J. H. P. E. Kniphorst

Properties2
tagsperson, scholar, dutch-historian
aliasesKniphorst

7 min read

J. H. P. E. Kniphorst was a Dutch colonial historian, the author of Historische schets van den Zeeroof in den Oost-Indischen Archipel (“Historical Sketch of Piracy in the East Indian Archipelago”), a work of formidable bulk which is cited by Van der Kemp as one of the few secondary accounts to have grasped, however partially, the truth about Article 6 of the Raffles–Coombs convention of April 1819.

The Historische schets

Kniphorst’s Historische schets is notable chiefly for its unwieldy length: the printed book ran to no fewer than 1,285 pages, and after the author’s death a further instalment of 195 pages appeared in the Tijdschrift voor Ned.-Indië. Van der Kemp, with characteristic dryness, laments that the author “raised his data-rich work to such a height that it has become an indigestible reading.” A pirated continuation also appeared in the Tijdschrift voor het Zeewezen. The work’s bulk, however, did not prevent Van der Kemp from consulting it on the Acheh question; Kniphorst, “treating along with the official Nota of 1873 the Acheh contract of 1819,” had taken the trouble to recall the true content of Article 6.

Kniphorst on Article 6

Kniphorst’s discussion of the Acheh convention, though he did not “penetrate into the matter,” is paraphrased by Van der Kemp at the close of his seventh section. “It is that clause (Article VI of that treaty),” Kniphorst had written, “which in a certain sense has given rise to the declaration on Article 3 of the political treaty of 17 March 1824, by which our whole relationship with Acheh — until the year 1871, when the so-called Sumatra-tractaat was concluded, by which the Netherlands was released from England’s guardianship — has been governed and dominated.” The italicised phrase “in a certain sense” (in zekeren zin) earns Kniphorst Van der Kemp’s qualified approval: of all the Dutch historians who had treated the question, Kniphorst alone had the caution to qualify the connection between Article 6 of the Acheh convention and the declaration on Article 3 of the London treaty.

Van der Kemp’s Reservation

The qualification “in a certain sense,” however, did not go far enough for Van der Kemp. In fact, the declaration touching Article 3 had, “in consequence of Article 6, no sense at all.” The British plenipotentiaries at London had themselves acknowledged as much when, after the conclusion of the treaty, they had requested of the Dutch a separate convention for the protection of shipwrecked sailors — a request that could only have arisen if the general Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 was understood to exclude British treaties with native states on Sumatra. Had the Dutch plenipotentiaries immediately perceived that the British reference to Article 3 was mistaken — the relevant provision being Article 9 of the 1824 treaty — they could have spared the Netherlands half a century of diplomatic wrangling over the Acheh question.

Kniphorst in the History of Dutch Acheh Scholarship

Kniphorst’s Historische schets occupies a curious place in Van der Kemp’s account. Despite its indigestible bulk and its failure to penetrate the Acheh question fully, it stands out, alongside the works of Professor Veth and of Dr. Snouck Hurgronje, as one of the more reliable nineteenth-century Dutch treatments of the relations between the Netherlands and the sultanate of Acheh. Kniphorst’s caution — the qualifying “in a certain sense” — is offered by Van der Kemp as a small but telling reproach to the more confident errors of Lauts, Smulders, and Meinsma.

See Also

Source

Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.

J. H. P. E. Kniphorst was a Dutch colonial historian, the author of Historische schets van den Zeeroof in den Oost-Indischen Archipel (“Historical Sketch of Piracy in the East Indian Archipelago”), a work of formidable bulk which is cited by Van der Kemp as one of the few secondary accounts to have grasped, however partially, the truth about Article 6 of the Raffles–Coombs convention of April 1819.

The Historische schets

Kniphorst’s Historische schets is notable chiefly for its unwieldy length: the printed book ran to no fewer than 1,285 pages, and after the author’s death a further instalment of 195 pages appeared in the Tijdschrift voor Ned.-Indië. Van der Kemp, with characteristic dryness, laments that the author “raised his data-rich work to such a height that it has become an indigestible reading.” A pirated continuation also appeared in the Tijdschrift voor het Zeewezen. The work’s bulk, however, did not prevent Van der Kemp from consulting it on the Acheh question; Kniphorst, “treating along with the official Nota of 1873 the Acheh contract of 1819,” had taken the trouble to recall the true content of Article 6.

Kniphorst on Article 6

Kniphorst’s discussion of the Acheh convention, though he did not “penetrate into the matter,” is paraphrased by Van der Kemp at the close of his seventh section. “It is that clause (Article VI of that treaty),” Kniphorst had written, “which in a certain sense has given rise to the declaration on Article 3 of the political treaty of 17 March 1824, by which our whole relationship with Acheh — until the year 1871, when the so-called Sumatra-tractaat was concluded, by which the Netherlands was released from England’s guardianship — has been governed and dominated.” The italicised phrase “in a certain sense” (in zekeren zin) earns Kniphorst Van der Kemp’s qualified approval: of all the Dutch historians who had treated the question, Kniphorst alone had the caution to qualify the connection between Article 6 of the Acheh convention and the declaration on Article 3 of the London treaty.

Van der Kemp’s Reservation

The qualification “in a certain sense,” however, did not go far enough for Van der Kemp. In fact, the declaration touching Article 3 had, “in consequence of Article 6, no sense at all.” The British plenipotentiaries at London had themselves acknowledged as much when, after the conclusion of the treaty, they had requested of the Dutch a separate convention for the protection of shipwrecked sailors — a request that could only have arisen if the general Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 was understood to exclude British treaties with native states on Sumatra. Had the Dutch plenipotentiaries immediately perceived that the British reference to Article 3 was mistaken — the relevant provision being Article 9 of the 1824 treaty — they could have spared the Netherlands half a century of diplomatic wrangling over the Acheh question.

Kniphorst in the History of Dutch Acheh Scholarship

Kniphorst’s Historische schets occupies a curious place in Van der Kemp’s account. Despite its indigestible bulk and its failure to penetrate the Acheh question fully, it stands out, alongside the works of Professor Veth and of Dr. Snouck Hurgronje, as one of the more reliable nineteenth-century Dutch treatments of the relations between the Netherlands and the sultanate of Acheh. Kniphorst’s caution — the qualifying “in a certain sense” — is offered by Van der Kemp as a small but telling reproach to the more confident errors of Lauts, Smulders, and Meinsma.

See Also

Source

Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.

Graph View