RAQUEL'S BLOG

Play:

The play is filled with various speeches on the topic of liberty. The first scene is set in the Tuilleries, in which Bertrand Barère, Jean-Lambert Tallien and Louis Legendre, opponents of Robespierre discuss their plans to challenge the “tyrant”. Their conversation comprises highly rhetorical speeches as if they were part of a public meeting.

The third act, originally written by Lovell, was rewritten by Southey. Within the act, the opponents of Robespierre compare themselves to the assassins of Julius Caesar who are restoring the republic. In the final speech, Bertrand Barère discusses the history French Revolution and lists the various would-be despots who have attempted to usurp liberty for Louis XVI to Robespierre himself, concluding that France will be a beacon of liberation to the world.

Themes:

Act one reflects Coleridge’s feelings about those Robespierre executed, including Madame Roland and Brissot. The tone of the piece is not revolutionary, but it does include themes connected to his other works and reveals Coleridge’s thoughts on marriage, politics, and childhood. It also incorporates Coleridge’s view that individuals are naturally innocent in a manner similar to Rousseau’s belief. This idea, combined with a belief in achieving some sort of paradise, was developed in the works following the play.

The play as a whole deals with many Shakespearean themes and emphasizes the precedents of both Brutus and Mark Antony throughout. Southey’s third act captures his feelings on the French Revolution and incorporates his radical views. The act also contains his feelings on despotism and liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Robespierre

The Fall of Robespierre is a three act play written by Robert Southey and Samuel Coleridge in 1794. It follows the events in France after Robespierre’s downfall. Robespierre is portrayed as a tyrant, but Southey’s contributions praise him as a destroyer of despotism. The play does not operate as an effective drama for the stage, but rather as a sort of dramatic poem with each act being a different scene. According to Coleridge, “my sole aim to imitate the impassioned and highly figurative language of the French Orators and develop the charcters of the chief actors on a vast stage of horrors.”

In order to raise money, Southey and Coleridge began to work together in August 1794. According to Southey the project began in “sportive conversation” at the house of their friend Robert Lovell. The three intended to collaborate on a play that would deal with the beheading of Robespierre in July, 1794. Their source was news articles that described the final moments of a dispute within the National Assembly. During composition, they were able to write 800 lines in just two days. The play was divided between the three collaborators, with Coleridge composing the first act, Southey composing the second act and Lovell the third. Southey and Lovell completed their acts but Coleridge had only finished part of his the following evening. Southey felt that Lowell’s contribution was not “in keeping” and so rewrote the third act himself. Coleridge completed his act. When they turned to Joseph Cottle to publish the work, he refused and Coleridge had to search for another publisher. He took the manuscript to Cambridge, revising and improving his own contribution.^[1] Eventually, the work was published in October 1794 by Benjamin Flower. 500 copies were printed and circulated in Bath, Cambridge, and London, which brought the writers fame while their personal relationship grew tense.

The events that inspired the work involve Robespierre’s taking over of the National Assembly and removing the moderate members. During this time, he also allowed the executions of many individuals and became the center of power during the summer of 1793. The next summer, 28 July 1794, he was executed by guillotine along with 21 others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Robespierre

ACT ONE.

ACT TWO.

ACT THREE.

Portrait of Robespierre

The Critical Reception
of Robert Southey’s Wat Tyler

1. In the aftermath of Wat Tyler‘s publication in 1817, Robert Southey argued that his dramatic poem was, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a piece of juvenilia. Had his “youthful drama” been published in 1794, the year of its composition, he contended, it would have died a timely and obscure death:
   

   The verses of a boy, of which he thought no more than of his school-exercises, and which, had they been published when they were written, would have passed without notice to the family vault, have not only been perused by the Lord Chancellor, in his judicial office, but have been twice produced in parliament for the edification of the legislature. (Letter to William Smith, Esq., M.P., Rpt. in Essays II. 13)

   Published anonymously, it is possible Southey’s poem would have quietly found its way to obscurity amidst the outpouring of revolutionary writing of the day. Between 1789 and 1799, at least four hundred and fifty plays were written, translated, or produced that invoked the idea of revolution or revolt (Manogue, Critical Edition, v). Yet one cannot underestimate the attraction of linking an existing and outspoken Poet Laureate with a text like Wat Tyler. While Southey clearly never intended for his name to appear on the title page, a 1794 publication in no way would have lessened the impact made in 1817 by publishing the work under Southey’s name. Southey’s play having been published earlier would have changed the copyright issues attending his request for an injunction; but even so, an 1817 publication with autograph manuscript standing behind it as proof could not have failed to cause a stir.

http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/wattyler/contexts/reception.html

The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21).
Volume XI. The Period of the French Revolution.

VIII. Southey.

Joan of Arc; Southey’s Blank Verse.

The author had been busy on an epic, Joan of Arc, which appeared in 1796, was received with something like enthusiasm and, by actually passing through five editions, showed the nascent taste which was to grow to the advantage of Scott and Byron. Southey altered it a good deal, and, little as he was disposed to undervalue his own work, always acknowledged its “great and numerous faults.” It is doubtful, however, whether he ever saw, or would have acknowledged if it had been pointed out to him, the most fatal fault of all—a fault shared by most—fortunately not by all—of his longer poems that followed. That fault is the adoption of blank verse for a long narrative poem, a proceeding which nobody, save Milton and Tennyson, has ever carried out successfully, while Tennyson himself, and others who have come near success, have usually broken up the single narrative into a cluster of shorter pieces.

For, to achieve such success, the verse must have qualities of its own, like those of Milton or Tennyson, which are almost independent of the subject, and which reinforce its interest to such an extent that the reader never thinks of saying “A good story; but it would have been better in prose.” Some readers certainly, do say this, not merely in reference to Joan, but to Madoc and Roderick. Southey’s blank verse is, indeed, never bad; but it also never, or in the rarest possible instances, has this intrinsic character; and it is a remarkable instance of the almost invariable soundness of his general critical principles, however the de te fabula may have sometimes escaped him, that he expressly recognised.   “the great difficulties of the measure, and its disadvantages in always exposing the weak parts” of a long poem.

http://www.bartleby.com/221/0803.html#txt5

In terms of subject matter, the story of Joan of Arc was not well know outside of a legend. A history dealing with Joan written by Clement L’Averdy was written in 1790 but it was probably unknown to Southey. This would serve as the major historical source of information on her until Jules Quicherat’s history published during the mid-19th century. Of non-historical works, Voltaire’s La Pucelle was well known but the work attacks Joan. Joan’s reputation was polemical, and Joan would later be turned into a French hero with Napoleon’s encouragement. Friedrich Schiller would also deal with the legend the same way in Die Jungfrau von Orleans. In terms of works relying on the general idea of a warrior woman, many such figures exited in epics: Virgil and Camilla, Tasso has Clorinda, and Spenser had Britomart. However, such females were not the central figure as a woman was unique to Southey at the time.

The poem’s focus on France served as a way for Southey to discuss his feelings about the French Revolution. In particular, Southey was upset that the British were calling men from their farms in order to serve as a militia during the time. In terms of the French, Southey did not support Robespierre and the others who followed him in France. However, he did support the idea of the French Republic. When he heard of Marie Antoinette’s execution in October 1793, Southey told his friend Bedford that he condemned the action although he held to his Republican beliefs. However, he was further upset when word came that Brissot, the Girondin leader, was executed. This caused him to believe that all of the countries were equally bad, except the Republican United States, which he hoped to make his home. In 1794, many of Southey’s feelings on Robespierre’s involvement in these actions were included in both Joan of Arc and the Fall of Robbespierre, which followed after Robespierre’s own execution. However, Southey had by then become very radical and believed that Robespierre was a great man who only helped mankind in his actions.

The poem also contains many of Southey’s views on the Catholic Church and how it influenced his political views. He believed that the church and the Catholic leaders kept the people ignorant, and he believed that the Muslims that were cast out of Spain were more tolerant. Southey believed that the only way to escape from these problems was for people to believe they were part of one universal family.  However, the poem is still subversive since it described a French patriot fighting against the English that parallels the strife during Southey’s time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_%28poem%29

Of the various versions and changes, the 1798 version is the most regular of the editions. The story describes Joan from her first appearance at Vaucouleurs until the Dauphin Charles VII is crowned at Rheims. The rest of the events are described in flashbacks throughout the first half. As the story begins, an 18 year old Joan travels to Vaucouleurs, home of Robert de Baudricourt, with her uncle Claude. She arrives searching for the Dauphin and meets Charles Dunois as the general tries to raise troops for France’s defense. He helps her through Lorraine to Chinon while explaining her background and life’s story to the general. She tells of her family, her natural living, and the effects of the soldiers who brought war to France told to her by a French soldier named Conrade. Of these various incidents, the English’s massacring French prisoners at the Battle of Agincourt and the starvation of the people of Rouen during a siege are mentioned. They finally arrive at Chinon where they are able to find the French court.

When Joan comes to speak with Charles, the Dauphin pretends to be a common member of the court while someone else pretends to be him. Joan is able to see through the ruse and immediately proclaims that she is sent to restore the French crown to him at Rheims. Charles has her examined by priests and scholars in order to determine that she is free of black magic. While questioned, Joan describes how God came to her with visions and describes her faith in a similar manner to deism. This causes the examiners to believe that she is a heretic until a blue flame appears along with a sound, which is enough to silence any doubts about her faith. The flame reveals a suit of armor for her, but one individual interrupts her immediate donning of the armour to claim that France is cursed and that she would be a victim. The individual, as it turns out, is Conrade, who blames himself that Joan left her peaceful life in order to help a French court that was corrupt. He also warns her that he experienced a vision of her burning at the stake.

Following this, Joan begins to gather troops and she takes her army to the forests around Orleans. While they camp there, a girl named Isabel comes and begins to describe the events surrounding siege of the city. Joan sends a messenger to offer the English peace, but the English decline. The French attack the English and, as soon as they start, a storm starts up and lightning flashes about them. This scares the English and Joan is able to win and enter the city. Soon after, Joan is able to lift the siege. The story continues with various French victories and the English are pushed back from fort after fort. Eventually, the English are pushed back to Tourelles. While the English fight their way there, one of the generals, Salisbury, is able to wound Joan. Her companion, Theodore, is able to kill Salisbury in return but he is brought down by the general Talbot. The French soon lay siege to Tourelles and begin a bloody fight to take the fort. During the battle, the French take many captives and the generals wish to execute them. However, Joan intervenes and ensures the safety of the captives’ lives.

In sparing the lives, the French are awarded by God with the collapse of a bridge that leads to many of the English soldiers drowning and a quick victory. The English, after losing Tourelles, fall back to the coast in order to await for reinforcements. Word comes that the Burgundian troops are coming to help the English. Joan meets with the Duke of Burgundy in order to warn him against a battle before she returns to her men to help bury the dead. Talbot’s son comes with reinforcements from England, and the English army attacks the French at Patay. During the battle, Joan is able to kill the son and Conrade is able to kill the father. This causes the English to flee and, in turn, allows the French to retake Rheims. Once Rheims is free, Charles comes and is crowned the King of France. The story ends with Joan telling him to be a good king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_%28poem%29

1. Wat Tyler, Robert Southey’s three-act play inspired by the British Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, was first published 13 February 1817 by Sherwood, Neely and Jones.  Composed in 1794, the play came to public view in 1817 as a result of literary piracy, stolen and published without Southey’s permission.
2. Southey had written Wat Tyler when he was a 19-year-old university student and political radical, in need of money to realize his plans of matrimony. He entrusted the manuscript to his brother-in-law, Robert Lovell, to sell in London. Lovell gave the manuscript to Samuel Ridgeway, a radical publisher then serving a term in Newgate prison, who offered to publish the book without attaching Southey’s name to it.
3. What happened after the sale of the manuscript is a matter of speculation. Likely because of increasing governmental pressure against London radicals, Ridgeway decided not to publish the manuscript. 1794 had seen the leaders of the London Corresponding Society tried for treason for debating Parliamentary reform. Although Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke and John Thelwall were eventually acquitted and released, the Society was outlawed, Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man was banned, and, by decade’s end, the government had suspended habeas corpus and instituted sweeping restrictions on freedom of the press and of assembly.
4. In the midst of anti-revolutionary sentiment and the twenty years of war that were to follow, Wat Tyler was never published. If we are to judge from his 14 February 1817 letter to John Murray, Southey thought little of the manuscript in Ridgeway’s hands (Curry 150), or of the fact that it had never been officially registered in Stationers’ Hall. Wat Tyler thus was officially without a copyright.
5. By 1817, the political climate if anything had become more dangerous. With Napoleon defeated and Great Britain controlling a sizable portion of the world’s land mass and GNP, British citizens again looked at the questions of reform that over twenty years of world war had put on hold. The result were a series of protests and a sense of internal crisis over issues of taxation and workers’ rights. Part of the political agitation came from a small, influential group of radicals, among them William Hone and Richard Carlile. In response to their activities, the Tory ministry undertook many of the same actions they had undertaken in the mid-1790s, giving the months following the publication of Wat Tyler a sense of political deja vu. In March 1817, habeas corpus was again suspended, and the Home Office began the same active program of domestic spying that had affected Samuel Coleridge, Percy Shelley, and William Wordsworth during the years of war with France. Over these same two decades, however, Southey’s own situation and opinions had changed markably. He was now a controversial Poet Laureate who, for all his own ideological complexities, was perceived as being a Tory spokesman who advocated the deportation of dissenters and who published condemnations of radical ideas on Parliamentary reform. This apparent apostasy made him a target for radical publishers, who managed to procure the manuscript of Wat Tyler and bring it to press.

http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/wattyler/contexts/publication_history.html

Excerpt from Letter to William Smith, Esq., M.P., from Robert Southey, Esq., in The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey, The Rev Charles Cuthbert Southey, M.A., Ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851.

“1817

“In my youth, when my stock of knowledge consisted of such an acquaintance with Greek and Roman history as is acquired in the course of a regular scholastic education—when my heart was full of poetry and romance, and Lucian and Akenside were at my tongue’s end, I fell into the political opinions which the French Revolution was then scattering throughout Europe; and following these opinions with ardor wherever they led, I soon perceived the inequalities of rank were a light evil compared to the inequalities of property, and these more fearful distinctions which the want of moral and intellectual culture occasions between man and man. At that time and with those opinions, or rather feelings (for their root was in the heart and not in the understanding), I wrote Wat Tyler as one who was impatient of ‘all the oppressions that are done under the sun.’”

http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/wattyler/contexts/letters.html#Response

Shortly after leaving Oxford, Southey crossed paths with the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The two formed a close though tempestuous friendship, sharing common interests and beliefs, including a love of literature and politics, a frustration with the staid practices of Britain’s educational institutions, and a growing disillusionment with the political atmosphere of their country. With several other friends, the two forged a plan to create a “Pantisocracy,” or “equal rule of all,” in which the egalitarian principles of the French Revolution could be fully realized on the banks of the Susquehannah River in Pennsylvania. Their goal was to emigrate to America to practice Pantisocracy by forming a communal, utopian settlement where everyone would live in harmony and brotherhood. In order to raise money for their venture, Southey and Coleridge joined forces to write a drama, The Fall of Robespierre (Cambridge, 1794), and to deliver weekly lectures on politics and history.

http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/wattyler/contexts/bio.html