Suchergebnisse

Johannes Henricus van der Palm (1763-1840) was the most famous orator of his age in the Netherlands. He was educated as a Protestant minister, but the revolutionary movements of the 1780s and 1790s launched him into politics and he became Minister of National Education. His extreme tendency to shy away from public conflicts made him less fit for politics and he returned to academia as a professor of oriental languages and sacred rhetoric, after which he reached the pinnacle of fame by speaking about the virtues of peace and harmony at almost every important public occasion. He personified the virtues of the Restoration (1813-1840) and his magnificent voice added to his attraction. Studying the extreme popularity of his oratory and the reasons why he was praised so much helps to better understand this period which was much more devoted to (classical) eloquence than the time after his death. Only if we understand the importance contemporaries attached to oral instead of just written presentation, can historians begin to reevaluate the Restoration that has always been criticised for being dull, superficial and obsessed with reconciling the polarised society after the revolutionary age.Johannes Henricus van der Palm (1763-1840) was de beroemdste redenaar van zijn tijd in Nederland. Hij werd opgeleid als predikant, maar de revolutionaire verwikkelingen van de jaren 1780 en 1790 wierpen hem in de politiek en hij werd agent van Nationale Opvoeding. Zijn extreme neiging openbare conflicten te vermijden maakte hem minder geschikt voor de politiek en hij keerde terug naar de universiteit als hoogleraar in oosterse talen en gewijde welsprekendheid en bereikte toen het hoogtepunt van zijn roem als spreker over vrede en verzoening bij vrijwel ieder belangrijk publiek evenement. Hij verpersoonlijkte de deugden van de Restauratie (1813-1840) en zijn prachtige stem versterkte zijn aantrekkingskracht. Bestudering van de enorme populariteit van zijn welsprekendheid en van de redenen waarom hij zo hoog werd geprezen, helpt om deze periode te begrijpen die zoveel meer gehecht en gewijd was aan (klassieke) welsprekendheid dan de tijd na zijn dood. Alleen als we het belang doorgronden dat in die tijd werd gehecht aan orale in plaats van alleen schriftelijke presentatie, kunnen historici de tijd van Restauratie gaan herwaarderen die altijd bekritiseerd is als saai, oppervlakkig en geobsedeerd door de verzoening van de maatschappij na de revolutionaire tijd.ActualiteitsparagraafSpeeches in crisistijd. Verzoening met woorden in de negentiende eeuw De uitzonderlijke speech van Mark Rutte over het coronavirus staat niet in een Nederlandse traditie van spreken door gezagsdragers. Die was er echter wel aan het begin van de negentiende eeuw, toen de beroemde redenaar, minister, predikant en hoogleraar Johannes Henricus van der Palm bij grote nationale gebeurtenissen het woord nam. Hij behoorde tot de laatste generatie die de welsprekendheid leerde volgens de principes van de klassieke oudheid. In zijn artikel voor BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review (135-1) toont Henk te Velde aan dat Van der Palm door zijn redenaarstalent onvoorstelbaar populair werd. Zijn geruststellende en opbeurende toon paste helemaal in de sfeer van verzoening na de crisis van de Franse Revolutie en oorlog rond 1800. Ook zijn heldere en emotionerende stemgeluid droeg daaraan bij. In de vele beschrijvingen van zijn redes kunnen we hem bijna horen spreken. De volgende generatie keerde zich echter tegen zijn postrevolutionaire harmonie en consensus. Thorbecke nam afscheid van Van der Palms verzoenende crisisretorica: geen holle woorden, maar wetenschappelijke precisie! Hardhandig kwam er een einde aan deze traditie; de nadruk op harmonisch overleg zou telkens terugkeren, maar sinds Van der Palm kent Nederland geen traditie meer van ministeriële speeches.

This contribution sketches the emergence of democratic self-definitions in the Netherlands, from the end of the 18th century until the post-war period, when it had become commonplace to define the country as democratic. Its point of departure is the use of the word and concept of democracy by contemporaries and Dutch and foreign historians, and it argues that the history of Dutch 'democracy' has been characterized by an emphasis on freedom, self-government by a broadly defined elite and a strong civil society, rather than by participation of the population at large. Democracy only became really popular after the Second World War when it could be defined as protection against dictatorship. The Dutch case shows that we should be careful about equating a strong civil society or even the rule of law with democracy in the sense of the power of the people at large. Democracy was definitely accepted as a label to characterize the Netherlands after it had been redefined as in essence the opposite of dictatorship instead of the opposite of aristocracy. The Dutch case also shows that a highly developed, civil society can even confine rather than promote the need for political democracy and for a vibrant independent political sphere.

The comparison between parliaments and theatre has often been used to criticize the superficial show that hides the real societal issues politics should be concerned about. In this contribution, the comparison between theatre and parliaments is a heuristic tool to show that parliaments really offer a certain form of theatre. The contribution concentrates on the use of theatrical metaphors in and around nineteenth-century British and French parliaments, that were then seen as the most important parliaments and certainly as the most important parliamentary 'stages'. The 'theatrical' side of parliaments shows the ambiguity as well as the crucial importance of their public nature. Parliaments were seen as providing serious, uplifting theatre but also vulgar theatricality. The serious Burkean theatre and its counterparts in the French Restoration and July monarchy or the sober Netherlands parliament provided the framework for good discussions: a strict separation of participants and audience, respect for rules and traditions of debate, exchange of arguments more or less according to the classic unities of tragedy. However, the Burkean conception of moral theatre risked having the elitist effect of excluding a public not versed in its rules, or whose main concerns were not addressed in the ongoing debates. That is why elements of demotic or popular theatricality have helped to democratize parliaments, make them more accessible to the public at large and mobilize the constituency by offering them clear choices between issues and protagonists. The function of the debates could be better understood by analysing them as theatre plays with crucial roles for the main actors and the public.

The historiography of European liberalism has been dominated by large countries; this contribution focuses on the successful tradition of liberalism in the Netherlands. Just like German liberalism (but unlike the British 19th-century model), the spirit of Dutch 19th-century liberalism was constitutional (in the sense of being legal and juridical). It assumed that constitutional rules in a certain sense produced liberty, because liberty was not possible without a legally guaranteed context. Today the Dutch liberal party tries to combine classical liberalism with a mild populism, but recently the Pim Fortuyn upsurge of populism has hurt the liberal party. A direct democratic style of politics has become popular among more right-wing liberals. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the 19th-century doctrinaire liberal traditions. Their anti-democratic ideas have been superseded, but the constitutional organization of liberty is as important as ever.

Review of: William M. Kuhn. Democratic Royalism. The transformation of the British monarchy, 1861-1914. Londen (MacMillan Press) en New York (St. Martin's Press), 1996,180 p., ISBN: 0-333-65813-2 (GB) en 0-312-15955-2 (USA)