The highest excitement and deepest interest of my life
Probably more books have been published about events in France in the early months of 1814 than about any other such brief period in its history. It seems as if everyone who had any experience of France at this critical moment felt they had a duty to record their impressions of events. So it is fair to ask whether there is anything about Underwood’s Journal of a Détenu which makes it stand out among the many other journals, memoirs, letters, etc of the period [G Pariset lists 27 references Journal des Savants, 1906 p602-607] which saw Napoleon eventually confined to St Helena and the monarchy restored. Before attempting that question we should ask what grounds there are for crediting Underwood with the authorship?
The first intimation of the existence of the journal came from the publication in The London Magazine [in the issues of September, October, November and December 1825] of The journal of a Détenu, and in 1828 it was published as A Narrative of Memorable Events in Paris in the year 1814 edited by John Britton. The brief introduction to the version in the London Magazine for September 1825 makes no comment on the question of authorship but asserts the significance of this being an account of important events in French history written by an eye-witness. Since this brief introduction is repeated almost word for word in the Address at the start of The Narrative, one may presume that the journal, somewhat abridged, was submitted to the magazine, together with the introduction, by Britton. There is no hint of who the author was but, in the long Address by way of introduction to The Narrative of Memorable events, Britton is at pains to assure readers of the reliability of what is before them. French translations of the version in the London Magazine appeared in 1826, 1873 and 1907 in various forms.
In The Address Britton begins by identifying the author as “a friend who has been resident in Paris since 1803” and, by implication, still is there. Underwood satisfies both requirements: a friend and a resident in Paris since 1803. We have already seen that he and Britton had made a journey together in the West Country to sketch monuments and archaeological remains to illustrate Britton’s projected Beauties of England which justified calling him a friend.
Towards the end of his Address Britton assures his readers that the author, who presented him with the manuscript of his journal, was chiefly concerned that it should be ‘faithfully and correctly’ conveyed to the world through the medium of the ‘English press’. The Journal was not intended for publication when it was being written or it would not have been presented in such an unpolished form. It did not see the light of day until twelve years after the events it records. In anticipation of professional criticism, Britton draws attention to the fact that “his friend …. the author has neither aimed at elegance nor eloquence of diction; but on the contrary, betrays occasional carelessness of style, accustomed as he has been, for many years, to French society, French literature and to express his ideas in that language”. The reader may well feel that Britton is being too coy if he hopes to persuade us that what is recorded here is solely entries made each day in a journal kept during this period: some entries seem to be transcriptions from a daily journal, others bear marks of having been tidied up and extended at a later date. This edition was the first complete version of the journal; the serial versions published in The London Magazine in 1825 and in the Revue Britannique in 1826 (a French translation of the former) were abridged versions. The modesty of the author in wishing to remain anonymous was a matter of regret for Britton and in conclusion, he quotes the author:
“I am not an author, nor do I aspire to this honour. In printing the present narrative I have been more seduced by the entreaty of friends than by any prospect of fame or profit: the latter I entirely forego, and the former I have no right to expect. Perhaps I might have secured a fair proportion of both, with several of my friends, had my predilections led me to this department of study, – but circumstances have impelled me rather to be a spectator than an actor in the ever-varied drama of life. The fine arts and the sciences have claimed much of my time and attention, and have afforded me rewards by the endless pleasures that ever accompany them.”
[Narrative p xii, xiv]
These last sentences offer another broad hint as to where to seek the author’s identity. By 1828 Underwood was an established artist and throughout his Narrative has identified himself as an artist by profession. But, as we shall see in a later chapter, he had also become recognised both in Paris and in London as an amateur geologist. He was elected a member of the Geological Society of London in November 1822; when the Société Géologique de France was founded in 1830 he was recorded as a founder member and a member of Council. In addition to all this, we should remember that anyone anxious to confirm or deny his identity as author would have been able to enquire of Underwood himself and many of those named in the Narrative who were still living in Paris. Had his authorship been denied the fact would soon have become widely known, so we shall pursue the matter no further. However, twenty years later, in TE Jones’ account of Britton’s Literary works it is plainly stated that the author was Underwood. [TE Jones: A Descriptive Account of the Literary Works of John Britton, FSA, etc (from 1800 to 1849) Being a second part of his Autobiography, (London ) 1849 p198-200. In similar manner, JG Alger Napoleon’s British Visitors p268 asserts confidently that the author of the Narrative was Underwood.]