The French Revolution, which took place at the end of the 18th century, was perhaps the most significant revolution in history to date. Not only did it have an enormous impact on politics and social order within France but also across the European continent which was, at that period in history, the fulcrum of civilisation and modernity. A bitter dispute ensued about the French principles of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’. This essay intends to focus on the impact that the Revolution had on Britain at that time and we will reflect on the influence that literary writings had upon shaping Britain’s views of the revolution and its espoused ideals, and in turn the consequences that they would have on British society into the 19th century.
Leading up to the beginning of the French Revolution political and social unrest was spreading in Britain. The country was divided on one argument: the rights of man. On one side of the argument were the radicals who strongly supported a new form of government, that of elective democracy. This group were countered by the loyalists who adamantly opposed such drastic changes and remained allegiant to the church and the monarchy. Loyalists vehemently opposed what they saw as the threat against traditional British values. The radicals were part of a post-enlightenment movement that believed citizenship and its right derived from natural human rights such as that of all men being allowed to take part in politic regardless of their status or background. This growing divide amongst British people at that time would be deepened by several events, the revolutionary events in that were about to take place across the English Channel, and the growth in the number of critical essayists, polemists and novelists following the publication of the hugely influential Rights of Man, written by Thomas Paine.
Whilst Rights of Man was unquestionably the most controversial and divisive text at that time, there were several other significant writers and essayists that heavily contributed to spurring the political debate in Britain, and two of whom wrote in almost direct vocal opposition to each other; Helen Maria Williams and Edmund Burke. Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and Williams’ Letters Written in France, In the Summer of 1790 offered vastly different perspectives on the events that were unfolding in France and it is worth studying just how both writers managed to portray the same events in such different lights. A thorough analyse of both texts allows us to draw our own conclusions about the revolution and also about British attitudes towards society, class and politics at that time. It is also worth noting the the historical relationship between Britain and France had been a fractious one for many centuries previous, and also that Britain had its own civil war in the 17th century from which an intellectual revolution surfaced, very different to the violent eruptions that were to take place in France. Due to that distant relationship which Britain had with France, thinkers, essayists and commentators were able to form a more considered critique of the Revolution.
Up until the time of the publication of Reflections on The Revolution in France, Edmund Burke had been both a parliamentarian and political writer who had delivered many great speeches and written notable essays on the politics of the British Empire and particularly its relationship with America. Therefore prior to the release of Reflections Burke had a significant voice within the British political sphere. It was this prominence in Britain that would provide Burke with the platform from which to launch the publication of Reflections and cast a significant argument against the revolution that would strengthen the already conservative beliefs of the Loyalists. Despite the division that was created there was an overall sense that Britain initially viewed the revolution as being beneficial to them as it suggested the weakening of their great enemy France. Nonetheless the division was great and sparked countless debates, amongst higher social classes in particular.
The source of Relfections on The Revolution in France came from Edmund Burke writing in response to a French aristocrat who had asked him to write to him with Burke’s views on the Revolution, to which Burke replied with two letters, the latter of which would become Reflections. They have also been interpreted as a response to two speeches given by Joseph Priestly and Richard Price, both of whom were advocates of the Revolution’s ideals. What is immediately evident in Burke’s letter is just how shocked he was by what was taking place in France, even though the great violence of the Revolution would occur years after that.
All circumstances taken together, the French revolution is the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world. The most wonderful things are brought about, in many instances by means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most ridiculous modes, and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled together with all sorts of follies. In viewing this monstrous tragicomic scene, the most opposite passions necessarily succeed and sometimes mix with each other in the mind: alternate contempt and indignation, alternate laughter and tears, alternate scorn and horror.
Burke, being a traditionalist, stated that the road the Revolution was pursuing would lead to ruin and that France had to return to its former state, that of the ancien regime for all order and propriety to be restored. As was eluded to earlier Burke was fundamentally a loyalist and in declaring his support for the old regime and aristocracy of France he was in fact stating his position on how Britain should be run. That is not to say that Burke opposed change, when in fact he believed in natural change in order following on from learning from and implementing past structures.
Burke’s next step in Reflections is to seek to dispel any comparison between the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of Britain, one which was more seen as an intellectual revolution, and the ‘monstrous’ events of the French Revolution. Richard Price believed that The English Revolution had not finished and that further social and parliamentary reform was needed. Edmund Burke condemned Price’s interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, declaring Price’s position to be “most unfounded, dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional. Regardless of that conflict between commentators what the Glorious Revolution did establish was the Commonwealth and following that, a restoration of the monarchy. Countering that British model with the new model of revolutionary France Burke argued that democracies created anarchy which makes tyranny possible. He believed that the French Revolution would only result in growing violence and that a democracy would almost certainly be succeeded by the rise to power of a despot or dictator by means of military force. Democracy, to him, was a weak form of government; “Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.” What Burke is doing here is presenting a vision of the future that stems from violent revolution and belief in democratic principles, and when this was read in Britain at that time it stoked fear and apprehension among social classes, especially the British equivalents to the French aristocracy;
“THESE GENTLEMEN OF THE OLD JEWRY, in all their reasonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before and the late French revolution, so much before their eyes and in their hearts that they are constantly confounding all the three together.”
Throughout Reflections Burke laments on the glory days of not only France, but much of Western Europe had been when he claims that the age of “sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.” The past glory constrasted with the fear of present dangers is a device that Burke uses effectively to exaggerate the dangers of reform, revolution and political change. He also reminds the reader that the threat of revolutionary violence and unrest is very much a danger within Britain and that the British are not to be led by reactionary acts across the Channel:
“Whenever our neighbours house is on fire, it cannot be amiss for the engines to play a little on our own. Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident security.” (9)
The significance of Burke’s Reflections as a prominent text which attacks the destructive elements of the revolution must not be underestimated. Indeed Thomas Erskine, a famous defence lawyer in Britain during that period later asserted that prior to Burke’s text nobody had even considered such a revolution in England. Edmund Burke, by appealing to the part of British society that revered the monarchy and traditional British values managed to create a sense of unease towards the French Revolution. That heralding of Britain’s foundations is contrasted with the assault on property, civil life and social order that was happening in France.
Once published Reflections on the Revolution in France was widely read though not widely approved by all. As the French revolution became increasingly radical and the acts of terror commenced Burke saw his position gain further support in Britain. Yet naturally there were those in opposition to Burke and the 1790’s several prominent writers came to the fore with texts supporting the ideals of the French Revolution. Among them were Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and Helen Maria Williams.
Whilst Thomas Paine and his ‘Rights of Man’ remained the most well-known response to Edmund Burke’s Reflections, Helen Maria Williams manages to do two things with her text, Letters Written in France, In The Summer of 1790; vividly offer an account of the early events in the Revolution whilst at the same time put forward an argument in support of the French revolutionary principles: those of fraternity, liberty and equality. Written in the same epistolary style as Burke’s Reflections, Letters offered a first person insight into what was unfolding in France. As it acts as an eyewitness account of the early period of the French Revolution it offers a unique perspective on just how overwhelming the effects of the revolution were.
Helen Maria Williams came from a distinguished background and had made a name for herself as a poet before writing Letters Written in France, In The Summer of 1790. By the time of its publication in 1790 Williams had formed friendships with French people and had spent time visiting France, where she would later relocate and publish additional volumes to her Letters. Despite being an outsider in France Williams makes her feelings towards the country known to the reader; “My love for the French revolution is the natural result of…sympathy and therefore, my political creed is entirely an affair of the heart.”
Helen Maria Williams begins her account of the French revolution with an enthusiastic description of the “most sublime spectacle” of processions and events of the 1790 Fete, an anniversary celebration of the storming of the Bastille and the establishment of the constitutional monarchy. In these opening passages Williams is presenting an image of a celebratory France which has been imbued with hope and optimism. She is clearly invoking such images in an attempt to impress and overwhelm the readers back in Britain so as to leave them wondering if this new France might have more to offer. She remarks that she will “never forget the sensations of that day.” Favret notes in her essay on Williams that the author is “playing to the theaters of our imagination” by depicting an emotional response to the scenes. What Williams does so effectively is involve the reader in every scene, insisting that we participate in the spectacle of post-revolution France. As Letters proceeds Williams tends to bring national events down to a personal level as she introduces the reader to the story of the du Fossés. The persecution of the two lovers, Monique Coquerel and Augustin du Fossé, who were in fact real-life characters with whom Williams formed a friendship, act as a symbol of the abuses associated with the ancién regime. Indeed throughout Letters Williams alludes to how oppressive the authoritarian ancién regime was and how much better life had become since the revolution and in doing so directly opposes Edmund Burke’s argument in favour of the tradition of the past. What Letters Written in France does so successfully is narrate the progression of France from what Williams saw as its tyrannical past to liberty as an aesthetic movement. According to Williams the new France had become a land “dressed in additional beauty beneath the genial smile of Liberty” (p.217).
As a supporter of the revolution Williams could not ignore the significant influence that Edmund Burke was gaining in Britain at that time. Burke was becoming increasingly influential both in public and parliamentary life with regard the sentiment towards the French Revolution. Letters Written in France can therefore be viewed as a being written with Burke’s critique of the French Revolution in mind. Whilst Burke sought to break apart the myth of the revolution with Reflections, Williams felt the need to rebuke Burke’s claims with a specific response. Though it is worth bearing in mind that Williams was not solely writing in response to Burke alone, given that many of the anti-French perception that she was aiming to dispel had been current in the British press before Burke published his anti-Revolution, anti-dissent texts. Nonetheless there are specific presentations in Letters that can be viewed as attacks on Burke’s anti-revolutionary stance. Williams praises the revolution’s promotion of religious tolerance whereas Burke was quick to condemn the Revolution’s ecclesiastical policy;
“Surely religious worship was never performed more truly in the spirit of the Divine Author of
Christianity, whose great precept is that of universal love! Surely the incense of praise was never more likely to ascend to Heaven, than when the Catholics and Protestants of
Negre-Pelisse offered it together!”
This state-supported event of two opposing religious factions would have made a huge impression on British readers who themselves had been battling religious intolerance for a long time. Williams here highlights one of the resulting benefits of the revolution, the open tolerance of religions. Williams also opposes Burke’s representation of French émigré priests as lost souls who were left to wander Europe in search of new lives. Williams points out that there were a significant portion of the ecclesiastical institutions, such as the bishop of Sens who supported the French Revolution.
These two responses along with a number of other references where she appears to be responding to Burke, without strictly saying so are important and with them Williams puts together an exhaustive theoretical response to Burke’s Reflections. In both texts the authors are appealing to the heart but differ when it comes to the question of authority regarding human emotion. For Burke the legitimacy of emotion is hierarchical whilst Williams believes that it’s much more democratic.