Historiographical Epistemology: Groen van Prinsterer, Robert Fruin and the Dutch Revolt
13 August 2024
By Dr Adi Schlebusch
Introduction
Robert Fruin (1823–1899) is widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern Dutch historiography. He distinguished himself through a critical methodology that marked a departure from the romantic and nationalist historiography prevalent during his time. Fruin’s magnum opus, the ten-volume Tien Jaren uit den Tachtigjarigen Oorlog, 1588-1598 (Ten Years from the Eighty Years' War, 1588–1598), exemplifies his methodological rigor. Fruin's approach often put him at odds with his contemporary, Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801–1876), who was not only a historian but also a politician and the leading Dutch Reformed political theorist of his time. Whereas Fruin was a liberal, Groen van Prinsterer's historiography was shaped by his Calvinist convictions, favouring a providential view of history that saw a divine hand in the unfolding of historical events, particularly in the context of the Dutch Reformation and the rise of the Dutch Republic. In contrast, Fruin advocated for a more secular analysis based in empiricism as opposed to the theological and nationalist interpretation embodied by Groen.
In this article we will be highlighting the ways in which their epistemological differences manifested in their disagreement on the Dutch Revolt, also known as the Eighty Years' War (1568—1648) in terms of how they viewed this national resistance to imperialism and religious persecution.
The Dutch Republic
Groen understands the Reformation as a divine intervention in human affairs effectuating a return to the authentic gospel.1 He envisions the Dutch Republic and the Dutch people as having been providentially and covenantally assigned a unique duty and calling in history. Emerging from the doctrines of the Reformation and molded by the distinct national character of the Dutch people, the Netherlands has been sanctified through the transformative power of the true gospel. This fusion led to the establishment of a godly government and cultivated a perfect harmony between the Reformed Church and the State, while maintaining their respective identities: "The pastors, as well as the other church members, were subject to the authority of the government, but the authorities, both as members of the church and as officials of a Christian-Reformed State, were subject to ecclesiastical discipline."2 The education system was Calvinist and Biblical Law was both established and enforced: "Therefore, no idolatry or worship of images was tolerated; blasphemy and the misuse of God’s name were punished; the desecration of the Sabbath was counteracted; the command was followed: 'Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed'; adultery and fornication were combated; and begging was discouraged: 'if anyone is not willing to work, let them also not eat.'"3
Groen asserts that the Dutch government could legitimately invoke divine assistance because they implemented Biblical Law. He even refers to “the Reformed people's faith” as being “in every perilous juncture, the strength of the Church and the Fatherland” during this period. The term he uses to describe the role and influence of the 'Reformed people's faith' as a 'backbone' for both the Church and the Fatherland suggests he envisages not just the national religion institutionally, but the intrinsic religious character and the covenant relationship of the Dutch people with God.4 Groen discusses the government’s role in enforcing Biblical Law, citing (the unedited) article 36 of the Belgic Confession: "Throughout, with moderation and gentleness, the government of the Reformed confession was mindful of the directive: 'to ward off and eradicate all idolatry and false religion, to overthrow the kingdom of the Antichrist, and to promote the kingdom of Jesus Christ'." Groen explicitly details the Dutch government's approach—it safeguarded the Dutch Reformed Church against Roman Catholicism and the Remonstrants. While tolerating the latter two, the state did not tolerate Unitarianism or Socinianism, which denied the deity of the Lord, treating adherents neither as Christians nor allowing them church fellowship or the dissemination of their writings.5 Groen portrays the Dutch Reformed Government of the era as championing both the establishment of the true religion and the tolerance of freedom of conscience and private worship, all while combating false religions with a spirit of moderation and measured tolerance.
Groen was not blind to the faults of the Dutch Republic, however. He recognizes that as the power of the ruler was reduced by the republican reforms, this led to the supremacy of the cities and the formation of a despotic urban aristocracy. This would later lead to a situation where Holland had too much influence over the other Dutch provinces and the urban aristocrats governed while ignoring the traditional rights and privileges of the prince and the people.6
The Reformation's beneficial impact on Dutch socio-political life extended into the economic domain as well. The Netherlands demonstrated its prowess by dominating maritime activities and planting its flag across the globe, significantly enhancing its international stature. Fish exports grew significantly, and both the West and East Indian Trading Companies were established and thrived.7 Nonetheless, for Groen, the principal source of Dutch prosperity was not fundamentally rooted in their inherent character or political or economic systems—though he acknowledges these as contributing factors—but in the divine blessings that ensued from God’s providential and specific establishment of His Church among the Dutch people. Indeed, he even critiques the free-trade policies of the Dutch Republic as being driven by a self-serving pursuit of profit, which, while increasing the nation's wealth, also introduced foreign customs that eroded the nation’s moral fiber.8 He pointedly states that the considerable prosperity was not a result of the Dutch people's own merits, but due to the influence of divine grace in national life: "This faith bore various fruits. It mitigated the disadvantages of an imperfect state system and that dangerous merchant spirit where no higher principle prevails ... The strength of Christian institutions and the faithful segment of the population continued to curb moral decline."9
The Dutch Revolt
During the period following the Reformation, Protestants endured years of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church, a dilemma which Groen views as one that was ultimately resolved through divine intervention: "The weapons were turned against defenseless and suffering Christians; until finally God sent relief, so that defense and resistance began."10 Groen's interpretation of events such as the Dutch Revolt (1568—1648) must be understood in the context of his view of the continuing providential work of God in preserving His Church through its establishment among the Dutch people. This idea that under the New Covenant, a particular nation within Christendom can be chosen for a divine purpose was by no means novel or unique within Reformed theology at the time. John Calvin, after discussing the covenantal election of the people of Israel as the seed of Abraham, writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion III.21.7: “Hence Paul skillfully argues from the passage of Malachi which I quoted (Rom. 9:13; Mal 1:2), that when God, after making a covenant of eternal life, invites a certain people to himself, a special mode of election is in part understood, so that He does not with indiscriminate grace effectually elect all of them.” It is clear that Calvin at least allows for the possibility of that which Groen so expressly applies to the Dutch people and the House of Orange.
The Reformation made rapid inroads in the Netherlands during the sixteenth century, but persecution followed almost immediately. Groen writes that after this time of providential preparation, “The House of Orange-Nassau was called by God to a task, incomparable to that of any other dynasty: the task to lead the Republic, also for the benefit of all Christendom, to watch and fight for the Gospel, freedom, and justice. With a series of shrewd and pious statesmen and heroes, the House of Orange splendidly fulfilled this grand destiny.”11
Despite the persecutions that undoubtedly occurred, the Spanish king Philip II initially remained moderate. However, in August 1566 many Protestants in Flanders, especially in Antwerp, where persecution had been exceptionally severe, rebelled and plundered churches with the intent of purging the country of idolatry. The outlawed nobles did not participate in this violent rebellion, and the true Reformed sought to destroy idolatry in a legal and civilized manner. After several more incidents, in April 1567, a decree was issued which made the practice of the Reformed religion in Antwerp illegal and punishable by death. The Duke of Alva was sent to the Netherlands to oversee law and order, further suppressing Protestants in the process. His reign financially crippled the country and many long-standing rights and liberties were disregarded. More significantly, for Groen, is the fact that under the tyranny of Duke, neither Catholics nor Protestants escaped persecution and as this persecution intensified, all eyes turned to the House of Orange for deliverance. The Prince of Orange essentially desired to negotiate on behalf of the Dutch people for more liberty under the Spanish king, but his moderation was overcome by the extravagance of the common people. He was one of the few who recognized that for a Roman Catholic Ruler, the suppression of Protestantism is seen as a duty.
The Reformed were killed, driven away, or brought to conceal their confession; the Reformation seemed eradicable root and branch. This ignited a war in which the gospel would triumph over the rulers of the world; thus, through the powerlessness of his rage, to glorify Him who had said: ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure’.”Groen describes the religious nature of Revolt as follows: “The Netherlands, reformed by the Gospel, is protected by the hand of the Most High and the sword of the Princes of Orange. – Persecution for the sake of religion and the advancement of the Reformation soon gave the struggle a Protestant character, so that freedom of conscience became a principle matter and the war a religious war. Initially, however, the general resistance was primarily aimed at maintaining the country’s independence and freedoms. The oppressed community, through legitimate resistance, became a political party. Even among Christians, amid the noise of war, zeal for the faith was not isolated from other interests ... Dislike of foreign domination and displeasure over the almost exclusive preference by the decidedly Spanish ruler for his own countrymen are among the primary causes of the uprising.”12
Groen understands that the desire for civil liberties and nationalistic fervor were among the primary drivers of the Revolt, but this in no way damages its distinctly Protestant religious character, and under the sword of the Prince of Orange, this resistance developed into a legitimate religious war. Here it is important to understand that, for Groen, it is not merely the religious aspects of the revolt that justifies it, but the aim of cultivating and preserving the Christian-Historical identity of the Dutch people: “Freed from the feudal bond to the German Empire, the Netherlands remained mostly a Germanic country, the bulwark against France. And would it now, through inheritance law, be incorporated into the Spanish monarchy, against its nature and interest, to serve as a support for excessive Spain to attack Central Europe? – Aversion to the Spanish nature and politics. Before 1565 at least, nobility and clergy and citizenry united against the government. Naturally; it was foreign, anti-national.”13
The royal office of the prince of Orange became hereditary in 1582, when Prince Willem reluctantly took up the office as governor of the 12 provinces of the Netherlands, and under the successor of Willem I, Maurits of Orange, an independent Calvinist Dutch Republic was established.14
Fruin's Accusation of Historical Inconsistency
Writing in 1853, Fruin critiques Groen’s argument that one may oppose tyranny under certain conditions, viewing it as inconsistent with Groen’s antirevolutionary stance and his epistemic commitment to Scripture.15 Fruin points out that the Dutch revolt against the king of Spain poses a conundrum for antirevolutionary Protestants, as it embodies a revolution, something they purportedly oppose. He argues that the principles that motivated the Dutch to rebel against their Spanish ruler are fundamentally similar to those that drove the Puritans to oppose their monarch, which contradicts the principles Groen espouses with his antirevolutionary doctrines. Furthermore, Groen’s interpretation of the spirit of the eighteenth-century French Revolution as fundamentally different from that of the Reformation is flawed in Fruin’s view, noting significant parallels between the two movements—with one simply being rooted in religion and the other in politics.16
While acknowledging that Calvin permitted rebellion under the leadership of lesser magistrates,17 Fruin believes that for Groen’s doctrine to be consistent and true to Scripture, it would have to reject any resistance against tyranny, which could lead to dire consequences—essentially creating a 'hell on earth'. He also highlights the inconsistency of Protestant resistance to Roman Catholic authorities, who persecuted Protestants, with article 36 of the Belgic Confession, which ostensibly opposes such resistance.18
Groen's Epistemic Notion of "Revolution"
In order to understand Groen’s historiography, particularly his historical interpretation of the Dutch Revolt, it is essential to understand what he defines as "revolutionary." Groen explains in his first lecture on Unbelief and Revolution: "By revolution, I do not mean the numerous events that lead to the transfer of public authority; not merely the revolutionary storm that raged in France; but the reversal in thinking and attitude that has become apparent throughout Christendom. With revolutionary concepts, I refer to the foundational principles of liberty and equality, popular sovereignty, social contract, the attempt to recreate society through convention, which are revered as the cornerstones of constitutional law and state structure."19
For Groen, the essence of revolution is primarily epistemic rather than socio-political, though he does not deny the inevitable socio-political consequences of epistemic shifts. This approach stems from his belief that ideas are the driving forces behind all historical developments, and he applies this perspective particularly to the French Revolution and the general revolutionary spirit of his own era.20 Additionally, he characterizes the concept of revolution as fundamentally involving a rebellion against God—a godlessness that originates in the minds and hearts of people before manifesting in the socio-political realm. Thus, for Groen, the revolution fundamentally entails a rebellion against the divinely ordained order of things—an attempt to overthrow this order, emphasizing the contrast between revolution and the divinely-ordained nature of reality.21
Groen contrasts the Reformation with the French Revolution by noting that "the doctrine of revolution, which destroys authority, compels the government, for the sake of self-preservation, to strive for tyranny under the most liberal words and forms. The doctrine of the gospel, which affirms authority, allows those who govern be true lovers of freedom."22 He therefore regards the Reformation and its consequential developments, such as the Dutch Revolt, as fundamentally counterrevolutionary: "The Reformation supported the legitimate authority of the government, which had been faltering for various reasons, and curbed the arrogance of the clergy and the general population with apostolic admonition."23
Here, Fruin and Groen sharply diverge. Fruin challenges Groen's interpretation of the spirit of the Dutch Revolt as one of patience and Christian submission driven by the desire to obey God rather than men, suggesting Groen uses this to justify his own inconsistencies, questioning whether revolution is only acceptable when Groen supports the consequent changes and not otherwise, thereby elevating his judgment above Divine Revelation. According to Fruin, as long as Groen does not dismiss all rebellion in the political sphere, his anti-revolutionary political philosophy becomes hollow and subject to manipulation by anyone using it to justify their interpretation of events.24
Fruin acknowledges that the core difference between Groen and himself is epistemological. He writes that in order to be convinced the Anti-Revolutionaries would have to cease appealing to the Bible and the historical memory of the people in order to interpret history, but would have to bring forth "scientific evidence based on empirical observation and interpreted according to the laws of logic."25 Ironically, through his rejection of Scripture and tradition, Fruin's own liberal and functionally atheist views and modernist epistemology becomes evident.
For Groen, on the other hand, history must be interpreted with God as the foundational first principle, and he dedicates all his historiographical work to combatting what he sees as the reductionist, materialist worldview underlying liberal historiography.26 True historical interpretation, like true philosophy, cannot exist independently of Divine Revelation.27 Groen’s Christocentric historiography views the chief end of history as the victory of the seed of the woman over the seed of the serpent.28 Groen explains: "Likewise, world history merely forms the husk of the gospel's unfolding: it is, from a higher than earthly standpoint, like the stalk in which the seed has ripened; the cell in which the magnificent butterfly was formed, and for that reason, is worthy of being valued."29 His emphasis on the covenantal paradigm of societal decline always following apostasy marks his distinctly anti-liberal Christian historiography, standing firmly in the tradition of the early church historians such as Salvian, who interpreted the fall of the Roman empire in light of God's judgment.30
Conclusion
In his critique of Groen, Fruin failed to take the epistemic foundations of his historiography into account. This can be attributed to Fruin's own lack of epistemic self-consciousness given his embrace of the prevalent modernist or liberal zeitgeist of the time. Ironically, very few scholars today would take Fruin's Enlightenment idea of objective historiography seriously, as the inescapability of presuppositions in historiography is now widely recognized.31
Fruin’s modernist approach failed to take into account the extent in which philosophical and theological ideas drive and shape history. Consequently, Fruin's critique therefore missed the core of Groen’s argument, underscoring a fundamental disconnect in their historical interpretations that went beyond mere disagreement on facts to a profound divergence in epistemology.
1. Groen van Prinsterer, Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland, p. 50.
2. Ibid., 55.
3. Ibid., 56.
4. Ibid., 58.
5. Ibid., 57-58.
6. Ibid, 93.
7. Ibid., 64.
8. Ibid., 67.
9. Ibid., 68.
10. Ibid., 52.
11. Ibid., 66.
12. Ibid., 88.
13. Ibid., 88-89.
14. Ibid., 140.
15. Fruin, Het antirevolutionaire staatsregt van Mr. Groen van Prinsterer ontvouwd en beoordeeld, p. 37.
16. Ibid., 48-52.
17. Ibid., 46.
18. Ibid., 59-60.
19. Groen van Prinsterer, Unbelief and Revolution, p. 19.
20. Ibid., 75.
21. Ibid., 165.
22. Groen van Prinsterer, Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland, p. 102.
23. Ibid., 54.
24. Fruin, Het antirevolutionaire staatsregt van Mr. Groen van Prinsterer ontvouwd en beoordeeld, p. 98-99.
25. Ibid., 108.
26. Groen van Prinsterer, Proeve over de Middelen waardoor de waarheidt wordt gekend en gestaafd, p. 17.
27. Ibid., 75-76, 99-100.
28. Ibid., 135.
29. Ibid., 139.
30. See Salvian's De Gubernatione Dei.
31. Carr, Historical Experience: Essays on the Phenomenology of History, p. 7.