Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:45:02.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

JEAN-PAUL MARAT'S THE CHAINS OF SLAVERY IN BRITAIN AND FRANCE, 1774–1833

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2005

RACHEL HAMMERSLEY
Affiliation:
School of Historical Studies, University of Newcastle

Abstract

Originally published in London in 1774 and subsequently republished in French in 1793 and 1833, Marat's The chains of slavery offers an interesting case study on the exchange of ideas between Britain and France during the late eighteenth century. It is suggested that the key to understanding this hitherto neglected work lies in reading it alongside other publications by Marat from the 1770s and in setting it firmly in the context in which it was published and disseminated in both Britain and France. Prompted by debates surrounding the election of 1774, the work embodies Marat's own particular version of the British commonwealth tradition, and can be linked to the Wilkite movement in both Newcastle and London. Despite its British origins, Marat and his followers were able to utilize the work after 1789 in order to engage in a number of French debates. It thus constitutes one of the means by which English republican ideas made their way across the Channel.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was written during my time as a Leverhulme Special Research Fellow at the University of Sussex. I am extremely grateful to both the Leverhulme Trust and the University for their support. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the conference ‘France and Britain: cross influences, mutual representations, comparisons’ held at the Université de Paris XIII and at the Eighteenth-Century Studies Seminar at the University of Warwick. I wish to thank the audiences on both occasions for their questions and comments. I would also like to thank Fabrice Bensimon, John Gurney, Martyn Hammersley, Maurice Hutt, Michael Sonenscher, Richard Whatmore, Donald Winch, Brian Young, and the anonymous referee for reading and commenting on the text.