The grand tour in the eighteenth century

Preface

The subject presented in the following pages has been strangely neglected; for until recent years there has been little attempt to treat comprehensively and in detail one of the most significant chapters in the social history of England in the eighteenth and earlier centuries — the tour in foreign countries for the sake of education. The materials are abundant, — indeed, embarrassingly so, — but they have never been systematically utilized. As a rule, the whole matter has been disposed of by historians in a paragraph or two. The more detailed studies have mainly dealt with the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. M. Babcau's delightful sketch of Lcs Voyageurs en France covers about three centuries, but is limited to a discussion of travel in one country. Yet few things had a more far-reaching influence upon the life and thought of Englishmen than the grand tour, which permitted them in the most impressionable period of their lives to survey other lands, other types of society and government, and to carry home something of the best — and too often of the worst — that the Continent had to offer.

In a subject so limitless in its possible range there is obviously much for which we cannot afford the space. The original intention was to trace the growth of English travel on the Continent from the time of the Revival of Learning to the outbreak of the French Revolution. But owing to the appearance of Mr. Bates's Touring in 1600 this extensive programme was modified to deal, in the main, with the grand tour in the latter half of the eighteenth century, with an occasional glance at the travel of an earlier generati(Mi. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remark that the present book is in no sense a systematic guide to eighteenth-century Europe, and that it attempts no extended account of any of

vii

PREFACE

the countries visited on the grand tour. In so far as places are mentioned or described, they are included because they mark important points on the routes commonly followed and illustrate what eighteenth-century tourists saw, but of course not all that they saw.

To write about the grand tour is, indeed, very much like writing about things in general, since there is an endless multitude of possible topics to be included. Practical necessity compels the exclusion of material which is in itself both interesting and suggestive, but which, if presented in detail, would obscure the features essential to a comprehensive survey. For this reason we must limit our view to the regions chiefly visited on the grand tour — France, Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries, with a mere glance at Spain and Switzerland and other parts of Europe. But Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Hungary, Greece, Turkey do not come into our plan, not because they were in themselves unimportant in the eighteenth century, but because they were less commonly visited by English tourists than some other parts of Europe. There is, moreover, in this rapid sketch little attempt to dwell upon places of secondary interest, but emphasis is laid upon the most representative cities on the great routes. For our purpose the towns of the Continent are significant only in proportion as they attracted English tourists.

As for the materials used in the preparation of this book, some of them are enumerated in a bibliographical note. But it may not be improper to remark that in repeated journeys and a residence of several years on the Continent I have become familiar with practically every important place visited on the grand tour and have endeavored by actual observation of old roads and mountain passes to realize the conditions under which one traveled in the generation preceding the French Revolution. Amid the wilderness of error that abounds in the older books of travel, I cannot safely pretend in every case to have hit upon the exact truth, but at all events I have not deliberately aimed to increase the mass of misinformation already in print.

viii

PREFACE

In conclusion, I offer my sincere thanks to the officials of libraries in this country and abroad for the facilities which they have generously placed at my disposal, and without which this book would be far more imperfect than it now is. To my colleague, Professor George M. Dutcher, I am much indebted for a revision of the second chapter; to Mr. Archibald Cattell, of Chicago, for a careful reading of the proof sheets ; and to my wife for proof-reading and aid in preparing the index.

In view of the great war that is now devastating Europe, it is important to note that the corrected page proofs of the present book were returned to the printers a few days before the outbreak of hostilities.

W. E. M.

October i, 1914.

Contents

I. Introductory i

II. Europe before the French Revolution 5

III. Water Travel

Chapter I Introductory

It is hardly necessary to remark that extensive foreign travel was nothing new to Englishmen of the eighteenth century. Journeys to Rome were not uncommon in the time of Bede, and, as Chaucer incidentally remarks, the long and hazardous pilgrimage to Jerusalem was thrice accomplished by the Wife of Bath, who unquestionably had no lack of companions. Many women before the fourteenth century had actually made that journey. The pilgrimage to Compostella in Spain was made by vast throngs in the Middle Ages. Voyages of discovery in all parts of the world had already become common in the reign of Elizabeth. Migration to America took tens of thousands of colonists across the Atlantic in the seventeenth century.

In comparison with these perilous ocean voyages the tour of the Continent of Europe, though by no means easy or entirely free from danger, was a mere pleasure trip, and Englishmen of rank had long been accustomed to make it. Mr. Sidney Lee well says: "The value of foreign travel as a means of education was never better understood, in spite of rudimentary means of locomotion, than by the upper classes of Elizabethan England. All who drank deep of the new culture had seen the wonders of the world abroad." ^ In another place he remarks: "Throughout the century young Englishmen of good family invariably completed their education in foreign travel and by attendance at a foreign university. In many quarters the practice was deemed to be perilous to the students'

I

INTRODUCTORY

religion and morals. The foundation of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1592, was justified on the ground 'that many of our people have usually heretofore used to travel into France, Italy, and Spain, to get learning in such foreign universities, whereby they have been infected with popery and other ill qualities.'^ But the usage of youthful peregrination was barely affected by such suspicions. The young Englishman's educational tour often extended to Italy and Germany as well as to France, but France was rarely omitted, and many youths confined their excursions to French territory." ^

After the reign of Elizabeth the stream of travel to foreign parts, in spite of occasional interruption by Continental wars, continued to flow ; and what came to be known as "the grand tour" ^ attained in the eighteenth century a more widely diffused popularity than it had ever before known. Ever since the Renaissance the tide of travel — particularly to Italy — from various countries of Europe had ebbed and flowed. But in the eighteenth century what had been a few generations earlier a matter of extreme difficulty, and even danger, became relatively easy. Annoyance and privation might still be expected here and there, but not in sufficient measure to deter one in tolerable health from the undertaking.

This growing interest of Englishmen in foreign countries, especially France and Italy and the Low Countries, and, to some degree, Germany, was due to a multitude of causes : to the centering of attention upon the Continent by the War of the Spanish Succession and other conflicts, to the popularity of French fashions notwithstanding the traditional hostility to France, to the greater perfection of means of transportation, to the increase of foreign commerce, to the rapidly growing wealth and broadening outlook of Englishmen, and to the multitudinous attractions of the Continent — social, artistic, architectural, literary, historical — which were sufficient to draw tourists of every taste, whether for enlarging their stock of knowledge or for mere pleasure.

INTRODUCTORY

The grand tour was, at least in intention, not merely a pleasurable round of travel, but an indispensable form of education for young men in the higher ranks of society. When made in approved fashion, in the company of a competent tutor, the grand tour meant a carefully planned journey through France and Italy and a return journey through Germany and the Low Countries. It was commonly necessary, on the way to or from Italy, to cross a portion of Switzerland, or at least some of the mountains belonging to the Alpine chains, but this part of the journey, in so far as the mountains were concerned, was regarded as a disagreeable necessity. Such a tour usually required three years. Multitudes of independent travelers, unhampered by a tutor or by anything besides their ignorance, of course visited the Continent without attempting the conventional round, and many pupils traveling with a tutor spent no more than a year or two abroad, but the allowance of three years was not too long for a leisurely survey of the principal countries and for getting some practical acquaintance with foreign languages.

Those who traveled abroad belonged, as a rule, just as was the case in the sixteenth century, to a picked class, and with their aristocratic temper, their wealth, and their insular characteristics, they presented, along with marked individual differences, a well-defined tourist type. The traits of successive generations of English travelers upon the Continent were early combined to form the well-known Englishman of the Continental stage — a caricature, indeed, but one reproducing many features drawn from life. Even in our time the old type is not altogether extinct, and may be occasionally encountered in a railway carriage or at a mountain inn, but it is daily becoming more rare.

Our main theme is, then, the touring of Englishmen upon the Continent of Europe in the eighteenth century. Practical considerations of space, as well as the actual practice of all but an insignificant fraction of tourists, compel us to limit our view to France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany,

INTRODUCTORY

the Low Countries. But this limitation has the advantage of permitting us to view in more detail the field that we undertake to survey.

We must not forget in any part of this discussion that not merely in England but throughout Europe the tutorial system was the generally approved method for the education of young men of qualit}'', and that what was in all essentials the grand tour was made under the guidance of a traveling tutor by the scions of noble families of France, Germany, Holland, and other countries of Europe. Travel was regarded as an essential finish of one's edi^cation, whether one traveled alone or with a tutor. The fashion of travel once established, it often tempted men, and even women, of mature years to undertake extended journeys. The itinerary, of course, varied somewhat according to personal tastes and special needs, but in general the regions visited by tourists bom on the Continent were substantially the same as those that attracted Englishmen.

We see, then, that wide travel for education or for pleasure was in no sense peculiar to Englishmen, — although as a class they were best able to aflord the expense, — but rather a conformity on their part to a practice that had become traditional among the upper classes of Europe — "that noble and ancient custom of traveling, a custom so \'isibly tending to enrich the mind with knowledge, to rectify the judgment, to remove the prejudices of education, to compose the outward manners, and in a word to form the complete gentleman." ^

Chapter II Europe Before The French Revolution

From what has already been said, it is clear that the grand tour, with all that it impHes, forms an important chapter in the history of European culture, and that it must be studied from that point of view if it is to be more than a merely curious record of travel in foreign countries. Taken in the broadest sense, the grand tour includes everything that one might see or hear in the course of long-continued travel. But as such an extension of the meaning would lay upon us an impossible task, we must in the study before us impose some well-defined limitations.

It is obviously no part of our duty to review in detail the complicated history of Europe in the eighteenth century. We are concerned with the course of events on the Continent only in so far as they affected the tourist. But a clear understanding of a few fundamental facts is imperative. Most important is it to bear in mind that participation by the common people in the work of government was relatively slight in nearly every country of the Continent, and only to a moderate degree permitted in England. Minor offices might be filled by persons of no importance, and in some cases men of humble origin rose to positions of great influence, but the policy of the government, the final decision in every matter that might affect the welfare of the ruling class as well as of the uncounted multitude, was commonly reserved for the supreme ruler. It is true that despotism became less harsh with each succeeding generation, but in theory it was hampered by few restrictions. The ruler, with his broad vision of the needs of his people, was expected to govern as a wise father governs his family.

Their interests were supposed to be his. If the ruler was both wise and good, the people prospered; but in any case they were expected to accept without murmuring the decisions of their betters.

As may be inferred, the mass of the population throughout Europe was made up of plain and simple folk. For the most part they were occupied with agriculture and lived a very humble Hfe. Cities were relatively, as well as actually, far smaller than they are to-day.^ Manufacturing was attempted on a small scale, particularly after the Seven Years' War, but at best it was insignificarft and in general not greatly encouraged. As a result, trade and commerce lacked incentive, and, moreover, suffered under the burden of numberless regulations due to narrow prejudice and imperfect knowledge of the laws governing national wealth. Widespread poverty characterized the greater part of Europe.

Particularly notable, too, as a result of the universal acceptance of the doctrine of the "Balance of Power," was the division of large portions of Europe among nations that had nothing to do with the organic historical development of the regions they appropriated. Such was especially the case in Italy.

Into the life of the eighteenth century came the fearful upheaval of the French Revolution, which marks a turning-point in the history of every country of western Europe. The minds of men were themselves transformed — that was the Revolution. A thousand conceptions, social and political, that had seemed established for ever were at length shattered under the long-continued assaults of philosophers and political theorists, and systems of government that under manifold differences in externals were alike in exalting the personal will of the ruler were sooner or later greatly modified. In some cases, as in France, the change in institutions was immediate and sweeping; in others, as in Germany and Italy, the transformation was more gradual ; but in all, the old state of things was doomed.

The thirty years or so just preceding the Revolution are those that most concern us in this study, though we shall often have occasion to look back to the early eighteenth century — and sometimes to the seventeenth.

To reaHze the conditions under which men lived in the eighteenth century is not easy. There are, indeed, only three or four generations between us and the gay throngs that crowded the salons of Paris before the Revolution. But the eighteenth century, notwithstanding its nearness in time, and the immense mass of information that we have about it, appears strangely remote, separated from us as it is by the great gulf of the French Revolution. The century of which men still vigorous have known many living representatives impresses us as markedly different in temper and point of view from our own. In a thousand ways the difference forces itself upon even the most careless observer — in the forms of government, in the rigid structure of society, in the fashions of dress, in the popular amusements, in the lack of facilities for travel and communication — in short, in all those particulars which distinguish the old, unprogressive regime with its numberless feudal survivals from our own bustling, democratic age.

Looking at the matter from one point of view we may say that there is no side of eighteenth-century life that might not in some way affect the tourist, but for our purpose the problem is much simpler. We need to know something of the political systems of the countries visited on the grand tour, for to those systems were due many of the restrictions laid upon the tourist. We need to know the times when peace prevailed, for, obviously, while there is war the average man will not undertake a tour, but will remain safely at home. We need to know of the means of travel, of the state of the roads and where they ran, of the inns and how one fared in them, of fashionable society and how it impressed the tourist, as well as the impression the tourist made upon society : in short, in so far as is possible in a book that must touch many things lightly if at all, we must endeavor to follow the tourist from place to place and see with him some of the sights that most interested him. In this way we may be able in some degree to estimate the value of the grand tour as a means of culture.

Besides all this, it is worth while to note that the eighteenth century, particularly during the first half, was a time of depression in poetry and art and architecture, and that for a time it appeared to be at a standstill in all moral and religious progress. But there was, nevertheless, in almost every field of human activity a new spirit stirring which wrought an amazing change before the century came to an end.

In view of the immensity of the field, it is obvious that to trace in any considerable detail the differences between the old time and the new would involve a review of the social history of Europe from the time of Louis XIV to the present, and to do that here is, of course, out of the question. We can, however, glance at the three or four countries that most attracted the English tourist and form some conception of the general conditions under which one traveled in the eighteenth century.

Of all these countries we must in some measure reshape our modem notions if we are to understand what the grand tour a hundred and fifty years ago really meant. Obviously, each country presented some features not exactly paralleled elsewhere, and the most characteristic of these we must try to realize. But we must remember that, owing to the complexity and variety of the facts and the frequent changes in details of administration, a general statement must ignore many minor details, and in some cases must be taken as a mere approximation to the truth.

II

As a preliminary to our later study we may well glance for a moment at eighteenth-century England, and then at the countries commonly visited on the grand tour. Until the last decade or two England has been a synonym for conservatism. But how different in a thousand ways is the England of our time from that of a century and a half ago ! In comparison with the England that we know, eighteenth-century England was markedly provincial and insular. Until far beyond the middle of the century, Englishmen, though always ambitious and aggressive, had not enlarged their conceptions to the point of making England the center of a world-power. But they felt with reason that their country was the most favored land in Europe, and everywhere they went they instinctively claimed preeminence.

One inestimable advantage they had enjoyed for nearly three centuries. Although since the close of the Middle Ages almost every part of the Continent had been a battlefield, England, with the exception of the Puritan uprising and the futile attempts to restore the line of the Stuarts, had been free from war upon her own soil. And by her fortunate insular situation she was practically secure against attack from the Continent. The period since the Revolution of 1688 had been marked by increasing material prosperity, which had diffused habits of expensive living and stimulated the desire to see life in other lands. Not everything was perfect in eighteenth-century England. Great inequalities prevailed. Parliament was unreformed. Social conditions among the lower classes were pitiful. But while there were vice and brutality and misery in eighteenth-century England, as everywhere else, nowhere in Europe was a man freer to live his own life and to express his own views on society, politics, or religion.

Another fact worthy of note is that the country was not overpopiilated. In 1750, England and Wales counted 6,400,000 inhabitants, and not until the end of the century did the population rise to 9,000,000. London in the middle of the eighteenth century had something like 600,000 inhabitants, — no insignificant number, it is true, but not so large as to preclude a man in society from the possibility of knowing almost everybody of importance. Naturally, then, society was more a unit than it is to-day. Men of the upper social class had about the same education — not too thorough, but including a tolerable acquaintance with Latin and some knowledge of Greek. Every one who wished to shine in society spent a part of his time in London, usually gamed a little at one of the fashionable clubs, and from the men of his own class took in the opinions generally accepted on politics, morals, and religion.

A man in such a circle who had not seen Paris, to say nothing of The Hague, the Rhine, and, above all, Venice and Florence and Rome, could not aspire to be a leader of fashionable society. Something provincial, some lack of savoir-faire, would inevitably betray him. Sooner or later the spell of Italy or France would be upon him, and woisild lead him to the places that he must himself see if he would be in a real sense a man of the world and in keeping with the society in which he moved.

Ill

Nearest to England in point of distance was France, the leader of the fashions of Europe and the greatest rival of England in every part of the world. English commercial and colonial expansion more than once brought the two nations into conflict in the course of the century. Eighteenth-century France, just before the Revolution, occupied a slightly larger territory than the present Republic.^ She had not yet gained Savoy and Nice, but she had not yet lost Alsace and she had acquired Lorraine in 1766.

Of the condition of France before the Revolution there is so much that might be said that any brief generalization is hazardous, for there had come down from the Middle Ages multitudes of anomalous special privileges reserved for the upper classes, and in this rapid summary we can touch only on matters that are most typical and characteristic.'^ But a rapid glance at the main features is imperative.

France presented a strildng contrast to England in government, in religion, in the structure of society, in habits of living, in manners, in dress, — in short, in a thousand details that make up the greater part of everyday existence. Moreover, France, taken by herself, was full of contradictory elements. Standing as she did in the forefront of civilization; boasting the most brilliant philosophers and men of letters in Europe, her life was throttled by a system of government that was daily becoming more inadequate to the demands of the time.

Notable, indeed, were the differences between the government of France and that of England. The centralizing policy of Louis XIV had gradually brought France under a system of administration that deprived the provinces of political power and made the king's will supreme.^ A powerful minister might relieve the king of the burden of multiplied administrative detail, and even usurp authority, but in effect the king was responsible. Yet, though nominally absolute, he was in practice restrained by a host of precedents and usages, surviving from the days of feudalism.

This centralized authority was in many particulars sadly inefficient and could not be bettered without a radical reform from top to bottom. The regulation of the finances was subject to continual alteration, but the sporadic change resulted chiefly in making administration more difficult. No head of government, however honest his intentions, could bring harmony and justice out of the tangled confusion of laws that had accumulated in France. Bureaucratic and cumbrous in its machinery, the government was at the same time lavish and niggardly. It poured out money like water at Versailles and often begrudged the most necessary expenditures in the provinces. Between 1763 and 1789 the national debt enormously increased. Dishonesty in handling public money was common. Too often, not merit but favor brought advancement.

Moreover, the administration of government was meddlesome in the extreme and constantly interfering in the smallest matters. This officiousness was the more exasperating because apparently irrational and, in any case, not applied to all classes alike. Under the old regime France was doubtless in many respects a paradise, but only for the chosen few.^

II

Next to the king stood at the head of the social order the clergy and the nobility. They formed the privileged classes and were in the main exempt from public burdens,^ though they owned two fifths of all the land in France. In fact, if we exclude the public domain from the estimate, their possessions amounted to "one half of the Kingdom." ^ The clergy and the nobles numbered but a thirtieth part of the twenty-six millions in France, but they enjoyed an enormous proportion of the income of the nation. Not only did the clergy hold vast estates, but they also exacted tithes, as was their right, and received, moreover, a considerable annual income from voluntary offerings and bequests. Without question, the Church of France in the eighteenth century was, all in all, an institution of incalculable beneficence as well as of great splendor. But luxury had deadened the zeal of earlier days, and too often the Church served as a convenient means of providing well-paid sinecures for the younger sons of noble families.

In many parts of France the Church had estranged its natural adherents and even embittered its own servants. Although it possessed vast estates and enabled the great dignitaries to live like princes, the minor clergy were sadly underpaid, and in many cases lived little better than the impoverished and starving people that they served. In eighteenth-century England there was, before the great religious awakening of the middle of the century, a prevailing indifference to spiritual things. But there was no such popular hostility to the clergy as was common in France; for, particularly after the great religious revival, the English clergy took a genuine interest in the welfare of the poor; whereas in France the higher clergy appeared chiefly concerned to exact their tithes and to turn over their routine duties to ill-paid curates.

As for the French nobility, they had long since lost most of the political power they once possessed as a natural right in their own districts; and unless kept at home by poverty, they had, with few exceptions, given up living upon their estates for the greater part of the year and yielded to the attraction that drew all France to Paris and the court of the king at Versailles.^ In their absence their estates were managed by agents, who too often were unscrupulous and merciless.

But although as a class they had lost political power, the nobility enjoyed many special privileges and had vast influence at court and on the administration of government. Theirs was an unquestioned social position. They secured in the army and in the fleet the choicest places, which gave them large revenues and little to do. Some of the higher nobles had vast incomes from their estates and lived in extravagant luxury. But the nobility almost wholly escaped taxation.^ They were free from the burden of the corvees, of compulsory military service, and of having soldiers quartered upon them. They had the privilege of selling their wine in the market thirty or forty days before the peasant; they could pasture their cattle in the meadows of the peasant ; they could keep a host of pigeons that devoured the peasant's grain while he dared not kill or take them; they could claim a certain proportion of the peasant's grain or wine or fruit; and they could compel him to use the seignorial oven for baking his bread. ^ These survivals in the eighteenth century appeared increasingly irrational, since what had given rise to the privileges was no longer in existence. In short, as De Tocqueville remarks: "France was the only country in which the feudal system had preserved its injurious and irritating characteristics, while it had lost all those which were beneficial or useful." *

Moreover, admission to the ranks and privileges of the nobility could be secured by men of wealth who had no ancestral claims. This upstart aristocracy was despised by the ancient noblesse and doubly hated by the toiling masses. In England the aristocracy was one of the strongest bulwarks of the constitution and of the social order: in France it was a constant source of irritation and disHke and an invitation to revolution.