Anna Heydon

Discuss Blakes Marriage of Heaven and Hell and Smiths The Emigrants
in relation to the French Revolution. How do these poets position themselves
in relation to the political crisis unfolding in France and Britain?

At the turn of the eighteenth century, European thinking was dominated by the
phenomenon of the French Revolution. It was impossible to ignore the situation for
several reasons. Britain had received many of the migrs who had fled France; both
aristocrats and clergy who feared for their lives, and moderate revolutionaries who felt
that the revolution had gone too far. Moreover, after February 1793 Britain was at war
with France. Conservative British thinkers used the French Revolution as an example of
the problems that occurred if power was given to the working classes; liberals used it as
proof that change was possible and that privilege and despotism could be overcome.
Everyone was anxious to know what repercussions the Revolution in France would have
in Britain.

The thoughts of the Romantic poets were certainly dominated by the

Revolution, and they, like the rest of Europe were divided in their opinions about its
value. Most of the early Romantic poets were in favour of the idea of revolution in
theory, since it embodied some of the Romantic ideals of individualism, liberty and
pursued freedom and rights as opposed to tradition. However, once Revolution was put
into practice in France, some of the Romantic poets, most famously Wordsworth, became
less enthusiastic. However, like it or not, no one could escape the impact of the French
Revolution.

Charlotte Smiths The Emigrants communicates the pervasive influence of the French
Revolution in Europe. Smith does this literally in her portrayal of the migrs who are
refugees in Britain. These migrs are the reality that forces the narrator of the poem to
face up to the idea of Revolution, not just in France but in Britain too. Just as it is
impossible to keep the people of France away from Britain, so too is it impossible to
detach Britain from French ideas. What makes this realisation all the more verifiable is
Smiths acknowledgement that Britain is suffering from despotism just as much as
France was before the Revolution. Whereas France was oppressed by the regal crimes 1
of an absolute king, a powerful aristocracy and a corrupt Church, Britain is oppressed by
legal crimes.2 Smith had much personal experience of the way in which British law
could oppress a person, in particular a woman. Unable by British law to own anything
herself, she was forced into debt by her husbands squandering. Consequently she had to
support her large family through her writing.

Smith believed, therefore, that the

defenceless in Britain, in particular women, were just as much the victims of power
abusd3 as the people of France. Revolution had a pervasive influence in Britain because
inequalities existed there just as they had done in France.

Moreover, Smith suggests that Revolution has pervaded not only the British nation, but
also nature:
The trumpets voice
Drowns the soft warbling of the woodland choir;

1 Charlotte Smith, The Emigrants, 1793, in Romanticism: Module Booklet, Book II, line 88
2 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 36
3 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 284

And violets, lurking in their turfy beds

Beneath the flowring thorn, are staind with blood

The conflict of the Revolution can also be seen in the bickering arrows of electric fire
that flash on the evening sky5 and the dark tempests6 that the narrator sees brewing.
Just as in her later work, Beachy Head, Smith here indicates that nature is no more steady
and unchanging than humanity, and is susceptible to the same revolutionary forces. The
result of this is that Smith feels not the joy reviving Nature brings. 7 Smith cannot
retreat from the reality of the Revolution into nature, because nature too has been tainted
by Revolution and blood.

In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Blake too suggests that Revolution is pervasive, but
he focuses not on the way that it pervades space and nature, but on the way that it
pervades time.

Blake uses angels as the representatives of authority and devils as

representatives of revolution and rebellion, suggesting that this is a conflict which has
been going on since the universe began. Similarly it is Jesus, both an historical and
eternal figure who is portrayed as a revolutionary who acted from impulse - not from
rules8 and disobeyed the ten commandments. Moreover, critics have suggested that the
cry of Empire is no more!9 is not a final cry of liberation, but the start of a new
oppression and authority based on a Bible of Hell 10 in a continuous cycle of revolution

4 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 68 - 71

5 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 400 + 401
6 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 403
7 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 40
8William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1790, in Duncan Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An
Anthology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1998 (2nd edition)) p.93
9 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p. 94
10 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.93

and oppression.11 Blake seems to be drawing on the ideas of Volney who saw Moses as
the first despot, who established an empire justified by religion and conspired against
mankind. Volney believed that from that time onwards all revolution was counterrevolution that always ended up at the place of its departure, so that revolution and
oppression are continuous and cyclical. Both Volney and Blake believe that revolution is
not something new, but an innate and always active part of the universe.12

However, although Blake and Smith seem to agree on the pervasive nature of revolution,
they are very different in their attitudes towards it. Smith certainly agrees with the
Revolutionaries that there was much abuse of power in the ancien rgime, for example by
the wealthy clergy who dressed in silk and down 13 and the contemplative orders who
believed that to renounce Gods works, would please that God. 14 She is very supportive
of the revolutionary ideals of lovely Freedom 15 and equal Justice;16 these are vital
goals in her campaign for womens liberation. Yet Smith feels that these ideals have not
been embodied by the Revolution, but destroyed by it. The temple which they fondly
hopd Reason would raise to Liberty has been destroyd by ruffian hands17 and lawless
Anarchy has overturned celestial Freedoms radiant throne. 18 The Revolution in France
has gone too far and destroyed that which it hoped to gain.
11 Greg Kucich, Ironic Apocalypse in Romanticism and the French Revolution in Keith Hanley and
Raman Selden (ed.), Revolution and English Romanticism: Politics and Rhetoric, (Hertfordshire: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990), p.78
12 Kucich, Ironic Apocalypse in Romanticism and the French Revolution in Hanley and Selden (ed.),
Revolution and English Romanticism: Politics and Rhetoric, p.18 + 19
13 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 130
14 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 119
15 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 431
16 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 432
17 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 49 + 50
18 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, lines 341 + 342

There are several possible explanations for Smiths attitude. Firstly, she wrote The
Emigrants in 1793, when the Revolution was becoming much more intense and violent.
In July 1791 the first violence between revolutionaries had occurred at the Champs de
Mars Massacre. This was significant, because it was no longer clear who the enemy
was. The patriots were no longer united in their aims, but were beginning to attack each
other, and anyone who didnt agree with them.

This was intensified during the

September Massacres when at least 1,400 prisoners were murdered. This marked a
turning point in British attitudes towards the Revolution. Whereas previously Britain had
remained fairly neutral about the events in France, or even praised France for at last
embracing democracy, once mass executions began, British opinions changed, and they
began to see the French Revolutionaries as an anarchic mob: the most savage tyrants that
range the unexplored desarts (sic) of Africa, in point of tenderness, rise superior to these
two legged Parisian animals.- Common Brutes do not prey upon each other 19 wrote the
London Times in 1792. Such feelings were intensified by the Invasion of the Tuileries and
the execution of Louis XVI on 21 January 1793. The London Times angrily reported that
the Republican Tyrants of France have now carried their bloody purposes to the
uttermost diabolical stretch of savage cruelty. They have murdered their king without
even the shadow of justice, and of course they cannot expect friendship nor intercourse
with any civilised part of the world.20

Smith shared this sentiment, writing

19 London Times, September 10, 1792, in Alan Liu, British Newspaper Coverage of the French
Revolution, California, transcribed 17.2.00 <http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/ayliu/research/around1800/FR/times-9-10-1792.html> accessed 28.4.01
20 London Times, January 25, 1793, in Alan Liu, British Newspaper Coverage of the French Revolution,
California, transcribed 17.2.00 <http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/ayliu/research/around1800/FR/times-1-25-1793.html> accessed 28.4.01

compassionately about the plight of the suffering Royalty. 21 Smith was writing at a time
when the violence of the Revolution was close to its peak, and at the moment when
Britain in general became suddenly hostile to the occurrences in France. Like her
contemporary, Helen Maria Williams, her changed attitude to the French Revolution
coincides with her awareness of the increased violence: I own that the sight of La
Lanterne chilled the blood within my veins. At that moment, for the first time, I lamented
the revolution.22 I hear of nothing but crimes, assassinations, torture and deathI hear
these things, and repeat to myself: Is this the picture of France? Are these the images of
that universal joy which called tears into my eyes and made my heart throb with
sympathy?23

What was particularly abhorrent to Smith about this violence? When the Revolution was
in its early stages, the stages which Smith supported, it was led by liberal nobles and
propertied bourgeoisie. It was the privileged, such as Lafayette, Mirabeau and Bailly that
led the National Constituent Assembly and the Legislative Assembly, and it was they who
renounced privilege on occasions such as August 4 1789. The important point is that this
was the privileged orders sacrificing their own privileges; as Schama points out, the
French Revolution, then, began with acts of giving 24 and self-dispossession.25 These
nobles and upper bourgeoisie were ideologically rather than practically motivated, and
hoped for a peaceful revolution which would produce a constitutional monarchy by the
21 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 165
22 Helen Maria Williams, On Revolution, 1790, in Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, p. 151
23 Helen Maria Williams, Retrospect from England, 1790, in Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, p.
151
24 Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, (London: Penguin Books, 1989), p.441
25 Schama, Citizens, p.439

voluntary renunciation of all privilege.

They were not afraid of sacrificing their

privileges, because they believed that they would still be the natural leaders of society
because of their intelligence and education. Many of these moderate revolutionaries later
fled the country (including Lafayette in August 1792) as the Revolution became more
extreme, and as power was placed in the hands of the sans-culottes.

Smith ideologically allies herself with these liberal nobles and bourgeoisie. She supports
the philosophy of the Revolution and believes that it is wrong for a person to think that
noble bloodexalts him oer the race of common men. 26 However, like the aristocrats
and upper bourgeoisie, she fears wild disastrous Anarchy 27 and the ruffian hands28 of
the sans-culottes. She believes that the Revolution has gone too far, because instead of
the nobility recognising inequality and voluntarily amending it, they are now being
stripped of it by the lower social orders. Whereas Smith had hoped for a spiritual
revolution, based on changed attitudes and enlightenment, the French Revolution has
now become violent and physical.

Blake seems much more supportive of a physical revolution, since he believes that
physicality and spirituality are inseparable, and man has no body distinct from his
soul.29 He sees violence as not only necessary, but also desirable, because he who
desires but acts not breeds pestilence.30 Blake wrote The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

26 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, lines 235 + 237

27 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 11
28 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 50
29 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.86
30 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.87

between 1789 and 179031, before the main violence of the Revolution, and yet his words
seem to reflect the attitudes of those involved in the Terror who saw violence as purging.
Was Blake then progressive and radical, anticipating the advent of uncontrolled
revolutionary violence before it happened? Not necessarily. The type of language used
by Blake in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell was utilised by the French Revolutionaries
long before violence became a widespread or common occurrence. Schama writes that
from the beginning, then, revolutionary rhetoric was tuned to a taut pitch of elation and
anger.32 A revolution in language was occurring, in which hyperbolic statements were
used to both create fear and incite. The third estate at the Estates General needed to claim
that they could reinforce their claims with the violence of the people, although at that
stage they did not know if it was true.

Like these early revolutionaries, Blake advocates a revolution of words. Blake sees
language as a tool of oppression; he uses the ten commandments as an example of this.
He wants to break free from this control, by printing in the infernal method, by
corrosivesmelting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid. 33
Blake attempts to release the power of language that has been harnessed by those in
authority by writing in a new and revolutionary way. The very first word that he uses in
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Rintrah34 is his own creation, signifying that he will
not be bound to expressing himself in a vocabulary created and endorsed by those in
power. Blake also makes use of several different styles of writing, both prose and poetry,
31 Geoffrey Keynes, Introduction to The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, (London and New York: Oxford
University Press, 1975), p.xi
32 Schama, Citizens, p.292
33 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.89
34 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.84

to show that he will not abide by conventional methods of classifying and containing
literature. Most importantly, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell consists of dialogue,
between the narrator and the angels and devils. This both emphasises the dialectic that
Blake believes should exist in life, and reflects the Revolutionary activity in France, in
that it allows those who, like devils, are not normally able to speak, to have a voice. The
narrator is no longer authoritative and controlling, but is part of a conversation.

In the case of some of the early French Revolutionaries, this revolution in language was
enough, and they found it terrifying to think that their words might actually be put into
practice. When the early language of the Revolution became a reality, many of the
original rhetoricians were unhappy about it: il faut du sang pour cimenter la
rvolution (There must be blood to cement revolution), said Mme Roland, who would
herself perish by the logical application of her enthusiasm. 35 This is nicely encapsulated
in the words that Piercy puts into the mouth of Danton: Let Robespierre find out how
dismaying it was to shed real and not rhetorical blood. 36 However, this does not seem to
be the case with Blake. Firstly, he was active in support of his ideas and beliefs, taking
part, for example, in anti-Catholic riots; he demonstrated that he wanted more than a
revolution of words, because he was prepared to put his words into practice. Secondly, it
is important to note that although most of the poem was written between 1789 and 1790,
A Song of Liberty was probably written later, around 1793, the year in which Smith too
was writing. What is significant, therefore, is that Blake too experiences the climax of
the Revolution; the Champ de Mars massacre, the September Massacres, the invasion of
35 Schama, Citizens, p.859
36 Marge Piercy, City of Darkness, City of Light, (London: Penguin Books, 1997), p.474

the Tuileries and the execution of the king whilst writing this piece, and yet the section
written under the influence of these events is just as radical as the rest of the poem. In A
Song of Liberty Blake supports the Revolution in France that has been able to rend
down thy dungeon!37 (the Bastille was a symbol of royal despotism because many
prisoners were sent there on the whim of the king) and burst the barriers of old Rome, 38
(the control that the Roman Catholic Church exerted over the people of France both
morally and financially). The new events of the Revolution have not changed Blakes
attitude to revolution and violence, and he still condemns the person who wishes but acts
not.39 Now, perhaps more than ever, Blake believes that words cannot be separated from
actions, just as soul cannot be separated from body. When Blakes final disillusion comes
(located by most critics at around 1800) it is not because the Revolution has become too
violent, but because he believes the Revolution has not achieved anything, and has
simply replaced one dictatorship with another.

Blakes

disappointment is in the

conservative nature of the revolution, not its radicalism.

In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell it is possible to see that Blakes hopes for the
Revolution are not just for the superficial change to society that Smith advocates. Like
his friend, Paine, Blake believes that what were formerly called revolutions were little
more than a change of persons or an alteration of local circumstances. 40 Now they are
looking for something much bigger and more profound. Whereas Smith seems to believe
that existing structures are satisfactory if only those in power were a little more
37 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.93
38 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p. 93
39 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.93
40 Thomas Paine, On Revolution 1791, in Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, p.16

enlightened, Blake promotes a complete destruction of the structures of society. He sees

all institutions and rules as damaging and oppressive, since prisons are built with stones
of Law, brothels with bricks of Religion.41 These restrictive conventions can not simply
be moderately altered, they must be pulled to the ground as the revolutionary stamps the
stony law to dust.42

Blake and Smith disagree about this because they perceive the ultimate aims of
revolution differently. Whereas Smith looks towards greater freedom for society, and in
particular women, as a unit, Blake seeks only the freedom of the individual. He believes
that authority and punishment are illusions which we impose on one another 43 just as
the angel imposes the illusion of hell on humans to reinforce his authority. Blake is
convinced that every person must throw off what he refers to in his poem London as
mind-forgd manacles44 so that he is free to follow his energies without guilt.
Sometimes many people may be enlightened about their bondage to illusion at once, as in
the French Revolution, and may act collectively. However, essentially it is about every
person working for his individual freedom. This contrasts with Smiths approach. Like
Blake she desires freedom, but for her this cannot be one individuals freedom at the
expense of another individual. She emphasises the importance of looking for the shared
interests of society, which still need to be protected by structures. In particular she draws
upon the image of the family to illustrate that freedom is not about simply fighting for
individual freedom at the expense of all else. She cannot say, like Blake that sooner
41 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.87
42 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.94
43 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p.92
44 Blake, London in Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, p.79

murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires, 45 but instead a tortured mother
trembling seeks a temporary shelter - clasping close to her hard-heaving heart her
sleeping child.46 Smith is suggesting that everyone has responsibilities as well as rights,
and that these cannot be separated.

However, there are other reasons why Blake could afford to be more radical in his writing
than Smith. The mythological framework that Blake uses allows him to write very
abstractly, about authority and revolution in general, rather than about the specific
Revolution in France. He is more able to criticise authority because he is not explicitly
criticising the king of France or the British government. Although in the final sections of
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell he does make reference to the French Revolution,
nevertheless this is still in an obscure way without direct reference to specific time and
place. It could, then, be suggested that Smith is prevented from being as radical as she
would like to be, because her style of writing, which precisely pinpoints the exact time
and place of events (SCENE, on the Cliffs to the Eastward of the Town of
Brighthelmstone in SussexTIME, a Morning in November, 1792 SCENE, on an
Eminence on one of those Downs, which afford to the South a View of the Sea; to the
North of the Weald of SussexTIME, an Afternoon in April, 1793 47). This means that
any attack she makes is an attack on specific people who can retaliate. However, Smiths
very point seems to be that certainly it is possible to be radical when speaking abstractly,
when talking about authority and revolution, but it is much harder (not just from the
point of view of safety, but from a moral and emotional point of view) to be
45 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven Hell, p.88
46 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 263-265
47 Smith, The Emigrants

condemnatory when referring to the headless corse of one, whose only crime was being
born a Monarch,48 the migrs, sad Heralds of distress 49 whose suffering she can see
face to face, and Marie Antoinette, the hapless Queen who is a wretched mother 50 just
like Smith herself. Again her attitude is reflected in the words of Williams, who had
visited France, and personally seen the violence there.
Revolutionary violence firsthand,

She, on encountering

forgetting the imprudence or the guilt of those

unfortunate men, could only reflect with horror on the dreadful expiation they had made.
[She] painted in [her] imagination the agonies of their families and friends. 51 The final
judgement of both women is that whateer your errors, I lament your fate. 52 The
abstract allows radicalism not just because it provides safety from persecution, but also
because it allows emotional detachment.

It could also be claimed that Blake is also able to be more radical because of his gender.
For a man to be radical in the 1800s was controversial; for a woman to be radical meant
that she was unfeminine and immoral. In basing her response to the Revolution on
conservative emotions, in particular empathy, Smith could be accused of conforming to
the stereotypes of her time. However, Smiths reason for empathy with these individuals
is that she recognises in their plight her own suffering as a result of these stereotypes. I
mourn your sorrows she writes for I too have known involuntary exile. 53 They, like
me, from fairer hopes and happier prospects driven, shrink for the future, and regret the
48 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 54 + 55
49 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 96
50 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 152 + 154
51 Williams, On Revolution, in Wu (ed.), Romanticism: An Anthology, p. 151
52 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 107
53 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, lines 155 + 156

past.54 Therefore, although Smith does rely on the traditionally feminine emotion of
empathy in her response, nevertheless this very empathy is radical in that it is based on
the fact that she is confined by her traditional role as a woman.

Smiths point in writing The Emigrants seems to be both an exhortation and a warning. It
is a plea that the inequalities in Britain are put right, and that the revolutionary principles
of liberty and equality are pursued. But it is also a warning, a lesson that concerns ye
much,55 that if these things are not achieved by the voluntary hands56 then such rights
may be seized and the maltreated of Britain, oppressd too long, the raging multitude, to
madness stung, will turn on their oppressors57 and will redress themselves!58 Smith
does not want this any more than her oppressors do, but neither does she want to endure
the tyranny of Britains very own ancien rgime.

Whereas Smith sees the solution to Britains problems in peaceful change and
reconciliation between the oppressors and the oppressed, Blake advocates division and
discord. He does not want an end to revolution, but its spread and expansion. In A Song
of Liberty he prophecies that the revolution will not be confined to France. He warns his
readers of this not so that they can prevent it by moderate reform, as Smith does, but so
that they can be ready for it, to greet it with open arms: Look up! Look up! Oh, citizen
of London, enlarge thy countenance! Oh Jew, leave counting gold, return to thy oil and

54 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, lines 14 - 16

55 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 332
56 Smith, The Emigrants, Book II, line 108
57 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, lines 333 + 334
58 Smith, The Emigrants, Book I, line 337

wine!

Oh African, black African! (Go, winged thought, widen his forehead.) 59

Revolution, in Blakes opinion, is eternal, unstoppable, but also necessary. Blakes fear is
a life in which angels are allowed to dominate without any interference from devils, in
which there is no dialogue, and where the marriage of heaven and hell has become an
angelic dictatorship. Blake believes that revolution is a continual necessity in order to
prevent this from becoming a reality.

59 Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, p. 93