Romanticism and The French Revolution

When I first looked at the online handout for the word "romantic" I was surprised by the multitude of definitions I found. I knew the word could be characterized in many ways, but I did not know there would be this many. While the word romantic usually invokes a sense of intense feeling and love, I realize there is a literary definition that is more practical. The Romantic Age seemed to be an era of passion, change, imagination, and idealism. It also seems that it was a time of fear and doubt as new changes were encountered. I was very interested to see how the meaning of the word has developed throughout a period of nearly two hundred years. However, most of the definitions are very similar. One last observation deals with the term "ideal". I did not realize that romanticism also encompassed an ideal or fictitious state, with no fact foundations. This idea excites me and I am eager to read more excerpts from this era.



I must admit that I can be easily confused when reading British literature. However, I found the podcasts very helpful in clearing up questions I had from the readings. First, I thought that Helen Maria Williams was very passionate about the French Revolution. She wrote with such reverence for change. Her description of the procession in Paris was quite captivating as she described the placement of people and structures as well as the joy experienced by the people. "Old men were seen kneeling in the streets blessing God that they had lived to witness that happy moment" (38). Williams shows great excitement for the change that is to come, and she sees that some things are necessary for this to happen, such as the death of Louis XVI. She conveys her sorrow, while at the same time condoning the act of necessity. I especially liked her description of Louis XIV while on the scaffold. His poise may seem shocking, but Williams explains that he merely has both religious faith and hope in his people (42-44). There is a sense of serenity from this passage as opposed to concern that is expressed by one of the other excerpts in this assignment. Williams states that the French Revolution is indeed necessary because ancient systems could not be maintained. Though she may have some anxieties about the change, she is ready to embrace it for the sake of the security of the country (42-43). Helen Williams sees that the future of France may be uncertain, but that principles will remain to aid in the cause (46).

In contrast, Edmund Burke is opposed to the French Revolution, saying that it was the most astonishing thing to happen to the world (47). He is a big proponent of government and tradition and tries to convince the people of England that what is going on in France is wrong and should not be emulated. He supports a family centered government because it is both traditional and natural. Burke states that a government must be symmetrical and structured (49). He does not see the merit in the ideas of the revolutionaries, believing that there is an advantage to doing things in the same manner as our forefathers. He also sees inheritance as natural, where equal rights come from the property one owns. Burke is not in favor of redistributing wealth to benefit a poorer class (50). He believes there should be equal rights for men but all men would not be considered equal. Burke also believes the current steps the French are taking will lead to destruction and in order to improve society, gradual steps must be taken. I think this shows his fear of uncertainty. Gradual change lowers uncertainty and reduces the risks associated with an abrupt upheaval of the government.

Burke's fear is evident in his writings. It seems as though he fears the unknown; he fears change. He is very narrow-minded towards the feelings of French citizens. I have to agree with Mary Wollstonecraft when she doubts his sincerity. It does seem as though he is simply trying to impress readers with his descriptive and inflated syntax. Being a British citizen, Burke cannot fully understand the magnitude or significance of the revolution.

Mary Wollstonecraft also takes a radical view of history in her writings. I appreciated her ability to attack Edmund Burke's imaginative response to the French Revolution. She deliberately points out his "flowery" language, saying "let us...reason together" (57). While Burke visits the history of inheritance and the aristocracy in his writings, Wollstonecraft visits the danger of property in her excerpt. She does not share the ideas Burke suggests when he expresses the equal rights of men to property but not necessarily equal rights of all men.

Thomas Paine continues the attack on Burke, saying that people always have the right to change the government. He states that the government has no right to bond "all posterity for ever" (66). This is in contrast to Burke's idea of inheritance of property and rights. Paine believes that people are free to change aspects of their life that may have been different from their forefathers. Like Williams, he focuses on principles, not people, like Burke does. Paine believes that a fight for governmental change should be for everyone. He discusses how the Republican System embraces an entire nation and how it is a renovation for the country leading to national prosperity and political happiness (70).

I believe I can identify with Paine and Wollstonecraft more than I can Edmund Burke. I think it says something that two notable figures strongly disagreed with the opinions of Burke. I appreciated Paine and Wollstonecraft's ability to express their ideas without trying to use the inflated language that is so characteristic of Burke. I do not agree with the points Burke conveys. He seems to be closed-minded, and I too doubt his sincerity. While I can indentify with his fear of change, I think in cases such as the French Revolution, one would have to be more welcoming of change because of the political issues surrounding the time. I did, however, appreciate the different views of the French Revolution I was exposed to in these readings.