| |
|
The powerful influence of the French Revolution can be traced in the
reactions of those who witnessed the event firsthand and in the strong
emotions it has aroused ever since. For some, the French Revolution was
a beacon of light that gave a world dominated by aristocratic privilege
and monarchical tyranny a hope of freedom. Nineteenth-century revolutionaries
and nationalists frequently harkened back to the days of 1789, sometimes
even taking up the names, terms, colors, and rituals of the original French
Revolution. Twentieth-century revolutionaries looked to 1789 as a kind
of template for revolutionary events. If Robespierre could come on the
heels of Lafayette and he, in turn, could give way to Napoleon, then might
modern revolutions inevitably follow a similar scripted path, toward authoritarianism?
Did revolutions always begin with hope and enthusiasm only to turn violently
radical and then permit an authoritarian, even dictatorial figure, to
seize power? Were revolutions like some sort of political fever, with
distinct symptoms? Scholars and political activists continue to argue
these questions. Yet no matter what their interpretation, the lessons
and impact of the Revolution continue to be at the heart of several different
historical and contemporary political debates.
Part I: Contemporary Reactions to the French Revolution
The events of the French Revolution alternately energized and repulsed
contemporaries. Many experienced what English poet William Wordsworth
immortalized in his poem French Revolution As It Appears to Enthusiasts
(1804; also in Prelude): "Bliss was it in that dawn to be
alive/ But to be young was very heaven!" The French overthrow of
the old regime and all it stood for was celebrated and commemorated in
songs, engravings, poems, paintings, and music. Some, like Wordsworth,
even voyaged to France to see events firsthand. Yet from the first months
of the Revolution, others saw a darker side of the unfolding drama. The
first major debate about the French Revolution outside of France was sparked
by a lively polemical tract written by Edmund Burke just months after
the fall of the Bastille. A member of the British Parliament, Burke had
gained a reputation defending the Americans in their revolt against the
British crown. He was much less favorably impressed by the French Revolution,
however. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), he
expressed reservations about the revolutionaries' reliance on reason as
the sole standard of government and predicted, quite presciently it turned
out, that the French would eventually turn to violence to enforce their
decisions. Burke went beyond criticizing the French revolutionaries; he
offered the first systematic defense of "conservative" principles,
arguing that gradual change and a kind of organic continuity in society
stretching across the generations were preferable to violent, rapid upheavals
in the structure of government. From its very beginning then, the French
Revolution stimulated profound political controversy and equally profound
rethinking of the nature of government itself. Because the revolutionaries
aimed to rebuild government from the foundation upward, substituting reason
for tradition and equal rights for privilege, they inevitably provoked
wide-ranging reactions.
Burke's attack set off a firestorm of protest within Great Britain. His
passing reference to the lower classes as "the swinish multitude"
got him swift responses, with titles such as "Hog's Wash" and
"Pig's Meat" and an "Address to the Hon. Edmund Burke from
the Swinish Multitude." The most effective response was that of Thomas
Paine, the English author of the famous defense of the American cause,
Common Sense (1776). Paine's Rights of Man: Being an Answer
to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution (1791 and 1792) laid
out a cogent defense of the use of reason in remaking the forms of government.
Paine insisted that good government depended on establishing a constitution
that guaranteed the natural rights of all men. In his view, Great Britain
did not have a constitution; it had only a long history of fraudulent
monarchical and aristocratic claims guaranteed by force. By 1793 Paine's
attack on the English social and political establishment had sold some
200,000 copies, more than any other political polemic in English history.
Paine's prestige became so great that he was elected to the National Convention
despite the fact that he did not speak French.
|
|
|