The Development of Patriot and Orangist Ideology

  • I. Leonard Leeb


During the 1760’s powerful intellectual trends from outside the Republic continued to increase their penetration. From France in particular was this the case. Voltaire’s works became better known; his Traité sur la Tolerance was translated in 1764. As early as 1755 most of the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau were published in first or early editions in Holland. The publisher Marc Michel Rey of Amsterdam was one of the chief agents in the dissemination of Rousseau’s ideas. In 1755 he put out the first edition of Discours sur L’inégalité, in’58 Lettre à d’Alembert, in’61 La Nouvelle Héloïse, and in 1763 Contrat Social. While these books emanated from Amsterdam, their influence on the intellectual life in the Netherlands was far less than one might expect. They were read and discussed; their content of new or newly presented ideas came to be reflected in the interests of some Dutch writers; they were, oddly enough, not translated for the most part until long after their original appearance in French. In the case of the primarily political works like the Contrat Social, there are only indirect and sporadic hints that it has been incorporated into the mental baggage of Patriot and other writers before the French Revolution itself. By the time the first translation of the Contrat appears in 1793, most of its insights have become quite common, almost imperceptibly so.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Gobbers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Holland (Gent, 1963), p. 190.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.J. Schimmelpenninck, Dissertatio de Imperio Populari Rite Temporate (1784), was one of the few attempts at a thoroughgoing critique of the Contrat Social before 1787.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For biographical detail and an analysis of Van Haren’s most important work, see A. Stakenburg, O. Z. v. Haren-DeGeuzen (Santpoort, 1943), Inleiding.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cf. W.J. Buitendijk, “Oranje in de Literatuur”, in Als een Goed Instrument (Lochem, [1963]), pp. 102ff.Google Scholar
  5. 4a.
    J. Barueth, Holland’s en Zeelands Jubel-Jaar,… (Dordrecht, 1772), “Voorreden”, p. ii and passim.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Als een goed Instrument, p. 112.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    See C. Sepp, Johannes Stinstra en zijn Tijd (Amsterdam, 1865–66) 2 vols. Stinstra was among the more interesting of these mid-century preachers, known among others for his translations of Richardson’s works.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Colenbrander, Patriottentijd, I, p. 72.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    On Hofstede, see J.P. de Bie, Leven en Werken van Petrus Hofstede (Amsterdam, 1899) and N.N.B.W., IV, cols. 762–64; on Barueth, N.N.B.W., II, cols. 92–94.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    A collection of essays by several contributors about various aspects of their life and influence is Boeket voor Betje en Aagje (Amsterdam, 1954).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    H.C.M. Ghijsen, Dapper Vrouwenleven (Assen, 1954), pp. 82, 87.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    J. den Tex, Oldenbarnevelt, IV, p. 375.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    For a sufficiently detailed treatment of these controversies, emphasizing the role of Betje Wolff, see Ghijsen, Dapper Vrouwenleven, pp. 122–156.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    See also Barueth’s Hollands en Zeelands Jubel-Jaar of Tweehonderd-Jarige Gedagtenis (Dordrecht, 1772), which celebrates the bicentennial of the “foundation of Netherlands’ Republic”. In text and notes Barueth makes clear his intent to praise the role of William of Orange and the Beggars who together and out of pure Calvinist zeal, erected a new Israel. The historians in the Loevestein tradition concentrated their interest on the period 1579 to 1587 as the crucial one for the formation of the new State. Here we see the Orangist opposition with its emphasis on the earlier period before the States of Holland began to play the key role.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    For the origins and history of the “Economical Branch” see J. Bierens de Haan, Van Oeconomische Tak tot Nederlandsche Maatschappij voor Nijverheid en Handel 1777–1952 (Haarlem, 1952), esp. Chap. I (by W.M.F. Mansvelt).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    A.G.N., VIII, p. 223. This chapter (X), and the dissertation of the same title, De Economische Achteruitgang der Republiek (Amsterdam, 1959), by Johan de Vries, are among the most important works in giving a fuller view of the economic decline and its precise contours.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Wilson N, Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1941), passim.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    P.J. van Winter, Het Aandeel van den Amsterdamschen Handel aan den Opbouw van het Amerikaansche Gemeenebest (’s-Gravenhage, 1927–33), I.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Cited in A.G.N., VIII, p. 257.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Griffier of the Provincial Court of Utrecht; he was to be instrumental in the organization of the “Economical Branch”; see Bierens de Haan, Van Oeconomische, chap. I. For his role as advisor to the young G.. v. Hogendorp, see L.G.J. Verberne, Gijsbert Karel’s Leerjaren (Amsterdam, 1931), pp. 98ff.Google Scholar
  21. 19a.
    Griffier of the Provincial Court of Utrecht; he was to be instrumental in the organization of the “Economical Branch”; see Bierens de Haan, Van Oeconomische, chap. I. For his role as advisor to the young G.. v. Hogendorp, see L.G.J. Verberne, Gijsbert Karel’s Leerjaren (Amsterdam, 1931), s 108.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    See N.N.B.W., IX, cols. 1313–15.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    On this there is now a massive and masterly study, J. Hovy, Het Voorstel van 1751 tot Instelling van een beperkt Vrijhavenstelsel in de Republiek (Groningen, 1966). Hovy goes into every imaginable phase of the economic, political and diplomatic problems of the Republic in that era and illuminates many different areas beyond the immediate subject of the title.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    E. Laspeyres, Geschichte der Volkswirtschaft,… pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    This disenchantment with commerce continues even among some patriots, cf. the attitude of S.I. Wiselius, p. 250, below.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Cf. J. de Vries, “De Oeconomisch-Patriottische Beweging”, in De Nieuwe Stem, VII, no 12 (1952), pp. 723–30.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    W.B.S. Boeles, De Patriot J.H. Swildens (Leeuwarden, 1884), pp. 83–99.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Bierens de Haan, Van Oeconomische, p. 62 n.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    A.G.N., VIII, p. 33.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    C. Wilson, Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the 18th Century (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 17Google Scholar
  31. 28a.
    C. Wilson, Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the 18th Century (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 23Google Scholar
  32. 28b.
    C. Wilson, Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the 18th Century (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 25Google Scholar
  33. 28c.
    C. Wilson, Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the 18th Century (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 167–187Google Scholar
  34. 28d.
    see also E.E. de Jong-Keesing, De Economische Crisis van 1763 te Amsterdam, (Amsterdam, 1939).Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    See D.C. Nijhoff, De Hertog van Brunswijk (‘s-Gravenhage, 1889)Google Scholar
  36. 29a.
    N.A. Bootsma, De Hertog van Brunswijk, 1750–1759, (Assen, 1962).Google Scholar
  37. 30.
    Colenbrander, Patriottentijd, I, p. 80.Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    A.G.N., VIII, p. 109.Google Scholar
  39. 32.
    (Utrecht, 1773). The authorship is publicly proclaimed by Paulus in Verklaring, I, “Voorberight”. For various evaluations of Paulus’s sincerity with regard to the house of Orange, see F. van Dijk, Mr. L.P. van de Spiegel (Assen, 1963), p. 181Google Scholar
  40. 32a.
    M. de Jong, J.D. van der Capellen (Groningen, 1921), p. 192, attacking Fruin’s position that Het Nut was a “perfidious title”Google Scholar
  41. 32b.
    C.H.E. de Wit, De Strijd Tussen Aristocratie en Democratie in Nederland 1780–1848 (Heerlen, 1965), p. 43.Google Scholar
  42. 33.
    P.H. Suringar, Biographische Aantekeningen Betreffende Mr. Pieter Paulus (Leiden, 1879), p. 18 n.Google Scholar
  43. 34.
    Paulus, Het Nut (2nd ed., 1773 cited throughout), pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  44. 34.
    Paulus, Het Nut (2nd ed., 1773 cited throughout), pp. 158ff. on the agreement of theory and practice in the history of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  45. 35.
    Ibid., p. 110: Huber on the lack of knowledge among the regents.Google Scholar
  46. 36.
    Ibid., p. 159 n.: “I consider it no less true, that one can rely on this author (Wagenaar), for that part of which I have made use, as much as one can rely on Contemporaries”. Paulus goes on to quote Van de Spiegel on the V.H., “That it will be important as long as the Netherlands’ name shall deserve a place in historiography”.Google Scholar
  47. 37.
    Ibid., pp. 60–61 on William III show far less of the whig spirit than Baxter’s appreciation cited above.Google Scholar
  48. 38.
    Cf. Wagenaar, V.H., XII, p. 120.Google Scholar
  49. 39.
    Cf. Paulus, Verklaring, III, 77 and IV, 28ff. See also the controversy between Paulus and S. Stijl on these points below in the chapter on Stijl and his Opkomst en Bloei.Google Scholar
  50. 40.
    Het Nut, p. 113 n. deals with the anti-Stadhouder arguments of the Aanwijsing of P. de la Court; for Raynal see pp. 58–9, 121.Google Scholar
  51. 41.
    Cf. Kluit, Historie, III, p. 287 n.Google Scholar
  52. 42.
    Commentarius Legum Fundamentarium Foederati Belgii, of Verklaaring van de Grondwetten der vereenigde Nederlanden, (Amsterdam, etc.); see also N.N.B.W., II, 1453.Google Scholar
  53. 43.
    Verklaring der Unie van Utrecht, 2nd ed. (Utrecht, 1775–77).Google Scholar
  54. 44.
    Aenmerkingen over de Verklaring… (Leiden, 1777, 17832). For the interesting career of the author, who was one of the most outspoken among the Patriots and who finally found himself an exile in America, see Francis Adrian van der Kemp, An Autobiography, ed. H.L. Fairchild (New York, 1903) and Harry F. Jackson, Scholar in the Wilderness: Francis Adrian van der Kemp, (Syracuse, 1963). The Observations is a fascinating compendium of historical legal argument about several of the points touched on by Paulus in his Elucidation. The part on Military Jurisdiction is by far the largest. Van der Kemp argues that the claims of the Stadhouder to control and judge throughGoogle Scholar
  55. 45.
    Suringar, Biographische,… p. 42.Google Scholar
  56. 46.
    Ibid., p. 57.Google Scholar
  57. 47.
    De Opkomst en Bloei der vereenigde Nederlanden, (Amsterdam, etc., 1774,2nd enlarged ed. 1778; Brussel, 1824, 1854).Google Scholar
  58. 48.
    N.N.B.W., V, cols. 837–39. See also H. Smitskamp, “Simon Stijl als Verlicht Geschiedschrijver”, in Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, VI (1951), pp. 199–217.Google Scholar
  59. 49.
    Paulus, Verklaring der Unie van Utrecht (Utrecht, 1775–77), esp. Vol. IV, pp. 28–46.Google Scholar
  60. 50.
    Meinecke, Die Entstehung des Historismus (München, 1965), pp. 139ff.Google Scholar
  61. 51.
    Cf. Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois (XI, VI), where he writes also of a certain tranquillity of mind necessary to the well-ordered state.Google Scholar
  62. 52.
    This modification of climatic differences by variation of the soil is not unlike Montesquieu’s own theory in Esprit, XIX.Google Scholar
  63. 53.
    Cf. E. Cassirer, The Question of J. J. Rousseau (New York, 1954), pp. 64–67 and passim.Google Scholar
  64. 54.
    Cf. W.D. Voorthuijsen, De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden en het Mercantilisme (’s-Gravenhage, 1965). Voorthuijsen argues that the Republic was by no means free of mercantilist devices and “to call the Republic an Island of Freedom, encircled by the mercantilistic waves of the surrounding countries would not create a true picture”. In general he sees little evidence of unifying efforts, many striking examples of positive support of industry, and slight emphasis on negative or limiting actions by the state. In short, the Dutch were mercantilist but with a difference. For a critique of this view, see J. Hovy’s review in Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, XXI (1966–67), pp. 332–37.Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    R.R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution (Princeton, 1959), I, p. 168.Google Scholar
  66. 55a.
    See also Rudé, Wilkes and Liberty (London, 1962) for some English ideas about “true liberty”.Google Scholar
  67. 56.
    Cf. J.V. Giessen, De Opkomst van het Woord democratie als leuze in Nederland (Den Haag, 1948), passim, for some of the different meanings attached to democracy in the course of Dutch history. While his main interest is directed to the second half of the 19th Century, he has some comments of interest on this earlier period too.Google Scholar
  68. 57.
    Except for a fleeting mention of it in connection with Leicester’s rule and the realization of how vital it was to assert the sovereignty of the individual provinces. “Aan den Leezer”, p. xxxviii.Google Scholar
  69. 58.
    P. Geyl, De Patriottenbeweging 1780–1787 (Amsterdam, 1947) = Patria no XL, p. 53.Google Scholar
  70. 59.
    M. de Jong, J.D. v.d. Capellen, is the fundamental work on this important Patriot figure. It is far more than a mere biography, for it goes into every facet of the political life of the Netherlands in the formative period of the Patriot movement. The complexities of the situation in Overijssel are especially well brought out and used to point up the diversity of the various provinces in the Republic. Unless otherwise noted, I have followed De Jong in this section.Google Scholar
  71. 60.
    See note 28, Chapter V, p. 232 below.Google Scholar
  72. 61.
    De Jong, p. 33.Google Scholar
  73. 62.
    Ibid., p. 103. This is the motive given by F.A. van der Kemp, Historie der Admissie (1779).Google Scholar
  74. 63.
    On the importance of the battle between proponents of army and navy priority and the sad state of those forces, see J.S. Bartstra, Vlootherstel en Legeraugmentatie, 1770–1780 (Assen, 1952).Google Scholar
  75. 64.
    See F.A. v.d. Kemp, Aenmerkingen, passim.Google Scholar
  76. 65.
    E.g., Hollands Rijkdom, III, pp. 297–319.Google Scholar
  77. 66.
    Het Nut, pp. 155–60; also see Paulus, Verklaring der Unie van Utrecht, II, pp. 137–41.Google Scholar
  78. 67.
    De Jong, J.D. v.d. Capellen, pp. 185ff. and 263. Article VIII of the Union of Utrecht was the key to this idea of civilian militias. A. Fletcher’s work was A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias (Edinburgh, 1698). For a discussion of Fletcher, see C. Robbins, The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge, Mass., 1959; New York, 1968), pp. 180–84. Much of what Prof. Robbins has to say in this work on the British “Commonwealthmen” or “Republicans” offers fertile suggestions for the comparable movements in the Netherlands. I will return to this theme in the Conclusion.Google Scholar
  79. 68.
    Ibid., p. 202.Google Scholar
  80. 69.
    Ibid., p. 329; cf. S. Stijl, Opkomst en Bloei, p. 234.Google Scholar
  81. 70.
    On Price, see Robbins, Eighteenth Century, pp. 335–47.Google Scholar
  82. 71.
    See the very apposite remarks in J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law, pp. 229–251: “Conclusion: 1688 in the History of Historiography”Google Scholar
  83. 71a.
    Christopher Hill, “The Norman Yoke” in Puritanism and Revolution (New York, 1964), pp. 87–109.Google Scholar
  84. 72.
    Cf. H. Trevor Coulborn, The Lamp of Experience, Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1965), p. 99, and the remarks of John Adams cited there.Google Scholar
  85. 73.
    De Jong, J.D. v.d. Capellen, p. 220 on ideas of the constitution and the desirability of Imperium mixtum.Google Scholar
  86. 74.
    Cf. J. van de Giessen, De Opkomst van het woord democratie als Leuze in Nederland (Hague, 1948).Google Scholar
  87. 75.
    G.W. Vreede, Mr Laurens Pieter van de Spiegel en zijne Tijdgenooten (1737–1800) (Middelburg, 1875), II, pp. 418Google Scholar
  88. 75a.
    G.W. Vreede, Mr Laurens Pieter van de Spiegel en zijne Tijdgenooten (1737–1800) (Middelburg, 1875), II, pp. 417–31 on “Burgerlijke Vrijheid” and V.d. Capellen.Google Scholar
  89. 76.
    On the Drostediensten, see De Jong, Chap. V, pp. 246–306, and P. Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk, III3, pp. 540ff.Google Scholar
  90. 77.
    Cf. G.H. Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution (Berkeley, etc., 1966), p. 10 and Chap. I, passim.Google Scholar
  91. 78.
    On this, see C.B. MacPherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962).Google Scholar
  92. 79.
    De Jong, J.D. v.d. Capellen, p. 5.Google Scholar
  93. 80.
    P. J. v. Winter, Het Aandeel van den Amsterdamsche Handel (s’-Gravenhage, 1927–33), passim. See also J.C. Westermann, The Netherlands and the United States, Their Relations in the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century (Hague, 1935), p. 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Leonard Leeb

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations