"Reporting the Grand Tour: The correspondence of Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and Paul Rapin-Thoyras with the Earl of Portland, 1701-1703"

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis on 31 July 2014 in Paedagogica

Historica, vol. 50:4 (2014): 465-478, available online:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00309230.2014.899375 [DOI: 10.1080/00309230.2014.899375].

1

Reporting the Grand Tour: The correspondence of Henry

Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and Paul Rapin-Thoyras

with the Earl of Portland, 1701-1703

by Michaël Green, collaborative researcher, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters,

University of Cordoba, Spain

The so-called “Grand Tour” was the name given to a journey throughout Europe which was

undertaken explicitly for educational needs. Generally, throughout the seventeenth century,

most of the travellers undertaking the Grand Tour were young people, varying in age from

adolescence to the early twenties. The Tour was usually the last part of the educational

process of these young people, though there were also those who travelled in their mid-teens.

Originally, the idea of the “Grand Tour” was promoted by the Humanists as a means to

discover classical culture, but was quickly adapted for the more practical needs of nobles,

bourgeois, merchants and all those who were wealthy enough to send their offspring on

lengthy far-away travel. For noblemen, the Grand Tour was an opportunity to discover the

customs and habits of neighbouring and far-away countries, practise foreign languages,

become acquainted with various forms of art, as well as polish social skills by establishing

personal connections at courts and with influential people abroad.1

* This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Paedagogica Historica on 31

July 2014, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00309230.2014.899375

[10.1080/00309230.2014.899375]. The final version contains changes and illustrations. Full reference: M.

Green, “Reporting the Grand Tour: The correspondence of Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and Paul

Rapin-Thoyras with the Earl of Portland, 1701-1703”, in: Paedagogica Historica, vol. 50:4 (2014): 465-478.

This article is an elaboration of papers given at the Huguenot Society of Great Britain and Ireland and at the

Boarders and Crossings conference, Hope University, Liverpool. The author is currently preparing an edited

volume of the correspondence of Henry Bentinck and Paul Rapin-Thoyras with the Earl of Portland for

publication. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. 1 For general discussions of the Grand Tour, see for example: Michèle Cohen, “The Grand Tour.

Language, National Identity and Masculinity”, in: Changing English: Studies in Reading & Culture, vol. 8,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00309230.2014.899375





2

The larger Grand Tour would include travel to Italy, including Rome, and to France,

including Paris. According to the Belgian historian, Gerrit Verhoeven, Grand Tour routes

varied depending on travellers’ countries of origin. In other words, if Englishmen and

Germans went to Rome, the Dutch would rather go to Paris.2 We could say that the Grand

Tour was part of the maturing process of a young person. Because only a limited amount of

people could accompany him on the journey, he would need to learn to become more

independent.

The French researcher Jean Boutier outlined two recommendations regarding the necessity of

travel for completing education:

“Voyager, c’est aller à l’école du monde, c’est s’éloigner d’une éducation encore trop

dominée par les disciplines classiques et la philosophie aristotélicienne pour

apprendre les langues étrangères et se lancer dans une enquête systématique sur le

monde naturel, et sur le monde politique et social. Mais cette école du monde n’est

pas un simple auto-apprentissage; elle nécessite elle-aussi des tuteurs, mais différents

de ceux qui ont eu la charge de l’enfant dans ses plus jeunes années.”3

2(2001):129-141; Roger Hudson, The Grand Tour, 1592-1796 (London: Folio Society, 1993); Jeremy Black,

France and the Grand Tour (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003);

Michael G. Brennan, The Origins of the Grand Tour: The Travels of Robert Montagu, Lord Mandeville, 1649-

1654, William Hammond, 1655-1658, Banister Maynard, 1660-1663 (London: Hakluyt Society, 2004); E.M.

Grabowsky, P.J. Verkruijsse (eds.), Een naekt beeldt op een marmore matras seer schoon: Het dagboek van een

‘Grand Tour’ (1649-1651) door Arnhout Hellemans Hooft (Hilversum: Verloren, 2001). 2 Gerrit Verhoeven, “Calvinist Pilgrimages and Popish Encounters: Religious Identity and Sacred Space on the

Dutch Grand Tour (1598–1685)”, in: Journal of Social History, vol. 43, 3 (2010): 615-634, see in particular

617-618. 3 “To travel is to go to the school of the world, it is to step back from education dominated by the Classical

disciplines and Aristotelian philosophy in order to learn foreign languages and to launch oneself on a systematic

enquiry of the natural world as well as on the political and social world. But this school of the world is not a

simple self-study; it demands teachers, but different from the ones who were in charge of the child in his

younger age.” Translation by the author. See: Jean Boutier, “Compétence internationale, émergence d'une

"profession" et circulation des savoirs: le tuteur aristocratique dans l'Angleterre du XVIIe siècle”, in: Saperi in

Movimento, M.-P. Paoli (ed.), Pisa (2006): 149-177, here 150.





3

The nobleman would travel accompanied by a tutor. Boutier states that the tutor who

educated the young man at home would not be suitable for accompanying him on his travels.

Boutier claims that another type of tutor would be needed: a tutor who would specialise in

travel. This is because a home tutor would not be qualified to take on the entire care of the

young man in his charge.4 This is however only partially the case. The example of Paul

Rapin-Thoyras shows that the same tutor could be employed for both tasks. Moreover, the

task of a head tutor, especially amongst the ranks of the highest nobility, would be to control

the whole educational process, as well as the household, of the pupil.5

Travel accounts written during the Grand Tour were mainly in two forms: diaries, and letters

home. These documents can be referred to as “ego-documents”, coined in 1958 by the Dutch

scholar Jacob Presser.6 As such, they reflect the interests of the traveller who wrote them - the

level of detail depended on the writer. Usually they would include the most important pieces

of art seen, sermons heard, connections established, places visited and finances spent. At

times, they also give details of the travelling itself. Occasionally, personal information is

added and offers a fascinating insight into the daily life of the voyager, as well as the

relationship with his family at home and with the accompanying tutor and staff.

In light of the existing interest in the Grand Tour, in this article we will analyse the

correspondence sent by Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and his Huguenot head-tutor

Paul Rapin-Thoyras, to Henry’s father, Hans William Bentinck, the Earl of Portland. This

correspondence is particularly interesting as it starts sometime before the Grand Tour itself,

4 Boutier, “Compétence internationale ”.

5 Michael Green, The Huguenot Jean Rou (1638-1711): Scholar, Educator, Civil Servant, Doctoral dissertation,

University of Groningen (2013): 306-308. 6 Jacob Presser, “Memoires als geschiedbron”, in: Uit het werk van dr. J. Presser, Amsterdam (1969): 277-283.





4

and shows the preparatory steps taken, the background, and the relationship between the

parties during the trip. This highly personal and previously unstudied correspondence offers

an insight into the interaction between pupil and tutor, and the role of the father back home in

the educational process.

This correspondence is held in the Special Collections of the Library of the University of

Nottingham, and manuscript copies of most of the letters are preserved in the British

Library.7 The copies, written in neat eighteenth- or nineteenth-century handwriting, were

probably made in the Netherlands, since on their final page there is a note in Dutch, stating

“niet geschreven” (not written/copied), relating to eighteen letters that for unknown reasons

were not copied. The originals of all of these are located in Nottingham.8

How extensive is the correspondence? Altogether it consists of 102 letters: 27 letters written

by the tutor, Paul Rain-Thoyras, to the father, the Earl of Portland; 72 letters written by

Viscount Woodstock to his father; and 3 letters from officials who wrote to Portland during

the Grand Tour to report on their meeting with Viscount Woodstock. It is clearly seen that the

son wrote more letters to his father than the tutor did. This can be explained by the fact that

the tutor left the trip before its completion. Nevertheless, overall the length of the letters

written by the tutor is almost double in comparison with the letters written by the son. One

major difference in the content of the different correspondences is in financial matters: while

Rapin reports on various expenses, Woodstock focuses more on the honours he received and

people he met.

7 Special Collections Department, Library of the University of Nottingham, under the shelf-mark Pw A

(different references to different letters, for example, Pw A 1048); British Library, EG 1706, Letters from Paul

Rapin-Thoyras and Viscount Woodstock to Hans William Bentinck, Earl of Portland (copies). 8 All of the letters in this article will be referred to their location in the British Library and transcribed from the

copies held there.





5

It seems that on average letters were sent about once a week, which means that each was

written before the previous letter was answered. As we see, on 10 March 1702, Woodstock

writes to Portland from Venice that he received the letters sent to him on 3 and 6 February.9

On 6 May 1702, he writes that he received Portland’s letter dated 24 March/4 April 1702.10

This means that the letters took about a month to arrive at their destination.

A closer examination of the letters of Rapin and Woodstock to Portland reveals the difficult

relationship between the tutor and his charge, and offers an insight more generally into the

dynamics of pupil and tutor during the Grand Tour. Rapin, a forty-year-old man had to deal

with the teenage maximalism of the eighteen-year-old Woodstock, while fulfilling the

demands of the father, who was one of the most influential people of the United Provinces

and England of the time. Such an examination will also show us the educational dimension of

the journey and its various elements. Below we will examine the three correspondents.

Hans William Bentinck (1649-1709)

Hans William Bentinck, a Dutch nobleman and politician, was a personal friend of the

Stadtholder of Holland, William III of Orange, whose page he was during their youth.11

Their

relationship was so close that Bentinck was in charge of arranging the marriage of the

William to Mary Stuart, the eldest daughter of James Duke of York (the future King James II

and the younger brother of the reigning king Charles II), which was finally concluded in

1677. In 1689, with the succession of William III and Mary II as King and Queen of England,

Bentinck continued his military and diplomatic services and moved to England with the

9 Woodstock to Portland, Venice, 10 March 1702, f. 82-84.

10 Woodstock to Portland, Rome, 6 May 1702, f. 101-102.

11 On William III, see: Wouter Troost, William III the Stadholder-King: A Political Biography, trans. by J.C.

Grayson (Aldershot, Bulrington: Ashgate, 2005).





6

Royal Couple. There, William III granted him the title of the Earl of Portland. However,

experiencing various difficulties, Bentinck withdrew from public life in 1699.12

Paul Rapin-Thoyras (1661-1725)

Born in Castres, Paul Rapin de Thoyras was the son of Jacques de Rapin, a lawyer, and

Jeanne de Pellisson, daughter of a conseiller de la Chambre de Castres and sister of Paul de

Pellison, who became a historiographer of Louis XIV. His family originated in Savoy and

immigrated to France in early sixteenth century, where part of it converted to Protestantism

during the reign of reign of Henry II (1547–1559).

A tutor’s education is always of particular interest. Usually the upper nobility would require a

tutor to be at least a university graduate. Royalty would normally employ a university

professor.13

William Bentinck, closely connected to William III, had the means to afford a

man of Rapin’s stature. Rapin studied at Collège de Puylaurens, where the children of the

majority of Protestant nobility of the Midi studied. Among them, just a few years earlier, was

the famous Huguenot philosopher Pierre Bayle.14

Rapin continued his studies at the Academy

of Saumur, and in 1679 he decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and study law.

However, his personal preference was for a military career. He left for England in March

1686, shortly after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which ended the toleration of the

12

The biographical information in this section is based on: Green, The Huguenot Jean Rou, 317; For more

information see: David Onnekink, The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1st Earl

of Portland (1649-1709) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); Marion E. Grew, William Bentinck and William III (Prince

of Orange): The Life of Bentinck Earl of Portland from the Welbeck Correspondence (London: John Murray,

1924); Paul. E. Schazmann, The Bentincks: The History of a European Family (London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson, 1976). 13

For additional information on the selection process of the tutors, criteria employed in their selection and

various types of educational staff, see: Green, The Huguenot Jean Rou, 301-312; M. Green, “A Huguenot

Education for Early Modern Nobility”, in The Huguenot Society Journal, 30, No. 1 (2013): 73-91. 14

Much literature was written on Pierre Bayle. See for example: Wiep van Bunge, Hubert Bots (eds.), Pierre

Bayle (1647-1706), le philosophe de Rotterdam: Philosophy, Religion and Reception. Selected Papers of the

Tercentenary Conference Held at Rotterdam, 7-8 December 2006 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008).

Hubert Bost, Pierre Bayle (Paris: Fayard, 2006); Elisabeth Labrousse, Notes sur Bayle (Paris: Vrin, 1987);

Elisabeth Labrousse, Une foi, une loi, un roi ?’: Essai sur la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes (Geneva: Labor et

Fides, 1985); Elisabeth Labrousse, Pierre Bayle et l'instrument critique (Paris: Seghers, 1965).





7

Huguenots in France. His parental connections to Pellisson allowed him to be well received

by Barillon, an ambassador of Louis XIV in England. However, he was expected to convert

to Catholicism before getting any substantial help. Nevertheless, Rapin kept his religious

preferences, and ran away from London, coming eventually to the United Provinces. Later,

his path brought him into the military circles of William III, under whose command he took

part in the battles of Carrickfergus, Boyne, Limerick and others, in which he was noted for

his bravery.15

It seems that Rapin planned to be fully engaged in his military career, but in 1692-93 when he

served in the garrison of Kinsale, he befriended the governor of the place, James Waller, who

had a passion for history.16

Because of both Waller’s influence and Rapin’s personal interest,

Rapin started studying English history, particularly the history of the government. This was at

the time when William III called on him to help his friend, Hans William Bentinck, to look

after his eleven-year-old son, Henry, Viscount Woodstock, and to act as his head tutor. Rapin

learned much later that he gained this position thanks to Lord Galloway, the son of Marquis

de Ruvigny, a French refugee, who commanded the troops in Ireland. Rapin, who was thirty

years old at the time, had a strong reputation for being a serious and cultured person. While

this appointment effectively ended his career in the military, it opened up a new one as an

historian of English institutions. Portland played an important role in the British politics,

being closely associated with King William III and representing him in France, and was one

of the Whig counsellors closest to the Royal Couple. It was at his salon that all the nobles

15

Green, The Huguenot Jean Rou, 143-145; Nelly Girard d’Albissin, Un précurseur de Montesqieu: Rapin-

Thoyras. Premier historien français des institutions anglaises (Paris: Klincksieck 1969); M.G. Sullivan, “Rapin

de Thoyras, Paul de”, in: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004. Online

edition. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23145. 16

See: “James Waller”, in: A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain for

1852, John Bernard Burke (ed.), vol. 2 (London: Colburn and Co., 1852): 1498. See also: Ronald Ludwig, Die

Rezeption der Englischen Revolution im Deutschen Politischen Denken und in der Deutschen Historigraphie im

18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitatsverlag, 2003): 22.


http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23145




8

involved in the new Court met, and that was where Rapin learned how English politics

functioned – knowledge he drew on in 1717 for the Dissertation sur les Whigs et les Torys.

Rapin travelled extensively across Europe accompanying Portland or Viscount Woodstock on

various missions. This travel experience also helped him to design the project for Bentinck’s

Grand Tour, as we will see below.17

Coming back to Rapin’s educational position, we noted earlier that in 1694 Rapin became

head tutor to Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock (1682-1726), son of the Earl of Portland.

Our focus will be on the last period of Rapin’s employment as a tutor: in 1701-1702 he made

the Grand Tour with Woodstock.

Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock (1682-1726)

Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, was born in 1682 and was the eldest son of Hans

William Bentinck and Anne Villiers, an English noblewoman.18

After his father’s move to

England, Henry spent his time between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and England,

but mostly in The Hague, where the Bentinck family owned a house on an estate that was

called Zorgvliet, in the rich neighbourhood of Scheveningen.19

The house still exists today

under the name of Catshuis, and is the official residence of the Dutch prime minister. After

17

Green, The Huguenot Jean Rou, 143-145. Boutier writes that often a separate tutor was employed for the

Grand Tour, and he would not be the same who took care of the child’s upbringing at home. This however is not

the case of Rapin, who was both head tutor at home, and accompanying tutor for the Grand Tour. 18

Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, then 1st Duke of Portland. For biographical information, see:

“Biography of [William] Henry Bentinck, 1st Duke of Portland (1682-1726)”, in: University of Nottingham

Manuscripts and Special Collections Website. Online edition. [Accessed 1 June 2013.

<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/collectionsindepth/family/portland/

biographies/biographyof%5Bwilliam%5Dhenrybentinck,1stdukeofportland%281682-1726%29.aspx>]; Hugh

Dunthorne, David Onnekink, “Bentinck, Hans Willem, First Earl of Portland (1649–1709)”, Oxford Dictionary

of National Biography. Online edition. [Accessed 1 June 2013. <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/

article/2160>]. 19

On one occasion Woodstock actually mentions the house in his letter to his father that was staying there at the

time. See: Woodstock to Portland, Florence, 1 July 1702, f. 114-115.





9

his father’s death in 1709, Woodstock was created Earl of Portland, and later the 1st Duke of

Portland.

Preparations for the trip

Before the beginning of the Grand Tour, Rapin wrote to Portland, who was at that time in

England, to agree upon the plan for the trip, and to warn him that Woodstock wanted to visit

him before he went on his Grand Tour.20

Woodstock himself pushed for this visit, especially

since King William III, while visiting The Hague the previous time, invited him to his office,

gave him many compliments, and eventually advised him to speed up his departure from

England in order to join the cavalry. Remembering that the purpose of the journey was

educational, Rapin, as Woodstock’s tutor, warned Portland that such trip to England would be

disadvantageous for his pupil, as he could fall under the bad influence of the English youth,

known for their debauchery. He portrayed Woodstock as a rebellious teenager who constantly

tries to question his tutor’s authority. He feared that the bad influence, to which Woodstock

would be subjected in England by his peers, would have made it useless for Rapin to join him

in the Grand Tour, as there would be no confidentiality and trust between them. He also

signals to Portland that their relationship was not always smooth – he states that he gave

Woodstock the necessary liberty, but insisted that he had to be directed towards good and

avoid vice. He suggested therefore that Portland, during his next visit to The Hague, speak to

his son, give him his blessing and talk him out of the plan to go to England. Rapin also warns

about another potential danger: he did not want Woodstock to get too close to the Court and

to the King, which would open another door to the debauchery of which Rapin was so fearful.

Finally, he suggests the visit to England should be the final leg of the Grand Tour, when

20

Letter from Rapin to Portland, The Hague, 2 March 1701, f. 1-4.





10

Woodstock would be a little more mature, because after having seen the world he would be

more resistant to temptations.

A Grand Tour was a very long and complicated journey, and therefore required very careful

planning. In a letter sent from The Hague to England on 2 March 1701, Rapin developed a

very extensive plan for Woodstock’s trip, which included: the Netherlands, the German

states, Sweden, Denmark, Bohemia, Austria, the Italian states, Switzerland, and then an

optional visit to France. All together the tour would have 75 stops.21

This shows that the trip

planned by Rapin was far more extensive than the usual Grand Tour, which would include

two to three countries only. He also included Italy in his plan, which was, according to Gerrit

Verhoeven, rather uncommon for Dutch nobles at the time, as they tended to prefer to go to

France.22

Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, was of course a Dutchman living both in the

United Provinces and in England, and for the English Italy was a common destination.

Indeed, as Rosemary Sweet mentions in her book on the Grand Tour, it was a journey

planned to visit cities, not rural areas.23

A question arises then as to why a visit to France was

only optional and not part of the core plan. This was probably due to the tensions between

England, France and the United Provinces, which preceded the War of the Spanish

Succession (1701-1714) that would break out in just a few months’ time. Traveling in times

of war would require additional planning, but it would not prevent the planned journey.

Before the trip began, on 29 March 1701, Woodstock wrote a letter to his father in which he

mentions that the trip would include visits to foreign courts, in order to get to know the ways

21

Paul Rapin-Thoyras, “Programme du voyage”, f. 5-6. 22

Verhoeven, “Calvinist Pilgrimages”, 618-619. 23

Rosemary Sweet, Cities and the Grand Tour: The British in Italy, c.1690-1820 (Cambridge, New York,

Melbourne, etc: Cambridge University Press, 2012): 2.





11

and customs of other countries.24

This statement of course goes hand in hand with the

aforementioned idea of the usefulness of such a trip for the young nobleman, who would need

to maintain existing political and personal connections, as well as establish new ones.25

Yet,

although he was very excited about it, he thought the timing was not right for such a trip

because of the expected outbreak of the war in which he felt obliged to participate, and

because he remembered that after the previous war many young men who did not take part in

it were ridiculed. He then tried to play on a sentimental note:

“Quoy que la principale raison qui me fait souhaiter de passer en Angleterre soit

l'envie que j'ay d'avoir l'honneur d'être aupres de vous, pourtant le desir que j'ay de

recevoir vos ordres sur ce que vous voudréz que je fasse, êtant entierement disposé a

les suivre en quoy que ce puisse être”.26

Woodstock explained that he first wanted to visit England to see his father, and that he would

obey any orders received. Though the style of the letter is rather formal, he added a personal

touch by mentioning that he had some problems with his hand, which prevented him from

writing to his mother.

Three days later, on 1 April 1701, Rapin wrote to Portland that Woodstock admitted he

would happily travel, but he did not think it was honourable to make trips while the war was

ongoing.27

He would be in a court that possibly could be fighting Holland, or meet people

coming back from war. In his post scriptum, Rapin wrote that Woodstock made him open the

letter he wrote to see what was mentioned about him. Rapin added that it seemed that

24

Woodstock to Earl of Portland, The Hague, 29 March 1701, f. 7-8. 25

Verhoeven, “Calvinist Pilgrimages”, 618. 26

Woodstock to Earl of Portland, The Hague, 29 March 1701, f. 7-8. 27

Rapin to Portland, The Hague, 1 April 1701, f. 9-12.





12

Woodstock was eager to go to war, and that certain enemies tried hard to intervene in his

relationship with his father. Woodstock assumed that Rapin would encourage the Earl of

Portland to insist on the Grand Tour for his own displeasure. This shows that already at this

point the relationship between the tutor and the pupil was not particularly close. This would

have important consequences at a later date.

Tutor and pupil on the Grand Tour

Eventually, Woodstock was forced by his father to go on the Grand Tour, together with

Rapin. After much delay, the trip commenced in October, and one of the first stops on their

route was Dusseldorf, which was at the time part of the Palatinate, ruled by the Elector

Johann Wilhelm II (1658-1716). During the trip, both the tutor and the son reported to

Portland on their progress. For example, during their stay in Dusseldorf, in letters written on

31 October 1701, Woodstock wrote to Portland that he visited a certain Madame Morlot and

had mistaken her daughter for herself, which in his opinion resembled an event from

Moliere’s Comedie du Malade imaginaire, in which Thomas Diafoirus mistakes the mother

for the daughter, while wanting to compliment the latter.28

The next stop on their journey was Cologne, where according to Rapin’s letter to Portland

they visited several churches, including those of the Jesuits, whose monks showed much

respect to Woodstock. In particular, Woodstock was impressed by the cathedral’s scenes

from the life of Jesus. Rapin writes about the magnificent view of the Archbishop’s robes and

regalia, such as his mitre and cross.29

Besides churches, they also visited the city hall.

Visiting Catholic sacred places was common even for Protestant travellers, and Woodstock’s

28

Diaphaurus in Woodstock’s spelling. Woodstock to Portland, Dusseldorf, 31 October 1701, f. 26-27. In

Moliere’s Hypohondriac, Argan tells Thomas Diafoirus who was talking to the daughter Angelique instead of

the mother: “Ce n’est pas ma femme, c’est ma fille à qui vous parlez”. See: Moliere, Le malade imaginaire:

comédie en trois actes en prose (Paris: Chez la Veuve Duchesne, 1774): 35. 29

Rapin to Portland, Cologne, 3 November 1701, f. 28-29.





13

journey is a good example. This was done not for the adoration of relics, but more for the

purposes of cultural enrichment.30

Here we see that one of the purposes of the Grand Tour

was learning the customs of the locals. They even paid a visit to Christian August of Saxe-

Zeit, the Bishop of Raab (1666-1725), who “a fait beaucoup de civilité et d’honnêtetés a

Mylord Woodstock”.31

In this way, we see that the encounter between the Protestant

Woodstock and the Catholic bishop did not provoke any unpleasantness.

Meeting people of different faiths was a matter of routine. Just a month later, in a letter sent

from Munich, Rapin explained to Portland that he and Woodstock met with another bishop,

this time the Bishop of Augsburg, Alexander Sigismund von der Pfalz-Neuburg (1663-1737),

the brother of the Elector of Palatinate. The meeting was brief, as according to Woodstock

the bishop spoke little French and Woodstock had a poor command of German. 32

Woodstock

wrote that for places of interest there was only the Court, and what was perceived to be the

most beautiful gallery of antiques in Europe. He also attended an Italian comedy.33

Woodstock and Rapin mostly travelled overland by carriage, as the tutor wrote to the Earl of

Portland.34

At one point they intended to take a boat from Ratisbonne to Vienna to sail by the

Danube river, but this plan had to be abandoned due to poor weather.35

In early January 1702,

tutor and pupil arrived at the imperial city of Vienna. However, even this spectacular city

could not prevent a personal clash between them.36

In Vienna the tension between Rapin and

30

Verhoeven, “Calvinist Pilgrimages”, 620. 31

Ibid. “showed much “civilité” and “honnêtetés” to Mylord Woodstock”. Translation of the author. 32

Rapin to Portland, Munich, 1 December 1701, f. 37-40. 33

Woodstock to Portland, Ratisbonne, 12 December 1701, f. 44-48. 34

Rapin to Portland, Ratisbonne, 11 December 1701, f. 41-43. 35

Woodstock to Portland, Ratisbonne, 12 December 1701, f. 44-48; Woodstock to Portland, Vienna, 24

December 1701, f. 49-50. 36

Vienna was rapidly developing at the end of the seventeenth century. See: Jeremy Black, “Warfare, Crisis and

Absolutism”, in: Early Modern Europe History, Euan Cameron (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Online edition, no pagination. [Accessed on 5 August 2013

<http://books.google.com/books?id=kZhTrAFPVP0C>].





14

Woodstock, which had already been brewing during the preparation for the Grand Tour,

manifested itself openly. In his letter dated 7 January 1702, Rapin wrote to Portland that he

did not feel comfortable complaining much about the behaviour of his pupil, as he was afraid

of losing his trust entirely, and without such trust his mission would be useless. This time the

problem was that the young viscount let himself, according to Rapin, “be educated by his

chamber valet”.37

He urged Portland to write to his son and to warn him from over-confiding

in his valet. This shows that besides tutor and pupil, there was also a servant travelling with

them, as Woodstock’s noble rank required.

By March, the two reached Venice, where Woodstock complained to Portland that despite

him being granted permission to participate in the military campaign under Prince Eugene of

Savoy (1663-1736), who was in the Milan area, Rapin had decided not to go. An additional

complaint was that he did not have his entourage with him. Woodstock felt that the trip was

useless, as instead of going to war he had to stay and do nothing “important”, because no one

would speak Italian or German with him. Here we see again a reference to the educational

purpose of the Grand Tour: polishing skills in foreign languages. Most importantly, in his

letter Woodstock portrayed his tutor as someone who was always in bad spirits, sad and

thoughtful ever since they left The Hague. According to Woodstock, the reason was that

Rapin had left his new wife and family behind. He also wrote that it seemed as if Rapin

himself wanted to join the military campaign, but his wife forbade him.38

We see therefore

that Woodstock tried different tactics to achieve his goal of joining the military campaign at

all costs. Having failed to persuade his father to allow him to take part in the war before the

trip, he continued to press this issue over and over again throughout his journey with Rapin.

37

Rapin to Portland, Vienna, 7 January 1702, f. 53-55. 38

Woodstock to Portland, Venice, 10 March 1702, f. 82-84; Woodstock to Portland, Venice, 17 March 1702, f.

85-87.





15

We can assume that the topic of joining the army was repeatedly discussed between

Woodstock and his tutor, causing additional tension to the already long and difficult journey.

However, despite the growing antagonism between the two, by May 1702 Rapin and

Woodstock reached Rome, where Woodstock wrote to his father that Rapin would not change

his mind about his participation in the military operation, and they were awaiting Portland’s

orders.39

In September 1702 Woodstock and Rapin returned to Venice, where Woodstock informed his

father that it seemed to him that Rapin had made a final decision not to continue the trip and

to return to Holland. Woodstock justified himself by saying that he had not given Rapin any

reason for his negative view of him, but the tutor had nonetheless lost his patience.40

From

the next letter of Woodstock, it seems that Portland proposed a compromise in which Rapin

would accompany his pupil until they reached Northern Germany, and then would return to

Holland.41

In fact, Rapin accompanied Woodstock as far as Nuremberg, where, as Woodstock

wrote “Mr. de Rapin came with me until here, and is going to leave me tomorrow in order to

come back to Holland”.42

On 25 November, he wrote to his father from Berlin that he did not

regret the loss of advice from Rapin, as according to Woodstock there was not much of it in

any case.

Pupil continues the Grand Tour alone

Woodstock continued the trip on his own after being abandoned by Rapin. He nevertheless

continued more or less according to the plan set by his tutor. He went to Prague, Leipzig, and

Berlin, where he stayed for five weeks and met the Count von Wartenberg, who wrote a letter

39

Woodstock to Portland, Rome, 6 May 1702, f.101-102. 40

Woodstock to Portland, Venice, 1 September 1702, f. 122-123. 41

Woodstock to Portland, Venice, 8 September 1702, f. 124-125. 42

Woodstock to Portland, Nuremberg, 5 October 1702, f. 128-130.





16

to Portland about the rendezvous.43

Woodstock spent Christmas there. On 4 January 1703 he

wrote to his father from Oranjebaum (near Dessau).44

After staying there for a week, he

returned to Berlin for another week.45

He then moved on to Hannover, where he spent just

over a month, and on 9 March he arrived in Celle, where he stayed another month.46

By 24

April he reached Nienhuis, and finally arrived in The Hague on 29 April.47

Woodstock’s last

letter to his father is dated 1 May 1703, exactly two years after he left The Hague.

How did the absence of Rapin influence the educational goals of the Grand Tour and

Woodstock’s own routine? With his tutor gone, Woodstock now began to write longer letters

in which he tried to show that “l’avis que j’ay perdu n’est pas grand-chose”, and hopes that

his father has no reason to be dissatisfied.48

The style of Woodstock’s letters changed after

Rapin left. Although financial matters had not been previously mentioned by him, he now

promised to submit a yearly report for 1702 in the same manner as Rapin.49

However, with the tutor absent, and despite his visible attempt to project to his father

“business as usual”, Woodstock did not manage to completely avoid the troubles that Rapin

had signalled to Portland could appear because of Woodstock’s personality. On 16 February

1703, writing from Hannover, Woodstock excused himself for not being able to write earlier

for two reasons. One is very ordinary: he was preoccupied at Court; the second is the one that

certainly made the Earl of Portland feel very uneasy. In one of his longest letters, Woodstock

described with much excitement that upon leaving the court, he engaged in a verbal fight with

43

Count von Wartenberg to Portland, Berlin, 11 November 1702, f. 136. 44

Woodstock to Portland, Oranjebaum, 4 January 1703, f. 148. 45

Woodstock to Portland, Berlin, 16 January 1703, f. 151. 46

Woodstock to Portland, Hannover, 30 January 1703, f. 154-155; 27 February 1703, f. 163; Celle, 9 March

1703, f. 169-170. 47

Woodstock to Portland, Nienhuis, 24 April 1703, f. 178-179; The Hague, 1 May 1703, f. 180-181. 48

Woodstock to Portland, Berlin, 25 November 1702, f. 139-141. “the advice that I lost is not a big issue”.

Translation by the author. 49

Ibid.





17

a stranger whom he had never met before.50

A Saxon Colonel, who is only identified as such

by Woodstock a month later, thought the young Dutchman pushed him while passing by.51

The affair escalated so much that the two agreed upon a duel, and it was only due to the

intervention of the George Louis, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the future King of

England, that things did not get out of control.52

This quarrel was the centre of attention of

the Court in Hannover and the elite of Celle for quite some time. Woodstock reports to

Portland on 9 March from Celle that several courtiers talked to him about it and guided him

in attempts to overcome the tension.53

Though there were rumours that the Colonel and his

friends spread vicious stories about Woodstock, on 17 March the young man reported to his

father that the quarrel was resolved.54

Woodstock’s family relations

It is always difficult to reconstruct a family relationship based on correspondence from one

side only. However, although we have no letters from Portland to his son, some of his

opinions are traceable in Woodstock’s replies. For example, on 27 March 1703, Woodstock

explained to Portland that Rapin will not do anything to resolve a certain issue which was not

mentioned explicitly in the correspondence. More than that, the true feelings of Woodstock

regarding his tutor were revealed when he added that in his opinion Rapin was not capable of

doing anything in this matter, and although both shared some kind of friendship, knowing the

tutor’s personality, Woodstock preferred to stay away.55

50

Woodstock to Portland, Hannover, 16 February 1703, f. 157-160. 51

Woodstock to Portland, Celle, 17 March 1703, f. 171-172. 52

Woodstock to Portland, Hannover, 16 February 1703, f. 157-160. 53



Woodstock to Portland, Celle, 27 March 1703, f. 175-176.





18

Furthermore, we learn that Woodstock also wrote letters to his father’s second wife, Jane

Temple (1672-1751), whom he addressed simply as “Madame”, as well as to his sisters.56

We

do not know the exact content, as these letters are not preserved, but because in some of the

letters he writes that nothing happened of interest to “Madame”, we can assume she was more

interested in courtly life than in the politics and military affairs that he mentioned to his

father.57

One should remember that writing letters to different people with different interests

was an important part of the educational process for every nobleman. During the Grand Tour,

Woodstock had to be selective with the information he wanted to give to a particular

correspondent, in order to polish his epistolary skills.

Conclusion

To conclude, we saw that Woodstock’s Grand Tour was a rather unusual one, if we take into

account the research done by Gerrit Verhoeven, and even a rather dangerous one if we

consider the proximity of the war in Germany and Italy. The travel correspondence told us a

fascinating story of the troubled relationship during the voyage, though it seems that it did not

influence the joy that both tutor and pupil experienced when visiting interesting places,

meeting new people, and dealing with Catholic heritage. The letters’ additional value is that

they present two sides of the travel dispute (Woodstock and Rapin), which makes the picture

more complete and easier to understand, while the father’s side is still lacking and only

partially visible in the letters written to him. Regarding the correspondence itself, it helps us

to see the educational value of Woodstock’s Grand Tour. As well as establishing personal

56

See for example: Woodstock to Portland, Vienna, 4 February 1702, f. 72. At the time, Woodstock had 5

sisters by his mother, who died in 1688. See: “Biography of [William] Henry Bentinck”, in: University of

Nottingham .Online edition. 57

For example, letter from Woodstock to Portland, Rome, 10 June 1702, f. 109-11.





19

relationships with various nobles across Europe and visiting numerous important historical

places, writing letters also played an important part in the trip.

The rather sceptical tone of Woodstock, and the much more enthusiastic tone of Rapin, allow

us to see that the young nobleman was much more interested in courtly life than in learning,

sightseeing, or establishing diplomatic connections. It also demonstrates that Rapin’s range of

tasks was very broad: he was in charge not only of Woodstock’s education, but also of his

well-being, and on several occasions he acted as an acquisition manager for the Earl of

Portland.

As a final note, the case study presented in this article pinpoints various nuances,

achievements and failures of the Grand Tour. It exposes both the dangers that were awaiting

the travellers, be it war, crime or weather, and the personal development of the pupil, who in

this case learnt to be independent when his tutor abandons him. Overall, the trip could not be

deemed a failure, despite Rapin’s return home, because Woodstock eventually accomplished

it on his own, even though no additional tutor was hired.


Documents

"Reporting the Grand Tour: The correspondence of Henry Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and Paul Rapin-Thoyras with the Earl of Portland, 1701-1703"