CURRENT ISSUES
 
Cosmopolitan Patriotism in Wordsworth's "Concerning The Convention of Cintra"

 

 

 

 

 

Borders and Borderlands in the Age of Globalization

 

March 29-30, 2019

Columbia, South Carolina

 

 

 

 

Cosmopolitan Patriotism in Wordsworths The Convention of Cintra

 

Good Morning!

 

My name is Chankil Park from Seoul, Korea. I am very glad to get together again with my friends from USC and NTU here in USC about 16 months after we met at my university back in Seoul. I am extremely honored to give one of the keynote speeches to you today in this beautiful campus of USC. Thank you very much, all my friends of USC, Allen, Cynthia, and Jie and all other USC organizers for inviting us to your lovely campus allowing us to continue and consolidate the research alliance we started together more than three years ago at Taipei. I really appreciate your expertise and professionalism clearly shown in the way this conference was planned, organized, and executed until now, and I just want to tell you that I am enjoying every second of this wonderful academic forum we are conducting together.

 

In the first keynote speech yesterday, Allen talked about Infinite Hospitality plenty of which we have already experienced so far in our visit to Columbia. In the second keynote, Bennett told us about humor in French Canadian plays. This morning, in my little presentation, I am going to talk about anger. In Korea, we are very much angry with each other, Convervatives and Liberals, North and South. North and South particularly have been very angry with each other for a very long time. We are angry with each other with very small things. We express our anger and tend to justify it with a strange idea, an idea such as patriotism on the level of a nation.

 

Yes, I am going to talk about patriotism today. Why patriotism? Apparently patriotism seems too predictably topical or too much related to party politics to be a decent topic of an academic discussion particularly among literary scholars. To many Korean people living in the South, "patriot" is simply the name of an American missile we bought and deployed to protect ourselves from the North.  Then, why am I interested in that term?

 

Because I am recently getting an impression that we are living again in an age of patriotism at the level of everyday lives. It may be just a subjective feeling of mine, but these days, I find myself more than ever surrounded with all sorts of belligerent people who call themselves patriots. They are often in conflict with each other, sometimes risking their lives for the loyalty to the countres or something else they choose to serve. We call them national heroes, or terrorists, loyal citizens or traitors depending on the side we happen to find ourselves on.

 

I guess American people also seem to have become more conscious of patriotism or patriotic actions in their everyday lives since 9.11. I lived in San Diego from 2002 to 2003, about a year after the disaster. It was my first Sabbatical year, and my first extended stay in USA. I rented a very nice condo in a middle class neighborhood called Del Mar, 5 minutes away from Torrey Pines Beach. People were all very nice to my family, and the weather was of course unrealistically nice too. It seemed so perfectly peaceful as far as I was concerned, and nothing strange seemed to be happening in that part of the world.  Everything seemed to be going as it should be to a strangers eyes, perhaps except one or two things. First, many apartments of our gated community displayed the Stars & Stripes in their windows, and I thought at first it was because of a national holiday or something. Strangely enough, however, they did not put them away after many days, and flags are on display all along. So I thought that American people loved their national flags very much. That was interesting. We also love our national flag, Te Geuk Gi, but usually we do not decorate our houses with it. After a while, we were invited to the graduation ceremony of my sons school, and the ceremony was much more casual and homey than I thought, and I liked it. But soon after, I was a little taken aback when all students stood up and began to recite "Pledge of Allegiance" as a part of the ceremony, because I never knew that America were doing such a thing in school.  I realized later that it was nothing new, practiced consistently, though sometimes in controversies, in the official ceremonies since Francis Bellamy devised it in 1892. I did not know about it then, and honestly, I was pretty shocked because it reminded me of the same patriotic oath called An Oath to the National Flag in Korea. Whenever the national anthem was played, every one of us had to recite that I solemnly swear in front of our proud national flag that I offer my loyalty to my homeland and my people dedicating myself with body and soul for the glorious future of my homeland forever.  I was forced to recite this patriotic oath whenever and wherever I heard the national anthem. It was up until mid eighties I guess. That was when we were suffering under the reign of the military dictator called Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan, and it was a totalitarian dictatorship pretty similar to that of North Korea now. I didnt like it. I thought even then that the patriotic feeling is something personal, something issuing from ones heart voluntarily, as it were, a spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings to use Wordsworths famous definition of poetry. Why on earth should I declare it in public that often in front of my friends and teachers? Just imagine that I am enforced to recite I solemnly declare that I really do love my wife and children and readily sacrifice my life for their glorious future.

 

We were fortunately released from that embarrassing ritual only after we ended the military dictatorship, and I did not even imagine that I would come across that kind of thing again in California, USA of the 21st century. I also remember that I had to stand up twice from the seat of Hollywood Bowl where we were enjoying the open air concert, once at the beginning of the concert when they played the American National Anthem, which was understandable, but once again after the intermission when the conductor asked us to sing along "America is Beautiful." I thought it was also a little strange. I thought that America was a land of freedom, a beacon of democracy, and I was beginning to wonder, what happened to them?  It was almost 20 years ago, and the story is based on a small piece of my experience of short stay, I may be generalizing too rashly, but I thought it  would be terrifying to me if all the individuals were treated in their everyday lives as the objects of government propaganda(or national education alternatively phrased) even with the best intention.

 

Now back to the present. I will start my story of patriotism with a group of people in Korea who call themselves "real" patriots. They have been holding street demonstrations since the impeachment of the former president Park Keun-Hye who stepped down after the Constitutional Court had endorsed the parliamentary impeachment of the President on March 10, 2017 . They deny the validity of a absolutely legitimate constitutional process, simply arguing that everything was the result of a political conspiracy orchestrated by a handful of communist activists who have managed to infiltrate into the open arena of Korean politics. To their minds, all those people who accept the impeachment are either the communists who secretly receive direct orders from the North or the people of no principle manipulated by them. According to them, South Korea is at great danger of being merged into the North, becoming a united, communist country under the leadership of Kim Jung Eun. They claim they are the only buttress to defend the country from such an imminent danger.

 

The majority of them are above sixties, extreme right-wing, anti-communism, Christians(many of them originally from the North), Pro-America. They are minorities in number(less than 5-10%) but very aggressive in articulating their views, often with some religious fervor. Their political opinion(if it could be accepted as an "opinion" at all) is simply absurd, mostly based upon a series of fakes news systematically produced by their enthusiastic activists. I am sorry for them, but they strategically brought out the national flags into their gatherings as a symbol of their staunch patriotism, which led the media to call them "Te Geuk Ki Troops" rather jokingly at first, but allowing them to appropriate the symbolic value of patriotism to themselves. It is simply ridiculous for me to treat their claim as a subject of any serious political discussion, but they have been increasingly raising their voices in real politics, quickly becoming an unignorable portion of political assets the No 1 Opposition party do want to accommodate. It is absurd and outrageous indeed.

 

Now back to America again. There came another type of patriot who is also new to the existing landscape of Realpolitik in US. Donald Trump of course. Well, he is not my president after all and why do I bother? I wish I didn't have to bother. How could I possibly not be bothered by the president of the United States, and also it is none other than Donald Trump.  At the moment, he is "making an deal" with the leader of North Korea over the future of the Korean Peninsula in the south of which I happen to live. About him, you know much more than I do, and I just want to mention a few things about his "America First" policy in the context of patriotism.

 

In his inaugural address, he said, "We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first," adding that "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow." And he assured the public that "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice."

 

USA is the most powerful country on earth, and how could we non-Americans not be threatened by his open avowal of putting America's interest first before "friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world?" Thank God, he promised not to impose their way of life upon us non-Americans, but doesnt it imply that he would go his own way right or wrong regardless of our opinions about them?  Trumps mention of patriotism" is even more sinister. What does it mean to open your heart? open to whom? open to what? He mentions prejudice. What kind of prejudice he has in mind? To me it sounds simply like, open your heart to American products, and there is no room for retaliatory duty. 

 

My common sense is that patriotism is about ones devotion to a     common good, something related to ones readiness of sacrificing ones own interest for the benefit of the whole community. But unfortunately both the Korean self-styled patriots I mentioned and Mr Trump seem to be talking about something else in the name of patriotism. So I had to ask myself, is it impossible to imagine a different kind of patriotism politically acceptable and morally sound?

 

If we look back to the previous centuries, we find that it could be a pretty different story. According to Mary Dietz, patriotism in the 18th century Britain was  the creed of opposition, and it became even more radical as it came closer to the end of the century. Hugh Cunningham identifies three possible sources for the 18th century patriotism: Michiavelli who emphasized the virtues of balance and the dangers of corruption. The other one was Bolingbroke, a Tory, but the politician who invented the idea of the "patriot" King who rested his authority only on "the spirit and the strength of the nation" without taking a side in the party politics. The final one is a traditional belief in Ancient Constitution of England before Norman Yoke, that is, a myth of "Ancient English Liberty" in Saxon times. And such tradition tends to grow an idea of "England as an elect nation" or at least "the birth place of liberty." Back then, both Tories and Whigs accepted patriotism as a positive term implying "the defence of constitutional liberties" and "the fight against corruption." On the whole, however, it was definitely the ideology the radical Whig represented in their fights against the possible despotism of the monarch.

 

In this context, it is interesting to see how Samuel Johnson defines patriotism differently following the changing mood about the word. He defined a patriot in 1755 as "one whose ruling passion is the love of his country" with the addition of "ironically for a factious disturber of the government" in 1773. Two years later, he went downright negative about it offering us that famous definition of a patriot "the last refuge of a scoundrel," which implies that the initiative in the politics of language regarding patriotism was completely transferred to the radical camp near the end of the century.

 

It was Richard Price who located the term more definitely within the republican tradition. In the famous sermon given to the Revolution Society on the 4th of November of 1789, Price emphasized that what is meant by "our country" is not simply "the soil or the spot of earth" where we happen to be born, but more significantly "the community of which we are members." Loving one's country, he also indicates, should not imply "any conviction of the superior value of it to other countries."  He also added, "the spirit of rivalship" should not pervade the love of our country. Price's idea of patriotism, based upon the principle of universal benevolence, does no longer resort to the ancient British constitution or the ancient English freedom for authority. Price, who was a dissenting minister and a radical reformer, transformed the patriotism from a sentiment loosely based on a local attachment or a nostalgic myth about the good old days in British history to a political idea aligning well with the liberal values of republicanism such as Truth, Virtue, and Liberty. I quote,

 

 

Though our immediate attention must be employed in promoting our own interest yet we must remember that a narrower interest ought always to give way to a more extensive interestwe should love it(our country) ardently, but not exclusivelyWe ought to seek its goodbut at the same time we ought to consider ourselves as citizens of the world, and take care to maintain a just regard to the rights of other countries. unquote.

 

It was Richard Price who introduced the element of cosmopolitanism  to the idea of patriotism. His patriotism contains the republican values of more universal validity in the contemporary international politics. Price's famous sermon, as is well known, provoked Edmund Burke to write his Reflections on the Revolution in France, which ignited "the pamphlet war" between the conservatives and the radicals in the 1790s. Wordsworth made a contribution to the ideological battle with his unpublished "A Letter to the Bishop of Llandaff"(1794) which was a manifesto of his republicanism. But Prices sermon may well be offered as the main inspiration behind Wordsworth's Concerning Convention of Cintra in terms of both republicanism and patriotism.

 

There is another one who exerted a crucial influence on Wordsworth in forming his own version of patriotism. It is Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His idea of patriotism is especially important to our understanding of Wordsworths The Convention of Cintra because Coleridge, along with Southey, was deeply involved in the composition of the essay itself. As a matter of fact, Three poets, later called collectively Lake school, lived in the same region called Cumbria, Wordsworth in Grasmere, Coleridge and Southey in Keswick. They were so outraged with the terms of agreement in The Convention of Cintra that they were planning a public meeting of protest to articulate their anger and resentments towards the British Government. It was however  sabotaged at the last moment by a Lowther Londsdale who was both an enemy and a patron to Wordsworth for a long time. He was the most powerful aristocrat who had practically dominated the politics of Cumbria.  To be a "real" patriot, Coleridge argued in his essay called Modern Patriotism, I quote.

 

Your heart must believe, that the good of the whole is the greatest possible good of each individual: that therefore it is your duty to be just, because it is your interest. unquote.

 

Coleridge's contributions are twofold. One is that he gave a moral dimension to the idea of patriotism because he identified the communal good with that of an individual. The essence of morality lies always in making the interest of an individual consistent with that of the community. The other one is that he offered a more logical ground for the morality of patriotism in utilitarian terms. He adopted the great happiness principle but reversed it. "The good of the whole" is not the result of "the maximum good" of individuals, but it is the only feasible way of bringing about "the greatest possible" good of individuals. With Coleridge's contribution, Wordsworth was able to conceive a kind of patriotism which was released from the limit of a narrow self-interest, the self-interest of an individual, and the self-interest of a country as well. Coleridgean "modern" patriotism which accommodate the idea of universal benevolence beyond the border of a nation was in fact a typical expression of internationalism prevalent among the radical reformers then. London Corresponding Society, for example, sent a message to the National Convention of France in 1792. I quote. "We, instead of natural enemies, at length discover in Frenchmen our fellow citizens of the world."

 

It was exactly this sort of patriotism Wordsworth had in mind when he confessed in The Prelude(1850) that he had become "a patriot" in 1792 during his second stay in France. I quote,

 

I saw the Revolutionary Power
Toss like a ship at anchor, rocked by storms(IX. 50-51);...

I stared and listened, with a stranger's ears
To Hawkers and Haranguers, hubbub wild(IX. 57-58)!
...and thus ere long/Became a patriot; and my heart was all
Given to the people, and my love was theirs(XI. 122-24)

 

It was an officer of the revolutionary army called Michael Beaupuy who converted Wordsworth into a republican. Wordsworth's personal involvement with the revolutionary activities in France, however, was soon made impossible because he had to come back to England near the end of 1792. The outbreak of the Napoleonic War only a few weeks after his return prevented him from going back to France. But his newly conceived republicanism was still alive and kicking. Wordsworth planned with his friend Matthews the publication of a political journal in 1794, but couldn't materialize it because of government's possible oppression. Wordsworth's passion as a radical reformer did not abate all along the 1790s, but he dishearteningly found himself an absolute outsider among his own compatriots in his homeland.  If the message writer of London Corresponding Society found "fellow world citizens" rather than "natural enemies" in French people, Wordsworth, a natural son of England and a world-citizen, found "ideological enemies" instead in his own fellow British people. I quote,

 

For I brought with me the faith
That, if France prospered, good men would not long

Pay fruitless worship to humanity(X. 257-59).

 

What, then, were my emotions, when in arms

Britain put forth her freeborn strength in league,

Oh, pity and shame!

With those confederate Powers(X. 263-65)!

 

When Englishmen by thousands were oerthrown,

Left without glory on the field, or driven,

Brave hearts! To shameful flight. It was a grief,-

Grief call it not, it was anything but that,-

A conflict of sensations without name(X. 286-90)

 

I only, like an uninvited guest

Whom no one owned, sate silent, shall I add,

Fed on the day of vengeance yet to come(X. 297-99)?

 

unquote.

 

There has been a lot of debates about the "apastasy" of Wordsworth. When exactly did his disaffection with the radical cause happen if at all? This question is pertinent here because we are going to explain the nature of patriotism behind his political tract written in 1809 in comparison with that of the Wordsworth of 1792 as was described in The Prelude. There is no way of pinpointing it, but there are two relevant facts we should consider here. The first one is Napoleon's invasion of Switzerland in 1798. Wordsworth himself confessed his change of heart towards the French Revolution was caused by this incident in many writing of his own. It is still unclear, however, whether Wordsworth abandoned the republican idea itself at that moment, but only his support to the French Revolution. As he himself admitted, Wordsworth was beginning to withdraw his support of the French Revolution indeed from that moment because of Napoleon who proved to be an ambitious conqueror rather than a defender of the Revolution.

 

The second point is March 6 of 1813 when he accepted an offer of Distributorship of Stamps for Westmoreland. This is a government appointed post of as much as 400 pounds a year, which was offered to Wordsworth only with a recommendation of Lord Londsdale, once the arch enemy to Wordsworth family. The fact that Wordsworth accepted the offer could mean that he had to make some compromise at least with the Establishment for whatever reason. The publication of Concerning the Convention of Cintra was done in 1809, which is between these two points.

 

But before we examine Wordsworth's tract itself, we need to know a little bit of the historical context of the Peninsular War.

 

Napoleon invaded Portugal(19-30 Nov. 1807) with Jean-Andoche Junot practically with no resistance of the Portuguese government and easily occupied Lisbon on 30 Nov.  And João(Portuguese Prince Regent) fled to Brazil. The Portuguese revolted against the French army next year with the aid of British army. Napoleon wanted to conquer the Peninsular in its entirety, but induced Spain to invade Portugal together with a carrot of getting one third of the land of Portugal. But it turned out to be an excuse to invade Spain and Napoleon in the end made his brother Joseph the new King of Spain after Ferdinand VII was forced to abdicate. The people of Madrid rebelled on May 2 of 1808, but were brutally crushed immediately. The repression following the crushing of the initial rebellion was harsh, but the rebellion actually gave a considerable impetus to the resistance provoking further rebellions in different parts of the country. The Spanish uprising of May 2 and the brutal execution of the people of Madrid by the French soldiers were impressively recorded by the two companion paintings painted by Francisco Goya.

 

Then what was The Convention of Cintra itself?

 

The Convention of Cintra was an agreement signed on 30 August 1808, during the Peninsular War. By the agreement, the defeated French were allowed to evacuate their troops from Portugal without further conflict.

 

The French forces under General Junot were defeated by the Anglo-Portuguese forces commanded by Sir Arthur Wellesley at Vimeiro on 21 August.

 

Wellesley was able to defeat the French army completely, but ordered to hold by the other two British Generals, Sir Hew Darlrymple and Sir Hary Burrard. Talks between Dalrymple and François Kellerman led to the signing of the Convention.

 

It was a Disgraceful Agreement to both Britain and the two countries of the Peninsular. Dalrymple allowed the 20,900 French soldiers evacuating themselves from Portugal with all their equipment and 'personal property' by the British Navy.

 

King George III expressed his "disapprobation" to the terms of the Convention, and a Public Inquiry was held in London only with the result of exonerating all three generals. Wellesley was sent back to the warfield, but the other two directly responsible for signing the Convention were allowed to retire silently.

 

Michael Glover(a British writer specialized in the Napoleonic War) has written that "Never has a victorious army with every advantage in its hands signed an agreement which gave so much to its defeated enemies with so little to itself."

 

Byron also expressed his indignation in a stanza of Childe Harold Pilgrimage

 

     And ever since that martial synod met,

     Britannia sickens, Cintra! at thy name;

     And folks in office at the mention fret,

     And fain would blush, if blush they could, for shame.

     How will posterity the deed proclaim!

     Will not our own and fellow-nations sneer,

     To view these champions cheated of their fame,

     By foes in fight o'erthrown, yet victors here,

     Where Scorn her finger points, through many a coming year?

     (XXVI, Canto I of Childe Harold Piligrimage )

 

The "Poison Pills" of the agreement which exasperated the British public are these.

 

Article 2: "Evacuation with arms and baggages"

 

The French troops shall evacuate Portugal with their arms and baggage; they shall not be considered as prisoners of war; and, on their arrival in France, they shall be at liberty to serve.

 

Article 3: "Furnishing means of conveyance"

 

The English Government shall furnish the means of conveyance for the French army;

 

Article 17: "Protection of Collaborators"

 

No native of Portugal shall be rendered accountable for his political conduct during the period of the occupation of this country by the French army; and all those who have continued in the exercise of their employments, or who have accepted situations under the French Government, are placed under the protection of the British Commanders: they shall sustain no injury in their persons or property.

 

At last it's time to take a look at the Wordsworth tract itself. Wordsworth's criticism is characterized by the following points, which are relevant to us who are thinking about the alternative way of understanding patriotism workable and more reasonable in the contemporary global community.

 

1. Wordsworths criticism based on cosmopolitan patriotism.

2. The Peninsula War as a Moral struggle for Justice, Moral Justice more important than National Interest

3. Sympathy and Respect to Allies

4. The Principle of Self-Determination

 

My argument which I am going to offer is that Wordsworth's criticism was based on the cosmopolitan patriotism which he inherited from the radicals of the 1790s including Price and Coleridge.

 

First, he made it clear that the moral cause belongs to the Portuguese and the Spanish in the Peninsular war. I quote.

 

And not only are they moved by these sentiments of universal morality, and of direct and universal concern to mankind, which have impelled them to resist evil butto express a rational hope of reforming domestic abuses(874-79)

 

Wordsworth applauded the spirit of resistance shown by the people of the Peninsula which he thinks contains the essence of his own conception of cosmopolitan patriotism. I quote.

 

We were intellectualized also in proportion: we looked backward upon the records of the human race with pride, and, instead of being afraid, we delighted to look forward into futurity. It was imagined that this new-born spirit of resistance, rising from the most sacred feelings of the human heart, would diffuse itself through many countries; and not merely for the distant future, but for the present, hopes were entertained as bold as they were disinterested and generous(140-46).

 

Wordsworth also made it clear that their resistance was not for their own interest only but also for all mankind in the end. Wordsworth thought that such a spirit found consistently in Portuguese and Spanish generals quite unlike the British ones. He shows position clearly by quoting from a document written by a Spanish general. I quote.

 

Spain will inevitably conquer for she fights, not for the concerns of a day, but for the security and happiness of ages; not for an insulated privilege, but for the rights of human nature; not for temporal blessings, but for eternal happiness; not for the benefit of one nation, but for all mankind, and even for France herself(852-57).(from a proclamation from Oviedo, July 17)

 

Overall, Wordsworth's criticism is driven by the principle of justice and moral sentiments. Wordsworth eloquently articulated outrageous clauses one by one. In the context of the cosmopolitan patriotism I want to offer, the followings are very to the point and true.

 

First he indicated the lack of sympathy, or the feeling of fraternity towards the Portugues and the Spanish people. One typical example is that Wellesley used the Spanish name of the French general, "Duc D'Abrantes" when he referred to his counterpart. That is grossly wrong because it clearly shows Wellesley's insensitivity of the political meaning of the Convention. He unwittingly acknowledges the legitimacy of French reign of Spain, not to mention ignoring the feeling of the public in Spain. In Wordsworth's own expression, it shows "a deadness to the moral interests of the cause," and "a want of sympathy."

 

In a similar context, it was "a heart-breaking insult" to Portuguese people in Wordsworth's thought to have such an agreement over the fate of the Peninsular without consulting Portuguese people themselves. There was no name of the Portuguese monarch in the contract document, no seat for him in the negotiation table either.  "What an outrage!" Wordsworth said.

 

Wordsworth's showed his particular indignation with the article 17 by which all the collaborators are protected by the British Army. It was a matter of justice. He quote an angry protest from one Portuquese general named Frier.

 

I protest against Article XVII because it attempts to tie down the government of this kingdom not to bring to justice and condign punishment those persons, who have been notoriously and scandalously disloyal to their prince and the country by joining and serving the French party, and, it should not prevent their expulsion (1932-38)

 

A. V. Dicey, the editor of Wordsworth's The Convention of Cintra, said that the most distinctive feature of the essay was his idea of nationalism, which he claimed, at least two decades earlier than Giuseppe Mazzini of Italian unification movement. It is not certain whether Wordsworth could properly called a "nationalist" but it is very true that his idea of self-determination contains a germ of nationalism providing a moral foundation to assert the inalienable right to determine their own government themselves.

 

This cannot be accomplishedwithout an accompanying and inseparable resolution, in the souls of the Spaniards, to be and remain their own masters; that is, to preserve themselves in the rank of Men; and not become as the Brute that is driven to the pasture, and cares not who owns him. It is a common saying among those who profess to be lovers of civil liberty, and give themselves some credit for understanding it,---that, if a Nation be not free, it is mere dust in the balance whether the slavery be bred at home, or comes from abroad; be of their own suffering, or of a strangers imposing(3649-57).

 

It is most fundamental and telling aspect of Wordsworth's protest in this essay. It is the logic of justice which is based upon the republican values the French people had wanted to promote themselves, which is, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The principle of self-determination is an expression of liberty in the political context, which is actually the most romantic aspect as well. Because the self-determination within an individual as well as within a country, is the essence of liberty, to borrow Fridriech Schillers expression, "a beautiful soul" residing in them. Wordsworth knew that liberty was the most central value he had to defend because it was the first condition to secure the other republican virtues.

 

Wordsworth showed very clearly in this essay that his alleged apostasy was not completed as yet, and remained a Republican even after having withdrawn his support to the French Revolution because he still firmly argued that the cause of the people can be best protected and guaranteed when it was controlled by the People themselves.

 

I quote.

 

That a numerous Nation, determined to be free, may effect its purpose in despite of the mightiest power which a foreign Invader can bring against itthey have shewn that the cause of the People, in dangers and difficulties issuing from this quarter of oppression, is safe while it remains not only in the bosom but in the hands of the People(3484-91).

 

Wordsworth noted that here that patriotism is formulated in its best form when a nation was put in danger. Wordsworth came to realize, through the case of Napoleon's France and Spain, that patriotism is naturally connected with the spirit of resistance, which is why he is so energetically glorifying the value of the Spanish uprising whether or not it succeeded in the immediate reality. Wordsworth was really insightful in arguing this. I quote.

 

Never are a people so livelily admonished of the love they bear their country, and of the pride which they have in their common parent, as when they hear of some parricidal attempt of a false brother. For this cause chiefly, in times of national danger, are their fancies so busy in suspicion; which under such shape, though oftentimes producing dire and pitiable effects, is notwithstanding in its general character no other than that habit which has grown out of the instinct of self-preservationelevated into wakeful and affectionate apprehension for the whole, and ennobling its private and baser ways by the generous use to which they are converted.

 

And Wordsworth's insightful thought on the patriotism of resistance is best shown in his romantic eulogy of Portuguese spirit of resistance. I quote.

 

But the Portugueze are a brave people-a people of great courage and worthIn common with their neighbours the Spaniards, they were making a universal, zealous, and fearless effort, and, whatever may be the final issue, the very act of having risen under the pressure and in the face of the most tremendous military power which the earth has ever seenis itself evidence in their favour, the strongest and most comprehensive which can be given; a transcendent glory(2070-79)!

 

To summarize, I think that Wordsworth's idea of patriotism articulated in this essay could be rightfully called a "cosmopolitan patriotism" in the following aspects, which we all have to think about, and appreciate in the contemporary global community as well.

 

1. Patriotism based on the value of a world citizen rather than an affection towards a specific place.

2. Patriotism of universal benevolence, not an exclusive national interest. It is a patriotism looking for justice based on human nature.

3. Patriotism pursuing the balance of power based on the principle of self-determination rather than the competition and rivalry of the countries. It is a patriotism with honour and mutual respect rather than confrontation and fight.

 

I want to conclude my little introduction of Wordsworth's patriotism by quoting an Amrican scholar's reflection on the relationship of patriotism and cosmopolitanism. The scholar is Martha Nussbaum and she claims as following. I quote.

 

1. If we really do believe that all human beings are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, we are morally required to think about what that conception required us to do with and for the rest of the world.

 

2. Richard Rortys urging Americans not to disdain patriotism as value, giving central importance to the emotion of national pride and a sense of shared national identity, which is offered as an alternative to politics of difference.

 

3. Richard Rortys patriotism may be a way of bringing all Americans together, but patriotism, lacking international perspective, very close to jingoism.

 

4. We say that respect should be accorded to humanity as such, but we really mean that Americans as such are worthy of special respect. And that, I think, is a story that Americans have told for far too long.

 

Nussbaum's essay reads a genuine and painful confession of the author's own moral dilemma she had as a world citizen about her own country. In that sense, she shares the same spirit of cosmopolitan patriotism as that of Wordsworth's. It was written long before 9.11. of course, and I wonder how much resonance it could still have among the scholars of good heart and the intellectuals of true conscience living in the contemporary America.

 

Since I started my speech with an ominous picture of a certain kind of Korean patriots, let me finish it by showing a couple of the other kinds of patriots in Korea.

 

Picture 1. This is the March First Movement which took place in 1919. This year is the centenary of this monumental event of Modern Korea. It was a brave demonstration of the common people to protest and resist Japan's colonization of Korea enforced 9 years before. It started with the proclamation of Korean Independence by the 33 people representing the Korean people, crushed with many casualties of all innocent civilian people just like May 2 uprising of Madrid people. But it was the beginning of the long, relentless efforts for the independence of Korea by so many patriotic independence fighters.

 

Picture 2. This is the April 19th Student Revolution of 1960 by which the corrupt government of Lee Seung Man was overthrown. Street Demonstrators were mainly university students. There were some high school students too. Liberty we obtained as the result of the revolution was short-lived. It was ruthlessly crushed by one major general called Park Chung Hee who became the president of Korea for 18 years. He is the father of the last president Park Keun Hye, the person Te Geuk Ki troops wants to rescue so desperately.

 

Picture 3. This is Gwang Ju Democratization Movement 1980. After Park Chung Hee was shot to death by one of his subordinates, Kim Jea Gyu, Director of Korean CIA, there came a short break of blooming liberty what we call "Spring of Seoul" until another major general seized the power by a military coup d'etat. He had to kill at least several hundred civilians in Gwang Ju who had rebelled against their unlawful and treacherous oppression upon the people.

 

Picture 4. This is June Struggle in 1987. Normal citizens of Seoul participated in the street demonstration. By this, we ended the military dictatorship which had been virtually continued ever since  1960. The presidential election by direct vote was made possible after so many years.

 

Picture 5. This is the picture of what we call the cantle light revolution. It was a peaceful demonstration showing the Peoples overwhelming Power. There was no violence whatsoever. As a result, we managed to materialize a peaceful transition of government outing a corrupt president of no ability through perfectly legitimate political processes, which, I think, has very few precedence in the history of modern countries. 

 

 

I think these are the images of real patriots, the embodiment of cosmopolitan patriotism Wordsworth wanted to uncover and illuminate so enthusiastically in his political tract. It is they the common Korean people who are equipped with the knowledge and the wisdom accumulated through the independence and the democratization movements in the last one hundred years of Korean history. It is they who have really made and are still in the making of a republic of democracy in Korea.  Thank you very much. 

 

 


 

 
 
©2014 ARMYTAGE.NET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED