Loading...

środa, 21 grudnia 2011

Simon van Slingelandt (1664–1736) – ostatnia szansa Holandii


Piotr Napierała, Simon van Slingelandt (1664–1736) – ostatnia szansa Holandii, Wydawnictwo Libron-Filip Lohner, Kraków 2012. ISBN 978-83-62196-37-1

My new book concerns the life and public service of one of the most important Dutch politicians of the 18th Century.

Simon van Slingelandt was one of the best informed Dutch politicians of his era. He tried to reform the administration of the United Provinces of the Netherlands and thereby restore its former military and economical glory. He was also very active preserving peace in Europe. All his life he was adherent of the British alliance, but tried to avoid political dependence on Britain. According to one of the best contemporary Dutch historians of early modern times, A.T. van Deursen , Slingelandt, his views and actions (as secretary of the council of state - Secretaris van de Raad van State, 1690-1725, general treasurer of the Dutch Republic - Thesaurier-Generaal van de Unie, 1725-1727, and the Grand Pensionary of Holland – the mightiest of the seven united provinces - Raadpensionaris van Holland, 1727-1736, an unofficial foreign secretary of the Union is the key to getting known the whole administrative practice of United Provinces in 18th Century.

The war of Spanish succession (1701-1714) ends the era of the Dutch Republic as one of the dominant powers in Europe. Reforms proposed by Slingelandt in 1716 and 1718 to the General Staaten i.e. the parliament of the Republic could have prevented reduction of countries powers, but only minority of the delegates supported his motions. Slingelandt played a role of Cassandra, meanwhile other countries like Prussia have made a huge progress modernizing their administration and imposing various protectionist laws in economy. Slingelandts memorials were printed only in 1784-1785, when most of Dutch political decision makers realized that the lack of reform brought only economical and political losses.

As far as his political views are concerned, Slingelandt was a typical Dutch republican, and also to some extend a conservative, because he was a member of the ruling class of regents, and didn’t want to alter the form of government, but to centralize it and subject existing organs to new ministries based on the French or British model (secretaries of states), nevertheless Slingelandts proposals constituted an inspiration for the ‘patriots’ and even more radical democrats of the second half of 18th century, and Johan Rudolph Thorbecke (1798-1872), the author of a set of liberal reforms, who perceived Slingelandt as one of the central figures in Dutch history.



ZE WSTĘPU:

Jeden z najlepiej poinformowanych i najlepiej wykształconych polityków swojej epoki, reformator z powołania, który chciał utrzymać mocarstwową pozycję Republiki Zjednoczonych Prowincji Niderlandów na arenie międzynarodowej drogą reformy administracyjnej, szef dyplomacji Republiki mocno zaangażowany na rzecz europejskiego pokoju, polityk, który wytrwale dążył do tego, by jego kraj traktowano z szacunkiem, zwolennik sojuszu z Wielką Brytanią, który jednak unikał uzależnienia swojego państwa od silniejszego partnera, obywatel Dordrechtu, skąd pochodził także XVII-wieczny tytan polityki holenderskiej Johan de Witt.

Zdaniem jednego z największych ekspertów od historii Republiki Zjednoczonych Prowincji, A.T. van Deursena, postać Slingelandta i jego działalność urzędnicza jako sekretarza rady stanu (Secretaris van de Raad van State, 1690–1725), następnie generalnego skarbnika unii, czyli Republiki (Thesaurier-Generaal van de Unie, 1725–1727), i w końcu wielkiego pensjonariusza prowincji Holandii – najsilniejszej prowincji Republiki (Raadpensionaris van Holland, 1727–1736), czyli nieoficjalnego ministra spraw zagranicznych Republiki, to klucz do poznania całościowego obrazu praktyki polityczno-administracyjnej dawnej Republiki Niderlandzkiej. Korzystając z owej wskazówki van Deursena, postanowiłem napisać tę książkę, zwłaszcza że w języku polskim zdecydowanie brakuje opracowań dotyczących historii Holandii, a szczególnie jej dziejów w XVIII wieku, okresie często pomijanym, nawet przez badaczy holenderskich, na korzyść tzw. złotego wieku – wieku XVII, kiedy to Republika Zjednoczonych Prowincji była europejską potęgą. Okres ten zakończył się po wojnie o sukcesję hiszpańską (1701–1714). Plany reformy Slingelandta, gdyby wprowadzono je w życie w latach 1716–1717, kiedy przedstawiał je Stanom Generalnym, czyli parlamentowi Republiki, mogły zapobiec stoczeniu się tego kraju do grona państw drugorzędnych. Republika Niderlandzka mogłaby być znowu potęgą. Niestety, inne kraje poczyniły w XVIII wieku znacznie większe postępy w dziedzinie administracji, a Republika pozostała w tyle. Slingelandt był więc w pewnym stopniu Kasandrą dla swego narodu, podobnie jednak jak ona nie został wysłuchany. Jego memoriały o potrzebie reformy państwa zostały wydane w wiele lat po jego śmierci (1784–1785), kiedy wreszcie przypominano sobie o jego radach i przestrogach. Brak reformy przyniósł Republice same klęski i ostateczne osłabienie pozycji kraju na arenie międzynarodowej.

Pod względem ideologicznym Slingelandt był typowym holenderskim republikaninem, ale w pewnym sensie również konserwatystą, ponieważ jako przedstawiciel klasy rządzącej nie starał się zmienić ustroju państwa, lecz wzmocnić efektywność pracy administracji poprzez centralizację i utworzenie ministerstw z prawdziwego zdarzenia o szerokich kompetencjach, których decyzje obowiązywałyby na równi patrycjuszowskich urzędników wszystkich siedmiu prowincji tworzących Republikę. Jak to zwykle bywa, brak reformy przyniósł zmiany rewolucyjne: wystąpienia drobnomieszczan w latach czterdziestych, ruch „patriotów” i demokratów w późniejszych dekadach. Autor liberalnej reformy parlamentarnej w XIX wieku Johan Rudolph Thorbecke (1798–1872) uznał Slingelandta za jedną z postaci będących inspiracją dla obozu reformy i jednego z najwybitniejszych polityków w holenderskiej historii.

Typowo biograficznych opracowań dotyczących Slingelandta brak. Pracując nad tą książką, korzystałem z tekstów jego samego, źródeł drukowanych z epoki na temat jego działalności oraz opracowań holenderskich i brytyjskich dotyczących poszczególnych dziedzin jego działalności, jak również ze źródeł i opracowań holenderskich, brytyjskich, niemieckich i francuskich traktujących o ówczesnej polityce i dyplomacji holenderskiej. Wiele z tych opracowań zostało napisanych już dawno, co wskazuje na to, że postać Slingelandta nie jest obecnie zbyt „modna” wśród historyków, tym bardziej warto przypomnieć ją dziś, gdy w Polsce Simon van Slingelandt, człowiek, który przez niemal 40 lat współdecydował o polityce holenderskiej i europejskiej, jest niemal nieznany.

Na koniec pewna uwaga w kwestii nazewnictwa. Państwo, w którym mieszkał i dla którego pracował Slingelandt, nazywało się Republiką Zjednoczonych Prowincji Niderlandów, obejmującą siedem prowincji Niderlandów Północnych, czyli to, co dziś nazywamy zamiennie Niderlandami lub Holandią, w odróżnieniu od Belgii, tj. Niderlandów Południowych, znajdującej się w czasach bohatera tej książki pod kontrolą Królestwa Hiszpanii (do 1714 r.), a potem cesarza Świętego Cesarstwa Rzymskiego Narodu Niemieckiego, będącego jednocześnie głową Domu Austriackiego. W czasach Slingelandta mianem Holandii nazywano tylko jedną z siedmiu prowincji tworzących Republikę, choć przynoszącą 2/3 jej dochodów podatkowych i dominującą politycznie oraz gospodarczo w jej ramach. Właśnie ze względu na tę dominację już w tamtych czasach „Holandią” potocznie nazywano czasem całą republikę i tak zostało do dziś, kiedy w ten sposób określa się całe obecne Królestwo Niderlandów. Jednocześnie mianem Holendrów określam mieszkańców całej Republiki, o ile nie zaznaczam wyraźnie, że chodzi jedynie o mieszkańców prowincji Holandia (ze „stolicą” w Amsterdamie, podczas gdy siedzibą rządu całej Republiki była Haga). Van Slingeland był Holendrem i w szerokim, i w wąskim znaczeniu jako urodzony w południowej części prowincji Holandii, w mieście Dordrecht.

Mam nadzieję, że moja książka przyczyni się, w miarę możności, do wzrostu zainteresowania dość skomplikowanymi i, jak sądzę, ciekawymi dziejami małego, ale silnego i dzielnego państwa – Republiki Zjednoczonych Prowincji.

Piotr Napierała

sobota, 17 grudnia 2011

Piotr Napierała - my publications

B O O K S:


Piotr Napierała, Sir Robert Walpole (1676-1745) – twórca brytyjskiej potęgi, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2008. ISBN 978-83-232189-8-2


Piotr Napierała, Hesja-Darmstadt w XVIII stuleciu. Wielcy władcy małego państwa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2009. ISBN 978-83-232-2007-7



Piotr Napierała, Światowa metropolia. Życie codzienne w osiemnastowiecznym Londynie, Novae Res, Gdynia 2010. ISBN 978-83-61194-43-9




Piotr Napierała, "Kraj wolności" i "kraj niewoli" - brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności w XVII i XVIII wieku, Wydawnictwo Libron-Filip Lohner, Kraków 2011. ISBN 978-83-62196-11-1



Piotr Napierała, Simon van Slingelandt (1664–1736) – ostatnia szansa Holandii, Wydawnictwo Libron-Filip Lohner, Kraków 2012. ISBN 978-83-62196-37-1

A R T I C L E S:


1. Piotr Napierała, "Christian Europe and Enlightened Europe" [w:] EU Enlargement - Chance for all, Collegium Europaeum Gnesnense Foundation, Gniezno 2005, s. 101-105. ISBN 83-922470-6-X
vide:



2. Piotr Napierała, "Die polnisch-sächsische Union (1697-1763) - Polens letzte Hoffnung - Sachsens Traum von der Macht" [w:] Polen und Deutschland. Zusammenleben und -wirken, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań 2006, s. 60-66. ISBN 83-60247-63-3
vide:


3. Piotr Napierała, "Spadek polityczny po szwedzkim Frihetstiden (1718-1772)", w: Współczesność i przyszłość nauk humanistycznych. Problemy i perspektywy badawcze, Instytut Historii UAM Poznań 2008, s. 13-24. ISBN 978-83-89407-53-5
vide:


4. Piotr Napierała, "Europa oświecona a świat islamu", w: Kultura-Historia-Globalizacja Numer 4, rok 2009, s. 13-21.
vide:


5. Piotr Napierała, "Frédéric Bastiat i Herbert Spencer - źródła myśli politycznej Janusza Korwin-Mikkego" [w:] T.Sikorski, A. Wątor (red.), Marzyciele i realiści O roli tradycji w polskiej myśli politycznej od upadku powstania styczniowego do XXI wieku, Szczecin 2009, s. 620-632. ISBN 978-83-751814-0-1
vide:


6. Piotr Napierała, "Germain Louis Chauvelin i rozbrat pomiędzy Francją a Wielką Brytanią, 1727-1737", w: C. Taracha (red), Szpiegostwo, wywiad, państwo, Wydawnictwo Polihymnia, Lublin 2009, s. 45-65. ISBN 978-83-7270-727-8
vide:


7. Piotr Napierała, "Konflikt dwóch światów. Terezjańscy i józefińscy biurokraci w Galicji (1772-1790)", W: G. Pełczyński, K. Święcicki (red.), Polacy wobec wielości kultur. Wczoraj-dziś-jutro, KMB-DRUK Gniezno 2009, s. 91-102. ISBN 978-83-61352-40-2
vide:


8. Piotr Napierała, "Reinhard Keiser (1674-1739) a Hamburg - uniwersalny twórca w europejskiej metropolii", w: R.D. Golianek, P.Urbański, Händel, Haydn i idea uniwersalizmu muzyki, Rhytmos Poznań 2010, s. 191-203 ISBN 978-83-60593-12-7
vide:


9. Piotr Napierała, "Rządy patrycjatu w przedrozbiorowym Poznaniu na tle innych miast europejskich", ", w: W. Łazuga, S. Paczos, Poznań-Szczecin-Wrocław, Trzy uniwersytety, trzy miasta, trzy regiony, Libron Kraków 2010, s. 397-412. ISBN: 978-83-62196-13-5.
vide:


10. Piotr Napierała, "Europa oświecona a świat islamu"; w: Adam Nobis, Piotr Badyna (red.), Historia - Kultura - Globalizacja, vol. II, Gajt, Wrocław 2010, ss.175-184.
vide:


11. Piotr Napierała, "Ah! ça ira, Heart of Oak, Gustafs skål – pieśń patriotyczna jako źródło do badania historii mentalności i propagandy", w: "Monteskiusz. Res Politica et historica", nr. 2, 2010. vide:


12. Piotr Napierała, "Piotr Napierała Spór między historiografią niemiecką i holenderską o miejsce i rolę Holandii w Europie", "Przegląd Zachodni" Październik-Grudzień 2010 Nr 4, s. 228-236. vide:


13. Piotr Napierała, "Karol II Habsburg i wyimaginowana głupota niektórych władców", w: Głupota w zwierciadle humanistyki, Stowarzyszenie „Nowa Humanistyka” kwiecień 2011 ISBN: 978-83-62854-02-8 vide:


14. Piotr Napierała, "Najbardziej rozpolitykowane miasto Europy Życie codzienne w XVIII-wiecznym Londynie", w: M. Moskalewicz, A. Paradowska, Homo sum: Humani nil a me alienum puto. Życie codzienne wczoraj i dziś, Instytut Historii Poznań 2011, s. 129-141 ISBN 978-83-89407-79-5 vide:


15. Piotr Napierała, „Świat Zachodu”, „Wschód” i idea postępu w XVIII-wiecznej Wielkiej Brytanii", w: Kultura-Historia-Globalizacja Numer 10, rok 2011, s. 133-147.
vide:


16. Piotr Napierała, "Wigowski mit historyczny a historia nowożytna Wielkiej Brytanii", w: T. Błaszczyk, K. Brzechczyn, D. Ciunajcis, M. Kierzkowski (red.), Uwikłania historiografii. Między ideologizacją dziejów a obiektywizmem badawczym (Studia i materiały poznańskiego IPN, t. XVIII). Poznań, IPN, 2011, s. 221-238. ISBN 978-83-932188-9-9


17. Piotr Napierała, "Stosunki brytyjsko-polskie, a zainteresowanie brytyjskimi wzorcami politycznymi w Rzeczpospolitej w XVIII wieku", w: K. Święcicki (red.), Europa Środkowa i Wschodnia jako przestrzeń spotkania. Na szlakach tradycji kultury, Gnieźnieńska Szkoła Wyższa Milenium Gniezno 2012, s. 73-83. ISBN 978-83-61352-52-5

18.Piotr Napierała,„Polityka rządu Roberta Walpole’a wobec Hiszpanii – rola animozji ideologicznych i narodowych w konflikcie z 1739 roku”, w: J. Kudełko, C. Taracha (red.), Polska-Hiszpania. Wczoraj i dziś. Studia poświęcone wybranym zagadnieniom z historii i współczesności, Werset Lublin 2012 ISBN 978-83-60133-94-1

19. Piotr Napierała, "Protosocjalistyczna koncepcja wolności i własności Rousseau a analogiczne teorie polskiego jakobina Hugo Kołłątaja".

20. Piotr Napierała, "Fabularny film historyczny, propaganda, prawda historyczna i prawda esencjonalna".

21. Piotr Napierała, "William Hogarth (1697-1764) a początki europejskiej karykatury politycznej".

23. Piotr Napierała, "Drogi kariery politycznej w Wielkiej Brytanii przed i po wielkiej reformie wyborczej (Reform Act) 1832 roku".

24. Piotr Napierała, „‘Western World’, ‘East’ and the Idea of Progress in eighteenth century Britain” (w druku UJ)

25. Piotr Napierała, "Elie Freron (1718-1776), Charles Palissot (1730-1814) i francuska prasa konserwatywna XVIII stulecia"

26. Piotr Napierała, "Georg Friedrich Händel jako poddany brytyjski"

czwartek, 8 grudnia 2011

Rule Britannia and Wilhelmus




Patriotic songs constitute a part of every nation’s culture, but are rarely taken as seriously as written historical sources. Even if the are, it’s due to patriotic character of some monographs. Text and message of a patriotic song is often to be elaborated by countrymen, although it has even better quality as a source, to foreign researcher, for whom other nation’s songs and anthems are the best gate to the spirit of the nation and it’s ‘national values” or myths, on which nations and states are built. This is most visible in national anthems, which could be more popular, royal, conservative or revolutionary, according to the vision of the state, they are supposed to somehow depict. Changing the character or word of the national anthem is always a serious matter as connected with the ideological change of the state and the nation. It’s even more serious, because the national anthem is supposed to have educational impact on younger generations.

In Poland it was considered for some time replacing the martial “Dąbrowski’s Mazurka” ("Poland is not yet lost") with more ‘psalmic’, and less optimistic Rota ("The Oath"), the same situation we have in the United States, it’s national anthem and the sentimental tunes of: America the Beautiful. In the UK we see adherents of the royal anthem: God save The Queen, the artistic though very popular and more ‘democratic’: Rule Britannia, other more ‘pacifistic’ songs like: Jerusalem or Scottish, Welsh and English traditional works.

Some nations can to boast of their huge collections of patriotic songs, some cannot. The powerful and populous Germany has no impressive collection of them unlike the Netherlands, that, besides the oldest official European anthem, the 16-th Century Wilhelmus, has a very rich set of patriotic anthems and songs, among which the most fascinating are those dating from the time of formation of the Dutch state, that is the last decade of 16th Century, and the next two-three decades. Among them we can mention: Al uwe boos' aenslagen (1568), Bede voor het Vaderland (1586), and even older Laet sang en spel (1572), that tells us about the Dutch hatred towards the Spanish governor the duke of Alba (…Duc d'Alve den tyran…). The song contains an invocation to God to repulse the Spaniard from the Low Countries. Many old Dutch patriotic songs have survived to our times were edited in the popular set of patriotic music: Nederlandtsche Gedenck-clanck from 1626.

Germany has maybe the biggest collection of folk songs from the pre-romantic era , before the pan-Germanic patriotism was really invented almost ex nihilo by German poets and philosophers, but there are almost no songs of clearly patriotic message among them. That can possibly explain why non-classical music written before the age of romanticism are rarely performer in Germany (the splendid exception are maybe: Die Gedanken sind frei and the oldest Prussian military marches like: Dessauer Marsch from the beginning of the eighteenth Century and Auf Ansbach Dragoner ! composed reportedly by the Frederick the Great about 1756. The Kingdom of Prussia that was established in 1701 is today perceived not only as the state that reunited German lands, but also as the cultural predecessor of today’s Germany. By the way it is worth noticing that for instance: Auf Ansbach Dragoner and other songs of this type are only as popular, as the German post-WWII politically correct sense of guilt allows, since the Prussian military has both positive and sinister connotations. German Prussian, Saxon, Bavarian etc. military marches were equivalents of patriotic songs in Germany before 19th Century. In the first decades of 19th Century German poets and musicians seemed still to prefer the universalistic approach than nationalistic1. The famous: Deutschland über alles, was composed as the ‘song of the Germans’ (Lied der Deutschen), using the same Haydn’s andante that the first Austrian anthem: Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser. As to the post-martial guilt, today only the third stanza of Deutschland über alles can be sung legally and publically although e.g. La Marseillaise has much more bellicose character. But we must remember that France was an ally during WWII, ant its anthem contains no territorial claims.

From all pre-romantic patriotic music created in German land outside Prussia, only those are remember, which have been included into the classical music canon2, like in case of the frequently performed Johann Sebastian Bach’s cantata3: Preise Dein Glücke gesegnetes Sachsen (“Praise Your Luck Blessed Saxony”) composed in 1733 for the occasion of seizing the throne of Poland by the elector of Saxony Frederick Augustus I (Polish king Augustus II the Strong). Works like: Preise Dein Glücke gesegnetes Sachsen were by no means a rarity in the era of baroque and classicism. (e.g. the cantata composed by Johann Christian Freislich for Augustus III in Dantzig in 1755), but they hardy could be compared to patriotic music as we under stand this term today. Many of them were intended for a small group of listeners, although the aforementioned Bach’s cantata could be something of an exception, because it was performed in the center of Dresden, a city that enjoyed the long tradition of common aristocratic-plebeian feasts on open air, we can at least mention the entertainment organized for Frederick IV of Denmark’s visit in the capital of Saxony in June 17094. But still: Preise Dein Glücke lacked one feature of patriotic music as we understand it today it’s to complicated to be performed, ore even whistled by average subjects or citizens. This is the reason why baroque patriotic music rarely can become popular among masses, an why the splendid operatic song Rule Britannia, composed by Thomas Augustine Arne (1710-1778) in 1740 sung in UK during the Night of the Proms (opera singers sing the stanzas, and the mob replies with the chorus: Rule Britannia / Britannia rule the waves / Britons never never never shall be slaves won’t replace less popular but easier: God save The Queen, composed nota bene in the same historical period5.

In Scandinavian countries there are two official anthems; the royal and the popular one, which are more less on the same level of importance, but are performer on different occasions. In Sweden the role of royal anthem is played by : Kungssången6, and that of a popular one, by: Du gamla, Du fria, which is still less official. Their Danish equivalents are: Kong Kristian from about 1770 roku, and: Der er et yndigt land (‘There is a beautiful country’) accepted as the official anthem of Denmark in 1844. In Noway there use: Kongesangen sung in the tune of: God Save the King (stanzas were composed in the 1840’s and in 1906 roku), and: Ja, vi elsker dette landet (‘Yes, we love this country’) from the 1860’s. This is how the compromise between the royal and the national spirit can look like.

How important it is to nations or political movements to possess not only a catching ideology, but also its own anthem, can proof the case of the Spanish nationalistic song: Cara al. Sol (‘Facing the Sun’) from 1935. This hymn was composed as an answer for the anarchistic song: A Las Barricadas sung by the anarchists in tune of the Polish: Warszawianka (‘La Varsovienne’ / ‘The Song of Warsaw’) composed by Jean-François Casimir Delavigne and Karol Kurpiński in 1831 roku with reference to La Marseillaise.

In many countries the role of patriotic music before the rise of nationalism was played by religious anthems7”. It was normal to sing: Te Deum laudamus, before the battle to secure God’s help and mercy. Lutheran soldiers had their: Ein Feste Burg is unser Gott sung in German or in translation (as e.g. Swedish version: Vår Gud är oss en väldig Borg). The Swedish historian, writer and the distinguished member of the Swedish Royal Academy, Peter Englund, working on his book about the battle of Poltava (1709), tried to penetrate the soul of a 18th Century Swedish private soldier, for whom singing a religious song before the battle was the most important thing, because he would have interpreted every event as a sign of God’s will. The snowstorm that dazzled the Russian army at Narva (1700) was perceived as the sign of God’s benevolence for Swedish cause. The problems with food supply during the Ukrainian campaign were being interpreter as a sign of God’s disapproval. In his book Englud has written that Te Deum was Heard by both armies at Poltava, which is doubtful.

In England before the Victorian era, patriotic music used to be composed either as practical military music8, like: British Grenadiers (end of XVII C.), or operatic or occasional music. From the 17th Century on there was in England a tradition of so-called occasional music; occasional arias, odes or oratories. The famous Henry Purcell (1659-1695) used to compose funeral odes for the royalty, e.g. In December 1694 for Mary Stuart, the wife of William III. But these works never become sung as patriotic music, as we today under stand this term, contrary to some operatic arias and chorals – the music composed mainly for entertainment. The chorus by George Frederick Handel: See The conquering Hero comes, which is part of 1747 oratorio: Judas Maccabaeus, still frequently played and popular (it was also one of the most popular musical works of the 18th Century) we can hear even in the famous film: Out of Africa (1985), performed by Robert Redford and Michael Kitchen. At the beginning of the 19th Century the melody of Handel’s chorus was applied in German carrol: Tochter Zion freue Dich. Arne’s: Rule Britannia was also originally a part of stage music work, namely the opera: Alfred (1740), telling the story of famous king Alfred the Great. Very similar transition we can observe in case of Verdi’s opera: Nabucco, and the chorale: Va pensiero chich is still known as the hymn of the slaves, and was sung in Verdi’s Times as the first informal Italian anthem.
The British was probably the first to enjoy patriotic music in today’s meaning of this word. Those songs are the medieval equivalent of today’s patriotic mass culture. We always think about the hundred years war (1337-1453), as a conflict which has awaken the patriotic/nationalistic spirit among the English and French, but in France the patriotic music was for a very long time limited to religious music, or military marches, like those composed by Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632-1687) both for Louis XIV’s army and opera. The mediaeval English: Agincourt Carol, also known as: Deo gratias Anglia redde pro Victoria was printed as a part of the so-called: Robertsbridge Codex in 15th Century. But, according to Shakespearian tradition, at the fields of Agincourt in 1415, the English sung psalm: Non nobis, Domine, non nobis / Sed nomini tuo da gloriam9.

British and American historiography already in the 19th Century studied with care the connection between ideology and patriotic music, which can be the effect of the relatively early democratization in Anglo-Saxon world. One of the favorite topics for historians dealing with American revolutionary war (1775-1783) is what song was sung by George’ III’s troops after the battle of Yorktown (1781)10. It is a very concrete question – was it: The World Turned Upside Down11 or: The King Will Cover into This Again ”)12. The answer could provide information about something so imperceptible as the mood of the surrendering army. Were the British depressed and dispirited, Or maybe they perceived Yorktown as a temporary lack of good fortune? We know that British banner was honored by troops of Rochambeau and Washington, but this could be the effect of military conventions. Of course we can find some memoires, but remarks we can find there will always belong only to individuals. The music only could provide the final answer about collective spirit of an army and some particular period. It’s possible that the British at Yorktown sung: When the King enjoys his own again, the song of English royalists fighting Cromwell. This song uses the same tune as: The World Turned Upside Down, and fits perfectly to revolutionary struggle13.

Sometimes the traced existence of some patriotic song can constitute proof for existence of some political organization, or of the for its political importance. Niall Ferguson cites in his work: Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (London 2003), the loyalist song: The Congress, sung during the revolutionary war, and comments, that the existence of such songs proofs how strong was the loyalist movement in the thirteen colonies14”. These are first two stanzas of the song:

Ye, Tories all rejoice and sing,
success to George our gracious King.
The faithful subjects tribute bring,
and execrate the Congress.
There hardy knaves and stupid fools,
Some apish and pragmatic mules,
Some servile acquiescing tools,
These, these compose the Congress.

The vicissitudes of Fortune of the famous song: Yankee Doodle can show us, how much changes in history affects the worlds of ideologies and music. The melody itself probably came into being in 17th Century Netherlands than become popular in England. About 1775 British officers used the popular tune to compose a song to satirize commonplace customs of the American colonial population. This text was sung by the British at Bunker Hill. In the year of this battle another version was already known and sung from time to time by Americans. This version tells the story of brother Ephraim, who went for a war against the French (probably it relates to the French and Indian Wars). Soldiers of both sides, and Americans after the war created some other versions, which makes the case of Yankee Doodle, an example of ideological-musical war15.

This is the British version mocking the ignorance and common manners of American colonists, who Gould think, that putting a feather in their hats could make them: macaroni, that is; very fashionable16:

Yankee Doodle went to town,
A-Riding on a pony;
He stuck a feather in his hat,
And called it macaroni.
Yankee Doodle, keep it up,
Yankee Doodle dandy;
Mind the music and the step,
And with the girls be handy

And a new stanza addend by the British, after the battle of Bunker Hill (1775):

The seventeen of June, at Break of Day,
The Rebels they supriz'd us,
With their strong Works, which they'd thrown up,
To burn the Town and drive us.


This British version we can compare with one of earliest American version telling the story of brother Ephraim, which nota bene is also a bit contemptuous towards a common colonist. We deal here with a situation similar with that of Goebbels’ desart rats; something regarded as an insult by the enemy, is fully accepted by the nation as a positive set of values:

Brother Ephraim sold his Cow
And bought him a Commission;
And then he went to Canada
To fight for the Nation;
But when Ephraim he came home
He proved an arrant Coward,
He wouldn't fight the Frenchmen there
For fear of being devour'd.

The message of some patriotic songs is today understandable only in relation to our knowledge about historical facts. We can ‘feel’ the social situation thanks to such songs like: Ah! ça ira, Heart of Oak or: Gustafs skål. Three mentioned pieces relate to different values cherished by Three different nations in very specific historical period.

Ah! ça ira was the most popular of French revolutionary songs. Like: Rule Britannia it was based on operatic music. Lyrics of Ah! ça ira was the work of veteran named Ladré, who earned his life as street singer. The melody has a form of a typical contredance and was primarily used for an aria, popularly called: le Carillon national, a work of violinist and composer Bécourt. The queen Marie Antoinette was reportedly very fond of the aria and used to play it on harpsichord. The title of it’s next version: Ah! ça ira, comes from Benjamina Franklina, American envoy in Paris (1776-1785), who was asked about the chances of American revolutionary forces during the war against the British, and replied, that he believed in success: ça ira,

Analyzing two versions of Ah! ça ira’s lyrics we cant race the radicalization of attitude among the revolutionary politicians and mob. The version from 1790 is very ‘religious’ in character. We see the reference to the Gospel, and the ‘genuine catechism’, carefully distinguished from the horrible fanaticism and bigotry. We can also find a call for great lawgiver, someone like Draco or Solon, which is typical for republicans always idealizing the myths about Athenian lawfulness. We can feel some disdain for aristocracy (if an aristocrat protests, the ‘genuine citizen’ should laugh into his face) , but no calls for its extermination. As Jeremy Black observes the Eighteenth Century European culture was basically still a Christian one17, so it’s no wonder that we could find in Ah! ça ira a mixture of exclusive anticlericalism and the catholic virtues deeply rooted in mob’s minds. These are some of the words of the 1790 version:

Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Le peuple en ce jour sans cesse répète,
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Malgré les mutins tout réussira.

Nos ennemis confus en restent là
Et nous allons chanter « Alléluia ! »
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Quand Boileau jadis du clergé parla
Comme un prophète il a prédit cela.
En chantant ma chansonnette
Avec plaisir on dira :

Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !
Suivant les maximes de l’évangile
Du législateur tout s’accomplira.
Celui qui s’élève on l’abaissera
Celui qui s’abaisse on l’élèvera.
Le vrai catéchisme nous instruira
Et l’affreux fanatisme s’éteindra.
Pour être à la loi docile
Tout Français s’exercera.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !

The later version composed and sung by radical sans-culottes in times of terror (1793) is much more aggressive than the previous one, calling to kill aristocrats and clergymen. In 1795 th French Directory prohibited performing both versions publically. That prohibition was maintained by Napoleon. This is almost the whole lyrics of the sans-culotte version:


Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !
Les aristocrates à la lanterne,
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !
Les aristocrates on les pendra !
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !
Les aristocrates à la lanterne.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira !
Les aristocrates on les pendra.

Si on n’ les pend pas
On les rompra
Si on n’ les rompt pas
On les brûlera.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,

Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Nous n’avions plus ni nobles, ni prêtres,
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
L’égalité partout régnera.
L’esclave autrichien le suivra,
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Et leur infernale clique
Au diable s’envolera.


Today in France sometimes both versions are sung together., although the most famous is the version, based on the sans-culotte one, sung in the 60’s by Edith Piaf, who has changed significantly the melody.

Another song that can tell us much about the spirit of times, in which it was composed is: Heart of Oak from 1759. The author of words used in it was the most famous British actor of 18th Century David Garrick (1717-1779), whereas the melody was composed by William Boyce (1711-1779). The song tells us how the British patriotism of the era looked like. The king is mentioned only once, most likely due to the supremacy of parliament as a leading political power already in those days:

Come, cheer up, my lads, 'tis to glory we steer,
To add something more to this wonderful year;
To honour we call you, as freemen not slaves,
For who are as free as the sons of the waves?

CHORUS:
Heart of oak are our ships, jolly tars are our men,
we always are ready; Steady, boys, steady!
We'll fight and we'll conquer again and again.

We ne'er see our foes but we wish them to stay,
They never see us but they wish us away;
If they run, why we follow, and run them ashore,
And if they won't fight us, we cannot do more.

They swear they'll invade us, these terrible foes,
They frighten our women, our children and beaus,
But should their flat bottoms in darkness get o'er,
Still Britons they'll find to receive them on shore.

Britannia triumphant, her ships sweep the sea,
Her standard is Justice -- her watchword, 'be free.'
Then cheer up, my lads, with one heart let us sing,
Our soldiers, our sailors, our statesmen, and king.

The key-word as in most British patriotic songs is ‘freedom’, although – in the contrary to Rule Britannia’ s lyrics, that freedom is not opposed to some tyranny of foreign powers. Heart of Oak came into being in ‘wonderful year’ of 1759, when British fleet and armies defeated the French in India (Robert Clive) and Canada (James Wolfe). The unprecedented success of British armed forces was promising a new era of British domination, although the British politicians were so thrilled by triumphs, that were unable to find any amicable solution of the American conflict 16 years later18.

Very often the political situation influences the world of art, including music. During WWI the French authorities has prohibited public performance of German music, especially the pieces by Schubert and Wagner, on the other hand German authorities prohibited Gershwin’s works in 1941. This of course reminds us the recent problem of American fries instead French fries. These are examples of somewhat childish nationalism.

The pre-revolutionary era was dominated by philosophical enlightened universalism, that was focused on universal idea of truth and beauty, that could have being discovered, or betrayed. Very interesting situation was in Paris and Versailles of the 1750s and 1760s where the adherents of energetic music of Rameau opposed the more static and solemn traditional music of Lully, that used to add splendor to all royal ceremonies, and later were attacked by adherents of Italian baroque music like Diderot and Rousseau (who was himself a rather mediocre composer). The most characteristic feature of this conflict is the tension between musical and political attitude of both sides. As soon as les rameauneurs and les lullyistes were reconciled, the music of Rameau started to be perceived as monarchist and pro-absolutistic, whereas Italian music of Piccinini and others was treated like an incarnation of more republican tendencies. No wonder that (liberal) monarchist like Voltaire was rameauneur19.

Very similar situation was in Britain in 1730s, but there a musical taste played even more humble role than in Paris ot the 1750s. We mean a conflict between enthusiasts of Handel’s music, and the king George II, and adherents of prince of Wales Frederick, the parliamentary ‘patriot’ opposition, and Nicola Porpora’s music performed in the Theather of The Nobility. This conflict was precede by a former strictly musical quarrel between fans of Handel and Italian opera, and those of traditional English masque that John Gay and John Christopher Pepusch tried to revive with their Beggar’s Opera (1729).

The rivalry between Theather of The Nobility and Handel’s Covent Garden had little in common was not about matters of taste. Both Handel and Porpora represented Italian mainstream baroque opera, but Handel was party sponsored by the king, so it was a duty to every nobleman of the opposition (either anti-ministerial ‘patriot whigs’ or tories) to visit Theather of The Nobility (where the famous castrato- singer Farinelli used to sing), as it was for every friend of the establishment and the prime minister Roberat Walpole, to show up in Covent Garden. There was some nationalistic element of this quarrel, as both the king and Handel were Germans, as was prince Frederick, who however played the role of true-borne Englishman20.

The cultural and musical wars were known also to early modern Sweden. The rivalry between the parties of: Hattar (hats), and Mössor (caps), chich dominatem the period of Swedish Era of Liberty (Frihetstiden): 1718-1772 (from the liquidation of absolutism after the tragic death of Charles XII , up to the restoration of 1772 by Gustav III) had an impact on Swedish cultural life. Already in the 1740’s the leaders of Mössor like Mattias Alexander von Ungern-Sternberg (1689-1763) expressed a cultural connection with England, read Locke, ad were interested in British industrial inventions. The famous Swedish composer who was somewhat connected to Mössor, Johan Helmich Roman (1694-1758) learnd the art. Of composing on Handel’s works21. Politically the Mössor, were connected also to Russia, whereas Hattar Francophiles fascinated by French modern philosophy, especially that of Voltaire. The party was lead by diplomats, among whom many used to serve as Swedish envoys in Paris: Carl Gyllenborg (1679-1746) , Carl Gustaf Tessin (1695-1770), Anders Johan von Höpken (1712–1789)22. The ‘Hats” dreamed about stronger Sweaden thank to French support. To that party used to belong the composer Carl Michael Bellmann (1740-1795), known as ‘Swedish Mozart’, who, after Gustav III’s coup d’etat (1772) changed hist views to more royalist. The Swedish middle class were tired of both parties and the corruption applied by them, so they supported gladly the pro-bourgeois king Gustav23.

In 1772 Belmann composed (from his own free will) a song intitled: Gustafs skål (‘Toast to Gustaf’), which dleighted the monarch. From this time on the song become an unofficial national anthem, up to 1805, when: Bevare Gud vår kung was composed by Abraham Niclas Edelcrantz (1754-1821). In Gustafs skål the rule of parliament are called as injust and insane. We can also find in this song a trace of a strong monarchist credo realated to the idea of royal god-given privilegies.

Gustafs skål (1772)
Translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafs_sk%C3%A5l

Gustafs skål!
Den bäste Kung, som Norden äger:
Han ej tål,
At vigtskåln ojämt väger. :||:

God och glad,
Han Ilskans röst föraktar
Samt afvaktar
Och betraktar
Dårskap i sin grad. :||:

Sådan Kung
Är värd att styra Sveriges öden:
Rask och ung,
Ej rådlös uti nöden. :||:

Wasa Ätt
Har aldrig lärt att svika,
Aldrig tvika,
Men at fika
Till at göra rätt. :||:


Gustafs Toast!
The greatest king of the north:
He can't rest,
While injustice rules. :||:

Decent and cheerful,
He detests anger
and waits
and studies
lunacy in progress :||:

A king like he
Is worthy to govern Swedens destiny
Bold and young
Never in hopeless need :||:

Of Vasa dynasty
Is taught to never fail
Never hesitate
But rather do
What is just and fair. :||:




To conclude we can once more say, that patriotic songs are rich source of historical knowledge about the historical attitudes of elite and mob, and the social imagination referring to particular historical events.






BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Barbier P., Farinelli Prawdziwa historia genialnego kastrata, Warszawa 1998.
Beaurepaire P.Y., Le mythe de l’Europe française au XVIIIe Siècle. Diplomatie, culture et sociabilités au temps des Lumières, Éditions Autrement Paris 2007.
Beaussant Ph., Rameau de A à Z, Fayard, Paris 1983.
Boehn M. von, England im XVIII. Jahrhundert, Askanischer Verlag Berlin 1922.
Blake J., Eighteenth Century Europe, Palgrave Macmillan 1999.
Czok K., Am Hofe Augusts des Starken, Leipzig 1989.
Davies N., The Isles, Oxford University Press 1999.
Drake D., Flint E., Baen J., The World Turned Upside Down, NY 2005.
Ferguson N., Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Allen Lane London 2003.
Fumaroli M., Quand l'Europe parlait francais, Le Livre De Poche Paris 2003.
Hoppe, H.H., Democracy: The God that Failed, Transaction Publishers, Rutgers, N.J., 2001.
Jarrick A., Back to Modern Reason: Johan Hjerpe and Other Petit Bourgeois in Stockholm in the Age of Enlightenment, Liverpool University Press 1998.
Krehlikowa A., Haendel, PWM, Warszawa 1972.
Lipoński W., Dzieje kultury brytyjskiej, PWN Warszawa 2005.
Maistre J. de, Wybór pism, Warszawa 1968.
Nouvelle Histoire de Paris: Paris au XVIIIe siècle, Hachette Paris 1988.
Rackwitz W., Il caro sassone, Georg Friedrich Handel: Lebensbeschreibung in Bildern. 1. Aufl. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1986.
Roberts M., Era of Liberty - Sweden 1718-1771, Liverpool University Press, 1995.
Rousset Ch., Jean-Philippe Rameau, Actes SUD Paris 2007.
Ruśinowa I., Saratoga–Yorktown 1777-1781, z dziejów wojny amerykańsko - angielskiej, Warszawa 1984.
Schweitzer A., Johann Sebastian Bach. Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden 1990.
Tessin C.G., Tableau de Paris et la cour de France 1739-1742. Lettres inédites, de Carl Gustaf, comte de Tessin, Jean Touzot/Gunnar von Prochwitz Paris/Göteborg 1983.
Wettenberg G., Från tolv till ett Arvid Horn (1664-1742), Atlantis Stockholm, 2006.

WEBSITES:
http://www.colonialmusic.org
http://www.americanrevolution.org
http://www.bayern.landtag.de

środa, 7 grudnia 2011

Piotr Napierała - my publications:

B O O K S:


Piotr Napierała, Sir Robert Walpole (1676-1745) – twórca brytyjskiej potęgi, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2008. ISBN 978-83-232189-8-2


Piotr Napierała, Hesja-Darmstadt w XVIII stuleciu. Wielcy władcy małego państwa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2009. ISBN 978-83-232-2007-7



Piotr Napierała, Światowa metropolia. Życie codzienne w osiemnastowiecznym Londynie, Novae Res, Gdynia 2010. ISBN 978-83-61194-43-9




Piotr Napierała, "Kraj wolności" i "kraj niewoli" - brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności w XVII i XVIII wieku, Wydawnictwo Libron-Filip Lohner, Kraków 2011. ISBN 978-83-62196-11-1


A R T I C L E S:


1. Piotr Napierała, "Christian Europe and Enlightened Europe" [w:] EU Enlargement - Chance for all, Collegium Europaeum Gnesnense Foundation, Gniezno 2005, s. 101-105. ISBN 83-922470-6-X
vide:



2. Piotr Napierała, "Die polnisch-sächsische Union (1697-1763) - Polens letzte Hoffnung - Sachsens Traum von der Macht" [w:] Polen und Deutschland. Zusammenleben und -wirken, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań 2006, s. 60-66. ISBN 83-60247-63-3
vide:


3. Piotr Napierała, "Spadek polityczny po szwedzkim Frihetstiden (1718-1772)", w: Współczesność i przyszłość nauk humanistycznych. Problemy i perspektywy badawcze, Instytut Historii UAM Poznań 2008, s. 13-24. ISBN 978-83-89407-53-5
vide:


4. Piotr Napierała, "Europa oświecona a świat islamu", w: Kultura-Historia-Globalizacja Numer 4, rok 2009, s. 13-21.
vide:


5. Piotr Napierała, "Frédéric Bastiat i Herbert Spencer - źródła myśli politycznej Janusza Korwin-Mikkego" [w:] T.Sikorski, A. Wątor (red.), Marzyciele i realiści O roli tradycji w polskiej myśli politycznej od upadku powstania styczniowego do XXI wieku, Szczecin 2009, s. 620-632. ISBN 978-83-751814-0-1
vide:


6. Piotr Napierała, "Germain Louis Chauvelin i rozbrat pomiędzy Francją a Wielką Brytanią, 1727-1737", w: C. Taracha (red), Szpiegostwo, wywiad, państwo, Wydawnictwo Polihymnia, Lublin 2009, s. 45-65. ISBN 978-83-7270-727-8
vide:


7. Piotr Napierała, "Konflikt dwóch światów. Terezjańscy i józefińscy biurokraci w Galicji (1772-1790)", W: G. Pełczyński, K. Święcicki (red.), Polacy wobec wielości kultur. Wczoraj-dziś-jutro, KMB-DRUK Gniezno 2009, s. 91-102. ISBN 978-83-61352-40-2
vide:


8. Piotr Napierała, "Reinhard Keiser (1674-1739) a Hamburg - uniwersalny twórca w europejskiej metropolii", w: R.D. Golianek, P.Urbański, Händel, Haydn i idea uniwersalizmu muzyki, Rhytmos Poznań 2010, s. 191-203 ISBN 978-83-60593-12-7
vide:


9. Piotr Napierała, "Rządy patrycjatu w przedrozbiorowym Poznaniu na tle innych miast europejskich", ", w: W. Łazuga, S. Paczos, Poznań-Szczecin-Wrocław, Trzy uniwersytety, trzy miasta, trzy regiony, Libron Kraków 2010, s. 397-412. ISBN: 978-83-62196-13-5.
vide:


10. Piotr Napierała, "Europa oświecona a świat islamu"; w: Adam Nobis, Piotr Badyna (red.), Historia - Kultura - Globalizacja, vol. II, Gajt, Wrocław 2010, ss.175-184.
vide:


11. Piotr Napierała, "Ah! ça ira, Heart of Oak, Gustafs skål – pieśń patriotyczna jako źródło do badania historii mentalności i propagandy", w: "Monteskiusz. Res Politica et historica", nr. 2, 2010. vide:


12. Piotr Napierała, "Piotr Napierała Spór między historiografią niemiecką i holenderską o miejsce i rolę Holandii w Europie", "Przegląd Zachodni" Październik-Grudzień 2010 Nr 4, s. 228-236. vide:


13. Piotr Napierała, "Karol II Habsburg i wyimaginowana głupota niektórych władców", w: Głupota w zwierciadle humanistyki, Stowarzyszenie „Nowa Humanistyka” kwiecień 2011 ISBN: 978-83-62854-02-8 vide:


14. Piotr Napierała, "Najbardziej rozpolitykowane miasto Europy Życie codzienne w XVIII-wiecznym Londynie", w: M. Moskalewicz, A. Paradowska, Homo sum: Humani nil a me alienum puto. Życie codzienne wczoraj i dziś, Instytut Historii Poznań 2011, s. 129-141 ISBN 978-83-89407-79-5 vide:


15. Piotr Napierała, „Świat Zachodu”, „Wschód” i idea postępu w XVIII-wiecznej Wielkiej Brytanii", w: Kultura-Historia-Globalizacja Numer 10, rok 2011, s. 133-147.
vide:

16. Piotr Napierała, "Wigowski mit historyczny a historia nowożytna Wielkiej Brytanii"

17. Piotr Napierała, "Aktywność dyplomacji brytyjskiej w Europie Środkowo-wschodniej a próby i możliwości naprawy polskiego ustroju w oparciu o brytyjską myśl polityczną"

18. Piotr Napierała, "Protosocjalistyczna koncepcja wolności i własności Rousseau a analogiczne teorie polskiego jakobina Hugo Kołłątaja".

19. Piotr Napierała, "Fabularny film historyczny, propaganda, prawda historyczna i prawda esencjonalna".

20. Piotr Napierała, "William Hogarth (1697-1764) a początki europejskiej karykatury politycznej".

22. Piotr Napierała, "Drogi kariery politycznej w Wielkiej Brytanii przed i po wielkiej reformie wyborczej (Reform Act) 1832 roku".

22. Piotr Napierała, „‘Western World’, ‘East’ and the Idea of Progress in eighteenth century Britain” (w druku UJ)

23. Piotr Napierała, "Elie Freron (1718-1776), Charles Palissot (1730-1814) i francuska prasa konserwatywna XVIII stulecia"

24. Piotr Napierała, "Georg Friedrich Händel jako poddany brytyjski"

Piotr Napierała - my book about British and French concept of freedom in 17th and 18th Centuries

Przedstawiam moją nową książkę powstałą jako praca doktorska i zachęcam do lektury

IF YOU WANT TO BUY A BOOK::


Piotr Napierała, "Kraj wolności" i "kraj niewoli" - brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności w XVII i XVIII wieku, Wydawnictwo Libron-Filip Lohner, Kraków 2011. ISBN 978-83-62196-11-1

IF YOU WANT TO BUY A BOOK:



SUMMARY:

In my doctoral thesis: „Kraj wolności” i „kraj niewoli” - brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności – XVII i XVIII wieku (A ‘country of liberty’ and a ‘country of slavery’ – The British and French Concept of political Liberty in 17th and 18th Century) I attempted to compare the British and the French concepts of political freedom which were being developed in course of the 17th and 18th centuries. My idea was to examine if the popular vision of the early modern France as the ‘county of political slavery’ and – in the same time – of Britain as a mecca for every freedom-lover is really justified. In this case both political thought and ideas of various thinkers and informations about the reality of that era were of great interest of mine.

To achieve this goal I had to define which of the two main existing ideas of political liberty I myself support. Authors of the majority of already existing monographs about it are inclined to the so-called: ‘positive liberty’ which consists mainly in giving to the huge number of people the possibilyty to somehow control the government by participating in it (voting). For those who believe in ‘positive liberty’ (a concept developer first and foremoste by Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill) the best way to secure it - is to transform every autocratic rule into a more democratic one. I am far more inclined to akcept the idea of ‘negative liverty’ prefered among other by Isaiah Berlin who was the first to distinguish between the two main concepts. ‘Negative liberty’ is refering to the necessity to secure as Little interference from the governments side into the people’s everyday life as possibile. Because of this two ways of under standing political Liberty we can divide all thinkers who have liberal inclinations in two groups: democratic liberals and aristocratic (or conservative) liberals (as Henry Spencer or Frideric Bastiat), who normally treat the demoratic administration as the same potential threat for individual freedom as any other administration – everything depends on the steps taken by minister, kings or parliaments. From the democratic perspective the concept of this thesis would be pointless but it is not from the point of view which I prefer as a more real perspective.

My PhD Thesis is divided into six chapters. In the first chapter I attempted to present an abstract of the general history of possibile Liberty concepts. In the next chapter my aim was to discover why so many British (not only political) political authors of the 17th and 18th centuries are so much concerned about the problem of individual and public liberty. I have analysed the so-called „whiggish historical myth”, according to which the whole English (after 1707 – British) political history is perceived as a great struggle for freedom against various ‘oppressors’ such as: Roman Empire, the Papacy, Spain of Charles V and Philip II, France of Louis XIV, Louis XV, Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte. I dealt with the koncept of the so much praised English „monarchia mixta’ in which the aristocratic, the democratic and the monarchical elements of the government co-exist in a splendid harmony, whithout which, as it was believed, England would have fallen into a state of horrid tyranny and its people – into slavery. I tried to understand why the Britons living in the early modern era called the French: pope-ridden, wooden-shoed slaves. On the other hand I analised the first absolutist treatises written in England (Robert Filmer, Thomas Hobbes etc.) to observe the arguments used in them especially those concerning political liberty. The same I did in the third chapter with French treatises written by local adherents of ‘king’s divine rights’ (Domat, Bossuet, Le Bret etc.) and its relation to individual liberty. The ‘voice of nobility’ of both nations was also of great interest to me because diffrent historical experiences defined different koncept of liberty of the rich and powerful. In the post-norman Britain the nobility was accustomed to co-operate in the king’s government whereas in France they used to fight against him especially when he attempted to extend his political influence. The aristocratic version of political freedom is best represented by Sunderland’s and Boulainvilliers’ concepts developed independently on both sides of the Channel in the first half of the 18th century.

In the fourth chapter I analysed the new ideas concerning freedom and political Liberty created by the Anglo-Scottish enlighenment. The koncept of the freedom of the press (Defoe, Hume), the individualisation of a subject, new vision of the just law and new thoughts on mutiny (Johnson, Burke) and slavery. The following chapter is devoted to the various concepts of French political thought in the 18th century, such as: the monarchical idea of Voltaire, the thèse nobiliaire of Montesquieu and Boulainvilliers, the plan of administrative decentralisation of d’Argenson, the ‘american’ vision of Diderot, Mercier and Condorcet, as well as the first clearly democratic and pre-ocialist ideology represented by Meslier, Rousseau an Morelly. The diversity of al. those thinkers used to thundestand by ‘liberty’ convinces me that there was no national ideas of liberty but merely a number of various ideas created by a number of political philosophers and this fact makes even today very hard to define what we perceive as ‘liberal thinking’.

All the aforementioned ideas are confronted with facto stated by historians specialising in the 17th and 18th centuries. In sixth and the last chapter I have presented the evolution in French vision of the ‘English liberty’ and the other way round and how they looked like prom perspective of several 19th and 20th century thinkers of various ideological background.

IF YOU WANT TO BUY A BOOK:

Piotr Napierała

My doctoral promotion

My doctoral promotion has taken place on 9.12.2010:



Title of the PhD thesis: „Kraj wolności” i „kraj niewoli” – brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności – XVII-XVIII wiek (A ‘country of liberty’ and a ‘country of slavery’ – The British and French Concept of political Liberty in 17th and 18th Century)

promoter: prof. Waldemar Łazuga





SUMMARY pracy doktorskiej
In my doctoral thesis: „Kraj wolności” i „kraj niewoli” - brytyjska i francuska wizja wolności – XVII i XVIII wieku (A ‘country of liberty’ and a ‘country of slavery’ – The British and French Concept of political Liberty in 17th and 18th Century) I attempted to compare the British and the French concepts of political freedom which were being developed in course of the 17th and 18th centuries. My idea was to examine if the popular vision of the early modern France as the ‘county of political slavery’ and – in the same time – of Britain as a mecca for every freedom-lover is really justified. In this case both political thought and ideas of various thinkers and informations about the reality of that era were of great interest of mine.
To achieve this goal I had to define which of the two main existing ideas of political liberty I myself support. Authors of the majority of already existing monographs about it are inclined to the so-called: ‘positive liberty’ which consists mainly in giving to the huge number of people the possibilyty to somehow control the government by participating in it (voting). For those who believe in ‘positive liberty’ (a concept developer first and foremoste by Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill) the best way to secure it - is to transform every autocratic rule into a more democratic one. I am far more inclined to akcept the idea of ‘negative liverty’ prefered among other by Isaiah Berlin who was the first to distinguish between the two main concepts. ‘Negative liberty’ is refering to the necessity to secure as Little interference from the governments side into the people’s everyday life as possibile. Because of this two ways of under standing political Liberty we can divide all thinkers who have liberal inclinations in two groups: democratic liberals and aristocratic (or conservative) liberals (as Henry Spencer or Frideric Bastiat), who normally treat the demoratic administration as the same potential threat for individual freedom as any other administration – everything depends on the steps taken by minister, kings or parliaments. From the democratic perspective the concept of this thesis would be pointless but it is not from the point of view which I prefer as a more real perspective.
My PhD Thesis is divided into six chapters. In the first chapter I attempted to present an abstract of the general history of possibile Liberty concepts. In the next chapter my aim was to discover why so many British (not only political) political authors of the 17th and 18th centuries are so much concerned about the problem of individual and public liberty. I have analysed the so-called „whiggish historical myth”, according to which the whole English (after 1707 – British) political history is perceived as a great struggle for freedom against various ‘oppressors’ such as: Roman Empire, the Papacy, Spain of Charles V and Philip II, France of Louis XIV, Louis XV, Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte. I dealt with the koncept of the so much praised English „monarchia mixta’ in which the aristocratic, the democratic and the monarchical elements of the government co-exist in a splendid harmony, whithout which, as it was believed, England would have fallen into a state of horrid tyranny and its people – into slavery. I tried to understand why the Britons living in the early modern era called the French: pope-ridden, wooden-shoed slaves. On the other hand I analised the first absolutist treatises written in England (Robert Filmer, Thomas Hobbes etc.) to observe the arguments used in them especially those concerning political liberty. The same I did in the third chapter with French treatises written by local adherents of ‘king’s divine rights’ (Domat, Bossuet, Le Bret etc.) and its relation to individual liberty. The ‘voice of nobility’ of both nations was also of great interest to me because diffrent historical experiences defined different koncept of liberty of the rich and powerful. In the post-norman Britain the nobility was accustomed to co-operate in the king’s government whereas in France they used to fight against him especially when he attempted to extend his political influence. The aristocratic version of political freedom is best represented by Sunderland’s and Boulainvilliers’ concepts developed independently on both sides of the Channel in the first half of the 18th century.
In the fourth chapter I analysed the new ideas concerning freedom and political Liberty created by the Anglo-Scottish enlighenment. The koncept of the freedom of the press (Defoe, Hume), the individualisation of a subject, new vision of the just law and new thoughts on mutiny (Johnson, Burke) and slavery. The following chapter is devoted to the various concepts of French political thought in the 18th century, such as: the monarchical idea of Voltaire, the thèse nobiliaire of Montesquieu and Boulainvilliers, the plan of administrative decentralisation of d’Argenson, the ‘american’ vision of Diderot, Mercier and Condorcet, as well as the first clearly democratic and pre-ocialist ideology represented by Meslier, Rousseau an Morelly. The diversity of al. those thinkers used to thundestand by ‘liberty’ convinces me that there was no national ideas of liberty but merely a number of various ideas created by a number of political philosophers and this fact makes even today very hard to define what we perceive as ‘liberal thinking’.
All the aforementioned ideas are confronted with facto stated by historians specialising in the 17th and 18th centuries. In sixth and the last chapter I have presented the evolution in French vision of the ‘English liberty’ and the other way round and how they looked like prom perspective of several 19yh and 20th century thinkers of various ideological background.

Piotr Napierała