In the year and a half since Western Civ, I had conveniently forgotten that Liberty Leading the People was not a depiction of the French Revolution of the 1790's, but rather of the revolutions of 1830. This is slightly embarrassing because on the whole I'd like to think more highly of my memory.
Aside from this striking revelation, the reading did little to inspire any sort of excited spark in me. What I did notice however, follows:
-On Abdication: Both Charles X (ruled 1824-1830)and his successor, Louis Philippe (1830-1848) abdicated. What was this motivated by? I thought about other French rulers who had also abdicated and their possible motivations (saving their lives, etc., etc.), but my intuition (maybe hearkening back to Metternich) directed me towards peace. While obviously the abdications of two rulers in quick succession cannot be explained by a mere desire for harmony, in combination with fear for life and scarily passionate, nationalistic citizens, certainly would do it.
-On Britain and France's "revolutions": Obviously, and as she probably proudly proclaims, Britain never went through an outright revolution. France, oh, the ever volatile France, obviously did...in fact they went through a couple. Slow change versus stuttering change. What truly was accomplished with warfare? Probably very little. Since in saying this I am not trying to be pro-British or anti-revolution, I shall point out the following. The Chartist Petition obviously became a thing around which Brits could organize themselves, something they could become passionate about, and even consider dying for; however, even within the classification of "Chartist," several subgroups undermined any real unity. Conversely, in France, (coincidentally seen in Delacroix's painting), the revolutions seemed to be a fountain spouting nationalism, no matter how crushed or oppressed it might have been.
January 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment