Waterloo and British Romanticism INTRODUCTION I N THE FALL OF 1989 ROBERT M. MANIQUIS EDITED A SPECIAL ISSUE OF Studies in Romanticism on the subject of “English Romanticism and the French Revolution.” Published in the wake of that year’s bicentenary events, the issue was headed by Marilyn Butler’s article “Telling it Like a Story: The French Revolution as Narrative,” in which she observed the disparity between “the media’s zest for anniversaries” and “the compulsion of the modern academic historian to de-narrativize history.”1 A veteran of numerous anniversary events in the 1980s—from the quincentenary of the defeat of the Spanish Armada to the 400th birthday of Cambridge Univer sity Press—Butler noted wryly, “Being an academic at these parties is being the bad fairy at the christening. We want to replace historical folklore, which is at the heart oftheir celebration, with a more complex, fragmented impression of the past.” Butler’s endorsement of academic skepticism to wards “the explanatory power” of “the simple memorable narrative” did not go unqualified, however. As she went on to note, if “our refusal of narrative is meant to defend knowledge from the non-professional, we use it at quite a high cost . . . academics at the present time badly need a lan guage with which to intervene in the public sphere.”2 While a quarter of a century separates the bicentennial events of 1989 and 2015, Butler’s comment that media interest in the French Revolution had “got out ofhand” could be applied no less forcefully to the media hype informing the commemoration of Waterloo. Buoyed along by a flood of commemorative books, concerts, exhibitions, and celebratory events, the governing attitude to Waterloo, at least outside of France, seemed un equivocally supportive; aside from the usual suspects at academic confer ences muttering mordantly on the human costs ofvictory, as well as its re actionary aftermath, critical commentary in the public sphere was, at best, I. Butler, “Telling it Like a Story: The French Revolution as Narrative,” SiR 28, no. 3 (Fall 1989): 343-642 . Butler, “Telling it Like a Story,” 346. SiR, 56 (Fall 2017) 309 310 INTRODUCTION framed as glibly provocative.3 Thus in 2015, as in 1815, for every Hazlitt, Hunt, or Byron expressing dismay at the decisive termination of the revo lution, several hundreds more, echoing the establishment attitudes of Scott, Southey, and Wordsworth, could be found declaring their support. For many of these commentators, the run-up to the British referendum on membership in the European Union provided a context in which to draw parallels between the Holy Alliance and the European Union, with both institutions proclaiming “the right to intervene in the internal affairs of subject nations, in the name of humanitarian principles: ‘Justice, Christian Charity and Peace,’ ” albeit this time, as the sociologist Marco D’Eramo observed, with “fraternal bankers” rather than “fraternal armies.”4 While the Battle of Waterloo, in the wake of Brexit, will no doubt be shaped in reactionary political discourse as a preemptive strike against the perni cious effects of the European experiment, in a manner intended to quell the force ofleft-wing analyses of the relations between the defeat ofNapo leon and the drive towards economic and monetary union, the unsettled significance of the battle, both as a military event and as an object of commemoration, will continue to expose contradictions in conservative narratives. As example, we may consider the narrative tensions encoded in an early history of the battle, Lieutenant General W. A. Scott’s Battle of Waterloo; or, Correct Narrative of the Late Sanguinary Conflict on the Plains of Waterloo. Written and published within a few weeks of the Allied victory, the ex tended title of Scott’s history signals a fascination with the intense violence of the battle, while proclaiming a sustained concern with “correct,” “au thentic,” and “minute detail.”5 Framed by a description of the rise and fall, and rise again, ofthat “extraordinary person” Napoleon Buonaparte, “from the beginning, to the end, of his political career,” Scott’s narrative remains curiously episodic, with short passages of self-authored narrative forming the connective tissue for an assemblage of extracts from previously pub lished, multi-authored...
Read full abstract