It is quite obvious that Helen Maria Williams's Letters Written in France is a persuasive work meant to warm England to the idea of revolution. However, the manner in which she retells the life of Mons. du F---- is her most effective device she's used so far. First, Williams reassures her audience that Mons. du F---- is to be pitied, even though he is an aristocrat. In Letter XVI, she writes about how awful his father, whom serves as a symbol for the old aristocracy, treated him. Baron du F---- is described as a man who was "formed by nature for the support of the antient government of France" (115). Williams also informs her readers that Baron du F---- "considered the lower order of people as a set of beings whose existence was tolerated merely for the use of the nobility" and that poor people "were only born for suffering" (115). Here, Williams has clearly set up Baron du F---- as the villain for this narrative, along with all of the other nobles of France. She intended to shock her audience with not only the prejudice the upper class have the potential to hold, but also the peculiar way in which the Baron mistreats his own son. The subtle implication here is that those of higher rank are capable of lacking compassion toward their own flesh and blood. The unnaturalness of Baron du F----'s parenting style makes the audience distance themselves from him.
By making her readers uncomfortable with Baron du F----'s views, Williams has influenced her audience to take a sympathetic stance against those like him for the sake of Mons. du F----, whom Williams chose to use as a symbol for the regular man. Through Baron du F----, Williams was able to highlight how the rich have the ability to corrupt the government. When the Baron manipulates the law several times throughout the retelling, Williams proves the point that something as tangible as money has the power to touch something as intangible as justice. The aristocracy of France does not live by the law, because they are the law.
Mons. du F---- would not have had to go through his troubles if the government had acted honestly and effectively. I believe that Williams intended to tell the tale of Mons. du F---- for the purpose of bringing out the passions of the English people. This retelling is a public call for justice. Williams is inciting her readers to be in favor for change, or else be indifferent to the sufferings of the innocent.
I agree that this was a ploy to get a more positive look on the revolution in England. I found myself wondering how much she exaggerated, especially near the beginning of the letters where she "can't bring justice" to the emotions of Mons. du F---- and his wife. However, it does show how well she can play on a reader's emotions.
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out how Mons. du F---- is an example of the oppressed that are aided by the Revolution, and yet he is technically part of the aristocracy, at least in the beginning and end. I think this is important because Williams is able to show that there was an ancient aristocracy that needed to be rid of, but also a new kind of aristocracy inhabited by those like the admirable Mons. du F----.
ReplyDeleteI think that not only was it a good tool to show the benefits of the French Revolution through example, but that she was also showing the changes that aristocrats were able to make. If it had been a regular man going through this, the story would have been lost with all the others. However, due to Mons. du F----'s aristocratic upbringing, one is able to see that not all aristocrats are bad and that the revolution is able to bring real change.
ReplyDelete