1. A. INTRODUCTION

2. B. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH IDEENGESCHICHTE AND QUELLENFORSCHUNG?

3. C. GROTIUS AND LIBRARIES

4. D. GROTIUS’ WORKING METHODS

5. E. GROTIUS’ REFERENCING OF AQUINAS IN MS BPL 917

6. F. CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the working methods of the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), particularly his use and referencing of “sources” in his early works on natural law and natural rights. I will first discuss the methodological issues at stake. I will then say something about Grotius and books in the first two decades of the seventeenth century. Which books did he own? To which libraries did he have access? And, most importantly, what purpose did books serve for Grotius? Which ones did he read from cover to cover and which ones did he use selectively? This, of course, brings us to the issue of Grotius’ working methods. How did he gather and process information? How did he construct treatises? What can we say about his use of “sources” in his early works on natural law and natural rights? In answering these questions, I will draw on the research which Peter Borschberg, Jan Waszink, and I have done on Grotius’ early works on natural law and natural rights theories, in particular Mss BPL 917, 918 and 922 in Leiden University Library. I will end with a detailed discussion of Grotius’ referencing of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae in Ms BPL 917, otherwise known to us as De Jure Praedae/ Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, written by Grotius in 1604–08 at the behest of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Grotius’ own copy of the Summa Theologiae is still extant at Lund University Library. It contains lots of underlining. There is much that can be learnt about Grotius’ use of “sources” by comparing underlined passages in his copy of the Summa Theologiae with his referencing of Aquinas in Ms BPL 917. In my conclusion, I will address the question where we go from here. Will a better understanding of Grotius’ working methods afford us new insights into his life and work? Is it important? Why should the “new” intellectual history be preferable to Ideengeschichte and Quellenforschung old-style?