Comparative Review

Introduction

This review compares Johan de Witt's historical Deductie (1654) with the dramatized speech attributed to him in the film "Michiel de Ruyter." The original Deductie was a formal political document written to justify the controversial Act of Seclusion, which excluded the Prince of Orange from holding office as stadtholder or admiral. The movie speech, while drawing on similar themes, represents a creative interpretation designed for dramatic effect and modern audiences.

The Historical Deductie: Context and Content

Johan de Witt's original Deductie was presented to the States-General in August 1654 during a period of significant political tension. As Grand Pensionary of Holland, de Witt needed to defend Holland's unilateral decision to agree to the Act of Seclusion as part of the peace treaty with England following the First Anglo-Dutch War.

The document is structured as a systematic legal and political argument divided into two main parts:

• The first part addresses legal and constitutional questions, arguing that Holland had the right to adopt the Act of Seclusion without violating the Union of Utrecht
• The second part presents philosophical arguments about republican governance, arguing against hereditary claims to power

Key arguments from the original Deductie include:

• "In een vrije Republiek heeft niemand door geboorte enig recht tot hoge ambten" (In a free Republic, no one has any right to high office by birth)
• The Act of Seclusie does not violate the Union of Utrecht
• Holland's actions were necessary to secure peace with England
• Hereditary power tends toward corruption and is contrary to "True Freedom"

The tone is formal, legalistic, and defensive, responding directly to criticisms from other provinces, particularly Zeeland, Friesland, and Groningen.

The Movie Speech: Dramatic Interpretation

The speech from "Michiel de Ruyter" transforms the formal political document into an emotional appeal focused on Dutch identity, freedom, and republican values. It begins with a personal narrative about de Witt's father's imprisonment and builds to a passionate defense of Dutch republican principles.

The speech is organized around several key themes:

• Freedom of speech and thought
• Dutch commercial prowess and cooperation
• Republican governance and personal liberty
• Religious freedom
• National unity transcending political divisions
• Shared historical struggle and identity
• Willingness to defend freedom

The tone is inspirational, patriotic, and unifying, using rhetorical questions, inclusive language, and emotional appeals to persuade the audience.

Key Similarities

1. Republican Principles: Both texts advocate for republican governance and oppose absolute power. The original argues against hereditary claims to office, while the movie speech states "Where no leader is more important than the country itself."
2. Value of Freedom: Both emphasize Dutch freedom as a core value worth defending. The original defends actions taken to preserve "dearly fought freedom," while the movie speech repeatedly references freedom as fundamental to Dutch identity.
3. Historical Struggle: Both acknowledge the sacrifices made to establish Dutch independence. The original mentions the "magnificent foundations of this free state," while the movie speech refers to a country "conquered on the water" and paid for with "our own blood."
4. Importance of Trade: Both recognize commerce as central to Dutch prosperity, though the movie places greater emphasis on this aspect.

Significant Differences

Aspect	Original Deductie	Movie Speech
Structure and Format	Formal, systematic legal document with numbered chapters	Emotional speech with rhetorical flourishes and narrative elements
Primary Focus	Specific justification of the Act of Seclusion	Broader appeal to Dutch identity and values
Treatment of the House of Orange	Explicitly argues for excluding the Prince of Orange from office	Avoids direct criticism of the House of Orange, focusing instead on unity beyond political factions
Personal Elements	Written in the collective voice of the States of Holland	Includes personal narrative and ends with an individual pledge
Provincial Relations	Addresses tensions between Holland and other provinces	Emphasizes unity among the seven provinces

Cinematic Adaptation: Artistic Choices

The filmmakers made several creative choices in adapting de Witt's political philosophy for the screen:

1. Accessibility: Complex 17th-century legal arguments are transformed into relatable values and principles.
2. Emotional Impact: Personal narrative and rhetorical techniques create a more emotionally resonant moment.
3. Character Development: The speech reveals de Witt's motivations and principles, developing him as a character.
4. Narrative Function: The speech likely serves to establish de Witt's political position at a crucial moment in the film's plot.
5. Modern Relevance: Themes of freedom, tolerance, and unity are presented in ways that resonate with contemporary audiences.

Historical Accuracy Assessment

The movie speech should not be viewed as an attempt to recreate the historical Deductie, but rather as an artistic interpretation that captures the spirit of de Witt's republican principles while taking significant liberties with format and content.

While the speech includes authentic elements of de Witt's political philosophy (opposition to hereditary power, commitment to republican governance, defense of Dutch freedom), it transforms these ideas into a more accessible and dramatically effective form.

The speech also simplifies the complex political landscape of the Dutch Republic. The historical Deductie was somewhat divisive, defending Holland's actions against criticism from other provinces, while the movie speech presents de Witt as a unifying figure transcending factional politics.

Conclusion

The comparison between Johan de Witt's original Deductie and the speech in "Michiel de Ruyter" illustrates the tension between historical accuracy and dramatic effectiveness in historical films. While the movie speech takes significant creative liberties with the historical document, it successfully captures the essence of Dutch republican values during the Golden Age and presents them in a form accessible to modern audiences.

The speech serves as an effective dramatic device that distills complex political philosophy into core values and principles, even as it simplifies the historical complexity of the period. It transforms a formal legal document into a stirring expression of Dutch identity and republican ideals that resonates beyond its specific historical context.

This adaptation exemplifies how historical films often prioritize emotional truth and thematic resonance over strict factual accuracy, using creative interpretation to make historical figures and ideas accessible and meaningful to contemporary viewers.