Many of you may have heard of the Jacobins before in other English or history courses. During the French Revolution, Jacobins were members of the Jacobin Club. The Jacobin Club was arguably the most notorious political club during the Revolution largely due to their radical support of the Revolution. The term Jacobin assumed a larger context, eventually applied to anyone in support of revolutionary opinions. The term manifested in English culture upon the creation of George Canning’s newspaper “The Anti-Jacobin.” Much like the French who supported the French Revolution were labeled Jacobins, so were British citizens who shared this sentiment.
In Canning’s poem “New Morality” he writes “Condorcet filter’d through the dregs of Paine, each pert adept disowns a Briton’s part, and plucks the name of England from his heart” (3). Canning specifically mentions Thomas Paine, one of the primary influences of the English Jacobins. He connects Paine with this anti-nationalistic sentiment that embodies the arguments leveled against the Jacobins. Paine’s “Rights of Man” argued that political revolutions are acceptable when a government ceases protecting the individual and natural rights of its citizens.
After reading both Canning’s poem and “Ode to Jacobinism”, how do these texts frame the Jacobins? Are they seen as a threat or just a temporary fad? Also, what do these texts suggest about the political culture in England?
6 comments:
It is evident from these poems that the political environment is one of constant battle that is searching for a new order, or a drastic change. From what I can remember about the history of the this time period in England is that this social storm of ideas was a result of the Industrial Revolution. New technology brought more individuals to Urban areas and government needed a new source of law and order. The Jacobins (as the poem stated) were quite unforgiving and used the guillotine as the most effective weapon to establish order. The issue that the "Ode to Jacobins"seems to address is the loss of nationality to the practice of brutal revolutionaries, who want to establish a new order and better government only by killing the citizens of the nation they want to save.
From the first stanza of “Ode to Jacobinism” it’s rather clear that people didn’t view the Jacobin Club as some sort of radical group that can be handled with kids’ gloves. The existence of the “The Anti-Jacobin” can attest to that. Looking at the poem alone really gives you a feel of the tone throughout England in regards to its politics. The first stanza paints the Jacobin party as disciples from hell. To call them “Destroyer[s] of the human race” is a pretty bold and assertive statement to make against a political group. Just from this stanza alone, you can gather that this group goes beyond their revolutionary agenda into something much darker. It’s as if they’ve adopted this new agenda to eliminate everyone who opposes their ideas as opposed to reforming the present mindset/political agenda. As Dave K mentioned above, they resorted to exceptionally violent tactics in order to “get their way”. This poem seems to reflect how striving for a new political order is only a veil over something else. Whatever it may be, it creates “Fire, rapine, sword, and chains, and ghastly Poverty” which is unhelpful and to the detriment of any revolutionary force/nation.
A threat or a temporary fad? Yes. Considering that George Canning went to the trouble of creating a newspaper, I believe he thought of the Jacobins as a legitimate threat, however, a temporary one. I had to look it up, but the Anti-Jacobin was first published in 1797, 14 years after the end of the American Revolution and just before the start of the French Revolution. Thomas Paine was partly responsible for the American Revolution and the ensuing war, which, by the way, was against England! Therefore, Paine has already proved how persuasive and dangerous he can be. Canning knows this and is trying to beat him at his own game, i.e. print culture.
I think Canning is right to feel apprehensive about revolutionary ideas, as well. I think we all should. Thomas Paine helped to start the American Revolutionary War which caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of British and American soldiers. The impending French Revolution would claim thousands more! Paine was an idealist and believed in democracy – but, one could argue that he was also responsible for thousands of lives. Thomas Paine sort of reminds me a bit of Wikileaks creator Julian Assange. He is an idealist, believes in democracy, spreading knowledge, and either very willing to have these things at the expense of other people’s lives, or incredibly naïve.
In the Rights of Man, it says, “when the tongue or the pen is let loose in a phrenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the subject that becomes exhausted.” I think this is a nice way of summing up the dialogue about Jacobinism and the French Revolution. It was such a heated topic that put men against men and separated people based on their political beliefs. Mr. Burke also comments on a side of the spectrum that I bet numerous people shared with him. The French Revolution must have been a last resort when the governments and the people reached a point-of-no-return, in which neither the people nor the government were happy or willing to compromise for the sake of the country. Thus, a civil war of sorts ensued. Mr. Burke comments on how he perceived the French Revolution at its onset: “There was a time when it was impossible to make [me] believe there would be any Revolution in France. [My] opinion then was that the French had neither spirit to undertake it, nor fortitude to support it; and now that there is one, [I] seek an escape by condemning it.” It is very easy to be unaware of the issues or simply not care and the easiest solution might be to ignore the problem or be resistant to change.
In New Morality, the poem says, “a steady patriot of the world alone, the friend of every country—but his own.” This is how anti-Jacobinists felt that the Jocabinists perceived the government. It is all a matter of loyalty—loyalty to country or loyalty to government. This was such a heated debate and something that affected France at its very core. This poem has many heated lines and imagery of people being damned to hell with “thorns of hatred.” The politics of the Frehcn Revolution quickly became personal and caved in the issues of loyalty, politics, personal affiliation, and God. All of these matters are broght up in New Morality.
The revolutions of the 18th century were serious business, neglecting the rhetorical stalemates we often see today and going straight for the punch. Extreme mob violence was prolific and public executions commonplace. Knowing these conditions, it's almost impossible to read the two poems without presuming an apprehensive and serious tone. I cannot help but infer from "A temporary fad" a tone of nonchalance, and these poems are clearly not addressing the issue in such a way. The "Ode to Jacobinism" clearly depicts the revolutionaries as a menacing threat, using phrases such as, "daughter of hell" and "destroyer of the human race" and other inflammatory remarks. The poem "New Morality" uses a less heated rhetoric and focuses more on accusing particular instigators of revolutionary ideas. But despite it's less contentious tone, it doesn't lack a sense of seriousness and urgency, which I feel would be the case if it were framing these revolutionary ideas as mere fads.
The texts seem to frame Jacobins as violent traitors who have no allegiance with England. You can see this in Canning’s poem when he says “Condorcet, filtered through the dregs of Paine, each pert adept disowns a Briton’s part, And plucks the name of England from his heart” (237). When he says Condorcet he is referring to Marquis de Condorcet who was a French philosopher who held left wing views and was a prominent figure in the French Revolution. Canning is saying that those who follow the same beliefs as Condorcet and Paine do not have love for England. Canning makes it seem that Jacobin views are unjust and that their use of violence is going about achieving their goals in the wrong way. This is seen when he says, “Free by what means? by folly, madness, guilt, by boundless rapines, blood in oceans spilt” (241). These texts show that there was a lot of political turmoil going on in England. It can also be said that the political culture was characterized by social class since the Anti-Jacobins were made up of upperclassmen, whereas the Jacobins fought for the rights of working class people.
Post a Comment