. Ketel Dutch sonnet 14 linesK. van Mander Dutch sonnet 14 linesS. Henrix Dutch sonnet 14 linesS. Henrix Dutch sonnet 14 linesIoannes Detrinck Eerdicht Dutch couplets of 7 lines 56 A.L.D. Dutch – 22 lines

72 Seen in Amsterdam University Library, shelfnumber OM 63 782.73 I assume: Pieter Bor. 74 ‘–’ means that a poem is not in regular metre, but ‘old-fashioned’ poetry of rhetoricians

(‘rederijkerspoëzie’).75 Seen in Leiden University Library, shelfnumber 1012 A 14 \2.

82 van dam


Bor, Vande Nederlandtsche oorlogen (1603)76


Anonymous (Bor) Dutch – 6 linesP.B. Totten Zoylisten77 Dutch – 8 linesIanus Dousa Elegia Latin distichs 80 linesV. Rycxius Latin distichs 16 linesPaullus Merula78 Latin iambic trimeter 71 lines Hugo Grotius Epigramma Latin hendecasyllables 15 linesIustus Swanenburch Latin distichs 48 linesDaniel Heinsius Latin hexameter / iambic

trimeter26 lines

D.V.I.R79 Dutch 5 sonnets 70 linesAnonymous (= Ed. Mellema) Dutch sonnet 14 linesEd. Mellema80 Dutch – 8 linesG.C.81 Dutch sonnet 14 linesS. Henrix82 Dutch sonnet 14 lines

Bor, Liedekens (1617)


Anonymous (Bor)83 Dutch – 6 linesBor Dutch – 48 linesH.R. Smout Dutch sonnet 14 linesP. Schep Dutch sonnet 14 linesI. Ianszoon Dutch iambs 48 lines

76 Seen in Leiden University Library, shelfnumber 1012 A 14 \1, The Hague 1603 by Beuckel Cornelisz. Nieulandt . . . opt Voor-Hof van de Patientie. This copy is ‘ex dono autoris an. 1604’; unfortunately the name of the recipient is indecipherable.

77 Repeated from 1595.78 Repeated from 1595.79 Superscribed ‘Ghy Leesers wilt doch letten / Op deese vijf Sonnetten’ (‘O Readers note /

these fĳive sonnets’), dated 28 August 1603.80 Repeated from 1595.81 Motto: ‘Waerheyt baart haat’ (‘Truth creates hate’).82 Repeated from 1601.83 Repeated from 1603.



Bor, Vande Nederlandtsche oorlogen, 6 vols. (Leiden / Amsterdam, 1621–1634)84Volume 1, 1621


Dousa85 Latin distichs 10 linesHeinsius86 Latin hexameter / iambic

trimeter26 lines

I. van der Does (Ianus Dousa) Dutch sonnet 13 lines87S. Henrix88 Dutch sonnet 14 lines Ed. Mellema89 Dutch sonnet 14 linesIvB Dutch alexandrine 36 lines

Volume 2, 1621: no liminary poetryVolume 3.1, 1626


Scriverius Dutch alexandrine 28 linesAnonymous (Bor)90 Dutch – 6 linesScriverius91 Dutch alexandrine 8 linesCats Dutch alexandrine 28 linesBarlaeus Dutch alexandrine 132 linesSamuel Ampzing Dutch alexandrine 44 linesGerard Bor Latin distichs 14 linesI. Schrevelius Latin hexameter 18 linesI. Schrevelius Dutch alexandrine 38 linesI.V. Burch Dutch alexandrine 36 lines

84 Seen in Amsterdam University Library, shelfnumber KF 61 2574-78 (a second copy is OF 63 687-91).

85 Repeated from 1601.86 Repeated from 1603.87 One line is missing.88 Repeated from 1601.89 Repeated from 1603.90 Repeated from 1603, also in Liedekens.91 Poem under an engraved portrait of Bor, 1625.

84 van dam



I.F. à Zevender Dutch alexandrine 12 linesS.I. van Tethroede Harlemensis Latin distichs 24 linesS.I. van Tethroede Dutch alexandrine 24 linesGerard Bootius Latin distichs 10 lines

Volume 3.2, 1626


Anonymous92 Dutch alexandrine 40 linesP.S.93 Dutch alexandrine 28 linesAnonymous Dutch alexandrine 12 lines

Volume 4, 1630


S.P.S.94 Dutch alexandrine 36 linesAnonymous (Samuel Ampzing)

Latin distichs 6 lines

S. Ampzing Dutch alexandrine 12 linesI.F. van der Zevender Dutch alexandrine 16 linesAnonymous (Schrevelius) Latin distichs 50 linesI. Schrevelius95 Latin distichs 20 linesGerard Boot D.M. Latin hexameter 32 linesGerard Boot Dutch alexandrine 32 linesT. Leewius Dutch alexandrine 44 lines

92 Probably Petrus Scriverius.93 Probably Petrus Scriverius.94 = scripsit Petrus Scriverius? Signed ‘Amstelredami 1630’.95 Subscribed ‘Amoris ergo scripsi’.

Table (cont.)




Arnold Boot Latin hexameter 37 linesAnonymous (Arnold Boot) Dutch alexandrine 28 linesCornelis Boy Zierickzeenaer Dutch alexandrine 8 linesP. van Oostrum Dutch sonnet 14 linesCaspar Barlaeus Latin distichs 30 linesCaspar Barlaeus Dutch alexandrine 30 lines

Volume 5–6 [1634]


P.B.C.96 Dutch alexandrine 16 linesAnonymous97 Dutch alexandrine 4 linesCaspar Barlaeus Latin distichs 32 linesGerard Boot Latin distichs 40 linesArnold Boot Latin hexameter 65 linesCaspar Barlaeus Dutch couplets98 72 lines

(18 couplets)E.G.V. Dutch sonnet 14 linesD.I.V.H.99 Dutch couplets, alexandrine 36 lines

(9 couplets)P. van Oostrum Dutch alexandrine 74 linesDaniel Mostart100 Dutch sonnet 14 linesP. Christianus Rodenburchius aetat. 18

Latin distichs 32 lines

Christiaen van Rodenburch Dutch alexandrine 32 lines

96 I assume Pieter Bor Christiaanszoon.97 Under an engraving of Bor after a portrait by Frans Hals.98 Twice 4 iambs with masculine rhyme, once 4 iambs with feminine rhyme, once 5 iambs

with feminine rhyme.99 Motto: ‘perfer et obdura’ (several times in Ovid; Catullus, 8, 11: ‘perfer, obdura’).100 Signed D.M., motto ‘nostra damus leti’.

Liminary Poetry in Latin and Dutch. The Case of Pieter Bor's Nederlantsche Oorlogen

Documents

Transcript of Liminary Poetry in Latin and Dutch. The Case of Pieter Bor's Nederlantsche Oorlogen