The French Revolution has come to mean many things to many
forms of discourse including socialism.
The multiplicity of interpretations attests to the fact that the Revolution
was more powerful as a symbol
than as an actual historic event. It marked a point in history that
separated the past and future conveniently
for historians and students of culture. It coincides with the scientific
movement which also contributes to its
sense of modernity. But it was more promise than a reality. What the
revolutionaries of the time did was
create a new mythology where man was the supreme being and master of
his destiny. They sought to engrave
this new mythology into everyday life which unfortunately only seemed
to obscure the realities of the situation
they created. Their belief in the “new world” infected English reformers
which rattled a complacent government
into conducting ineffectual witch hunts. The French Revolution’s myth
was the swiftness of its success. The reality
was that change would take centuries. Francois Furet in Interpreting
the French Revolution writes : “It was a
pledge that no event could fully redeem.”(1)
The effect of the French Revolution on British politics
can be defined by the rival opinions expressed by
Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and Thomas Paine’s
The Rights of Man. Burke
came to represent the contemporary power structure of England at the
time; the sacredness of the king , the
constitution and the tradition of his ancesetors.Paine managed to capture
the revolutionary spirit of the common
people.His book unified disparate reform societies and turned them
into an urban force. Before the appearance
of these two works, attempts at reform were little more than vague,
futile attempts flawed by the lack of unification
in the people’s motivations. Burke’s defense of France’s old regime
and consequently his defense of England’s
political policies provoked Paine to write the book that would awaken
a country to the power of its own people.
These works furfilled the need to define factions in England created
by the French revolution. Clearly the
symbolizing power of language in the Romantic period, became the chief
source for educating and manipulating
the masses to action.
Both Burke and Paine affirm that the revolution in France
was more than just a forceful exchange of power: The
fate of humanity was at stake. By attempting to break with traditional
values of authority, the French radicals
created a universality out of their ideals that wasn’t tied to French
culture. By speaking of man rather than of
France, revolutionary language and ideology spread beyond France’s
territorial boundaries. Burke writes,
Lynn Hunt in her book Politics, Culture and Class in
the French Revolution writes: “All political authority
requires what Clifford Geertz calls a “cultural frame” or “ master
fiction” in which to define itself and make its
claims. The legitimacy of political authority depends on its resonance
with global , even cosmic cultural
presuppositions, for political life is “ enfolded” in general conceptions
of how reality is put together. Many
anthropologists and sociologists insist, in addition, that every cultural
frame has a “center” which has sacred
status. The sacred center makes possible a kind of social and political
mapping; it gives members of a society
a sense of place. It is the heart of things, the place where culture,
society, and politics come together.”4
The French monarchy was the sacred center of France. The king stood
between man and God. Tradition had
created a symbol of authority that needed no justifications. Centuries
of rule had made the word “king” a
magical talisman reinforced by religion and ritual. The word resonated
power, even after the man , Louis XVI,
was stripped of that power. The French radicals were intent on
destroying the old world completely in order
to allow a new one to emerge. Their challenge lay in educating the
masses into becoming new citizens. They
had to combat generations of obedience. So in 1793 the king was beheaded
in public.
Burke in the reflections dramatizes these events and then
states: “ On this scheme of things, a king is but a
man; a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal; and an animal
not of the highest order.” Later he
writes: “ On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the
offspring of cold hearts and muddy
understandings, and which is void of solid wisdom, as it is destitute
of all taste and elegance, laws are to be
supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern, by which each
individual may find in them, from his
own private speculation, or can spare to them from his won private
interests. In the groves of their academy,
at the end of every visto, you see nothing but the gallows.”5
Paine’s response in the Rights of Man both defines and
defends the reasons for the king’s execution. It
was a war of principles and ideology. The French weren’t executing
a man but a symbol. Paine writes :
Paine derides Burke’s dramatization of the king’s execution:
“As to the tragic paintings by which Mr.
Burke has outraged his own imagination , and seeks to word upon that
of his readers, they are very well
calculated for theatrical representation, where facts are manufactured
for the sake of show, and
accommodated to produce, through the weakness of sympathy, a weeping
effect.” 7 But what Paine
doesn’t mention is that the same penchant for theatrics served to motivate
and govern political tactics in
France at the time. Politicians spoke like actors trying to appeal
to the imagination of a sometimes indifferent
audience. In Politics, Culture, Class in the French Revolution, Lynn
Hunt observes how the political speeches
of the time revolved around theatrical devices in accordance with various
stages of political development.
First the narrative speeches would reflect comedy genres involving
the relationships between fathers and sons.
Later they took on the form of romance narratives where the hero’s
duty involves slaying the dragon of
oppression. In later stages it took on tragic forms where the hero
is sacrificed to his duty as in this speech by
Robespierre a few weeks before his own end:
Language in this period became an expression of power.
It became a means for generating authority in order
to gain the right to speak for others. It helped shape the perceptions
of interests and ,with the shifting structures
of government being established, words were constantly needed to rename
and redefine policies. The monarchy
had no need for a rhetoric of justification to secure its authority.
The new republic’s symbols needed words to
cement their dimensions. Language became a method of political manipulation
that ,with its complex set of
activities and relationships, created previously unsuspected resources
of power.
France’s appeal to the imagination couldn’t help but inspire
English poets of the time to link the everyday with
a new political slant. Blake and Burns were deeply affected. Wordsworth
and Coleridge proclaimed their attempts
to create a revolutionary new style in poetry, no doubt inspired by
the language of the revolution. In The
French Revolution in English History, P.A Brown writes: “The
call to which they answered must have been
irresistible to the young. It had the wonderful sanction of modernity,
and indeed was an appeal to faith which each
generation adopts, champions, and betrays; that things are possible,
dreams come true; that its day is an exception
to all other days. Of course there was an ardent band of recruits for
the army of perfection. Rarely has such
quality been recruited to any cause.” 8
The amazing talent in England adopted the revolutionary stance toward
their art which helped define and shape the period. The radicals in
France, the Romantic poets and writers all
gave themselves the mission of transforming reality through words.
v The works of Burke and Paine attest to language’s narrative
power to motivate disparate groups to a single
cause. These books were methods of teaching the common man the
devices of political thought and also helped
to politicize everyday life. Burke’s work justified the status quo
while Paine’s work linked the need for political
reform with man’s economic concerns. Suddenly the common man began
to emerge as a political force. The
represented finally had a voice to confront the representatives.
Before the French Revolution political clout in England
belonged to landowners. The common men who depended
on wages for their living were believed to be devoid of will and therefore
of political opinion. Their political rights
belonged to their masters. Even in church men in the higher ranks of
society sat closer to the alter. The bulk of
representation in Parliament was conducted by a borough system that
had its roots in medieval times. Boroughs
were local units of government that had representative seats in Parliament.
The problem was that over time
these boroughs changed their sizes but the number of seats in Parliament
stayed the same. What the early
dissenters or radicals wanted was
v Major John Cartwright was one of the early radicals who served
to connect the pre-war and post-war
reform activities in England. He was a major in the English army who
refused to fight against the American
colonists. He worked to help reform societies correspond with each
other. Another important link between
old and young radicals was Horne Tooke. He was the original link between
societies in London and the
country. He criticized, corrected and helped draft the early addresses
and constitutions of early radicals.
He was a tireless activist in the education of the people. Their
early attempts failed to generate a consistent
force. The French Revolution, however, awakened a sense of possibility
in the reformers and soon societies
began springing up everywhere in England in support of it. The
French monarchy was believed to be one
of the most powerful institutions in Europe. When it was overthrown
by its own people, suddenly anything
was possible.
At a meeting of the London Revolution Society in 1789,
members gathered to celebrate the victory of the
National Assembly in France. There Richard Price delivered a sermon
that combined the aims of French and
English radicals. He chose a psalm that expressed the love of one’s
country and advocated truth, virtue and
liberty defined by three points: "1. The right to liberty of conscience
in religious matters; 2. the right to
resist power when abused; 3. the right to choose our own governors,
to cashier them for misconduct
and to frame a government for ourselves.” He ended the sermon with
“You cannot hold the world in darkness,”
he warned the despots while calling the friends of freedom to see a
new kingdom , “ starting from sleep,
breaking their fetters, and claiming justice from their oppressors.”9
The sermon was conducted in front of many of the leading activists
in England, setting the wheels in motion
for an adoption of the new French Ideal in the attempts at reform in
England. It sparked the creation of a
number of societies dedicated to the political education of men not
adequately represented in the government.
It provoked Burke’s Reflections, which in turn provoked Mary
Wollstonecraft to write The Vindication of the
Rights of Man, and later Paine to write The Rights of Man,
a book that served to forge a collective unity
amidst the disordered communities functioning beyond Parliament’s control.
The language and symbol of
revolution had infiltrated England and suddenly the nation began
showing the contradictions inherent in its system of government.
Paine wrote what people could paraphrase: “He pities the
plumage, but forgets the dying bird.” 10
He was
one of the people and he was openly challenging the political traditions
of the land. This was a war of symbols:
Liberty, Equality, Virtue. It was these words that motivated people
to take back their humanity.
One of the most influential societies that sprang up in England was
the London Corresponding Society
begun on Jan. 25, 1792. Thomas Hardy was the treasurer. The key aspect
of this society was that it only
charged a penny subscription for its membership. The money would be
used to correspond with other societies
and to publish and distribute their literature which mostly was taken
from The Rights of Man. Tooke advised
Hardy, “ If you wish to be powerful, pretend to be powerful.”11
In France the new political structures were trying to maintain
some form of social control. They did this
by manipulating the stubborn, collective need of the people for identification
in symbols. In France dress was a
means of political expression. The wrong hat worn the wrong way could
incite a quarrel. People referred to their
neighbors as “patriots” and some words, belonging to the old regime,
were taboo.They tried to make every aspect
of everyday life political. But the republic met with resistance in
many of their plans. They made scientific laboratories
out of chapels, but the people continued to worship in the old ways.
In many ways the success of Marianne with the
public was in connection to their deep rooted devotion to the catholic
Mary. Cults of Madonna worship existed
everywhere. No event could show the discrepancies between the
popular opinion and the new republic’s ideals
better than at carnival . At carnival men donned masks or put
on women’s clothing and openly challenged the
authorities. This went against the new republic’s desire for transparency
in its citizens. Soon masks were not allowed.
The commissioner of the Executive Directory explained the need for
this decree: “It is under the mask that vengeance audaciously directs its
daggers; it is under the mask that viscous people insult and mistreat with
impunity those they
regard as their enemies;it is under the mask that the thief and crook
find it easy to despoil those whose fortune they
envy; it is under the mask that one gives oneself over to the last
degree of imprudence in those unrestrained games
that bring ruin and desolation to families.” 12
Carnivals traditionally defended the collective identity from ambitious
landowners and bishops. These festivals had died down but suddenly
with the revolution they acquired a new vitality.
They, the people, no doubt saw their new represtitives as manifestations
of the old regime.
The new political strategies had to counter the symbolic
representations of the collective so as not to lose their
heads in the hands of a new problem they didn’t anticipate. Lady Liberty
was discarded for a masculine, Herculean
figure created by Jacques Georges David, that supported Liberty in
its palm. This huge colossus began appearing at
festivals. Soon strong men in loincloths began clubbing dummy kings
into piles of feathers. This new symbol was
nicknamed “the Eater of Kings.”
What David did was create the same symbol of domination
and tyranny as the monarchy.The new establishment
was becoming the old regime it defeated. It was attempting to interpret
the people for them rather then allowing
the people to define themselves. Lady Liberty, the feminine,
had became a dwarf. The original design for the symbol
was a classical figure resembling Michelangelo’s David; but in the
hands of the people it became a violent monster.
Popular representations of the figure have it dressed like a common
worker, rather than a Roman statue. It showed
no lofty intelligence in its eyes. It expressed no ideal but brute
force. The symbols presented to the public after
this incident became more and more abstract.
Attempts were made to have representatives dress differently
from the common people in order to mark the
boundaries between the people and the authority of representation.
This was an attempt to eliminate the amount
of voices shouting for recognition at meetings. The repeated designs
for costumes were ridiculed as clownish by
the people. Again the theatrics of dress was a way of manipulating
the public’s new found freedom. In the beginning
of the revolution all spectators were welcome at the proceedings. In
1795 they sought to limit attendance.
These attempts reveal the contradictions inherent in the
revolutionary ideals. Rousing the poor only served to hide
the aims of the bourgeoisie.. The language masked political continuity.
These contradictions reveal that the revolution
was more symbol than an actual sudden change of reality. It was the
ideal that motivated action. But suddenly the
new battle of symbolic forces was not being waged with an old regime
but with its people. By making the everyday
social rituals political, radicals revealed that it was a culture that
created politics and not the other way around. The
deception and authority of words was necessary to maintain a new and
struggling power structure.
The early reformers in England never intended universal
suffrage. The reforms proposed would benefit the middle
class and not the poor, whose poverty was seen as a moral deficiency.
Burke clearly states the attitude of the
educated classes in England. He expresses horror at the mobs in France
calling them a “swinish multitude.” In
Reflections he writes about representation as follows: “In this
partnership all men have equal rights; but not to
equal things. He that has but five shilling in the partnership, has
as good a right to it, as he that has five hundred
pounds has to his larger proportion.” 13
The book adequately expressed the attitude of the King,
landowners and the powerful families whose money
and influence ran the government. The rise of radical societies conducting
reform plans beyond Parliament’s
control, threatened the security of these privileged upper classes.
The mobs of France had killed their king and
the news was celebrated in taverns. The Gordon riots was still fresh
in everyone’s minds and there were rumors
of a possible invasion of France through Scotland where a number of
radicals were in communication with French correspondents. Soon spies began
to show up at meetings.
The country was suddenly on the alert for conspiracies
of treason against the Crown. Tom Paine was asked to
appear in court for writing , “ hereditary monarchy was tyranny.”14
William Blake supposedly urged him to
leave for Paris. Paine was eventually outlawed for attempting to provoke
massacres, republicanism and possibly
regicide. The Rights of Man was a best seller. Now anyone who
owned the book was considered part of the
conspiracy. Taverns were not allowed to house meetings and the printing
press was censored. Many members of
society were quite content with the status quo and suddenly they began
supporting the search for sedition. The
government was fishing for clues and with spies eager to be paid it
didn’t take long to begin arresting radicals.
Soon hanging juries were established with a cartoonishly evil judge,
Lord Braxfield, who took great pleasure in
incarcerating these men. He would often instruct the jury that “ in
order to constitute the crime of sedition, it is
not necessary that the meeting should have in view to overturn the
Constitution.” If men had created dissatisfaction
in the country, “ it will very naturally end in overt rebellion; and
if it has that tendency, though not in the view of the
parties at the time” that is sedition “ to all intents and purposes”.15
The trials created a tragi-heroic dimension to
the reform movements and a sense of dread in the lower classes. In
a time where symbols and ideals were used
to mobilize issues, the enemy is never clearly realized and so the
search for a conspiracy is a desperate attempt to
find a scapegoat or antichrist to pin the blame on. What this does
however is make men into symbols that become
even more powerful than they really are.
(1)Francois Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, 1981.back
(2)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(3)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(4)Lynn Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution, 1984.back
(5)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(6)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(7)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(8)P.A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History, 1918. back
(9)P.A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History, 1918. back
(10) Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996. back
(11)P.A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History, 1918. back
(12)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(13)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(14)Anne K. Mellor and Richard E. Matlak, British Literature, 1996.back
(15)P.A. Brown, The French Revolution in
English History, 1918. back