Critical analysis of Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer’s Christian-historical principle, with a comparative critical analysis of his argument of ‘history’ with that of Edmund Burke’s as used in their critique of the French revolution

Thesis

This thesis provides an analytical interpretation of the critique Dutch nineteenth-century statesman-cum-historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) articulated of French revolutionary ideology. It achieves an original reading of Groen’s thought as Protestant right-order theory. This reading achieves a clarification of the functions that Scripture, 'nature', and ‘history’ have in his thought, and connects his thinking to that of a small group of contemporary British-based political theologians, notably Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, and their minority view on the ontological grounding of justice. Our comparison of Groen's argument of 'history' with that of Edmund Burke achieves original critical leverage on their concepts of 'history', and draws out that Burke's critique of the Revolution purposes to re-affirm English common law, while Groen’s is an apologia for Christianity.

Authors: Noteboom, EJ

• Type of award: DPhil
• Level of award: Doctoral
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: 'history' as polemical argument; anti-revolutionary principle; political theory; Belgian Revolt; Christian-historical principle; political theology; anthropocentric constitutional theory; unwritten constitution; right-order theory; theocentric constitutional theory; divine right of government; sphere sovereignty
• Subjects: Critique French Revolutionary Ideology; Edmund Burke; Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer