The uses of myth and history

The chapters in this part all consider the ways in which the past is taken
up and reworked to form part of the present and also to project into the
future.
Jonathan Israel’s chapter examines the way in which the past
enters current political debate in the Dutch Golden Age. If reference to
the past can help to create a sense of collective identity, this process is
by no means uncontested. In the Dutch Republic, the absence of either a
powerful state church or a monarchy to provide a focus for the creation
of social and political cohesion created a climate in which rival ideologies
burgeoned. Within this context, myth and history were called upon to
buttress conflicting points of view.
This is the case with the Batavian Myth, for example, which,
Jonathan Israel argues, comes sharply into focus as a propaganda
tool only during the clash between the Remonstrants and Counter-
Remonstrants in the first two decades of the seventeenth century. The
myth is not particularly potent in the creation of a national identity, if
by ‘national’ the whole of the Republic is meant. It achieves maximum
potency at a period of extreme tension between Holland and the other
provinces. Its subsequent manifestations are likewise in a contested context
and serve, if anything, to highlight particularism rather than cohesion
in Dutch myth- making.
This point is also taken up in the chapter by Meijer- Drees. She considers
the use in literature of two symbols related to the ‘fatherland’: the
lion and the cow. Her chapter brings out clearly the ambiguous nature
of the ‘patria’ concept, which may refer to the Republic as a whole, to a
province or even to a particular town. Furthermore, slippage in reference
is not uncommon within a single text. Since the two texts studied are
both anthologies published in Amsterdam, we have to take into account
source bias. Nevertheless, it is striking that once again the distinction is
largely ‘Holland versus the rest’.
In the second part of his chapter Jonathan Israel considers the use
made of history in the Dutch republican tradition of political thought
in the second half of the seventeenth century. The political theorists
develop a critical and comparative approach to their discussions of the
past, designed to provide supporting evidence for their theories about
the Dutch state. Attention focuses on three areas: the Roman Republic,
the Italian republics and the United Provinces themselves. As in the case
of the Batavian Myth, however, this is not a case of discovering easy
points of identification in the past and simply using them to shape a clear,
unambiguous theory for the present. The approach to the past is a subject
for hot debate, with little sign of consensus.
The chapter by Schmidt considers the role of geography as well as
history in the creation of a sense of national identity in the new Republic.
References to Spanish tyranny in the New World are found widely in
Dutch literature and popular culture. Here, the Dutch are identifying
themselves as a group faced with an external threat. It is interesting to
note that Schmidt’s chapter does provide an apparent example of the use
of an identification, here, geographical rather than historical, to create a
sense of identity for the Republic as a whole.
Two other chapters, those by Lawrence and De Groof, deal with the
‘creation’ of history from current events as a result of the manipulation
of the public image of prominent individuals. Not surprisingly, given the
circumstances of the time, their chapters are concerned with the creation
of ‘war heroes’. De Groof deals with the development of the public
image of the Southern general Spinola; Lawrence with that of a number
of Northern naval heroes. In both cases we find that history is appropriated
in the creation of this public image: comparisons with past heroes,
use of certain stylistic devices, etc.
Van Dyke’s chapter on Groen van Prinsterer provides another example
of the use of history to develop a political theory or ideology. Groen
interprets the past, and specifically the French Revolution, with the
intention of developing a counter- or anti- revolutionary political philosophy.
His use of history does help to shape Dutch national identity but, like
the revolutionary theorizing of the seventeenth century, it is not uncontested.
It forms the basis of a party rather than a national ideology.
The chapters by Peeters and Nörtemann both consider the use of
history in the context of Belgium/ Flanders. Peeters looks at the attempt
to use literary prizes in Flanders to ‘improve’ the quality of literary output.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Peeters’s chapter is the way in
which aesthetic criteria are annihilated by the socio- political agenda of
those seeking to ‘advance’ Dutch- language literature. Comparisons with
Socialist Realism would doubtless prove interesting.
Nörtemann’s study of the creation of the myth of the battle of the
Golden Spurs is interesting in that it illustrates the attempt to create a
sense of social and political cohesion by using the past to create a collective
memory. At the same time, however, the chapter illustrates that
in the particular circumstances of nineteenth- century Belgium the use
of this event feeds into and becomes part of the political debate within
Belgium about ‘Belgian’ identity and the relationship between the
French- and Dutch- speaking communities.