Revolutionary Tourists

In the summer of 1790 William Wordsworth was 20 years old, and half way through a fairly undistinguished Cambridge degree, when he and a friend, Robert Jones, set out to walk across France from Calais to the Alps. It was to be a gap year, an opportunity to postpone the serious business of growing up and settling down. Each of them had just £20 to pay their way, and most of their journey was on foot, walking 12 to 15 miles before breakfast.

The French Revolution had broken out a year before – they reached Calais on 13 July, the eve of the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille – but the revolution was still largely a constitutional affair, and in the countryside they weren’t seriously affected by the political changes going on around them.

More than a year later, Wordsworth went back to France, reaching Paris at the end of November 1791. By this time, the French Revolution had moved on – and so had Wordsworth. He fell in love with a French woman, Annette Vallon, and when she got pregnant in the spring of 1792, followed her south, first to her home in Blois, then to Orleans. While Annette prepared for the shame of an illegitimate birth, Wordsworth went back to Paris.

The events in France were chaotic for any outsider, but Wordsworth got swept up by the revolutionary fervor. He went to meetings of the Jacobin Club, souvenired a piece of the Bastille, and met members of the society ‘Les Amis de la Constitution’. Most liberal Englishmen had great hopes of the original revolution of 1789, which seemed to promise the overthrow of an autocratic ruler and the introduction of a constitutional monarchy, just like in England. His excitement comes through in his famous lines from The Prelude:

Bliss was it in that Dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven.

But by 1792, events had become much more complicated, with violent factional divisions in the cities, and the provinces descending into civil war. There were curious religious aberrations, too, with the revolution attacking the traditional church and introducing a Cult of Reason that was anything but.

Wordsworth was fascinated and appalled by the political upheavals underway there: the September massacres, the proclamation of the Republic, the rise of Robespierre, the Terror.

Eventually repelled by the violence and the threat of war, Wordsworth left for England. His daughter, Anne-Caroline, was born on 15 December 1792 about the time he arrived back in London. Louis XVI was executed 5 weeks later, on 21 January 1793, and Britain declared war on France. Wordsworth recollected the exhilaration of revolution in tranquility, in The Prelude. He settled down, became a famous poet, and gave up his radical politics. Eventually, in 1843 he became Poet Laureate.

Byron in Albanian dress

The Romance: Thomas Phillips, Lord Byron in Albanian dress (1813)

A generation later, the poet Lord Byron wasn’t as lucky as Wordsworth. His thrilling encounter with other people’s revolution – in this case the Greek rising against the Ottoman Empire – led to his death. Brought up on the standard British schoolboy’s diet of classical Greek literature, Byron too probably saw the Greek independence movement in the black and white terms of the outsider. And he also used his travels abroad as an opportunity for sexual adventures – though in his case, his sexual adventures were more transgressive, whether at home or abroad.

In July 1823 Byron sailed to Greece with some companions, a number of servants, 4 horses and 2 dogs, and ‘several splendid uniforms including a fine Homeric helmet’. They got as far as Missolonghi, a marshy coastal area where he fell ill from fever, possibly malaria. He died there in April 1824.

The Reality (if you forget the laurel wreath and the lyre): Joseph Denis Odevaere, Lord Byron on his Death bed (1826)

The Reality (if you forget the laurel wreath and the lyre): Joseph Denis Odevaere, Lord Byron on his Death bed (1826)

At present, in Australia and around the western world, the public is concerned about radicalized young men going abroad to participate in the revolutions and wars that are convulsing the Middle East. It is a serious problem, for the individuals and their families, and for the wider society as well, but it is not new.

Wordsworth and Byron are exceptional, because they were both famous poets, but over the years, certainly since travel and communication have made it possible, many more humble and anonymous young men have been fired by idealism or ideology to go to fight – or to watch – other people’s wars and revolutions.

During the Russian Revolution, revolutionary tourists went to Russia to get involved. John Reed (Ten Days that Shook the World, 1919) is perhaps the most famous; the dancer Isadora Duncan perhaps the most unlikely.

In the 1930s, the Spanish Civil War attracted idealists into an International Brigade. The aristocratic Jessica Mitford and her cousin, Esmond Romilly, ran away to Spain, but so too did the village boy Laurie Lee. Like Wordsworth, Lee found revolutionary Spain both exhilarating and scary, a mixture of pretty girls and inexplicable violence. ‘I don’t know who you are”, a sailor told him, “but if you want to see blood, stick around – you’re going to see plenty.

There are probably no general principles to be drawn from this collection of examples, except perhaps, the historian’s last cop-out: ‘Plus ça change; plus c’est la même chose.’

I’m struck, though, by a few points of similarity. For most of these young men (and a very few women, like Mary Wollstonecraft in Paris), other people’s revolutions turned out to be much nastier and more chaotic when viewed up close. Simplistic ideologies tend to dissolve into a seething mass of local tensions and resentments, and payback takes place under cover of ideology. For those who survived to return home, the experience was transformative, but often they were transformed into more wary witnesses to the tragedies they had seen.

The boys and young men currently rushing to the Middle East are sad as well as dangerous. Some will die; some will find their ‘very heaven’ becomes a living hell. Many will find their youthful idealism has been unforgivably co-opted by ideologues, usually older men much further removed from the front line.

Above all, revolution is exciting, a time for throwing off the traces, overthrowing your parents’ world, setting the world to rights and remaking it in your own image. We’ve all been there. Sometimes it’s rage; sometimes just raging hormones.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Revolutionary Tourists

  1. The modern history of idealism and romanticism, as a mixture of youthful politics and culture, culminating in death and senseless violence, is well described here. I have also been thinking on recent concerns about the recruitment of zealots for terror campaigns, and my observation is how the tables have turned on popular attitudes toward mercenaries and martyrdom. I am currently reading Anthony Pagden’s “The Enlightenment and Why It Still Matters”, and Pagden points out that Hume, Montaigne, and Shaftesbury shared the Roman Stoics’ disgust towards the concept of Christian martyrdom, while also having very liberal attitudes towards suicide [pp. 121-122].

    The conventional view was that if you just killed yourself it was a sin against God, if you let someone else kill you for faith or honour it was glorious, and now it seems the view is that if you kill others around you while killing yourself you have proved your worth as a hero. And I believe that last position is not only a theme of radicalised Muslims, but also a favourite theme of Hollywood, and goes back to Thomas Carlyle’s historiography. Carlyle, of course, wrote ‘The French Revolution: A History’ (1837), and introduces (or re-introduces) this repugnant idea of the hero.

    This is why I feel very uncomfortable about the nationalist commemorative mood in our World War I centennial series of events. While I see no good in any condemnation of volunteers going to war, particularly where the causes of the first world war has been so much debated, I find the national memory of heroism extremely troubling. We see the French Revolution as upright ideals of liberty going terribly wrong in the Terror, but we don’t much hear about the ideals of World War I going terribly wrong in the way the violence was conducted in and round the trenches. I have written on this more fully at http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/buch-neville-fighting-the-great-war/

    It is true to suggest that, “The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing”, is glib, but it is very difficult to see how many citizens ever do think differently from the supposed lessons of history. Maybe, we have come to see the tragedy of World War I more clearly, and the old militarism which glorified war as masculine virtues has greatly diminished in the culture, however, there is still the pressure to religiously venerate soldiers and other combatants as heroes. And it is the lesson I take from the Enlightenment:- that any form of worship is ultimately idolatry, including the Cult of Reason, but much more so, in romanticised nationalism.

  2. Thanks Neville, some really interesting ideas here. I haven’t read Pagden on the Enlightenment, though I like his work on Empires very much indeed. I’ll check it out. The suicide/martyr comoarison is telling. Interesting too that the word ‘assassin’ comes from the Arabs, the word ‘zealot’ from the Jews!

    It’s interesting how long it took before the romantic idea of the French Revolution came under challenge. I remember the furore when Simon Shama’s book, Citizens (1989) came out. I think the French idealisation of the revolution and the Australian idealisation of WWI (like the American idealisation of the war of independence) all come from a similar idea that they are fundamental to the creation of the modern nation.

  3. Indeed. I am waiting for 2016, after the hype settles down, and to see if the realisation of Joan Beamont’s thesis of the “Broken Nation” sinks in, at the time of the commemoration of the first conscription debate, or whether the Australian “commemoration shop” will close early, and celebration of national memory will be seen to finish after the arrival of the ANZACs on the Western Front. Beamont did a great job but it would be wonderful if one of our leading historians wrote something to directly challenge that idea of a creating a nation in The Great War. Would it create a similar or worse furore than Shama’s 1989 work? Or would it just be ignored?

  4. Reblogged this on A Biographer in Perth and commented:
    Marion at Historians are Past Caring has a splendid post on “Revolutionary Tourists” – Wordsworth and Byron, drawn to other people’s wars and revolutions. The long history of this phenomenon is often ignored in discussing current ISIS tourism.
    It’s different, but it intersects with Katharine Susannah Prichard’s tour of the Soviet Union in 1933; she tried to see it as the utopia she wanted it to be, and wrote a book to that effect.

    • Hi Nathan – thanks for the thumbs up! I think there must be a lot of literary figures who have been drawn to revolutions, and Katherine Susannah Pritchard fits the mould very well.

  5. Wonderful piece. True – ’twas ever thus. My Iranian friend tells how the 1979 revolution meant something different to everyone in it. He participated in the revolution and then, just a couple of years later, he was doing all he could to get the hell out. He is now works in electronics in Sydney.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s