Romanticism and Revolution

A Reader

Jon Mee, David Fallon, Jon Mee, David Fallon

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9781444330441, 9781444330434
• eBook ISBN: 9781444393491
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: English Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

Romanticism and Revolution: A Readerpresents an anthology of the key texts that both defined the debate over the French Revolution during the 1790s and influenced the Romantic authors.

• Presents readings chronologically to allow readers to experience the unfolding of the debate as it occurred in the 1790s
• Provides an accessible and in-depth sampling of the major contributors to the Revolution debate, from Price, Burke, and Paine to Wollstonecraft and Godwin 

1

Richard Price

A Discourse on the Love of Our Country

(London: T. Cadell, 1789)

The dissenting minister Richard Price (1723–91) was born into the family of a strictly Calvinist clergyman in Glamorgan, Wales. Sent to London for his education, he moved towards anti-trinitarian and libertarian Christianity and became a central figure in the national culture and campaigns of nonconformists. From 1758 to 1783 he was pastor for the Presbyterian chapel at Stoke Newington, a post he held until 1783; he also preached at the Gravel-Pit Meeting Place in Hackney between 1770 and 1791.

From 1771, Price became acquainted with William Petty, Second Earl of Shelburne, and was involved in the Whig intellectual group gathered around his Bowood estate in Wiltshire – where, through Price’s influence, the scientist and Unitarian Joseph Priestley became the librarian. Price was also a member of the Club of Honest Whigs, a freethinking society whose members included Priestley, Andrew Kippis, and Benjamin Franklin. Price’s numerous other acquaintances and correspondents included the American politicians John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, and radicals and writers such as John Horne Tooke, Thomas Paine, James Boswell, Samuel Rogers, and Mary Wollstonecraft.

Price’s career ranged from publishing mathematical papers, undertaking important actuarial work, and advising on the national debt, to membership of the Royal Society. His investment in the value of the independent individual conscience led him to advocate political liberty, notably the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which proscribed dissenters from Oxford and Cambridge universities and from government posts. He was especially prominent in his support for the American patriots, writing a number of pamphlets in their cause, despite the unpopularity that this risked. His Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty (1776) and Additional Observations (1777) were particularly influential. Believing that liberty was a natural and inalienable right, Price advocated the right of any community to govern itself, although he did not support universal male suffrage, preferring a franchise limited by educational and intellectual capacity.

In 1780, his Essay on the Population of England erroneously asserted that the English and Welsh population was declining, in contrast to America’s thriving people, a phenomenon reflecting what he saw as the manifestation of relative degrees of liberty. The conclusion of A Discourse is partly motivated by his belief that the French Revolution would revitalize a populace previously enervated by tyranny.

The Revolution controversy began in earnest with Price’s address to the Society for Commemorating the Revolution in Great Britain at their meeting in Old Jewry on 4 November 1789, the anniversary of William of Orange’s landing at Torbay. This sermon was published as A Discourse on the Love of Our Country. Price links the English ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 with American independence and with the revolution in France, in a vision of the progress of universal enlightenment and liberty. This optimistic expectation of human renovation and release from the shackles of superstition and tyranny was voiced in many Romantic texts – notably Blake’s ‘A Song of Liberty’, in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (c.1790–3), Coleridge’s ‘Religious Musings’ (1795–6), and Wordsworth’s retrospect of the French Revolution in Book IX of The Prelude (1805). The selections illustrate Price’s speculative fervour, his faith in reason and human perfectibility, his prophetic and millenarian rhetoric, and his pacific and internationalist vision of Christianity. These were qualities which infuriated Burke and helped to set the agenda for his attack on the French Revolution and on its English supporters.

[What has the love of their country hitherto been among mankind?]

PSALM cxxii. 2d, and following verses.

Our feet shall stand within thy gates , O Jerusalem, whither the tribes go up; the tribes of the Lord unto the testimony of Israel. To give thanks to the name of the Lord, for there sit the thrones of judgment; the throne of the House of David. Pray for the peace of JERUSALEM . They shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions sake I will now say peace be within thee. Because of the House of the Lord our God, I will seek thy good.

In these words the Psalmist expresses, in strong and beautiful language, his love of his country, and the reasons on which he founded it; and my present design is, to take occasion from them to explain the duty we owe to our country, and the nature, foundation, and proper expressions of that love to it which we ought to cultivate.

I reckon this a subject particularly suitable to the services of this day, and to the Anniversary of our deliverance at the Revolution from the dangers of popery and arbitrary power; and should I, on such an occasion, be led to touch more on political subjects than would at any other time be proper in the pulpit, you will, I doubt not, excuse me.¹

The love of our country has in all times been a subject of warm commendations; and it is certainly a noble passion; but, like all other passions, it requires regulation and direction. There are mistakes and prejudices by which, in this instance, we are in particular danger of being misled. – I will briefly mention some of these to you and observe,

First, That by our country is meant, in this case, not the soil or the spot of earth on which we happen to have been born; not the forests and fields, but that community of which we are members; or that body of companions and friends and kindred who are associated with us under the same constitution of government, protected by the same laws, and bound together by the same civil polity.

Secondly, It is proper to observe, that even in this sense of our country, that love of it which is our duty, does not imply any conviction of the superior value of it to other countries, or any particular preference of its laws and constitution of government. Were this implied, the love of their country would be the duty of only a very small part of mankind; for there are few countries that enjoy the advantage of laws and governments which deserve to be preferred. To found, therefore, this duty on such a preference, would be to found it on error and delusion. It is, however, a common delusion. There is the same partiality in countries, to themselves, that there is in individuals. All our attachments should be accompanied, as far as possible, with right opinions. – We are too apt to confine wisdom and virtue within the circle of our own acquaintance and party. Our friends, our country, and, in short, every thing related to us, we are disposed to overvalue. A wise man will guard himself against this delusion. He will study to think of all things as they are, and not suffer any partial affections to blind his understanding. In other families there may be as much worth as in our own. In other circles of friends there may be as much wisdom; and in other countries as much of all that deserves esteem; but, notwithstanding this, our obligation to love our own families, friends, and country, and to seek, in the first place, their good, will remain the same.

Thirdly, It is proper I should desire you particularly to distinguish between the love of our country and that spirit of rivalship and ambition which has been common among nations. – What has the love of their country hitherto been among mankind? What has it been but a love of domination; a desire of conquest, and a thirst for grandeur and glory, by extending territory and enslaving surrounding countries? What has it been but a blind and narrow principle, producing in every country a contempt of other countries, and forming men into combinations and factions against their common rights and liberties? This is the principle that has been too often cried up as a virtue of the first rank: a principle of the same kind with that which governs clans of Indians or tribes of Arabs, and leads them to plunder and massacre. As most of the evils which have taken place in private life, and among individuals, have been occasioned by the desire of private interest overcoming the public affections; so most of the evils which have taken place among bodies of men have been occasioned by the desire of their own interest overcoming the principle of universal benevolence: and leading them to attack one another’s territories, to encroach on one another’s rights, and to endeavour to build their own advancement on the degradation of all within the reach of their power. – What was the love of their country among the Jews, but a wretched partiality to themselves, and a proud contempt of all other nations? What was the love of their country among the old Romans? We have heard much of it; but I cannot hesitate in saying that, however great it appeared in some of its exertions, it was in general no better than a principle holding together a band of robbers in their attempts to crush all liberty but their own. What is now the love of his country in a Spaniard, a Turk, or a Russian? Can it be considered as any thing better than a passion for slavery, or a blind attachment to a spot where he enjoys no rights, and is disposed of as if he was a beast?

Let us learn by such reflexions to correct and purify this passion, and to make it a just and rational principle of action.

It is very remarkable that the founder of our religion has not once mentioned this duty, or given us any recommendation of it; and this has, by unbelievers, been made an objection to Christianity. What I have said will entirely remove this objection. Certain it is, that, by inculcating on men an attachment to their country, Christianity would, at the time it was propagated, have done unspeakably more harm than good. Among the Jews it would have been an excitement to war and insurrections; for they were then in eager expectation of becoming soon (as the favourite people of Heaven) the lords and conquerors of the earth, under the triumphant reign of the Messiah. Among the Romans, likewise, this principle had, as I have just observed, exceeded its just bounds, and rendered them enemies to the peace and happiness of mankind. By inculcating it, therefore, Christianity would have confirmed both Jews and Gentiles in one of the most pernicious faults. Our Lord and his Apostles have done better. They have recommended that UNIVERSAL BENEVOLENCE which is an unspeakably nobler principle than any partial affections. They have laid such stress on loving all men, even our enemies, and made an ardent and extensive charity so essential a part of virtue, that the religion they have preached may, by way of distinction from all other religions, be called the Religion of Benevolence. Nothing can be more friendly to the general rights of mankind; and were it duly regarded and practised, every man would consider every other man as his brother, and all the animosity that now takes place among contending nations would be abolished. If you want any proof of this, think of our Saviour’s parable of the good Samaritan.² The Jews and Samaritans were two rival nations that entertained a hatred of one another the most inveterate. The design of this parable was to shew to a Jew, that even a Samaritan, and consequently all men of all nations and religions, were included in the precept, THOU SHALL LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF.³

[A narrower interest must give way to a more extensive interest]

Our regards, according to the order of nature, begin with ourselves; and every man is charged primarily with the care of himself. Next come our families, and benefactors, and friends; and after them our country. We can do little for the interest of mankind at large. To this interest, however, all other interests are subordinate. The noblest principle in our nature is the regard to general justice, and that good-will which embraces all the world. – I have already observed this; but it cannot be too often repeated. Though our immediate attention must be employed in promoting our own interest and that of our nearest connexions; yet we must remember, that a narrower interest must give way to a more extensive interest. In pursuing particularly the interest of our country, we ought to carry our views beyond it. We should love it ardently, but not exclusively. We ought to seek its good, by all the means that our different circumstances and abilities will allow; but at the same time we ought to consider ourselves as citizens of the world, and take care to maintain a just regard to the rights of other countries.

[Every degree of illumination … hastens the
overthrow of priestcraft and tyranny]

Ignorance is the parent of bigotry, intolerance, persecution and slavery. Inform and instruct mankind; and these evils will be excluded. – Happy is the person who, himself raised above vulgar errors, is conscious of having aimed at giving mankind this instruction. Happy is the Scholar or Philosopher who at the close of life can reflect that he has made this use of his learning and abilities: but happier far must he be, if at the same time he has reason to believe he has been successful, and actually contributed, by his instructions, to disseminate among his fellow-creatures just notions of themselves, of their rights, of religion, and the nature and end of civil government. Such were Milton, Locke, Sidney, Hoadly, &c. in this country; such were Montesquieu, Marmontel, Turgot, &c. in France.⁴ They sowed a seed which has since taken root and is now growing up to a glorious harvest. To the information they conveyed by their writings we owe those revolutions in which every friend to mankind is now exulting. – What an encouragement is this to us all in our endeavours to enlighten the world? Every degree of illumination which we can communicate must do the greatest good. It helps to prepare the minds of men for the recovery of their rights, and hastens the overthrow of priestcraft and tyranny. – In short, we may, in this instance, learn our duty from the conduct of the oppressors of the world. They know that light is hostile to them, and therefore they labour to keep men in the dark. With this intention they have appointed licensers of the press; and, in Popish countries, prohibited the reading of the Bible. Remove the darkness in which they envelope the world, and their usurpations will be exposed, their power will be subverted, and the world emancipated.

[The principles of the Revolution]

[…] Let us, in particular, take care not to forget the principles of the Revolution. This Society has, very properly, in its Reports, held out these principles, as an instruction to the public. I will only take notice of the three following:

First; The right to liberty of conscience in religious matters.

Secondly; The right to resist power when abused. And,

Thirdly; The right to chuse our own governors; to cashier then for misconduct;
and to frame a government for ourselves.

On these three principles, and more especially the last, was the Revolution founded. Were it not...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• A Note on the Texts
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Richard Price, A Discourse on the Love of Our Country
• Chapter 2: Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London relative to That Event
• Chapter 3: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, in a Letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke
• Chapter 4: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man: Being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution
• Chapter 5: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects
• Chapter 6: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man. Part the Second. Combining Principle and Practice
• Chapter 7: William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political Justice, and Its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness
• Chapter 8: William Godwin, Enquiry concerning Political Justice, and Its Influence on Morals and Happiness
• Further Reading
• Index of Authors and Works