De traditie en het verlichte denken. Politieke theorie, de burger en het publieke debat in de Republiek (1650-1704)

Abstract

Tradition and Enlightenment explores the significance of the political theory for the burgher in the Dutch Republic (1650-1704). As a spin-off this study will also give an impression about the political culture of the burgher and the reception of the ideas of the early Enlightenment. The first part of the book defines the burgher and his position in society based on pamphlets concerning five political debates. A burgher comes to expression who was political conscious and felt committed to society: he saw himself the sovereign of society. It is a quit different picture from the traditional view of the burgher as a non-political creature. The second part investigates the relation between the burgher and the political elite. A burgher ideology becomes visible where the welfare of the burgher was connected with self-government of the city and where the burgher saw the political elite as the ‘best’ among his fellow citizens representing his interests. It was an ideal organisation for a civic society as long the political elite served the interests of the burghers, which was in general the case. This explains why a prosperous and political conscious burgher left the government of his society to an elite covering hardly 0,1 percent of the total population of the Republic. This ideal was threatened by oligarchy and centralizing state power. In defending his interests, the burgher called upon the ancient constitution theory to justify the inviolability of the ancient constitution. A strong defence which however could not solve the polarizing question of the best type of state, the pure republic or the mixed constitution. This controversy, with a risk for the stability of the Republic, asked for a radical change in the political culture and mentality. The last part describes the rise and reception of the early Enlightenment. The analysis of the pamphlets shows two striking conclusions. The first is that important ideas of the Enlightenment were assimilated in only fifty years from 1650 to around 1700. The second is that the reception was selective, the hand of God and the authority of the Bible and the classical literature disappeared during these years from the political argumentations in the pamphlets. What did not change however were the historical way of thinking (the authority of the tradition) and the dominant position of the ancient constitution theory. It is argued that rational arguments were at the basis of this choice for the tradition: why should the most prosperous burgher of Europe risk his interests for the uncertain adventure of a fundamental change in the political system? At the end of the eighteenth century the circumstances were altered in such a way that tipped the scale to change: the burgher as sovereign was no longer based on the ancient constitution theory but got a new rationalization based on the modern interpretation of natural rights of the Enlightenment. It was the end of a society characterized by aristocratic republicanism, corporative organisation, ancient constitution, and the ancient constitution theory.