European History Assignment 1

Discussion of Metternich and his 1820 Letter to Czar Alexander I

Klemen von Metternich was arguably the most influential political figure in Europe between the defeat of France in 1814 and his own overthrow in the European Revolutions of 1848. The practices he put in place to manage European states' affairs still define international diplomacy today.

Metternich was born into a rich aristocratic family from the western German-speaking regions, raised and educated in privileged circumstances, and built a career as a skilled diplomat as a young man. He was the Austrian Empire's ambassador to France from 1806-9 when Napoleon Bonaparte had made himself Emperor of the French and when French domination over Europe was at its height. Napoleon's army was defeated and decimated by his invasion of Russia in 1812, however, enabling Metternich – now Austria Foreign Minister – to organize the last and ultimately successful of the European wars that sought to break the 20-years of French military and political hegemony over the continent (called the War of the Sixth Coalition, the sixth of the wars between France and all the major states of Europe between 1791 and 1814). Metternich then set about arranging European affairs through developing the modern forms of diplomacy to see to it that France nor any other states could ever promote revolution again (in this he was decidedly unsuccessful). Techniques he develop for this included periodic meeting between heads of state; coordinated military action by the major states to put down revolutions where-ever they broke out, as in the Austrian invasion of Italy in 1820 when revolts broke out there; and in the German-speaking regions a network of censorship, control over teaching institutions, and police informers to identify and suppress the kinds of ideas, activities and individuals he believed led to the French Revolution of 1789. His 1820 letter discussed here was designed to win support from the Russian ruler for this coordinated action against revolution given that it was the Russian army (and winter) that finally defeated Napoleon and the French. This letter identifies rather indirectly what Metternich and other anti-revolutionaries thought were the underlying causes of 1789. Clarifying what he is referring to makes this document an interesting insight into conservative thinking of that era as well as insight into some of the cultural and ideological factors that contributed to the Revolution.

Bottom of p. 1 – Metternich speaks of the “dangers” of his era and how kings now must calculate their chances of survival in the current climate.

Middle p. 2 – He then goes on the speak of “the source of the evil” behind the current situation. Note the choice of word – evil. From there he provides his own theory of humanity and society.

Middle p. 2 continued – Metternich then declares his view of human nature before going on to explain the variety one finds in different societies: climate, geography, etc. The essential declaration, though is “man's nature is immutable,” that is unchanging despite differences or diversity between societies. Why?

Metternich is pushing back against the European Enlightenment and its conception of humanity. The targets of the Enlightenment that he indirectly attacks would be known to the educated public of his day. They are discussed below.

1689, John Locke in The Essay Concerning Human Understanding claimed that human nature is in fact a “Tabla Rasa,” a blank slate. Human personality according to Locke was not fixed and unchanging but a product of up-bringing, circumstances and experiences early in life. Locke was perhaps the first modern thinking to develop what today is called “behaviorist psychology,” the idea that people are first and foremost a product of their socialization. This was a key concept of the Enlightenment that ran through the work of all that movement's thinkers. If true, it means that people and their society can be improved indefinitely through education and through a better, more rational and more just society. This idea in turn can be used to justify radical social change to improve society and the people who live in it. But for Metternich it is an entirely false idea. For him, human nature is immutable. And the fundamental reality of that nature is Original Sin , the fundamentally sinful nature of humans from which there can be no escape in this world. To deny Original Sin is to deny a fundamental religious truth and to set the stage for the something like 1789 from Metternich point of view.

Middle p. 3 – After giving his own version of European history since the Dark Ages in which technological progress and new discoveries have been rapid, Metternich claims that the false views of the Enlightenment have promoted what he calls presumption – the idea that one can know anything and everything of import without the wisdom of the past or the guiding hand of established institutions. Metternich is here attacking:

Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment?, 1784 in which Kant declares that Enlightenment is the courage to make one's own judgments without the direction of another. Kant calls this the courage to know, to be an independent thinker. Kant is particularly hostile in this 1784 essay toward the subordinate position of women, whom he claims have been kept in systematic ignorance, and toward the established churches, that he thinks try to keep people from their right and ability to use their own intelligence and judgment in matters of religion. For Metternich this way of thinking destroys the respect and deference to which established institutions are entitled while the presumptuousness this promotes led directly to the view that these institutions need not be preserved now that society has become better off, better educated and supposedly enabling people to move beyond what was inherited from the past.

As Metternich says near the bottom of p. 3, “ Presumption makes every man the guide of his own belief, the arbiter of laws according to which he is pleased to govern himself, or to allow some one else to govern him and his neighbors; it makes him, in short, the sole judge of his own faith, his own actions, and the principles according to which he guides them.” He clearly views this as outrageous and absurd.

Middle p. 4, Metternich adds, “France had the misfortune to produce the greatest number of these men. It is in her midst that religion and all that she holds sacred, that morality and authority, and all connected with them, have been attacked with a steady and systematic animosity, and it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success.” This certainly referring to Voltaire, who in his novella Candide, 1759, heaped scorn and ridicule on characters representative of the power-structure and values of pre-Revolutionary Europe: the aristocracy, portrayed as remarkably stupid; the clergy, presented as hypocrites given over to lust while preaching chastity for others; intellectuals who promote silly ideas disguised as brilliant insights; and kings, who wage wars for their personal glory that end up in misery for their people. Two Enlightenment thinkers, however, need special mention.

David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning the Principals of Morals, 1751, claimed that human morality is based on “sympathy,” what today we would call empathy. This is the ability to see over-selves in another's place when we witness their suffering. We thus share in some small part in that suffering and wish to alleviate it. Hume believes that this is the foundations of all morality and moral codes. What Hume ignores is religion, which plays no role and is entirely omitted in this view of morality. For a deeply religious man like Metternich, this is the ultimate evil and I believe why he uses that word so often in this letter.

The man Metternich hates most, however, is referenced on p. 4 in the following, “Drag through the mud the name of God and the powers instituted by His divine decrees, and the revolution will be prepared! Speak of a social contract, and the revolution is accomplished!” This is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, 1762. For Rousseau, society and its institutions are a agreement or contract between its members to provide good institutions, laws and social conventions that enable people to live collectively with security, order, liberty and cooperation. These institutions and practice therefore have to be rational and command the consent and support of the members of a society who live under them. The vehement opposition of Metternich to such a view should be clear if we keep in mind what were the foundations of all societies before 1789: religious authority. Religious authority is why Louis XVI was by Grace of God King of France; Selim III was entitled to respect and obedience so long as he ruled justly according to Islamic principals; why Qianlong ruled according to the Mandate of Heaven, etc. And as Metternich says (or believes anyway), human institutions are instituted by God's divine decrees. People in this view have neither the wisdom nor the right to create, or destroy, these institutions according to their own judgments as to what is or is not appropriate to a well-organized, just and functional society. To claim and act otherwise is to defy the will of God in Metternich's view.

The remainder of Metternich's Letter of 1820 gives his views about details of the French Revolution, then moves on to advise Czar Alexander that the rulers of Europe must act together to make sure that this never happens again. This for Metternich involves good government – keeping taxes reasonable, securing peace as much as possible for their subjects – and of taking a firm hand in putting down subversive ideas and the individuals who promote them in their kingdoms.

The most interesting feature of this letter in my view is that Metternich understood at a very early date that before there was the political revolution of 1789 to 1799 there was the cultural revolution of the European Enlightenment. From Locke's 1689 analysis of human nature to Kant's 1784 declaration urging people to think for themselves in all matters of importance, the leading intellectuals of Europe promoted what was in effect the world's first sustained and sustainable secular culture across virtually all aspects of humanity and society. Metternich understood quite clearly that this eroded the foundations of the society and values he believed in and set the stage for the rebellions that ultimately destroyed them. The pen indeed proved mightier than the sword.

Lastly, note who Metternich blames most for picking up and acting upon these ideas he loathed so much on

p. 6 fourth paragraph down:

“It is principally the middle classes of society which this moral gangrene has affected, and it is only among them that the real heads of the party are found. For the great mass of the people it has no attraction and can have none.” While not a fan of Metternich I think he was right on this point. The laborious efforts by some more recent commentators on the French Revolution in the 200 years since Metternich wrote this to prove that that Revolution was not essentially a revolution of the middle classes are often interesting by ultimately not very convincing in my view, as well as the view of those who lived through it.