French Revolution: Thomas Paine “The Rights of Man”

Here we get classical romantic era political theory rhetoric. To sum it up it is overly strong language that emphases free will as well as a need for your fellow man. This is the same era as social contract theory that Locke and Hobbs wrote about. At the time of this piece the Jacobeans were in power in France. This rule by terror was a freighting time in history as it seemed that no one was truly safe. The Jacobeans stood against everything that the French revolution of 1789 was about or the subsequent 1848 rebellion for that matter. Paine though is writing a response to Mr. Burke’s assessment of the French revolution. Paine wants to show that there is a need for reform in France that extended beyond King Louis XVI. There were issues with the church and parliament. In some ways this is a recounting of Paine’s more famous work Common Sense. Here it appears that Paine is now writing for the defense of the French citizen as opposed to the American citizenry. Paine shows his belief of government by the people in his defense of the French revolution. The belief in this lies that Declaration of Independence “that these truths are to be held self evident that all men are created equal.” This doctrine dominated the era. This is what helped strip King George III his power and the English parliament to truly become a force to be reckoned with. It also laid the groundwork for the revolutions that took place all throughout Europe in the mid 1800’s. Paine’s defense of the rights of man is based in equality. This belief fueled the flames of rebellion which lead to the want for a free and equal society.

Robert Browning on “Love Among the Ruins”

I like this piece. It fulfils my historical mind set. The fact that it shows some ways shows the Roman Empire, especially when there is a discussion about aqueducts. There seems to be a gloriousness about the idea of the ancient world. The third stanza really gives this off stating “and such plenty and perfection, see, of grass/ Never was! / Such a carpet as, this summer-time, o’erspreads/ every vestige of the city, guessed alone,/ stock or stone.” There seems to be a want for the older days of life. This is understandable given the time period that this was written. There was a major push to rediscover the world of the old times with Egypt and Persia. At the same time the industrial age produced smog and spoiled the natural beauty of landscape throughout the land. Browning here could be attempting to reattach romantic ideas to the Victorian era. This allows for poets to have a greater sense of freedom in writing. This allows for a reader to also reconnect with the old days. By using ancient times it makes it easier to push across the emotions of the past that are of nostalgia. Often when you hear of the Romans and Egyptians you think of the idea of power and nothing seems impossible. This is a romantic ideal. It embodies the French Revolution that nothing can truly keep a group of people down

John Keats on “Ode to a Nightingale”

I decided to read this poem after T.S. Elliot discussed how to read it. T.S. Elliot suggested that while nothing in this poem actually discusses a nightingale, but the essence of a nightingale is there. Now for that to work one has to know what a nightingale is. I do not know what a nightingale looks like but from the poem I can garner the image. The idea nightingale is a creature that is something that can not be contained and something to revel in. Keats compares it to something that can not be caged but in someway celebrated in life. And yet at the same time it is a sad sight to behold as the nightingale is something that is not often seen. You are reminded that this is an unusual occurrence. In some ways this creates a sense of sadness because you are reminded that the nightingale is a rare sight. The emotion of this poem is rich. It makes you feel like there is a sense of the unknown, happiness, and sadness all at once. For Keats and his purpose on the odes this shows off the paradox that the introduction text discusses about how the odes are phrased. It makes the reader confused and forces them to reread sections in order to fully grasp the idea that is being brought forward. This makes the poem into something more powerful then just a quick read but a literary device that forces people to full appreciate what is around them.

Percy Blysshe Shelly on “Ode to the West Wind”

Upon using T.S. Elliot’s suggestion I decided to look at this piece with the intent of analyzing it for its essence and not to think about Shelly’s other works nor the history associated with the west wind, though I will use a bit of history to start off. Often the west wind is regarded as the most favorable wind. In some Native American tribes when songs start those singing will face west out of respect for what it brings. The other winds are also given names and titles of what they bear yet none is as revered as the west wind. The west wind brings forward change of seasons. Shelly shows this vividly in the first part. The emotion generated by this section is that of death. Even the most subtle text can show death with “Beside and pumice isle in Baiae’s Bay” (600) can show death. This could be an allusion towards Mt. Vesuvius and Pompeii, the famous volcano that buried and preserving the city. But also the emotion that the idea that in an instant everything could be forgotten and no longer seen. Shelly is trying to convey that even though death is coming there is nothing to be afraid of. Shelly reassures us of this by how he ends the poem with “if winter comes, can spring be far behind?” (601). This idea of spring allows for the reader to be assured that even though death comes, life is right behind it. It is a cycle that repeats itself year after year thanks to the west wind. The emotion that Shelly channels here is that change happens even in nature.

T.S. Elliot on “Tradition and the Individual Talent”

Upon reading this work the one thought that kept coming to my mind was “why are we not required read this selection before dealing with literature and poetry?” Here Elliot criticizes traditional ways to criticize and analyze literature. Elliot points out that the most traditional way to approach anything is by relying on what we know. But this takes away from looking at the core of poetry. For Elliot the essence of poetry is the emotion and, more importantly, conviction that the work carries stating “for it is not the ‘greatness,’ the intensity, of the emotions, the components, but the intensity of the artistic process” (1219). This makes analyzing and understanding poetry so much easier at one level. Elliot throws out the traditional notions of looking at past works of a poet in order to achieve some kind of understanding of the new work. Instead, Elliot suggests that we look at each piece for just itself. It is quite counterintuitive as we are taught to look at a whole body of work typically. Often it is hard to fully appreciate a work unless put in context of some other work. It is hard to fully appreciate one of Aristophanes’ plays without reading his other plays and understanding the history at the time. The same can be said for numerous other authors. Yet Elliot rejects this notion with the belief that if a poem is looked at individually one can full appreciate what it is trying to accomplish. Elliot in some ways blames education for making us in the way that we are in looking at poetry. His belief is that education binds the mind in ideals and prevents it from reaching its potential. For a poet to be truly effective there must be a detachment from education and a willingness to try new things. For this to truly work and to be understood one must look at each poem individually as each is trying to capture a different emotion or ideal. This idea, for me at least, makes the most sense. Often it seems that poems do not relate to another piece unless it is explicit. This ideal makes the approach to understanding poetry easier in that you look for the ideal and emotion instead of being caught up in details. For Elliot it appears that details should only be used to get a full idea across to a reader. I believe that this piece helps make the understanding of poetry much easier.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson on “Ulysses”

I have been found of this piece sense the eighth grade when I first read it in conjunction with the Odyssey. At the surface it is the story of our hero returning to a life of adventure. However, it is more than that in which it captures the age’s ideals. At this time emigration was starting to take place and massive waves of people were heading to America in search for a new adventure. Even though their homeland provided what was necessary for them. For this time period idleness is what was preached against. The idea o staying home and living the normal and slow life was not acceptable. Instead one had to seek adventure much like Ulysses. This ideal is displayed by showing Ulysses old exploits at home. But by the end of the poem we get a sense of grandeur almost as if the exploration makes a person more interesting and maybe into a hero. In some ways this is like a modern commercial that makes you into a hero if you buy the new thing. For Tennyson, the hero is on the move, and therefore the average person must also be on the move. The style of this poem conveys this sense of motion as it builds upon itself to the glorious conclusion that Ulysses “…sail beyond the sunset, and the baths/ of the western stars, until I die” (594). For Ulysses will always be restless and wants to explore new ways. This is why he sailed away from the main fleet on the way home and took over ten years to get home. But for Odysseus this is not a problem. While he did long for home it is written here and in Dante’s Inferno that he leaves again to explore the world. It is a common subject for someone to never be satisfied with what they have accomplished. For this poem expresses that. I feel that Tennyson is expressing that idleness is a vice and that one should be in motion and explore what all was going on around your life.

“Vorticist Manifesto Long Live the Vortex”

If find this peace so interesting because it attacks and defends what makes everything, everything. To put it another way it attacks and defends the essence of each nation. The part of this manifesto that truly gets me is “mercenaries were always the best troops” (1093). I distinctly remember reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and the discussion of why princes should never use mercenaries. The main reason is that mercenaries are for hire and therefore do not have loyalty to the land. Yet here there seems to be an opposite effect. Another part of this piece that I find to be interesting is the defense of art. The manifesto makes it out that art is what almost truly defines a nation and by extension England due to much of the original thought originating from there. Because of this there is a sense of elitism that is brought forward from the English over the likes of the French, Latins, and to an extent Americans. This elitism is what drives the first part of the era. Before World War One there was a massive arms race over battle ships due to a history book written by Alfred Mahan. The idea was that for a nation to be powerful it must have a strong navy. This lead to the Washington Arms treaty but the ground work was set over the elitist ideals that would dominate this era. This is why after the Great War there is a rise of fascism and nationalism. In many ways this manifesto captures the ideas of many nations and their belief that they are the true rulers and holders of power throughout the world. I truly like how forward this piece is.

Oscar Wilde from “The Decay of Lying”

I find Wilde’s premises for this play to be a bit off. If I am not mistaken the real reason for Plato’s banishing of poetry from his republic was because it was imitation and therefore dangerous. Plato wanted to teach the youth though the truest forms available. This is why you get the famous allegory of the cave. The idea was to take someone out from being shown shadows of figures, figuratively this would have been the poets, and show the true source of light, that is truth. But the key in that was to make those who had seen the truth go back down in the cave to retrieve more people. The idea for Wilde is presented by a man named Vivian, who hates nature. This gives off the idea that he would not have liked Plato’s respect for the elements and nature as the ultimate goal. Plato’s educational system ridded falsehoods so that the guardians of the city, who were described as being made of gold, could rule most effectively. Yet for Vivian find that poetry and art, what Plato would refer to as imitations, is comforting due to our want to lie. Because of this want humans have a need for lying and therefore poetry is needed. Vivian believes that art can express ideas better then the cold hard facts of the current days writers would show. If by using art and poetry to achieve better results than pure facts, then according to Wilde, art should be used. This play I feel is an attempt to get back to the Romantic style literature. It is quite noticeable that in the Victorian era there is a call for simplicity. The ideals of splurging seem to be at a wayside. Instead the industrial age brought forward streamlining of everything, including art. Perhaps Wilde is a person trying to stick to nature and return to the ways of the romantics.

Sarah Stickney Ellis on “The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits”

I find it interesting how this piece beings. Ellis starts this piece by stating “It is not to be presumed that women possess more power than men” (557) and yet goes on for the rest of the piece to show that all these women in leisure do posses the power over the men. But that this power should only be used in the domestic sphere. Ellis understands that women do really run the house. It echoes John Stuart Mill’s belief that women are only held in these positions due to social norms. For Ellis though this seems to be alright as long as women get to have the last say. In modern times it is often depicted that behind every strong man there is a stronger women. Here is a case that is showing it to be true. Here Ellis is showing how women may truly run the domestic sphere and not seem to lose their all important “Lady” status. The most important thing for women at this time was to hold this status. That ultimate status symbol for women was to be called a “Lady.” Ellis shows that this can be done without giving up any perceived notions that the word lady caries. Typically these high society women would be shown as lazily being thoughtful with as little effort exerted during the day as possible. Yet, for Ellis, there is a certain sense of power that can be derived from this stance. Ellis shows that women truly run the household and to an extent the rest of the world, though they cannot truly dictate everything. Ellis shows a dislike for war and wonders if men will ever stop and if they do would it be too late. Overall Ellis shows that being a Victorian lady was not of something to be degraded about but a mantle to be proud to bear.

John Stuart Mill on “The Subjection of Women”

John Stuart Mill shows us his true beliefs in liberty for the people. Here Mill makes the pitch that women should be treated with the same level of respect and receive the same level of freedom that men do. To support this, Mill shows how slavery was once considered to be quite natural using Aristotle’s Politics as a case where slavery is used. Mill could have also used Plato’s Republic in this regard. When Plato was setting up the ideal society he created a three level classification for the society. The Guardians would be best described as the nobles of the society. The Auxiliary would enforce the Guardians and then there were the rest of the citizens. Mill shows how it was natural to artificially enforce a will upon others. For Mill after the repeal of slavery it was only a simple step to remove the unnecessary bonds of oppression that are imposed upon women. It has been shown that women are fully capable of being writers, and if the belief is held true that the Amazon women did exist, capable of running a country. Mill shows these social norms are artificially created from birth and that man run things and women just accept it. Yet in almost every case this is not held to be true. Often the roles are reversed by the man and women and if that is the case then society should accept it and be willing to make amends

John Stuart Mill from “On Liberty”

Here John Stuart Mill makes some very interesting observations about liberty. The strongest of these comes from chapter 3 when Mill discuses finding ones’ own way in life. It sharply echoes his past of his nervous breakdown and his forced education. Mill strongly believes in the concept of finding your own way in life stating “it is for him to find out what part of the recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstance and character” (518). This one phase captures Mill’s life. Mill regretted not having a proper childhood and being raised the way that he was. He clearly feels that the best way to learn about life is to experience it. Mill clearly yearns for people to express their individuality and not to conform to current society standards. At the time of industrialization it was easy to conform to new standards. In China it sparked off the Boxcar rebellion in an effort to resist industrialization and westernizing of China. However, for most of the world individuality is lost. “… The mind itself is bowed to the yoke… conformity is the first thing though of… they become incapable of any strong wishes or native pleasures” (518). Perhaps this is what Carlyle and Engels were fighting against the conformity of the world. Industrialization brought forward many great inventions and standardizations yet it also destroyed the concept of the individual. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his want for the United States to only become a self sufficient agricultural nation. Jefferson was afraid of this loss of individuality that Mill’s is writing about here. But the issue is that for someone to truly be individual they would stick out from the societal norms. In a city like London that was unacceptable leading to the conditions that were talked about by Carlyle with no one talking to each other on the streets, becoming ever increasingly self contained and not wanting to venture out and explore the parks.

Henry Mayhew from “Watercress Girl”

So I am on a worker conditions kick right now but for me this is what defined the industrial age for every European nation and the United States. Here we have Mayhew giving the perspective of living as a poor worker in the narrative of an eight year old girl. Mayhew does not miss an opportunity to show how responsible this child is in trying to earn money. Like any poor worker at this time they would be forced to work several jobs in order to have basic necessities. Mayhew uses an eight year old girl for several reasons. First, it gives of a sense of innocence. At the age of eight there is no corruption in her mind that an adult would have. Second, it gives a sense of honesty. Compared to a report of conditions, such as Engels, an eight year old girl who has never seen the parks would have nothing to compare her life to and would only tell what was going on. By doing so we get an honest idea of what life is like. There is no tainting of the minds image of what life should be. While we read this we have an idea of that life should be and are appalled over the conditions of the workers. Overall I think this is the best way to show the conditions of the workers. This is probably why Upton Sinclair uses the narrative of a family to show the horrid conditions of the factory worker. There is a brute sense of honesty that is achieved though narration that is hard to obtain though a simple recanting of facts and saying “this is what I saw.” Instead if you show though the eyes of someone else you get a better understanding of what the day in the life of these people may be.

Friedrich Engels from “The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844”

It is funny that Engels is in this anthology of English authors, as he is German, though I am glad because he truly understands the conditions of the factory workers and I did think about his work when I was writing about Carlyle. Here Engels shows the conditions of London in 1844 stating “Everywhere one finds on the one hand the most barbarous indifference and selfish egotism and on the other the most distressing scenes of misery and poverty” (502). This echo’s Carlyle’s themes about how industry has produced a new class of people who are self centered. Engels work centers on this conflict of self interest and not looking out for their fellow man. Engels points out that in England one can walk through the city and never have a pleasant encounter as everyone tends to keep to themselves, something that is still very true today in England. Here he focuses on the struggle between classes. For those who are not aware of Engels and Marx’s theory of history is can be summed up by class warfare. Essentially there will be an upper class; Marx would dub the bourgeoisie, and the lower class, the proletariat. There would be a war between these classes which would bring the classes together, then over time they would separate again only to come back together. Communism was the answer for this problem. For Engels and his exploration of London at the time of 1844 shows a dreary place to live in if you live in poverty. It shows how awful the average conditions of the workers where. Through careful reading of this text you can get an idea of what industrial age writers did not like about the new conditions of labor that are brought forth by industrialization. I wonder what Engels would have written had this been 1851 with the opening of the Crystal Palace in London. I tend to think that he would find a dichotomy of what is shown in the Crystal Palace and what the conditions truly were outside of it. It is clear from Engels writing that farm life would be preferential to living in this climate in London.

Thomas Carlyle from “Labour [Know Thy Self]”

Here we get a great view into Carlyle’s views on what is the purpose of labor. Carlyle writes “blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness. He has a work, a life purpose, he has found it and he will follow it” (482). It is quite clear that Carlyle believes that people should always strive to be working on some goal. There is an old saying that old people die soon after they retire because they have nothing else to truly live for. For Carlyle this is particularly true. He clearly believes that the truest form of blessedness is to find one’s life calling and to go forth and work on it because “idleness alone is there perpetual despair” (481). If it was not for Carlyle’s harsh words about labor conditions it would almost be easy to assume that Carlyle was supportive of the work environment that factories provided as this would give people work and therefore a life purpose and not have these people live in idleness. This idea of finding work goes along with the idea of industrialization in which h everything was in motion. At this time railroads started to really take off, if I am not mistaken there would be the famous Manchester to Liverpool connection around this time period, as well as several other countries started to industrialize. Everything was in motion and everyone was expected to have a job. No longer was it truly acceptable to just live out your days lazily on a farm. Now everyone moved to the city to find their calling for a job. It is this environment that produced the need for a lack of idleness. It is also this time period that the go west ideal was hitting America and the 49ers were taking off. No longer were people satisfied with their old ways and Carlyle hits upon this issue with the belief that people should go look for their life calling and not to be satisfied with just what they are doing at the time.

Thomas Carlyle “from Past and Present: Midas”

I found the comparison of Midas to England at the beginning of the industrial age to be most appropriate. As with the greed that comes with the age of industrialization there is internal turmoil. Carlyle points out that “England is full of wealth… supply of human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition” (477). Midas is appropriate as the story goes a king wished that everything he touched would be turned to gold but quickly realized that this also meant that he could not eat or even hold is love ones as everything he touched would turn into gold. With England and the limitless potential that the industrial age brought there was the thought that the average laborer could not fully experience the benefit that new material wealth brought. This idea of inequality was looked at quite often during this time period and would continue leading up to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle that truly showed the horrid conditions of factory life. Here though Carlyle is focusing on the poor houses of England at the time. Carlyle open wonders why with this sudden explosion of funds that the average person has to live in such low conditions. This speculation is well warranted as the average person at the time was leaving the country side to move to the city to work in a factory setting. In this setting the factory would provide everything that was needed, such as pay and food, but at the cost that if you get the slightest bit sick or injured you would be fired. The major theme that Carlyle is trying to get at is England’s pursuit of wealth will be its undoing. This is dangerous for the average person as they are caught up by what the leaders of the country feel are best. Yet these leaders are in plush conditions and were never even close to experiencing what the average factory worker had to deal with. It is this environment that lead to Karl Marx and Fredrick Ingles to preach about communism as a way to stop this stratification of society and to hopefully stop any form of poverty. But like Midas, England will not realize its own mistake and undoing till it is too late and England gets what it wants and like Midas ended up cursed.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

As someone who takes interest into superstition over time I have found that athletes and sailors as the most superstition. With that in mind I found it odd that a knowledgeable mariner would even think about killing a good omen. Sailors believe in omens. Whether it be dolphins swimming with the boat, another sign of good luck, or red sky in the morning take warning, red skies in the morning would lead to bad weather at night sailors take great pride in maintain their beliefs in these traditions. So then why would a man who has sailed for some time kill an albatross? The albatross brings good fortune to sailors and to kill it would be, and for the poem, disastrous. But in a more metaphorical way it shows a relationship to God. By killing the albatross the mariner turns his back to God and receives punishment by the misfortunes of his sailing eventually seeing all the members of his crew die. This horrific episode stops when the mariner prays for forgiveness. After this he is able to sail for a short bit but once again ends up with the misfortune of losing his boat and the crew to the deep. He is later deemed to be a devil and required to walk the land telling his tale. This is similar to Cane after he kills able and receives a mark that would distinguish him from the rest of mankind for the rest of his life. The mariner would never had to deal with all the death and destruction that he saw had he kept his faith in God and not turned his back. This is a cautionary tale of the power of God

Percy Bysshe Shelly “Ozymandias”

I have always been found of this poem after being required to memorize it when I was in eighth grade. It was not until during last week’s chat session that I came to realize that it was a warning to the King of England, George III. At the time of the poem it was at the end of George’s reign and with that in mind the poem makes incredible sense. As with Ozymandias, King George III, was at the height of his power, the most powerful man alive. Yet over time his reign could be only remembered by a couple of legs and a shattered image of his face. At the height of George’s rule he ruled over twenty percent of the world. Like Ramses II who ruled one of the most powerful empires of all time yet there is little to remember him by other than his claim of “look at my works ye mighty and despair.” But this claim is made in the middle of the desert. Nothing could be more analogous of this King’s current rule. In a few thousand years all the work that has been placed into this land would be all for nothing as nothing exist. The bitterness of Ramses could also come from the loss of some part of his empire of power. If the belief that the twelve tribes of Israel left Egypt during Ramses time then that would have been a clear black mark and left him with a “sneer of cold command.” George III oversaw the Thirteen Colonies become a nation that defeated him twice in forty years, the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. These left a black mark on his reign of England. There is a story that whenever the Romans built a arch celebrating a great general that while he was riding through the parade in his honor there would always be a slave whispering in his ear that his accomplishments could be all for nothing over time. Perhaps Shelly is subtly trying to tell George III the same thing.

William Wordsworth “I griev’d for Buonaparte”

I found this poem of Wordsworth to be most interesting. Wordsworth’s take on Buonaparte’s claim to power as an attempt to gain knowledge is interesting. Wordsworth is critical at the idea of Napoleon’s assumption of a position of power for life. I wonder how Wordsworth reacted with the exiling, return to power, and eventual death. From this poem it stands out to me the Wordsworth feels that Buonaparte’s quest for power will lead him unable to achieve what he really wants, knowledge. Buonaparte is the same man who led a French army in Egypt and while there, when not fighting the Egyptians, did things like the finding of the Rosetta Stone. This is where I think Wordsworth gets the idea that Napoleon’s assumption of power was to continue his quest for knowledge. I find it interesting that Wordsworth describes wisdom as a woman who has children around her. Does this mean that women have an innate knowledge of wisdom or is this going to the creation of deities like lady liberty. Personally I feel that it goes to the latter. I feel that the description of a idea is best implanted in a deity type of figure.

William Blake "the marriage of hevan and hell"

William Blake
The attempt of discussing heaven and hell, and religion in general has occupied the minds of almost every artist and writer of time. The most influential of these writers for Blake’s time is Milton’s Devine Comedy. Blake responds with "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" in his attempt to understand God and his dichotomy of heaven and hell. One of the most interesting statements made by Blake is “that God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell Plate 4). Typically it is shown that it is the Devil who is responsible for the forcing of someone from the straight and narrow path that Milton would write about. Instead Blake attempts to see this idea from another angle that perhaps the action of going after the ideal of making it to heaven that God might tempt you with things to push you away from him. Blake shows through the Devil that by using Milton that reason is truly not the highest capacity to experience God. This goes against not only Milton but also against almost any major philosopher in their ideal life which typically ends with reason. The belief that reason is the highest form of thought in known existence allows for reason to be used as the main way to receive Gods warmth. Blake then goes against the holy trinity. While stopping short of what Nietzsche would famously state in Thus Spoke Zarathustra “God is dead” Blake shows that these torments that God has placed humans through shows a sense of testing. By reasoning it would be easy to see that God could not exist in three forms especially the Holy Spirit. Yet in questioning this you question the very existence of God. In doing so you question your beliefs in religion in general. Now the old famous philosophers would eat this up stating that this is the beauty of religion. By questioning the existence of a divine deity we can chose if we want to follow God. How great is it to question the foundation of a belief then by using the highest reasoning tool that is holy to question the fabric of the religion itself. Why would God create an environment that allowed for the questioning on his being as well as provide other areas of resistance along the way to heaven? Perhaps the questioning of our own existence and how we got here allows for a deeper understanding of the ideals of the time. This poem The Marriage of Heaven and Hell would be a great supplement to the reading of Devine Comedy and exploring how both authors attempt to see how God truly acts in the conducting of the world as a whole.

French Revolution

French Revolution and Romanism.

A few things struck me about these readings most notably the reference to aristocracy and then also how the Burke describes his view on social contracts, something that I am interested in as I have read Locke, Hobbs, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Tocqueville various interpretations of social contract theory.

Upon my reading about the French revolution the one thing that kept sticking out to me was the continued reminding of the former tyrannical government. Helen Maria Williams describes “the eldest prince, Mon. de Chartes… his attentive politeness formed a striking contest in my mind, to the manners of those fashionable gentlemen in a certain great metropolis, who considers apathy and negligence as the test of good-breeding” (40). Clearly an attack on the current first estate of the French aristocracy in how they would typically were everything this prince was not. Williams would also discuss how the aristocracy should not be in the position of power based solely on heredity and that they should not receive any more rights than that of her fellow man. This is a clear statement that the theories of John Locke, David Hume, Jean Jacque Rousseau, and Montesquieu on social contract and that humans have an undeniable equality about them requires that there be one class of citizens. The French Revolution came on the heels of the Declaration of Independence which for the modern context famously wrote that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were all natural rights; however, the document is a list of grievances against King George III of England. The document helped cement the ideal in the minds of the citizenry that just because they were not born to nobility that they still could push back much like the nobles did in England in 1215, which lead to the Magna Carta. This document in 1215 lead to the equalization of power between the nobility and the King, It was this document that lead to the need for the any king to satisfy his nobility as the document essentially allowed for the open revolt against a king. However at this time there was not real movement among the commoners to become equal citizens until the advent of social contract theory. This would help spurn several revolutions, most notably the French and American revolutions.

However the authors of the time authors felt that the French revolution stood for something nobler. With the creation of the deity Liberty and famous picture of Lady Liberty leading the masses while holding the French Tri-Color flag against the tyranny of the current regime of aristocrats held a higher ideal of Romanticism. By creating a new government there is a “new partnership” as Edmund Burke writes on “The contract of Society.” Here Burke describes likens a new government to “a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection” (56). The partnership is not just a simple social contract like what a Locke or a Hobbs’ inspired theorist would think. But an ever evolving set or partnerships and principles that would define any human relationship and for this reason is why the romantics of the era take such a deep interest in the French revolution.