Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

French Revolution

 

Movement that shook France between 1787 and 1799, reaching its first climax in 1789, and ended the ancien régime. Causes included the loss of peasant support for the feudal system, broad acceptance of the reformist writings of the philosophes, an expanding bourgeoisie that was excluded from political power, a fiscal crisis worsened by participation in the American Revolution, and crop failures in 1788. The efforts of the regime in 1787 to increase taxes levied on the privileged classes initiated a crisis. In response, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General, made up of clergy, nobility, and the Third Estate (commoners), in 1789. Trying to pass reforms, it swore the Tennis Court Oath not to disperse until France had a new constitution. The king grudgingly concurred in the formation of the National Assembly, but rumours of an "aristocratic conspiracy" led to the Great Fear of July 1789, and Parisians seized the Bastille on July 14. The assembly drafted a new constitution that introduced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, proclaiming liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Constitution of 1791 also established a short-lived constitutional monarchy. The assembly nationalized church lands to pay off the public debt and reorganized the church (see Civil Constitution of the Clergy). The king tried to flee the country but was apprehended at Varennes. France, newly nationalistic, declared war on Austria and Prussia in 1792, beginning the French Revolutionary Wars. Revolutionaries imprisoned the royal family and massacred nobles and clergy at the Tuileries in 1792. A new assembly, the National Convention — divided between Girondins and the extremist Montagnards — abolished the monarchy and established the First Republic in September 1792. Louis XVI was judged by the National Convention and executed for treason on Jan. 21, 1793. The Montagnards seized power and adopted radical economic and social policies that provoked violent reactions, including the Wars of the Vendée and citizen revolts. Opposition was broken by the Reign of Terror. Military victories in 1794 brought a change in the public mood, and Maximilien Robespierre was overthrown in the Convention on 9 Thermidor, year II (in 1794 in the French republican calendar), and executed the next day (see Thermidorian Reaction). Royalists tried to seize power in Paris but were crushed by Napoleon on 13 Vendémaire, year IV (in 1795). A new constitution placed executive power in a Directory of five members. The war and schisms in the Directory led to disputes that were settled by coups d'état, chiefly those of 18 Fructidor, Year V (in 1797), and 18 – 19 Brumaire, Year VIII (in 1799), in which Napoleon abolished the Directory and declared himself leader of France. See also Committee of Public Safety; Constitution of 1795; Constitution of the Year VIII; Charlotte Corday; Cordeliers Club; Georges J. Danton; Feuillants Club; Jacobin Club; J.-P. Marat; Marie-Antoinette; Louis de Saint-Just; E.-J. Sieyès.

For more information on French Revolution, visit Britannica.com.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

French Revolution

Top

(1789) The first modern revolution because it changed the structure of society, rather than simply replacing the existing ruler or even the political regime, and created new ideologies to explain its course when nothing suitable could be adopted from the past. It produced the modern doctrine of nationalism, and spread it directly throughout Western Europe, something that has had enormous indirect consequences up to the present. The European wars of 1792-1815, sparked off by the French Revolution, spread both revolutionary ideas and nationalism (although the only newly free state created by the French Revolution was Haiti). The French Revolution also provided the empirical origin of modern theories of revolution, including that of Marx, as well as an important model for subsequent revolutions. Part of the reason for this was that France was pre-industrial, just as many of the countries that underwent subsequent revolutions were to be. Interpretations of the French Revolution have varied enormously, depending upon the political position and historical views of the writer.

The relationship between the French Enlightenment and the Revolution is extremely complex. Burke blamed the Enlightenment, in which he included Rousseau, for the Revolution. But while the Enlightenment spread a sceptical rationalism, it did not propose the extremism or the political solutions adopted during the Revolution.

Before 1789, France combined an absolute monarchy with feudalism. As Tocqueville first suggested, the aristocracy was exempted from taxation in return for not interfering with the king's policy. The latter was, however, fundamentally limited by the former even under Louis XIV (reigned 1643-1714), the most absolute of French kings. Because the wealthy paid no taxes, there was a permanent fiscal crisis, and the effects were only avoided by taxing the rest heavily, and by selling offices and letters of nobility. Because of its fiscal privilege, the aristocracy felt no need for a parliamentary system such as developed in England.

The Revolution proper started 1789 and ended ten years later. A series of political and social crises led up to it, including widespread popular discontent because of poverty made worse by poor harvests. The royal treasury's normal state of near bankruptcy had become desperate because of help given to the American revolt against Britain. Attempts 1787 and 1788 by ministers of Louis XVI (reigned 1774-92) to address the financial problem by reducing the privileges of the aristocracy (and the clergy) produced revolt on their part. They induced him to call, for May 1789, the first meeting since 1614 of the Estates General, an assembly of representatives of feudal society. This body consisted of the First Estate, the clergy, the Second, the aristocracy, and the Third, the rest. The aristocracy expected to dominate the Estates General and although the king had decided in December 1788 that the Third Estate would have the same number of representatives as the other two together, they were still intended to sit and vote separately. If the First and Second agreed, they would always have defeated the Third.

None of the estates was united. Each was divided between rich and poor members, and among different interest groups. When the Estates General met, the Third Estate withdrew and declared itself the National Assembly, inviting the others to join it. After some of the first two estates, especially the clergy, joined the Third, the king ordered them to combine into a single chamber, which then declared itself competent to give a new constitution to France.

On 14 July 1789, the fortress in Paris known as the Bastille, then used as a prison, was seized and demolished as a symbol of despotism. In fact, although this event has been celebrated almost ever since as a national holiday, it contained only seven prisoners, and it is even possible that the demolition had already been ordered by the existing regime.

On 4 August, remaining privileges, and effectively feudalism, were abolished, although various remnants continued in dispute. The Revolution continued, becoming more and more extreme as different groups succeeded for a time in gaining control. The wealth of the clergy was transferred to the nation and priests were required to accept civil status, which led to papal condemnation.

Eventually, in 1791, the king attempted to escape from France, but was arrested. In 1792, the monarchy was abolished, France was proclaimed a Republic, and the king was put on trial. A new calendar was adopted, starting with Year I, with ten new months, named after prevailing weather conditions, in place of the old. In 1793, the king was executed, and Robespierre, leader of the Jacobins, succeeded in becoming effective leader of the Committee of Public Safety, from which position he and his followers brought about the Terror in which thousands were summarily executed for supposed crimes against the Revolution. After a year, Robespierre fell, and was himself executed. Various schemes to reorganize government were tried, none of which worked for long, and eventually Napoleon Bonaparte succeeded with a coup d'état 1799 which eventually led to his election as emperor in 1804.

Although started by the privileged, control of the Revolution rapidly passed to the middle classes and then, for a time, to the sans-culottes in Paris who were poor and extreme. Robespierre and the Jacobins obtained power with their support against their rivals, the Girondins, mainly because they were willing to accept the sans-culottes' demand for strict control of food prices, especially bread. Their failure to carry out the policy in full explains why the sans-culottes did not intervene on Robespierre's behalf when he was under attack. The price of bread was crucial because even in normal times, it took half the expenditure of the majority of the population, and in difficult times, much more.

After Robespierre fell, control passed back to the middle classes. Napoleon's success represented a desire for internal order and victory abroad, although it was presented as the only way to keep the Revolution's achievements.

The view of the Revolution, following Marx, as the replacement of a feudal economic system, based on agriculture and a rigid social hierarchy, by capitalism, based on industry with hierarchy established in the market, is far too crude. One aspect of the abolition of privilege was the reinforcement of the peasantry, both that which continued from before 1789 and the new members who joined it as a result of the disposal of land previously owned by the Church and some of the aristocracy. This class continues to exist and to wield considerable political influence.

— Carl Slevin

While the term ‘La Révolution Française’, or simply ‘La Révolution’ is reserved for the Revolution of 1789-99 , the revolutionary movement produced three further major upheavals in 19th-c. France: the uprising of 27-9 July 1830 (les trois glorieuses) leading to the establishment of the July Monarchy; the Revolution of 1848 [see Republics, 2]; and the Commune de Paris of 1871. From the opposite end of the political spectrum, the Vichy government during World War II [see Occupation And Resistance] claimed to be launching a ‘Révolution Nationale’. [See also Republicanism].

1. The French Revolution: A Chronological Account

(a) 1786-9. By 1786 a long-standing, costly foreign policy had saddled France with a massive debt. Without radical reforms which would help to clear it, the country was clearly condemned to serious decline. Louis XVI, however, could no longer act without the goodwill of the privileged orders. Calonne, the controller-general, persuaded the king therefore to summon an Assembly of Notables who—he hoped—would approve his plans and initiate a movement of national consensus. They met (February 1787), but were not compliant. Calonne's successor, Brienne, dissolved the Assembly (May 1787) and embarked, ‘unsanctioned’, on a programme of sweeping reforms. So began a serious battle of wills. For amid mounting public antagonism, Versailles tried to outface the resistance which the parlements were demonstrating towards Brienne's initiatives. Having failed, Louis determined to destroy the parlements. Since, however, they were commonly seen as bastions against ‘despotism’, that hostile measure (the May Edicts of 1788) was greeted by a wave of rebellious disaffection and renewed calls for the convocation of the États Généraux. Hoping to divide the opposition, Brienne conceded (8 August) that the Estates would meet (May 1789) in order to examine the nation's cahiers de doléances.

Though the situation had been momentarily defused, Necker, Brienne's successor, was to experience far worse trouble: the state was now bankrupt, and the disastrous summer of 1788, followed by a catastrophic winter, brought severe economic problems. In parallel there came serious political problems; for, following the inflammatory decree of the Parlement de Paris that Clergy, Nobility, and Tiers État should each have a similar number of deputies and should vote according to order, the Assembly of Notables was reconvened (November-December) to advise on the composition and running of the Estates. Attention was consequently fixed on the question of privilege and on the proportion of representation to be accorded to the Tiers. The latter's favoured ‘model’, based on the newly revived Estates of Dauphiné (Vizille, 21 July 1788), required that the Tiers be double the size of the other two orders, and that voting be, not by order, but by head. Louis received much reactionary advice on these matters, but did decide (27 December) to implement the first proposal. That still left one significant requirement unsatisfied.

(b) 1789-92. Predictably the first issue to agitate the Estates when they met in Versailles (5 May 1789) was the vote by head. Clergy and Nobility (representing together perhaps half a million men) refused to meet other than separately. The Tiers, representing 25 million common people, and which had—in the frenetic electioneering of the previous six months—recognized itself as the significant political force, reacted in the spirit of Siéyès's famous pamphlet of January 1789 (Qu'est-ce que le Tiers État?): it proclaimed itself the Assemblée Nationale (17 June), where voting would be by head. Responding immediately with an apparent coup d'état, Louis locked the deputies out of their respective meeting-places. Outraged, the Tiers—assembling in a nearby tenniscourt—there swore the first, most famous, oath of the Revolution: the Serment du Jeu de Paume, i.e. not to separate until France had a Constitution and, with it, public regeneration.

On 9 July, underlining the primacy of the task, the Assemblée was to call itself the Assemblée Nationale Constituante. Such defiance, and accompanying public ferment, prompted Louis to order both the Clergy and the Nobility (some of whom had already taken the decision) to work with the Tiers (27 June). The coming days were nevertheless notable for widespread public disorder. Since January food-shortages and steep rises in the price of grain, flour, and bread had been raising the age-old spectre of the ‘pacte de famine’ and causing riots and peasant insurrections almost everywhere. At the same time, by ordering troop movements around Paris and Versailles, Louis was clearly attempting to intimidate the populace, causing further fear and disaffection. On 11 July there came another act of royal ‘despotism’: Louis dismissed Necker, the people's champion. In Paris the resultant anger was awesome. Rioting crowds destroyed the toll-gates; needing arms to counter an ‘imminent’ coup de force, they next invaded known or suspected arsenals. On the morning of 14 July the Invalides was forced, and cannon and muskets taken. Attention was then turned on that most formidable arsenal of all: the Bastille.

Reports (and rumours) of events in Paris exacerbated unrest in the provinces, which rapidly spiralled down into psychosis (La Grande Peur, July-August). In many areas, known or imagined enemies of the popular cause were pre-emptively attacked, noble dwellings sacked, feudal records destroyed, barns raided, tithes reclaimed. From afar, the Assemblée magnified such events into a Dantesque vision. Believing that radical measures alone could calm such turmoil, the Assemblée—allowing civil disobedience to exert influence over the exercise of power—abandoned the whole régime féodal in the famous session of 4 August. Society had consequently to be ‘recreated’, starting with that new, now urgently required, Constitution. Most deputies agreed that it should be prefaced—as in the American States—by a Declaration of Rights. Rapidly promulgated (26 August), the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen became the founding document of the Revolution. Debate, in which Mirabeau played a dominating part, also intensified around the constitutional process to come. Should there be two chambers? Should the king—despite popular antipathy—have a power of veto? On 4 October Louis expressed reservations about the Declaration of Rights. His behaviour merely served to reinforce the people's belief that their destiny lay safely in their own hands alone. They had already organized politically [see Jacobins; Cordeliers; Commune De Paris; etc]. They now acted again: on 5 October the march on Versailles culminated in the invasion of both the Assemblée and the Royal palace. On 6 October—under severe pressure—Louis agreed to reside in the capital. The Assemblée soon followed him. Both were henceforth under the eye of vigilant, suspicious Parisians who would not hesitate (1789-95) to ‘interfere’ in the conduct of national business.

Meanwhile the national debt, unchecked, had become massive. On 3 November the Assemblée—responding robustly—decided to nationalize and sell off Church lands [see Assignats]. (The Church was to be the greatest casualty of the Revolution, losing its power and its autonomy: dissolution of monasteries and convents, February 1790; Civil Constitution of the Clergy, July 1790, which required from clerics an oath of allegiance to the new order; etc.). However, despite this signal radicalization of the Revolution, the deputies still broadly enjoyed a national consensus: the Fête de la Fédération, the first great fête révolutionnaire, mounted throughout France (14 July 1790), proved the point.

Distressed by such increasing radicalism, and particularly by the activity of the Jacobins, Louis took flight to Varennes (20 June 1791), leaving behind a proclamation which denounced everything that had been accomplished since October 1789. He was arrested and brought back to Paris. His defection, like the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, further polarized opinion. But popular opposition and growing republicanism were dealt with energetically (e.g. the Massacre du Champ de Mars, 17 July 1791). The political battle was now moving into the final phase of polarization around limited versus democratic views of the Revolution. The former, represented by the Feuillants and such figures as Barnave and Lafayette, triumphed in the short term: the Constitution of 1791 trammelled the principles of liberty, equality, and revolutionary freedom (e.g. with limited franchise, restrictions on public and printed utterances, etc.). Louis signed that Constitution (14 September) and, its work complete, the Assemblée Constituante ended amid growing fears that the European monarchies were plotting to crush the Revolution.

The new Assemblée Législative (1 October 1791) was even more politicized than its predecessor. Notable for its bellicosity, it soon grew to believe that war could solve all current problems: it would divert fractious attention away from serious internal problems, regenerate the nation, and—neutralizing the league of foreign despots—consolidate the Revolution. Over the winter the mood of defiance grew. On 20 April 1792 the Assemblée declared war on Austria. Unfortunately, performance did not match mood. The army, weakened by emigration, disaffection, and sheer incompetence, met with defeats. The Brissotin ministry was replaced (June) by a more royalist administration. Against a background of military reverses, of mounting suspicion (e.g. that Lafayette was preparing a coup d'état), and severe economic shortages, new popular leaders were beginning to emerge, mobilizing displays of popular strength.

The sense of impending disaster mounted. The Patrie en danger was proclaimed (11 July); sectional assemblies (Jacobins, etc.) went into permanent session (25 July). With the Brunswick Manifesto, the Austrian invasion, and the desertion of Lafayette, all 48 Paris sections—bar one—demanded the deposition of Louis. Initiative now slipped from the Assemblée to the new insurrectionary Commune which, invading the Tuileries (10 August), brought Louis's reign to an end. Over the next six weeks the Assemblée—in the paranoid atmosphere in which Danton and Marat reigned supreme—did the Commune's bidding. Serious reverses at Longwy and Verdun laid the road to Paris open to the Austrians. Panic swept the capital, leading to that most ferocious of pre-emptive strikes: the September Massacres of counter-revolutionary suspects held in various prisons. Amid violence and carnage, the Assemblée Législative bowed out—emasculated—to make way for the Convention Nationale, whose essential, and seemingly hopeless, task was to save the Revolution.

(c) 1792-4. The Convention, ‘sujet de contemplation sombre, lugubre, effrayant, mais sublime’ (Victor Hugo), met on 20 September 1792 (the same day on which the invading Prussians were halted by the Revolutionary armies at the Battle of Valmy). Its first act was to declare that Republic which radicals had increasingly been demanding. Abolishing the monarchy was easy. Knowing what to do with Louis was not, and his future was hotly debated, with Girondins temporizing, Montagnards arguing either for his trial or his immediate punishment (the popular insurrection of 10 August having been, said Saint-Just, his trial already). Trial was the favoured solution and, after being portrayed variously and eloquently as a criminal or a victim of circumstance, Louis was condemned to death with no right of appeal to the nation (15 January 1793) and executed (21 January).

In the same spirit of defiance, the Convention took on even more enemies (including Britain) and embarked on protracted war. Initial failures (March-August 1793) were—after inspired reorganization of the army—spectacularly reversed: from the Battle of Hondschoote (8 September 1793) to Hohenlinden (3 December 1800), the armies of the Republic were almost invariably victorious. But it was war on two fronts. Nearer home, the Convention was embroiled with the Vendée, Federalist revolts, counter-revolution, and treason. The Comité de Sûreté Générale alone (instituted 2 October 1792) was unequal to the gigantic task. To counteract these domestic dangers and to safeguard the Republic ‘one and indivisible’, the authorities created the Revolutionary Tribunal and comités de surveillance (March), the Comité de Salut Public (April), the levée en masse (May), a Revolutionary army to police the countryside (June), and finally—under pressure from the popular movement—government by Terror (September).

The stage is now occupied by the great Committee of Public Safety. From its inception it sought—as something akin to a war cabinet—to galvanize the nation's resolve; responding to numerous problems, it did indeed guide the Republic with increasing single-mindedness. Unfortunately its enormous task was not facilitated by its fellow Republicans. Inter-factional fighting now bedevilled the Convention: Montagnards fought Girondins (and eliminated them in the summer of 1793), while later the Montagnards themselves were to be overtaken on the far Left by the Enragés, the Hébertistes, the Paris Commune, sundry populists, and the poorer sections of the capital. Nor was its task facilitated by the Convention's représentants en mission, who often defended the Republic with ferocious individual initiative: e.g. the purging of Lyon by Collot d'Herbois; the punishment of Toulon by Barras; the repression of Bordeaux by Tallien, and of Nantes by Carrier; or the anarchic, often repulsive, ‘dechristianization’ practiced by Fouché and Chaumette.

Such excesses—widely imitated—antagonized many ordinary supporters of the Republic (and indeed, Robespierre came to view them as deliberate acts of political sabotage). Consequently the Comité took a firmer grip on affairs. Helped by the law of 4 December 1793 which gave extraordinary powers to the Comité de Salut Public, the latter could now restrain maverick behaviour on behalf of the Republic. Complaints about such abuse of power had, however, become the main thrust of the campaign, animated by Danton and his allies, to abandon the Terror. Conversely, the Cordeliers and Hébert advocated continuing Terror and accelerated dechristianization, and called for an insurrectionary purge of the Convention. Thoroughly alarmed, the Comité struck. Within ten days the Hébertistes had been destroyed (24 March 1794), their ally—the Paris Revolutionary Army—dissolved (27 March), and the Commune purged (April-May).

Events now quickened, notably because Robespierre—a significant influence within the Comité—was becoming steadily obsessed with counter-revolutionary corruption and scheming. (His victims would include Fabre d'Églantine, Danton, Desmoulins, etc. and his weapons would include the infamous law of 22 Prairial [for Revolutionary dates see Calendars] which—simplifying the procedures of the Revolutionary Tribunal—meant that justice became expeditious and that the number of executions rose dramatically.) The Republic of Virtue was purging society of its contaminated elements, and was working hard for regeneration. But it was now Robespierre himself, with his moral fanaticism, who was being viewed as an increasingly dangerous individual. Since the autumn of 1792 he had been accused of aspiring to dictatorship. His peremptory denunciations of personal and public enemies now caused renewed suspicions of this possibility. Moreover, sheer dread gripped the Convention, where former over-zealous représentants felt distinctly vulnerable (e.g. Fouché, Tallien, etc.). The dénouement came on 26 July (8 Thermidor), when Robespierre delivered a rambling speech calling for the punishment of certain (unspecified) traitors in both the Convention and the two Comités. His clumsy declaration of war on his enemies—the meaning of which is still hotly debated—provoked the immediate counter-attack of 9 Thermidor. He was arrested and executed (along with Couthon, Saint-Just, etc.) on the following day.

(d) 1794-9. Within a month of the Thermidorian coup d'état the Convention had dismantled the central institutions of the Terror and Revolutionary Government. Reaction, much heartened, re-emerged in the form of right-wing and royalist journals, of the anti-Jacobin Jeunesse dorée and Muscadins, of revenge attacks on Jacobins and Jacobin clubs. Initially unmoved, the Convention chose to demonstrate continuing commitment to leftist republicanism. For example, it removed Mirabeau's remains from the Panthéon and replaced them with those of Marat, and refused to take action against the leading terroristes in the two Comités. But palinody soon proved more opportune: before long Carrier had been sacrificed and guillotined (16 December); the maximum—that ultimate bastion of Revolutionary government—abolished (24 December); laws against emigration relaxed (December-January); Marat's body removed from the Panthéon (8 February 1795); Barère, Billaud, and Collot d'Herbois indicted (22 March).

Jacobin horror, even despair, at these happenings was exacerbated by runaway inflation and the sufferings caused by the severe winter. The result was the uprising of 12 Germinal (1 April), when the people invaded the Convention demanding bread and the Constitution of An II. Despite reprisals, the people repeated their insurrection on I Prairial (20 May). Revenge was swift. On 22 May the Saint-Antoine district of Paris received a savage punitive visit. This was followed in the coming weeks by generalized forms of repression. The popular movement in Paris, severely weakened by the Terror, was now all but destroyed. The events of December-May became the signal for anarchic (often royalist), vindictive acts of counter-terror (La Terreur Blanche) in the Lyonnais, the Rhône valley, and the South (May-June).

The main problem facing the Convention was, however, to devise a Constitution which would ensure stability, prevent any resurgence of radical republicanism and royalism, and respect the principles of 1789 (as opposed to those of 1793). That new Constitution of An III was approved on 22 August. The preceding six years having demonstrated the dangers of a single chamber, the legislature now became bicameral: the lower chamber (the Conseil des Cinq Cents) would initiate legislation, the upper (the Conseil des Anciens) would ratify or reject it. Executive power was now vested in five directors (the Directoire). The aim was general stability. Continuity was, moreover, guaranteed by decrees accompanying the Constitution which stipulated that two-thirds of the members of the founding Conseils should come from within the Convention: anger at this measure among royalists, and particularly radical republicans (who had also been disenfranchised), was extreme. On 5October came the uprising of 13 Vendémiaire, when 25, 000 insurgents converged on the Convention in what was to be Paris's last attempt to impose its will on the national representatives. The regular army, which was henceforth to become the supreme instrument of the Directoire at home and abroad, now saw action against Paris for the first time since April 1789. It took, however, much more determined effort from Bonaparte and his 6, 000 troops than his legendary ‘whiff of grapeshot’ to carry the day.

The golden rule of the first directors (1 November) was to protect the Republic from political extremism. But their attention was equally focused on the dire economic situation which had followed the abandonment of the controlled economy. Speculation was rife, fortunes were being made and flaunted. This is the atmosphere in which Babeuf eloquently expressed the grievances of the disinherited and the betrayed. But the glorious failure of his Conspiration des Égaux (April 1796), which had probably been manipulated by the Directoire, and the renewed anti-Jacobin repression of the next 12 months, emboldened the royalists. In the partial elections of An V (April-May 1797) monarchists were heavily returned. Dismayed, the republican directors (Barras, Reubell, and La Révellière-Lépeaux) forestalled any monarchist triumph: with Bonaparte's ‘permission’ they used the army for the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor (4 September). In the following Directorial Terror (lasting into 1798), the Conseils were purged and many ‘leftist’ measures implemented. Setting aside unwelcome results which it felt to be inimical to the implementation of its own policies was to become a Directorial imperative. It would do the same in the partial elections of April 1798. But in April 1799 the new Conseils proved less docile. Their own coup d'état of 30 Prairial (18 June) struck the directors themselves. Siéyès, one of the new directors, emerged with much-increased power. 1789 long forgotten, he now sought to strengthen the authority of the executive with military support. On 18 Brumaire (9 November 1799) Bonaparte ejected the Conseils and, with Ducos and Siéyès, assumed executive power. The Directoire was over and, with it, the Revolution. [See Napoleon].

2. Literature in the Revolutionary Period

While the literature of the Revolutionary period is often dismissed, and certainly shows few innovations in the traditional genres, the demise of censorship, the suppression of privileged corporations, and the gradual disappearance of the salons brought about a transformation within the République des lettres which allowed this decade to demonstrate an effervescence of creativity (see Monglond's bibliography, La France révolutionaire et impériale) which stands comparison with that of 1670-80 or 1750-60.

Since the nation quickly became responsible for its own regeneration, areas of unprecedented innovation were political eloquence and journalism. The years 1789-94 are remarkable for the rhetoric of the ‘Left’ in the unfolding political debates, which found few worthy opponents on the ‘Right’ (Cazalès, Maury). The speeches of Mirabeau, of Barnave, Vergniaud, and Brissot, of Danton, of Robespierre and Saint-Just—all ardent witnesses to both national and individual dramas—punctuated every important moment of the Revolution. Though they now sometimes appear pompous, theatrical, or abstract, they will always strike the ‘listener’ as being animated by a passionate conviction which epitomizes the growing turbulence of the period.

Political journalism, with its 1, 500 separate publications in the same period, is equally ebullient [see also Press]. Transmission of facts (though not unknown, e.g. La Gazette de France, Le Moniteur, etc.) was quickly outstripped by the formation of opinion, be it royalist or revolutionary. The journals of the former (e.g. Les Actes des apôtres, Le Journal de la cour et de la ville) are simplistic and politically shallow, whereas the latter, whether L'Ami du peuple (Marat), Le Père Duchesne (Hébert), or Les Révolutions de France et de Brabant (Desmoulins), are notable for their astuteness, their effulgent and sometimes frightening sincerity. After Thermidor the press becomes largely anti-Jacobin and often obliquely royalist, and will be severely reined in after Babeuf's Conspiration des Égaux. It was then left almost uniquely to the Décade philosophique, the political and literary organ of the Idéologues, to keep faith with republican and liberal opinion.

In turn the theatre, never a stranger to didacticism, readily became a vehicle for political education. The abundant repertoire of the period was, to begin with, decidedly ‘national’ (e.g. M.-J. Chénier's Charles IX and Calas), then republican, and the authorities used their not-inconsiderable powers to ensure that it remained so, although counter-revolutionary plays did occasionally command a hearing (e.g. Laya). But not all is anchored in uplifting, didactic political themes. These years, preparing tastes to come, also see A.-V. Arnault, Lemercier, G.-M. Legouvé, and Raynouard, for example, turning for inspiration to exotic antiquity, Ossianism, or the Middle Ages; or, in a less elevated vein, the comic author Louis-Benoît Picard (1769-1828), keenly observing a society in flux (e.g. Médiocre et rampant, 1797). But this is perhaps the golden age of the melodrama of Pixerécourt and others which, like the roman noir or Gothic novel, was specifically designed for the people, and in which the values of society were reaffirmed.

Prose writers are just as prolific (e.g. Loaisel de Tréogate, Nerciat, Pigault-Lebrun, Madame de Genlis). Many of their texts, reflecting the social upheaval, are indeed so many historical documents. But the work of certain practitioners proved to have enduring value: in particular Louvet de Couvray; Bernardin de Saint-Pierre; Restif de la Bretonne; and the marquis de Sade, whose apocalyptic vision of the very real cruelty dormant in human nature was to be ‘discovered’ as a horrible reality by 20th-c. Europe. Other signs of things to come (more rapidly) and other conceptions of the novel are clearly there in Senancour (Aldomen, 1795) or in Madame de Staël's Zulma (1794), Mirza, Adélaïde et Théodore, and Histoire de Pauline (1795), which were prefaced by an Essai sur les fictions of which Goethe and Schiller took particular note.

Traditional poetry tends to be unremarkable, though innovation, particularly in subject-matter, is certainly to be seen (e.g. Ossianism, the Nordic world, the genre troubadour). But this is above all the time when André Chénier created his own ardently personal and timeless poems (Iambes, 1794). Furthermore, as much real and vibrant poetry can be found in Revolutionary songs and hymns (‘Le Chant du 14 juillet’, ‘La Marseillaise’, ‘Hymne à l'Être suprême’, ‘Le Chant du départ’, etc.) as in Volney's Les Ruines (1791).

Though contemporaries were assured that ‘la Révolution n'a pas besoin de savants’, the decade was singularly productive in scientists and mathematicians. Lavoisier, Laplace, and Monge produced respectively three great works (Traité de chimie, 1789; Exposition du système du monde, 1796; Traité de géométrie descriptive, 1799), while the seminal work of Cabanis (Traité du physique et du moral de l'homme, 1798-9) founded the study of psychophysiology, and that of Pinel (Traité médico-philosophique sur l'aliénation mentale, 1798) the study of psychopathology. And Condorcet's Esquisse d'un tableau des progrès de l'esprit humain must surely be—given the circumstances of its production—one of the most moving expressions of confidence in human destiny ever penned.

Finally, one should not overlook the eminently personal reactions to the Revolution. They are particularly poignant among the émigrés (Bonald, Xavier and Joseph de Maistre, Chateaubriand, Sénac de Meilhan, Rivarol, Madame de Genlis). Similarly, Madame Roland and Marmontel both wrote their Mémoires as their own direct response to the Revolution as a catastrophic transformation on both public and personal levels.

3. The Revolution and Posterity

The turbulent intensity of the Revolution (especially 1789-94), and the way in which it elicited the best and the worst from its actors, have inspired or terrified successive generations. From the very beginning it was clear that Europe was witnessing a mutation whose consequences were potentially cataclysmic. Given the mental equipment of the 18th c., almost all early commentators saw it as the result of human volition. Some invoked a type of providentialism, insisting that human pride and presumption were to blame (Burke). Others sought to shift responsibility wherever it could conveniently be placed. They blamed individuals—e.g. ‘Philippe-Égalité’ [see Orléans]—or ‘Pitt's gold’, while equally popular culprits were Protestants or Jews, freemasons or philosophes. Joseph de Maistre, on the other hand, claimed that the nation was being subjected to divine purification. The ‘definitive’ synthesis of such theories was given by the abbé Barruel in his Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du jacobinisme (1797-9). Others were, however, sceptical. For example, J.-J. Mounier, replying to Barruel, in De l'influence attribuée aux philosophes, francsmaçons et illuminés sur la Révolution de France (1801), wrote: ‘on a substituté à des causes très compliquées des causes simples, à la portée des esprits les plus paresseux et les plus superficiels.’ But in turn, despite more evident intellectual distinction, writers such as Madame de Staël, Thiers, Michelet, Quinet, and Lamartine found it impossible to keep their own affiliations and preferences separate from their writings.

As Croce was to say: ‘History is always contemporary History.’ The events of 1830, 1848, and 1871 will all in turn, therefore, by a process which J. M. Roberts has aptly termed ‘mythological revivalism’, generate either reverent evocation of the Great Revolution as a model to be imitated or expressions of distaste for an aberration to be condemned. That is why Esquiros, for example, celebrating the Montagnards, could claim: ‘Leur mémoire est comme une colonne de feu qui guide les générations errantes et indécises à la recherche d'une nouvelle terre promise.’ That is precisely why Toqueville and Marx (whose political opinions are amply betrayed in their own pronouncements on the Revolution) both believed that the men of 1848, haunted by the images and the rhetoric of 1789-94, were—by a process of mimesis—recreating the actions, the language, and the stances of their revolutionary grandfathers. But that belief was not confined to the Continent, nor to 1848 or the Commune. In 1837 Thomas Carlyle reacted in a similar way. Discerning a disturbing parallelism between contemporary events in Britain and the events of 1789-94, he produced his French Revolution, an apocalyptic vision in which unrelieved violence is the recurring theme. Some 20 years later Dickens's Tale of Two Cities, which remains fixed in the British consciousness, repeated the same lesson for the same reasons—with the result that these two works, themselves building on older, indelible memories of rabid anti-Revolutionary propaganda, have helped to create a popular (but widespread) view of the Revolution which is a caricature worthy of Cruikshank or Gillray, to which even the educated are still not immune.

Views of the Revolution among the French continued to be created in the ways exemplified by Madame de Staël, Thiers, Michelet, etc. down into the 20th c. However, with the Russian Revolution and the consequent reactivation of the very concept of revolution, there came both an internationalization and an intensification of the historiographical phenomenon itself. Three generations later there are consequently, across the world, numerous adherents of diverse ‘tendencies’. At the risk of simplifying, we may define these as: counter-Revolutionary; Marxist-Leninist; libertarian Marxist; and liberal or neo-liberal ‘revisionist’.

The simplest, the first, is prejudiced in favour of the ancien régime and proposes—as did Taine, and diverse Bonapartists or Legitimists—that the confrontation should have ended on 23 June 1789, the day when Louis XVI presented a ‘perfectly satisfactory’ blueprint for the future conduct of national affairs. This position is perhaps best exemplified by P. Gaxotte, whose Révolution française (1928)—written largely out of fear of the Bolshevik Revolution and organized subversion—is regularly reissued.

Marxist-Leninists (of whom the most eminent are G. Lefebvre and A. Soboul) inherited much of the very orthodox and long-standing view which asserted that the bourgeoisie had seized power and used it to refashion society for its own ends. Intensifying that interpretation, the Revolution is now defined—by its economic content—as an inevitable conflict between the emerging forces of capitalist production and the declining feudalistic powers of the old social order. Russian historians and politicians, fixated by the ‘inexorable’ mechanism of the Great Predecessor, are particularly interesting: one result of their extreme tendency to draw inferences about the future direction of their own Revolution was the obsession of some (e.g. Trotsky) with the possibility of ‘Thermidor’, i.e. the brutal ending of a ‘democratic’ phase of the Revolution, or of ‘Brumaire’, i.e. the emergence of a soldier who would confiscate the state to his own advantage. They were not the first to appeal to historical analogies: Chateaubriand had already illustrated that approach in his Essai sur les révolutions (1797).

Libertarian Marxists owe less to Lenin than to Bakunin, Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg. They are intensely hostile to Marxist-Leninists, whom they revile as being tainted with an authoritarian Jacobinism which is deliberately unmindful of the popular democracy of An II. Such historians (e.g. Daniel Guérin, La Lutte de classe dans la Première République, 1944; Bourgeois et Bras Nus, 1973) believe that, in Year II, there came about a new type of class struggle which opposed the bourgeoisie to the urban workers, who constituted an embryonic proletarian revolution. One important result of this school has been the intensive examination of the popular strata of society in those pre-industrial times.

The ‘revisionist’ position seeks to demythify the Revolution by stripping away from it the accretions that are attributable to later visions. Essentially—without necessarily being ‘right-wing’—it seeks to propose an alternative to the Marxist interpretation, either by placing the Revolution in a much wider temporal and spatial context (e.g. the Atlantic Revolution of R. R. Palmer or J. Godechot) or by attacking the basic concepts of Marxist historiography, which are claimed to be methodologically dubious. Classic statements of the latter position are those of Alfred Cobban (The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, 1962) and François Furet (Penser la Révolution française, 1978); their influence was very noticeable in the many works produced in 1989 for the bicentenary of the Revolution (e.g. Simon Schama, Citizens).

— John Renwick

French Revolution, the French Revolution of 1789, the first of four major French revolutions in modern times, is the only one generally referred to as ‘die Französische Revolution’. It was in one sense the culmination of French enlightened political thought represented chiefly by Voltaire, Rousseau, and Mirabeau, which in Prussia (see Friedrich II, der Grosse) and Austria (see Joseph II), but not in France, had in varying degrees introduced an era of enlightened despotism. French feudal tyranny and social injustice were not felt acutely until the reign of Louis XVI, when the state was feared to be heading towards bankruptcy. The King's attempts at reform through his ministers (Turgot and Calonne) failed, and as an extreme measure he summoned the States General (États généraux) for 1789 (5 May), an act which was anticipated by Klopstock's ode ‘Die Etats Generaux’. The following month (17 June) the Third Estate, deciding upon independent action, styled itself the National Assembly (Assemblée nationale), and declared its right to reform the tax system and demanded a new constitution. On 9 July the Third Estate changed the National Assembly into the Constituent Assembly (Assemblée constituante), thus virtually abolishing the absolute monarchy. Encouraged by these events, the Parisians stormed the Bastille (14 July), the demolition of which became the symbol of a new age of freedom to many who watched events from Germany.

The Assembly voted the Declaration of the Rights of Man (Déclaration des droits de l'homme). Inspired by the American Declaration of Independence, it set out the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity (‘Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit’, a slogan which was soon common currency in Germany). The royal family was removed from Versailles to the Tuileries, and, attempting an escape soon after, was recaptured at Varennes, an episode which intensified Jacobin advocacy of violent action. The situation grew more acute as the emigrant French nobility sought to bring about armed intervention by the German states. Austria was particularly concerned since Marie-Antoinette was a daughter of the Empress Maria Theresia and a sister of the Emperor Leopold II. On 20 April the Legislative Assembly (Assemblée législative), which in October 1791 had succeeded the Constituent Assembly, declared war on Austria and Prussia, thus opening the Revolutionary Wars (see Revolutionskriege).

The abolition of the French monarchy was an inevitable consequence, and the royal family, including the 15-year-old Madame Royale and the 8-year-old Dauphin, were imprisoned in the Temple (10 August 1792). Between 2 and 5 September 1792, 1, 200 prisoners were massacred by a mob which had invaded the prisons. Danton, as minister of justice, and the radical Marat were among those responsible for the September massacres (Septembermorde), which aroused a strong revulsion in Germany. On 21 September the National Convention (Convention nationale) replaced the Legislative Assembly, and proclaimed the Republic. Henceforth the Revolution turned into a struggle between the various rival factions, culminating in the Jacobin Terror (Schreckensherrschaft) under the Montagne (Bergpartei) led by Robespierre which lasted from July 1793 until July 1794. Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were executed (21 January and 16 October 1793) and the ailing Dauphin left to perish in prison. In ruthless persecutions countless victims were executed with or without trial. The Terror ended with the execution of Robespierre and his followers (27 July 1794). From October 1795 until December 1799 France was ruled by the Directory (Directoire), consisting of a legislative and an executive chamber with five elected directors, whose misgovernment provoked Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'état leading to the establishment of the Consulate with Bonaparte as First Consul. The defeat of the absolutism of the ancien régime had thus been followed by the destruction of liberalism, and ultimately by Napoleonic dictatorship, of which Bonaparte's position as First Consul proved to be the first stage.

The French Revolution did not lead to revolutions in Germany and Austria as did the Revolution of 1848 (see Revolutionen 1848-9). Nevertheless there was for a time a strong republican movement in the Rhineland, particularly in the Electorate of Mainz, an episode which is reflected in Goethe's Belagerung von Mainz, and in Ina Seidel's novel Das Labyrinth. Politically its greatest impact was still to come, under new auspices, with Napoleon's European conquests (see Napoleonic Wars).

The ideals of the French Revolution, represented at their best by the Girondins, found many followers in Germany, among both the older and the younger generations. Klopstock (like Schiller declared an honorary French citizen), Schelling, Jean Paul, Hegel, Hölderlin, Herder, Wieland, Kant, Fichte, and Schiller were among those who welcomed the Revolution during its early stages. Goethe maintained from the first an attitude of caution and scepticism, which is reflected in his play Die natürliche Tochter. Like Schiller, many, though at first sympathetic, reacted decidedly against the Revolution after the King's execution. Some radicals, among them Georg Forster, went to Paris to witness the emergence of the Republic on the spot. Iffland and Kotzebue wrote burlesques on the Revolution, and a number of publications discussed the political implications. Friedrich von Gentz translated Burke's outspoken criticism of the Revolution of 1790, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Betrachtungen über die französische Revolution). In 1799 Novalis expressed in his essay Die Christenheit oder Europa an ideal of freedom on a universal religious basis which inspired the sentiments of the early Romantics (see Romantik).

The French Revolution has frequently been the subject of works of literature, many of which concentrate on its leading figures. Among these are: Grabbe's play Napoleon oder Die hundert Tage (1831), Büchner's Dantons Tod (1837), Mirabeau (1850) by Ernst Raupach, Graf Mirabeau (1858) and Robespierre (1859) by Th. Mundt, Die Göttin der Vernunft (1871) by P. Heyse, Danton und Robespierre (1871) by R. Hamerling, Der grüne Kakadu (1899) by A. Schnitzler, Joseph Fouché (1929) and Marie Antoinette (1932) by Stefan Zweig, the Novelle Die Letzte am Schaffott (1931) by Gertrud von Le Fort, and Die Verfolgung und Ermordung Jean Paul Marats, dargestellt durch die Schauspielgruppe des Hospizes zu Charenton unter Anleitung des Herrn de Sade (1964) by Peter Weiss.

Columbia Encyclopedia:

French Revolution

Top
French Revolution, political upheaval of world importance in France that began in 1789.

Origins of the Revolution

Historians disagree in evaluating the factors that brought about the Revolution. To some extent at least, it came not because France was backward, but because the country's economic and intellectual development was not matched by social and political change. In the fixed order of the ancien régime, most bourgeois were unable to exercise commensurate political and social influence. King Louis XIV, by consolidating absolute monarchy, had destroyed the roots of feudalism; yet outward feudal forms persisted and became increasingly burdensome.

France was still governed by privileged groups-the nobility and the clergy-while the productive classes were taxed heavily to pay for foreign wars, court extravagance, and a rising national debt. For the most part, peasants were small landholders or tenant farmers, subject to feudal dues, to the royal agents indirect farming (collecting) taxes, to the corvée (forced labor), and to tithes and other impositions. Backward agricultural methods and internal tariff barriers caused recurrent food shortages, which netted fortunes to grain speculators, and rural overpopulation created land hunger.

In addition to the economic and social difficulties, the ancien régime was undermined intellectually by the apostles of the Enlightenment. Voltaire attacked the church and absolutism; Denis Diderot and the Encyclopédie advocated social utility and attacked tradition; the baron de Montesquieu made English constitutionalism fashionable; and the marquis de Condorcet preached his faith in progress. Most direct in his influence on Revolutionary thought was J. J. Rousseau, especially through his dogma of popular sovereignty. Economic reform, advocated by the physiocrats and attempted (1774-76) by A. R. J. Turgot, was thwarted by the unwillingness of privileged groups to sacrifice any privileges and by the king's failure to support strong measures.

The direct cause of the Revolution was the chaotic state of government finance. Director general of finances Jacques Necker vainly sought to restore public confidence. French participation in the American Revolution had increased the huge debt, and Necker's successor, Charles Alexandre de Calonne, called an Assembly of Notables (1787), hoping to avert bankruptcy by inducing the privileged classes to share in the financial burden. They refused in an effort to protect economic privileges.

The Estates-General and the National Assembly

Étienne Charles Loménie de Brienne succeeded Calonne. His attempts to procure money were thwarted by the Parlement of Paris (see parlement), and King Louis XVI was forced to agree to the calling of the States-General. Elections were ordered in 1788, and on May 5, 1789, for the first time since 1614, the States-General met at Versailles. The chief purpose of the king and of Necker, who had been recalled, was to obtain the assembly's consent to a general fiscal reform.

Each of the three estates-clergy, nobility, and the third estate, or commons-presented its particular grievances to the crown. Innumerable cahiers (lists of grievances) came pouring in from the provinces, and it became clear that sweeping political and social reforms, far exceeding the object of its meeting, were expected from the States-General. The aspirations of the bourgeoisie were expressed by Abbé Sieyès in a widely circulated pamphlet that implied that the third estate and the nation were virtually identical. The question soon arose whether the estates should meet separately and vote by order or meet jointly and vote by head (thus assuring a majority for the third estate, whose membership had been doubled).

As Louis XVI wavered, the deputies of the third estate defiantly proclaimed themselves the National Assembly (June 17); on their invitation, many members of the lower clergy and a few nobles joined them. When the king had their meeting place closed, they adjourned to an indoor tennis court, the jeu de paume, and there took an oath (June 20) not to disband until a constitution had been drawn up. On June 27 the king yielded and legalized the National Assembly. At the same time, however, he surrounded Versailles with troops and let himself be persuaded by a court faction, which included the queen, Marie Antoinette, to dismiss (July 11) Necker.

The Revolution of 1789

Parisians mobilized, and on July 14 stormed the Bastille fortress. Louis XVI meekly recalled Necker and went to the Hôtel de Ville in Paris, where he accepted the tricolor cockade of the Revolution from the newly formed municipal government, or commune. The national guard was organized under the marquis de Lafayette. This first outbreak of violence marked the entry of the popular classes into the Revolution. Mobilized by alarm over food shortages and economic depression, by hopes aroused with the calling of the States-General, and by the fear of an aristocratic conspiracy, peasants pillaged and burned châteaus, destroying records of feudal dues; this reaction is known as the grande peur [great fear].

On Aug. 4, the nobles and clergy in the Assembly, driven partly by fear and partly by an outburst of idealism, relinquished their privileges, abolishing in one night the feudal structure of France. Shortly afterward, the Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Rumors of counterrevolutionary court intrigues circulated, and on Oct. 5, 1789, a Parisian crowd, aroused by rising food prices, marched to Versailles and brought the king and queen, "the baker and the baker's wife," back to the Tuileries palace in Paris. The Assembly also removed to Paris, where it drafted a constitution. Completed in 1791, the constitution created a limited monarchy with a unicameral legislature elected by voters with property qualifications.

Of gravest consequence were the Assembly's antireligious measures. Church lands were nationalized (1789), religious orders suppressed (1790), and the clergy required (July, 1790) to swear to adhere to the state-controlled Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Only a bare majority (52%) of all priests took the oath; disturbances broke out, especially in W France; and Louis XVI, though forced to assent, was roused to action. Numerous princes and nobles had already fled abroad (see émigré); Louis decided to join them and to obtain foreign aid to restore his authority. The flight (June 20-21, 1791) was halted at Varennes, and the king and queen were brought back in humiliation. Louis accepted the constitution.

Factionalism and War

On Oct. 1, 1791, the Legislative Assembly convened. Some members joined the various political clubs of Paris, such as the Feuillants and Jacobins. Most deputies were middle-of-the-roaders, swayed by the more radical clubs and by the Girondists. Jacobinism was gaining in this period; "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" became a catch phrase.

Meanwhile abroad, early sympathy for the Revolution was turning to hatred. Émigrés incited the courts of Europe to intervene; in France, war was advocated by the royalists as a means to restore the old regime, but also by many republicans, who either wished to spread the revolution abroad or hoped that the threat of invasion would rally the nation to their cause. The Feuillant, or right-wing, ministers fell and were succeeded by those later called Girondists. On Apr. 20, 1792, war was declared on Austria, and the French Revolutionary Wars began. Early reverses and rumors of treason by the king again led Parisian crowds to direct action.

The Revolution of 1792

An abortive insurrection of June 20, 1792, was followed by a decisive one on Aug. 10, when a crowd stormed the Tuileries and an insurrectionary commune replaced the legally elected one (see Commune of Paris). Under pressure from the commune, the Assembly suspended Louis XVI and ordered elections by universal manhood suffrage for a National Convention to draw up a new constitution. Mass arrests of royalist sympathizers were followed by the September massacres (Sept. 2-7), in which frenzied mobs entered jails throughout Paris and killed approximately 2,000 prisoners, many in grisly fashion.

The Republic

On Sept. 21, 1792, the Convention held its first meeting. It immediately abolished the monarchy, set up the republic, and proceeded to try the king for treason. His conviction and execution (Jan., 1793) reinforced royalist resistance, notably in the Vendée, and, abroad, contributed to the forming of a wider coalition against France. The Convention undertook the foreign wars with vigor but was itself torn by the power struggle between the Girondists and the Mountain (Jacobins and extreme left). The Girondists were purged in June, 1793. A democratic constitution was approved by 1.8 million voters in a plebiscite, but it never came into force.

The Reign of Terror

Instead of a democracy the Convention established a war dictatorship operating through the Committee of Public Safety, the Committee of General Security, and numerous agencies such as the Revolutionary Tribunal. Known to history as the Reign of Terror, this period represented the efforts of a few men to govern the country and wage war in a time of crisis. Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre dominated the new government, with Robespierre gradually gaining over Danton and others. Price and wage maximums were unevenly enforced, and acceptance of the inflated paper currency, the assignats, was made mandatory. A huge number of suspects were arrested; thousands were executed, including Marie Antoinette. A revolutionary calendar, with 10-day weeks, was adopted.

The fanatic Jacques Hébert, who had introduced the worship of a goddess of Reason, was arrested and executed in Mar., 1794, along with other so-called ultrarevolutionaries. The next month Danton and his followers, the "Indulgents," who advocated relaxation of emergency measures, were executed. To counter Hébertist influence, Robespierre proclaimed (June, 1794) the cult of the Supreme Being. France's military successes lessened the need for strong domestic measures, but Robespierre called for new purges. Fearing that the Terror would be turned against them, members of the Convention arrested Robespierre on July 27, 1794 (see Thermidor), and had him guillotined; a majority of Commune members were also executed.

The Directory and the Coming of Napoleon

The Convention drew up a new constitution, setting up the Directory and a bicameral legislature. The constitution went into effect after the royalist insurrection of Vendémiaire (Oct., 1795) had been put down by armed force. The rule of the Directory was marked by corruption, financial difficulties, political purges, and a fateful dependence on the army to maintain control. Conflict among the five directors led to the coup of 18 Fructidor (Sept. 4, 1797).

Discontent with Directory rule was increased by military reverses. In 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte, the hero of the Italian campaign, returned from his Egyptian expedition and, with the support of the army and several government members, overthrew the Directory on 18 Brumaire (Nov. 9) and established the Consulate. Until the Restoration of the Bourbons (1814), Napoleon (see Napoleon I) ruled France.

Effects of the Revolution

The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoléon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.

Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions. The failed attempts of the urban lower middle classes to secure economic and political gains foreshadowed the class conflicts of the 19th cent. While major historical interpretations of the French Revolution differ greatly, nearly all agree that it had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.

Bibliography

See the older works by Guizot, Jules Michelet, Alexis de Tocqueville, Louis Blanc, Edgar Quinet, and H. A. Taine; the great modern studies by Alphonse Aulard, Albert Mathiez, and Georges Lefebvre; the diplomatic history by Albert Sorel; the socialist interpretation of Jean Jaurès; P. Gaxotte, The French Revolution (1928), a royalist account.

See also J. M. Thompson, The French Revolution (1945); N. Hampson, A Social History of the French Revolution (1963); W. Doyle, Origins of the French Revolution (1988) and The Oxford History of the French Revolution (1989); S. Schama, Citizens (1989); R. Cobb, The French and Their Revolution (1999); D. Andress, The Terror (2006).

On the historiography of the French Revolution, see P. Farmer, France Reviews Its Revolutionary Origins (1944, repr. 1963); D. Sutherland, France, 1789-1815: Revolution and Counterrevolution (1986); and F. Furet and M. Ouzouf, A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (tr. A. Goldhammer, 1989).


The event at the end of the eighteenth century that ended the thousand-year rule of kings in France and established the nation as a republic. The revolution began in 1789, after King Louis xvi had convened the French parliament to deal with an enormous national debt. The common people's division of the parliament declared itself the true legislature of France, and when the king seemed to resist the move, a crowd destroyed the royal prison (the Bastille). A constitutional monarchy was set up, but after King Louis and his queen, Marie Antoinette, tried to flee the country, they were arrested, tried for treason, and executed on the guillotine. Control of the government passed to Robespierre and other radicals — the extreme Jacobins — and the Reign of Terror followed (1793-1794), when thousands of French nobles and others considered enemies of the revolution were executed. After the Terror, Robespierre himself was executed, and a new ruling body, the Directory, came into power. Its incompetence and corruption allowed Napoleon Bonaparte to emerge in 1799 as dictator and, eventually, to become emperor. Napoleon's ascent to power is considered the official end of the revolution. (See Georges Danton and Jean-Paul Marat.)

Wikipedia on Answers.com:

French Revolution

Top
The French Revolution

The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789
Participants French society
Location France
Date 1789–1799
Result

The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.

History of France
Flag of France prior to 1789 and between 1814 and 1830 Flag of France
This article is part of a series
Prehistory
Palaeolithic
Mesolithic
Neolithic
Copper Age
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Ancient history
Greek colonies
Celtic Gaul
Roman Gaul (50 BC–486 AD)
Early Middle Ages
The Franks
Merovingians (481 AD–751 AD)
Carolingians (751–987)
Middle Ages
Direct Capetians (987–1328)
Valois (1328–1498)
Early Modern
Valois-Orléans (1498–1515)
Valois-Angoulême (1515–1589)
House of Bourbon (1589–1792)
Kingdom of France (1492–1791)
Kingdom of France (1791–1792)
French Revolution (1789)
19th century
First Republic (1792–1804)
National Convention (1792–1795)
Directory (1795–1799)
Consulate (1799–1804)
First Empire (1804–1814)
Restoration (1814–1830)
July Revolution (1830)
July Monarchy (1830–1848)
1848 Revolution
Second Republic (1848–1852)
Second Empire (1852–1870)
Third Republic (1870–1940)
Paris Commune (1871)
20th century
French State (1940–1944)
Provisional Government
(1944–1946)
Fourth Republic (1946–1958)
Fifth Republic (1958–present)

France Portal

The French Revolution began in 1789 with the convocation of the Estates-General in May. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a right-wing monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms.

A republic was proclaimed in September 1792 and King Louis XVI was executed the next year. External threats also played a dominant role in the development of the Revolution. The French Revolutionary Wars started in 1792 and ultimately featured spectacular French victories that facilitated the conquest of the Italian Peninsula, the Low Countries and most territories west of the Rhine – achievements that had defied previous French governments for centuries.

Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[1] After the fall of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespierre, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.

After the Napoleonic Wars and ensuing rise and fall of Napoleon's First French Empire, a restoration of absolutist monarchy was followed by two further successful smaller revolutions (1830 and 1848). This meant the 19th century and process of modern France taking shape saw France again successively governed by a similar cycle of constitutional monarchy (1830–48), fragile republic (Second Republic) (1848–1852), and empire (Second Empire) (1852–1870). The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[2] all mark their birth during the Revolution.

Contents

Causes

The government of King Louis XVI of France faced a fiscal crisis in the 1780s.

Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Economic factors included hunger and malnutrition in the most destitute segments of the population, due to rising bread prices (from a normal 8 sous for a four-pound loaf to 12 sous by the end of 1789),[3] after several years of poor grain harvests. Bad harvests (caused in part by extreme weather from El Niño along with volcanic activity at Laki and Grímsvötn in 1783–1784), rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system that hindered the shipment of bulk foods from rural areas to large population centers contributed greatly to the destabilization of French society in the years leading up to the Revolution.

Another cause was the state's effective bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars, particularly the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War. The national debt amounted to some 1,000–2,000 million[citation needed] livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the loss of France's colonial possessions in North America and the growing commercial dominance of Great Britain. France's inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both partially caused and exacerbated by the burden of an inadequate system of taxation. To obtain new money to head off default on the government's loans, the king called an Assembly of Notables in 1787.

Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was seen as being isolated from, and indifferent to, the hardships of the lower classes. While in theory King Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, in practice he was often indecisive and known to back down when faced with strong opposition. While he did reduce government expenditures, opponents in the parlements successfully thwarted his attempts at enacting much needed reforms. Those who were opposed to Louis' policies further undermined royal authority by distributing pamphlets (often reporting false or exaggerated information) that criticized the government and its officials, stirring up public opinion against the monarchy.[4]

Many other factors involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals. These included resentment of royal absolutism; resentment by peasants, laborers and the bourgeoisie toward the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by the nobility; resentment of the Church's influence over public policy and institutions; aspirations for freedom of religion; resentment of aristocratic bishops by the poorer rural clergy; aspirations for social, political and economic equality, and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism; hatred of Queen Marie-Antoinette, who was falsely accused of being a spendthrift and an Austrian spy; and anger toward the King for firing finance minister Jacques Necker, among others, who were popularly seen as representatives of the people.[5]

Pre-revolution

Financial crisis

Caricature of the Third Estate carrying the First Estate (clergy) and the Second Estate (nobility) on its back.

Louis XVI ascended to the throne amidst a financial crisis; the state was nearing bankruptcy and outlays outpaced income.[6] This was because of France’s financial obligations stemming from involvement in the Seven Years War and its participation in the American Revolutionary War.[7] In May 1776, finance minister Turgot was dismissed, after he failed to enact reforms. The next year, Jacques Necker, a foreigner, was appointed Comptroller-General of Finance. He could not be made an official minister because he was a Protestant.[8]

Necker realized that the country's extremely regressive tax system subjected the lower classes to a heavy burden,[8] while numerous exemptions existed for the nobility and clergy.[9] He argued that the country could not be taxed higher; that tax exemptions for the nobility and clergy must be reduced; and proposed that borrowing more money would solve the country's fiscal shortages. Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36 million livres, and proposed restricting the power of the parlements.[8]

This was not received well by the King's ministers and Necker, hoping to bolster his position, argued to be made a minister. The King refused, Necker was fired, and Charles Alexandre de Calonne was appointed to the Comptrollership.[8] Calonne initially spent liberally, but he quickly realized the critical financial situation and proposed a new tax code.[10]

The proposal included a consistent land tax, which would include taxation of the nobility and clergy. Faced with opposition from the parlements, Calonne organised the summoning of the Assembly of Notables. But the Assembly failed to endorse Calonne's proposals and instead weakened his position through its criticism. In response, the King announced the calling of the Estates-General for May 1789, the first time the body had been summoned since 1614. This was a signal that the Bourbon monarchy was in a weakened state and subject to the demands of its people.[11]

Estates-General of 1789

The Estates-General was organized into three estates: the clergy, the nobility, and the rest of France.[12] On the last occasion that the Estates-General had met, in 1614, each estate held one vote, and any two could override the third. The Parlement of Paris feared the government would attempt to gerrymander an assembly to rig the results. Thus, they required that the Estates be arranged as in 1614.[13] The 1614 rules differed from practices of local assemblies, where each member had one vote and third estate membership was doubled. For example, in the Dauphiné the provincial assembly agreed to double the number of members of the third estate, hold membership elections, and allow one vote per member, rather than one vote per estate.[14]

The "Committee of Thirty," a body of liberal Parisians, began to agitate against voting by estate. This group, largely composed of the wealthy, argued for the Estates-General to assume the voting mechanisms of Dauphiné. They argued that ancient precedent was not sufficient, because "the people were sovereign."[15] Necker convened a Second Assembly of Notables, which rejected the notion of double representation by a vote of 111 to 333.[15] The King, however, agreed to the proposition on 27 December; but he left discussion of the weight of each vote to the Estates-General itself.[16]

Elections were held in the spring of 1789; suffrage requirements for the Third Estate were for French-born or naturalised males only, at least 25 years of age, who resided where the vote was to take place and who paid taxes.

Pour être électeur du tiers état, il faut avoir 25 ans, être français ou naturalisé, être domicilié au lieu de vote et compris au rôle des impositions.[17]

Strong turnout produced 1,201 delegates, including: "291 nobles, 300 clergy, and 610 members of the Third Estate."[16] To lead delegates, "Books of grievances" (cahiers de doléances) were compiled to list problems.[12] The books articulated ideas which would have seemed radical only months before; however, most supported the monarchical system in general. Many assumed the Estates-General would approve future taxes, and Enlightenment ideals were relatively rare.[13][18]

Pamphlets by liberal nobles and clergy became widespread after the lifting of press censorship.[15] The Abbé Sieyès, a theorist and Catholic clergyman, argued the paramount importance of the Third Estate in the pamphlet Qu'est-ce que le tiers état? ("What is the Third Estate?"), published in January 1789. He asserted: "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something."[13][19]

The meeting of the Estates General on 5 May 1789 in Versailles.

The Estates-General convened in the Grands Salles des Menus-Plaisirs in Versailles on 5 May 1789 and opened with a three-hour speech by Necker. The Third Estate demanded that the verification of deputies' credentials should be undertaken in common by all deputies, rather than each estate verifying the credentials of its own members internally; negotiations with the other estates failed to achieve this.[18] The commoners appealed to the clergy who replied they required more time. Necker asserted that each estate verify credentials and "the king was to act as arbitrator."[20] Negotiations with the other two estates to achieve this, however, were unsuccessful.[21]

National Assembly (1789)

The National Assembly taking the Tennis Court Oath (sketch by Jacques-Louis David).

On 10 June 1789, Abbé Sieyès moved that the Third Estate, now meeting as the Communes (English: "Commons"), proceed with verification of its own powers and invite the other two estates to take part, but not to wait for them. They proceeded to do so two days later, completing the process on 17 June.[22] Then they voted a measure far more radical, declaring themselves the National Assembly, an assembly not of the Estates but of "the People." They invited the other orders to join them, but made it clear they intended to conduct the nation's affairs with or without them.[23]

In an attempt to keep control of the process and prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI ordered the closure of the Salle des États where the Assembly met, making an excuse that the carpenters needed to prepare the hall for a royal speech in two days. Weather did not allow an outdoor meeting, so the Assembly moved their deliberations to a nearby indoor real tennis court, where they proceeded to swear the Tennis Court Oath (20 June 1789), under which they agreed not to separate until they had given France a constitution.[24]

A majority of the representatives of the clergy soon joined them, as did 47 members of the nobility. By 27 June, the royal party had overtly given in, although the military began to arrive in large numbers around Paris and Versailles. Messages of support for the Assembly poured in from Paris and other French cities.[24]

National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)

Storming of the Bastille

By this time, Necker had earned the enmity of many members of the French court for his overt manipulation of public opinion. Marie Antoinette, the King's younger brother the Comte d'Artois, and other conservative members of the King's privy council urged him to dismiss Necker as financial advisor. On 11 July 1789, after Necker published an inaccurate account of the government's debts and made it available to the public, the King fired him, and completely restructured the finance ministry at the same time.[25]

Many Parisians presumed Louis's actions to be aimed against the Assembly and began open rebellion when they heard the news the next day. They were also afraid that arriving soldiers – mostly foreign mercenaries – had been summoned to shut down the National Constituent Assembly. The Assembly, meeting at Versailles, went into nonstop session to prevent another eviction from their meeting place. Paris was soon consumed by riots, chaos, and widespread looting. The mobs soon had the support of some of the French Guard, who were armed and trained soldiers.[26]

On 14 July, the insurgents set their eyes on the large weapons and ammunition cache inside the Bastille fortress, which was also perceived to be a symbol of royal power. After several hours of combat, the prison fell that afternoon. Despite ordering a cease fire, which prevented a mutual massacre, Governor Marquis Bernard de Launay was beaten, stabbed and decapitated; his head was placed on a pike and paraded about the city. Although the fortress had held only seven prisoners (four forgers, two noblemen kept for immoral behavior, and a murder suspect), the Bastille served as a potent symbol of everything hated under the Ancien Régime. Returning to the Hôtel de Ville (city hall), the mob accused the prévôt des marchands (roughly, mayor) Jacques de Flesselles of treachery and butchered him.[27]

The King, alarmed by the violence, backed down, at least for the time being. The Marquis de la Fayette took up command of the National Guard at Paris. Jean-Sylvain Bailly, president of the Assembly at the time of the Tennis Court Oath, became the city's mayor under a new governmental structure known as the commune. The King visited Paris, where, on 17 July he accepted a tricolore cockade, to cries of Vive la Nation ("Long live the Nation") and Vive le Roi ("Long live the King").[28]

Necker was recalled to power, but his triumph was short-lived. An astute financier but a less astute politician, Necker overplayed his hand by demanding and obtaining a general amnesty, losing much of the people's favour.

As civil authority rapidly deteriorated, with random acts of violence and theft breaking out across the country, members of the nobility, fearing for their safety, fled to neighboring countries; many of these émigrés, as they were called, funded counter-revolutionary causes within France and urged foreign monarchs to offer military support to a counter-revolution.[29]

By late July, the spirit of popular sovereignty had spread throughout France. In rural areas, many commoners began to form militias and arm themselves against a foreign invasion: some attacked the châteaux of the nobility as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" ("the Great Fear"). In addition, wild rumours and paranoia caused widespread unrest and civil disturbances that contributed to the collapse of law and order.[30]

Working toward a constitution

On 4 August 1789, the National Constituent Assembly abolished feudalism (although at that point there had been sufficient peasant revolts to almost end feudalism already), in what is known as the August Decrees, sweeping away both the seigneurial rights of the Second Estate and the tithes gathered by the First Estate. In the course of a few hours, nobles, clergy, towns, provinces, companies and cities lost their special privileges.

On 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which comprised a statement of principles rather than a constitution with legal effect. The National Constituent Assembly functioned not only as a legislature, but also as a body to draft a new constitution.

Necker, Mounier, Lally-Tollendal and others argued unsuccessfully for a senate, with members appointed by the crown on the nomination of the people. The bulk of the nobles argued for an aristocratic upper house elected by the nobles. The popular party carried the day: France would have a single, unicameral assembly. The King retained only a "suspensive veto"; he could delay the implementation of a law, but not block it absolutely. The Assembly eventually replaced the historic provinces with 83 départements, uniformly administered and roughly equal in area and population.

Amid the Assembly's preoccupation with constitutional affairs, the financial crisis had continued largely unaddressed, and the deficit had only increased. Honoré Mirabeau now led the move to address this matter, and the Assembly gave Necker complete financial dictatorship.

Women's March on Versailles

Engraving of the Women's March on Versailles, 5 October 1789

Fueled by rumors of a reception for the King's bodyguards on 1 October 1789 at which the national cockade had been trampled upon, on 5 October 1789 crowds of women began to assemble at Parisian markets. The women first marched to the Hôtel de Ville, demanding that city officials address their concerns.[31] The women were responding to the harsh economic situations they faced, especially bread shortages. They also demanded an end to royal efforts to block the National Assembly, and for the King and his administration to move to Paris as a sign of good faith in addressing the widespread poverty.

Getting unsatisfactory responses from city officials, as many as 7,000 women joined the march to Versailles, bringing with them cannons and a variety of smaller weapons. Twenty thousand National Guardsmen under the command of La Fayette responded to keep order, and members of the mob stormed the palace, killing several guards.[32] La Fayette ultimately persuaded the king to accede to the demand of the crowd that the monarchy relocate to Paris.

On 6 October 1789, the King and the royal family moved from Versailles to Paris under the "protection" of the National Guards, thus legitimizing the National Assembly.

Revolution and the Church

In this caricature, monks and nuns enjoy their new freedom after the decree of 16 February 1790

The Revolution caused a massive shift of power from the Roman Catholic Church to the state. Under the Ancien Régime, the Church had been the largest single landowner in the country, owning about 10% of the land in the kingdom.[33] The Church was exempt from paying taxes to the government, while it levied a tithe—a 10% tax on income, often collected in the form of crops—on the general population, which it then redistributed to the poor.[33] The power and wealth of the Church was highly resented by some groups. A small minority of Protestants living in France, such as the Huguenots, wanted an anti-Catholic regime and revenge against the clergy who discriminated against them. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire helped fuel this resentment by denigrating the Catholic Church and destabilizing the French monarchy.[34] As historian John McManners argues, "In eighteenth-century France throne and altar were commonly spoken of as in close alliance; their simultaneous collapse ... would one day provide the final proof of their interdependence."[35]

This resentment toward the Church weakened its power during the opening of the Estates General in May 1789. The Church composed the First Estate with 130,000 members of the clergy. When the National Assembly was later created in June 1789 by the Third Estate, the clergy voted to join them, which perpetuated the destruction of the Estates General as a governing body.[36] The National Assembly began to enact social and economic reform. Legislation sanctioned on 4 August 1789 abolished the Church's authority to impose the tithe. In an attempt to address the financial crisis, the Assembly declared, on 2 November 1789, that the property of the Church was "at the disposal of the nation."[37] They used this property to back a new currency, the assignats. Thus, the nation had now also taken on the responsibility of the Church, which included paying the clergy, caring for the poor, the sick and the orphaned.[38] In December, the Assembly began to sell the lands to the highest bidder to raise revenue, effectively decreasing the value of the assignats by 25% in two years.[39] In autumn 1789, legislation abolished monastic vows and on 13 February 1790 all religious orders were dissolved.[40] Monks and nuns were encouraged to return to private life and a small percentage did eventually marry.[41]

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed on 12 July 1790, turned the remaining clergy into employees of the state. This established an election system for parish priests and bishops and set a pay rate for the clergy. Many Catholics objected to the election system because it effectively denied the authority of the Pope in Rome over the French Church. Eventually, in November 1790, the National Assembly began to require an oath of loyalty to the Civil Constitution from all the members of the clergy.[41] This led to a schism between those clergy who swore the required oath and accepted the new arrangement and those who remained loyal to the Pope. Overall, 24% of the clergy nationwide took the oath.[42] Widespread refusal led to legislation against the clergy, "forcing them into exile, deporting them forcibly, or executing them as traitors."[39] Pope Pius VI never accepted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, further isolating the Church in France. During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization. These events led to a widespread disillusionment with the Revolution and to counter-rebellions across France. Locals often resisted de-Christianization by attacking revolutionary agents and hiding members of the clergy who were being hunted. Eventually, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety were forced to denounce the campaign,[43] replacing the Cult of Reason with the deist but still non-Christian Cult of the Supreme Being. The Concordat of 1801 between Napoleon and the Church ended the de-Christianization period and established the rules for a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French State that lasted until it was abrogated by the Third Republic via the separation of church and state on 11 December 1905. The persecution of the Church led to a counter-revolution known as the Revolt in the Vendée, whose suppression is considered by some to be the first modern genocide[citation needed].

Intrigues and radicalism

Factions within the Assembly began to clarify. The aristocrat Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès and the abbé Jean-Sifrein Maury led what would become known as the right wing, the opposition to revolution (this party sat on the right-hand side of the Assembly). The "Royalist democrats" or monarchiens, allied with Necker, inclined toward organising France along lines similar to the British constitutional model; they included Jean Joseph Mounier, the Comte de Lally-Tollendal, the comte de Clermont-Tonnerre, and Pierre Victor Malouet, comte de Virieu.

The "National Party", representing the centre or centre-left of the assembly, included Honoré Mirabeau, La Fayette, and Bailly; while Adrien Duport, Barnave and Alexandre Lameth represented somewhat more extreme views. Almost alone in his radicalism on the left was the Arras lawyer Maximilien Robespierre. Abbé Sieyès led in proposing legislation in this period and successfully forged consensus for some time between the political centre and the left. In Paris, various committees, the mayor, the assembly of representatives, and the individual districts each claimed authority independent of the others. The increasingly middle-class National Guard under La Fayette also slowly emerged as a power in its own right, as did other self-generated assemblies.

The Fête de la Fédération on 14 July 1790 celebrated the establishment of the constitutional monarchy

The Assembly abolished the symbolic paraphernalia of the Ancien Régime— armorial bearings, liveries, etc. – which further alienated the more conservative nobles, and added to the ranks of the émigrés. On 14 July 1790, and for several days following, crowds in the Champ de Mars celebrated the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille with the Fête de la Fédération; Talleyrand performed a mass; participants swore an oath of "fidelity to the nation, the law, and the king"; the King and the royal family actively participated.[44]

The electors had originally chosen the members of the Estates-General to serve for a single year. However, by the terms of the Tennis Court Oath, the communes had bound themselves to meet continuously until France had a constitution. Right-wing elements now argued for a new election, but Mirabeau prevailed, asserting that the status of the assembly had fundamentally changed, and that no new election should take place before completing the constitution.[citation needed]

In late 1790, the French army was in considerable disarray. The military officer corps was largely composed of noblemen, who found it increasingly difficult to maintain order within the ranks. In some cases, soldiers (drawn from the lower classes) had turned against their aristocratic commanders and attacked them. At Nancy, General Bouillé successfully put down one such rebellion, only to be accused of being anti-revolutionary for doing so. This and other such incidents spurred a mass desertion as more and more officers defected to other countries, leaving a dearth of experienced leadership within the army.[45]

This period also saw the rise of the political "clubs" in French politics. Foremost among these was the Jacobin Club; 152 members had affiliated with the Jacobins by 10 August 1790. The Jacobin Society began as a broad, general organization for political debate, but as it grew in members, various factions developed with widely differing views. Several of these fractions broke off to form their own clubs, such as the Club of '89.[46]

Meanwhile, the Assembly continued to work on developing a constitution. A new judicial organisation made all magistracies temporary and independent of the throne. The legislators abolished hereditary offices, except for the monarchy itself. Jury trials started for criminal cases. The King would have the unique power to propose war, with the legislature then deciding whether to declare war. The Assembly abolished all internal trade barriers and suppressed guilds, masterships, and workers' organisations: any individual gained the right to practice a trade through the purchase of a license; strikes became illegal.[47]

In the winter of 1791, the Assembly considered, for the first time, legislation against the émigrés. The debate pitted the safety of the Revolution against the liberty of individuals to leave. Mirabeau prevailed against the measure, which he referred to as "worthy of being placed in the code of Draco".[45] But Mirabeau died on 2 April 1791 and, before the end of the year, the new Legislative Assembly adopted this draconian measure.[48]

Royal flight to Varennes

The return of the royal family to Paris on 25 June 1791, after their failed flight to Varennes

Louis XVI, egged on by Marie Antoinette and other members of his family, opposed the course of the Revolution, but rejected the potentially treacherous aid of the other monarchs of Europe. He cast his lot with General Bouillé, who condemned both the emigration and the Assembly, and promised him refuge and support in his camp at Montmédy. On the night of 20 June 1791, the royal family fled the Tuileries Palace dressed as servants, while their servants dressed as nobles.

However, late the next day, the King was recognised and arrested at Varennes (in the Meuse département). He and his family were brought back to Paris under guard, still dressed as servants. Pétion, Latour-Maubourg, and Antoine Pierre Joseph Marie Barnave, representing the Assembly, met the royal family at Épernay and returned with them. From this time, Barnave became a counselor and supporter of the royal family. When they returned to Paris, the crowd greeted them in silence. The Assembly provisionally suspended the King. He and Queen Marie Antoinette remained held under guard.[49][50][51][52][53]

Completing the constitution

As most of the Assembly still favoured a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic, the various groups reached a compromise which left Louis XVI as little more than a figurehead: he was forced to swear an oath to the constitution, and a decree declared that retracting the oath, heading an army for the purpose of making war upon the nation, or permitting anyone to do so in his name would amount to abdication.[54]

However, Jacques Pierre Brissot drafted a petition, insisting that in the eyes of the nation Louis XVI was deposed since his flight. An immense crowd gathered in the Champ de Mars to sign the petition. Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins gave fiery speeches. The Assembly called for the municipal authorities to "preserve public order". The National Guard under La Fayette's command confronted the crowd. The soldiers responded to a barrage of stones by firing into the crowd, killing between 13 and 50 people.[55]

In the wake of this massacre the authorities closed many of the patriotic clubs, as well as radical newspapers such as Jean-Paul Marat's L'Ami du Peuple. Danton fled to England; Desmoulins and Marat went into hiding.[citation needed]

Meanwhile, a new threat arose from abroad: Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II, Frederick William II of Prussia, and the King's brother Charles-Philippe, comte d'Artois, issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which considered the cause of Louis XVI as their own, demanded his absolute liberty and implied an invasion of France on his behalf if the revolutionary authorities refused its conditions.[56] The French people expressed no respect for the dictates of foreign monarchs, and the threat of force merely hastened their militarisation.[57]

Even before the "Flight to Varennes", the Assembly members had determined to debar themselves from the legislature that would succeed them, the Legislative Assembly. They now gathered the various constitutional laws they had passed into a single constitution, showed remarkable strength in choosing not to use this as an occasion for major revisions, and submitted it to the recently restored Louis XVI, who accepted it, writing "I engage to maintain it at home, to defend it from all attacks from abroad, and to cause its execution by all the means it places at my disposal". The King addressed the Assembly and received enthusiastic applause from members and spectators. With this capstone, the National Constituent Assembly adjourned in a final session on 30 September 1791.[58]

Mignet argued that the "constitution of 1791... was the work of the middle class, then the strongest; for, as is well known, the predominant force ever takes possession of institutions... In this constitution the people was the source of all powers, but it exercised none."[54]

Legislative Assembly (1791–1792)

Failure of the constitutional monarchy

Under the Constitution of 1791, France would function as a constitutional monarchy. The King had to share power with the elected Legislative Assembly, but he still retained his royal veto and the ability to select ministers. The Legislative Assembly first met on 1 October 1791, and degenerated into chaos less than a year later. In the words of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the attempt to govern, the Assembly failed altogether. It left behind an empty treasury, an undisciplined army and navy, and a people debauched by safe and successful riot."[59] The Legislative Assembly consisted of about 165 Feuillants (constitutional monarchists) on the right, about 330 Girondists (liberal republicans) and Jacobins (radical revolutionaries) on the left, and about 250 deputies unaffiliated with either faction.[citation needed] Early on, the King vetoed legislation that threatened the émigrés with death and that decreed that every non-juring clergyman must take within eight days the civic oath mandated by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Over the course of a year, such disagreements would lead to a constitutional crisis.[citation needed]

Constitutional crisis

On 10 August 1792 the Paris Commune stormed the Tuileries Palace and massacred the Swiss Guards

On the night of 10 August 1792, insurgents and popular militias, supported by the revolutionary Paris Commune, assailed the Tuileries Palace and massacred the Swiss Guards who were assigned for the protection of the king. The royal family ended up prisoners and a rump session of the Legislative Assembly suspended the monarchy; little more than a third of the deputies were present, almost all of them Jacobins.[60]

What remained of a national government depended on the support of the insurrectionary Commune. The Commune sent gangs into the prisons to try arbitrarily and butcher 1400 victims, and addressed a circular letter to the other cities of France inviting them to follow this example. The Assembly could offer only feeble resistance. This situation persisted until the Convention, elected by universal male suffrage and charged with writing a new constitution, met on 20 September 1792 and became the new de facto government of France. The next day it abolished the monarchy and declared a republic. This date was later retroactively adopted as the beginning of Year One of the French Republican Calendar.

War and Counter-Revolution (1792–1797)

A uniform from the French Revolution period.

The politics of the period inevitably drove France towards war with Austria and its allies. The King, many of the Feuillants and the Girondins specifically wanted to wage war. The King (and many Feuillants with him) expected war would increase his personal popularity; he also foresaw an opportunity to exploit any defeat: either result would make him stronger. The Girondins wanted to export the Revolution throughout Europe and, by extension, to defend the Revolution within France. The forces opposing war were much weaker. Barnave and his supporters among the Feuillants feared a war they thought France had little chance to win and which they feared might lead to greater radicalization of the revolution. On the other end of the political spectrum Robespierre opposed a war on two grounds, fearing that it would strengthen the monarchy and military at the expense of the revolution, and that it would incur the anger of ordinary people in Austria and elsewhere. The Austrian emperor Leopold II, brother of Marie Antoinette, may have wished to avoid war, but he died on 1 March 1792.[61] France preemptively declared war on Austria (20 April 1792) and Prussia joined on the Austrian side a few weeks later. The invading Prussian army faced little resistance until checked at the Battle of Valmy (20 September 1792), and forced to withdraw.

The new-born Republic followed up on this success with a series of victories in Belgium and the Rhineland in the fall of 1792. The French armies defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Jemappes on 6 November, and had soon taken over most of the Austrian Netherlands. This brought them into conflict with Britain and the Dutch Republic, which wished to preserve the independence of the southern Netherlands from France. After the king's execution in January 1793, these powers, along with Spain and most other European states, joined the war against France. Almost immediately, French forces faced defeat on many fronts, and were driven out of their newly conquered territories in the spring of 1793. At the same time, the republican regime was forced to deal with rebellions against its authority in much of western and southern France. But the allies failed to take advantage of French disunity, and by the autumn of 1793 the republican regime had defeated most of the internal rebellions and halted the allied advance into France itself.

The stalemate was broken in the summer of 1794 with dramatic French victories. They defeated the allied army at the Battle of Fleurus, leading to a full Allied withdrawal from the Austrian Netherlands. They followed up by a campaign which swept the allies to the east bank of the Rhine and left the French, by the beginning of 1795, conquering Holland itself. The House of Orange was expelled and replaced by the Batavian Republic, a French satellite state. These victories led to the collapse of the coalition against France. Prussia, having effectively abandoned the coalition in the fall of 1794, made peace with revolutionary France at Basel in April 1795, and soon thereafter Spain, too, made peace with France. Of the major powers, only Britain and Austria remained at war with France.

It was during this time that La Marseillaise was first sung. Originally titled Chant de guerre pour l'Armée du Rhin ("War Song for the Army of the Rhine"), the song was written and composed by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle in 1792. It was adopted in 1795 as the nation's first anthem.

National Convention (1792–1795)

Execution of Louis XVI

Execution of Louis XVI in what is now the Place de la Concorde, facing the empty pedestal where the statue of his grandfather, Louis XV, had stood.

In the Brunswick Manifesto, the Imperial and Prussian armies threatened retaliation on the French population if it were to resist their advance or the reinstatement of the monarchy. This among other things made Louis appear to be conspiring with the enemies of France. 17 January 1793 saw Louis condemned to death for "conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety" by a close majority in Convention: 361 voted to execute the king, 288 voted against, and another 72 voted to execute him subject to a variety of delaying conditions. The former Louis XVI, now simply named Citoyen Louis Capet (Citizen Louis Capet), was executed by guillotine on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution, former Place Louis XV, now called the Place de la Concorde.[62] Royalty across Europe was horrified and many heretofore neutral countries soon joined the war against revolutionary France.

Economy

When war went badly, prices rose and the sans-culottes — poor labourers and radical Jacobins – rioted; counter-revolutionary activities began in some regions. This encouraged the Jacobins to seize power through a parliamentary coup, backed up by force effected by mobilising public support against the Girondist faction, and by utilising the mob power of the Parisian sans-culottes. An alliance of Jacobin and sans-culottes elements thus became the effective centre of the new government. Policy became considerably more radical, as "The Law of the Maximum" set food prices and led to executions of offenders.[63] This policy of price control was coeval with the Committee of Public Safety's rise to power and the Reign of Terror. The Committee first attempted to set the price for only a limited number of grain products but, by September 1793, it expanded the "maximum" to cover all foodstuffs and a long list of other goods.[64] Widespread shortages and famine ensued. The Committee reacted by sending dragoons into the countryside to arrest farmers and seize crops. This temporarily solved the problem in Paris, but the rest of the country suffered. By the spring of 1794, forced collection of food was not sufficient to feed even Paris and the days of the Committee were numbered. When Robespierre went to the guillotine in July of that year the crowd jeered, "There goes the dirty maximum!"[65]

Reign of Terror

Satirical cartoon from England lampooning the excesses of the Revolution as symbolized through the guillotine: between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror
Queen Marie Antoinette on the way to the guillotine on 16 October 1793 (drawing by Jacques-Louis David)

The Committee of Public Safety came under the control of Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer, and the Jacobins unleashed the Reign of Terror (1793–1794). According to archival records, at least 16,594 people died under the guillotine or otherwise after accusations of counter-revolutionary activities.[66] A number of historians note that as many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial.[66][67]

On 2 June 1793, Paris sections — encouraged by the enragés ("enraged ones") Jacques Roux and Jacques Hébert – took over the Convention, calling for administrative and political purges, a low fixed price for bread, and a limitation of the electoral franchise to sans-culottes alone.[68] With the backing of the National Guard, they managed to persuade the Convention to arrest 31 Girondin leaders, including Jacques Pierre Brissot. Following these arrests, the Jacobins gained control of the Committee of Public Safety on 10 June, installing the revolutionary dictatorship. On 13 July, the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat — a Jacobin leader and journalist known for his bloodthirsty rhetoric — by Charlotte Corday, a Girondin, resulted in further increase of Jacobin political influence. Georges Danton, the leader of the August 1792 uprising against the King, undermined by several political reversals, was removed from the Committee and Robespierre, "the Incorruptible", became its most influential member as it moved to take radical measures against the Revolution's domestic and foreign enemies.[69]

Meanwhile, on 24 June, the Convention adopted the first republican constitution of France, variously referred to as the French Constitution of 1793 or Constitution of the Year I. It was progressive and radical in several respects, in particular by establishing universal male suffrage. It was ratified by public referendum, but normal legal processes were suspended before it could take effect.[70]

War in the Vendée

The War in the Vendée was a royalist uprising that was suppressed by the republican forces in 1796

In Vendée, peasants revolted against the French Revolutionary government in 1793. They resented the changes imposed on the Roman Catholic Church by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) and broke into open revolt in defiance of the Revolutionary government's military conscription.[71] This became a guerrilla war, known as the War in the Vendée.[72] North of the Loire, similar revolts were started by the so-called Chouans (royalist rebels).[73]

After the defeat at Savenay, when regular warfare in the Vendée was at an end, the French general Francois Joseph Westermann is argued by some historians to have penned a letter (its veracity is disputed)[74][75] to the Committee of Public Safety, stating:

"There is no more Vendée. It died with its wives and its children by our free sabres. I have just buried it in the woods and the swamps of Savenay. According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop... Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment."[76][77]

Other historians doubt the authenticity of this document and point out that the claims in it were patently false — there were in fact thousands of living Vendean prisoners, the revolt had been far from crushed, and the Convention had explicitly decreed that women, children and unarmed men were to be treated humanely.[78] It has been hypothesized that if the letter is authentic, Westermann may have been attempting to exaggerate the intensity of his actions and his success, because he was eager to avoid being purged for his opposition to sans-culotte generals (he was later guillotined together with Danton's group).[79]

The revolt and its suppression, including both combat casualties and massacres and executions on both sides, are thought to have taken between 117,000 and 250,000 lives (170,000 according to the latest estimates).[80] Because of the extremely brutal forms that the Republican repression took in many places, certain historians such as Reynald Secher have called the event a "genocide". This description has become popular in the mass media,[81] but has largely been rejected by mainstream scholars.[82]

Facing local revolts and foreign invasions in both the East and West of the country, the most urgent government business was the war. On 17 August, the Convention voted for general conscription, the levée en masse, which mobilized all citizens to serve as soldiers or suppliers in the war effort.

The National Convention subsequently enacted more legislation, voting on 9 September to establish sans-culottes paramilitary forces, revolutionary armies, and to force farmers to surrender grain demanded by the government. On 17 September, the Law of Suspects was passed, which authorized the charging of counter-revolutionaries with "crimes against liberty." On 29 September, the Convention extended price limits from grain and bread to other household goods and established the Law of the Maximum, intended to prevent price gouging and supply food to the cities.[83]

The guillotine as a symbol

The guillotine became the symbol of a string of executions. Louis XVI had already been guillotined before the start of the terror; Queen Marie Antoinette, Barnave, Bailly, Brissot and other leading Girondins, Philippe Égalité (despite his vote for the death of the King), Madame Roland and many others were executed by guillotine. The Revolutionary Tribunal summarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine, while mobs beat other victims to death.

At the peak of the terror, the slightest hint of counter-revolutionary thoughts or activities (or, as in the case of Jacques Hébert, revolutionary zeal exceeding that of those in power) could place one under suspicion, and trials did not always proceed according to contemporary standards of due process. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but many for little reason beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them. Most of the victims received an unceremonious trip to the guillotine in an open wooden cart (the tumbrel). In the rebellious provinces, the government representatives had unlimited authority and some engaged in extreme repressions and abuses. For example, Jean-Baptiste Carrier became notorious for the Noyades ("drownings") he organized in Nantes;[84] his conduct was judged unacceptable even by the Jacobin government and he was recalled.[85]

Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Republican Calendar on 24 October 1793. Against Robespierre's concepts of Deism and Virtue, Hébert's (and Chaumette's) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign to dechristianize society. The climax was reached with the celebration of the flame of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November.[86]

The Festival of the Supreme Being on 8 June 1794

The Reign of Terror enabled the revolutionary government to avoid military defeat. The Jacobins expanded the size of the army, and Carnot replaced many aristocratic officers with younger soldiers who had demonstrated their ability and patriotism. The Republican army was able to throw back the Austrians, Prussians, British, and Spanish. At the end of 1793, the army began to prevail and revolts were defeated with ease. The Ventôse Decrees (February–March 1794) proposed the confiscation of the goods of exiles and opponents of the Revolution, and their redistribution to the needy.[87]

In the spring of 1794, both extremist enragés such as Hébert and moderate Montagnard indulgents such as Danton were charged with counter-revolutionary activities, tried and guillotined. On 7 June Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended the Convention acknowledge the existence of the "Supreme Being".[88]

Thermidorian Reaction

The execution of Robespierre on 28 July 1794 marked the end of the Reign of Terror

On 27 July 1794, the Thermidorian Reaction led to the arrest and execution of Robespierre, Louis de Saint-Just, and other leading Jacobins. The new government was predominantly made up of Girondists who had survived the Terror, and after taking power, they took revenge as well by persecuting even those Jacobins who had helped to overthrow Robespierre, banning the Jacobin Club, and executing many of its former members in what was known as the White Terror.[89][90]

In the wake of excesses of the Terror, the Convention approved the new "Constitution of the Year III" on 22 August 1795. A French plebiscite ratified the document, with about 1,057,000 votes for the constitution and 49,000 against.[91] The results of the voting were announced on 23 September 1795, and the new constitution took effect on 27 September 1795.[91]

The Constitutional Republic: The Directory (1795–1799)

The new constitution created the Directoire (English: Directory) and the first bicameral legislature in French history.[92] The parliament consisted of two houses: the Conseil des Cinq-Cents (Council of the Five Hundred), with 500 representatives, and the Conseil des Anciens (Council of Elders), with 250 senators. Executive power went to five "directors," named annually by the Conseil des Anciens from a list submitted by the Conseil des Cinq-Cents. Furthermore, the universal suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property.[93]

With the establishment of the Directory, contemporary observers might have assumed that the Revolution was finished. Citizens of the war-weary nation wanted stability, peace, and an end to conditions that at times bordered on chaos. Those who wished to restore the monarchy and the Ancien Régime by putting Louis XVIII on the throne, and those who would have renewed the Reign of Terror were insignificant in number. The possibility of foreign interference had vanished with the failure of the First Coalition. The earlier atrocities had made confidence or goodwill between parties impossible. The same instinct of self-preservation which had led the members of the Convention to claim so large a part in the new legislature and the whole of the Directory impelled them to keep their predominance. However, many French citizens distrusted the Directory,[94] and the directors could achieve their purposes only by extraordinary means. They habitually disregarded the terms of the constitution, and, even when the elections that they rigged went against them, the directors routinely used draconian police measures to quell dissent. Moreover, to prolong their power the directors were driven to rely on the military, which desired war and grew less and less civic-minded.[95]

Other reasons influenced them in the direction of war. State finances during the earlier phases of the Revolution had been so thoroughly ruined that the government could not have met its expenses without the plunder and the tribute of foreign countries. If peace were made, the armies would return home and the directors would have to face the exasperation of the rank-and-file who had lost their livelihood, as well as the ambition of generals who could, in a moment, brush them aside. Barras and Rewbell were notoriously corrupt themselves and screened corruption in others. The patronage of the directors was ill-bestowed, and the general maladministration heightened their unpopularity.[96]

Napoléon Bonaparte in the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire, which marked the end of the revolution

The constitutional party in the legislature desired toleration of the nonjuring clergy, the repeal of the laws against the relatives of the émigrés, and some merciful discrimination toward the émigrés themselves. The directors baffled all such endeavours. On the other hand, the socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was easily quelled. Little was done to improve the finances, and the assignats continued to fall in value.[citation needed]

The new régime met opposition from remaining Jacobins and the royalists. The army suppressed riots and counter-revolutionary activities. In this way the army and its successful general, Napoleon Bonaparte eventually gained total power.

On 9 November 1799 (18 Brumaire of the Year VIII) Napoleon Bonaparte staged the coup of 18 Brumaire which installed the Consulate. This effectively led to Bonaparte's dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution.[97]

Symbolism in the French Revolution

Early depiction of the tricolour in the hands of a sans-culotte during the French Revolution

The French Revolution was a time of upheaval, especially towards traditional ideology, in almost every sense: the current monarch, King Louis XVI, was executed; the Catholic Church was all but abolished; a new calendar was created; and a new Republican government was established. In order to effectively illustrate the differences between the new Republic and the old regime, the leaders needed to implement a new set of symbols to be celebrated instead of the old religious and monarchical symbolism. To this end, symbols were borrowed from historic cultures and redefined, while those of the old regime were either destroyed or reattributed acceptable characteristics. These revised symbols were used to instill in the public a new sense of tradition and reverence for the Enlightenment and the Republic.[98]

Fasces

Fasces, likes many other symbols of the French Revolution, are Roman in origin. Fasces are a bundle of birch rods containing an axe. In Roman times, the fasces symbolized the power of magistrates who could order the beating of a criminal, representing union and accord with the Roman Republic.[98] The French Republic continued this Roman symbol to represent state power, justice, and unity. During the French Revolution the fasces image is seen in conjunction with many other symbols. This is seen with many emblems of the French Revolution. Though seen throughout the French Revolution, perhaps the most well known French reincarnation of the fasces is the Fasces surmounted by a Phrygian cap. This image has no display of an axe or a strong central state; rather, it symbolizes the power of the liberated people by placing the Liberty Cap on top of the classical symbol of power.[98]

Liberty cap

The Liberty cap, also known as the Phrygian cap, or pileus, is a brimless, felt cap that is conical in shape with the tip pulled forward. The cap was originally worn by ancient Romans and Greeks.[99] The cap implies ennobling effects, as seen in its association with Homer’s Ulysses and the mythical twins, Castor and Pollux. The emblem’s popularity during the French Revolution is due in part to its importance in ancient Rome: its use alludes to the Roman ritual of manumission of slaves, in which a freed slave receives the bonnet as a symbol of his newfound liberty. The Roman tribune Lucius Appuleius Saturninus incited the slaves to insurrection by displaying a pileus as if it were a standard.[100] The pileus cap is often red in color. This type of cap was worn by revolutionaries at the fall of the Bastille. According to the Revolutions de Paris, it became "the symbol of the liberation from all servitudes, the sign for unification of all the enemies of despotism."[98] The pileus competed with the Phrygian cap, a similar cap that covered the ears and the nape of the neck, for popularity. The Phrygian cap eventually supplanted the pileus and usurped its symbolism, becoming synonymous with republican liberty.[98]

Liberty Tree

The Liberty Tree, officially adopted in 1792, is a symbol of the everlasting Republic, national freedom, and political revolution.[98] It has historic roots in revolutionary France as well as America, as a symbol that was shared by the two nascent republics.[101] The tree was chosen as a symbol of the French Revolution because it is a symbol of fertility in French folklore,[102] which provided a simple transition from revering it for one reason to another. The American colonies also used the idea of a Liberty Tree to celebrate their own acts of insurrection against the British, starting with the Stamp Act riot in 1765.[103] The riot culminated in the hanging in effigy of two Stamp Act politicians on a large elm tree. The elm tree began to be celebrated as a symbol of Liberty in the American colonies.[103] It was adopted as a symbol that needed to be living and growing, along with the Republic. To that end, the tree is portrayed as a sapling, usually of an oak tree in French interpretation.[104] The Liberty Tree serves as a constant celebration of the spirit of political freedom.

Hercules

The symbol of Hercules was first adopted by the Old Regime to represent the monarchy.[105] Hercules was an ancient Greek hero who symbolized strength and power. The symbol was used to represent the sovereign authority of the King over France during the reign of the Bourbon monarchs.[106] However, the monarchy was not the only ruling power in French history to use the symbol of Hercules to declare its power.

During the Revolution, the symbol of Hercules was revived to represent nascent revolutionary ideals. The first use of Hercules as a revolutionary symbol was during a festival celebrating the National Assembly’s victory over federalism on 10 August 1793.[107] This Festival of Unity consisted of four stations around Paris which featured symbols representing major events of the Revolution which embodied revolutionary ideals of liberty, unity, and power.[108] The statue of Hercules, placed at the station commemorating the fall of Louis XVI, symbolized the power of the French people over their former oppressors. The statue’s foot was placed on the throat of the Hydra, which represented the tyranny of federalism which the new Republic had vanquished.[107] In one hand, the statue grasped a club, a symbol of power, while in the other grasping the fasces which symbolized the unity of the French people.[109] The image of Hercules assisted the new Republic in establishing its new Republican moral system.[108] Hercules thus evolved from a symbol of the sovereignty of the monarch into a symbol of the new sovereign authority in France: the French people.[110] This transition was made easily for two reasons. First, because Hercules was a famous mythological figure, and had previously been used by the monarchy, he was easily recognized by educated French observers.[106] It was not necessary for the revolutionary government to educate the French people on the background of the symbol. Additionally, Hercules recalled the classical age of the Greeks and the Romans, a period which the revolutionaries identified with republican and democratic ideals. These connotations made Hercules an easy choice to represent the powerful new sovereign people of France.

During the more radical phase of the Revolution from 1793 to 1794, the usage and depiction of Hercules changed. These changes to the symbol were due to revolutionary leaders believing the symbol was inciting violence among the common citizens.[111] The triumphant battles of Hercules and the overcoming of enemies of the Republic became less prominent. In discussions over what symbol to use for the Seal of the Republic, the image of Hercules was considered but eventually ruled out in favor of Marianne.[111] Hercules was on the coin of the Republic.[111] However, this Hercules was not the same image as that of the pre-Terror phases of the Revolution. The new image of Hercules was more domesticated. He appeared more paternal, older, and wiser, rather than the warrior-like images in the early stages of the French Revolution.[111] Unlike his 24 foot statue in the Festival of the Supreme Being, he was now the same size as Liberty and Equality.[111] Also the language on the coin with Hercules was far different than the rhetoric of pre-revolutionary depictions. On the coins the words, "uniting Liberty and Equality" were used.[111] This is opposed to the forceful language of early Revolutionary rhetoric and rhetoric of the Bourbon monarchy. By 1798, the Council of Ancients had discussed the "inevitable" change from the problematic image of Hercules, and Hercules was eventually phased out in favor of an even more docile image.[111]

Role of women

Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they couldn’t vote or hold any political office. They were considered "passive" citizens; forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them in the government. It was the men who defined these categories, and women were forced to accept male domination in the political sphere.[112] The Encyclopédie, published by a group of philosophers over the years 1751–1777, summarized French male beliefs of women. A woman was a "failed man," the fetus not fully developed in the womb. "Women’s testimony is in general light and subject to variation; this is why it is taken more seriously than that of men" as opposed to men, upon whom "Nature seems to have conferred… the right to govern." In general, "men are more capable than women of ably governing particular matters".[113] Instead, women were taught to be committed to their husbands and "all his interests… [to show] attention and care… [and] sincere and discreet zeal for his salvation." A woman’s education often consisted of learning to be a good wife and mother; as a result women were not supposed to be involved in the political sphere, as the limit of their influence was the raising of future citizens.[114]

When the Revolution opened, some women struck forcefully, using the volatile political climate to assert their active natures. In the time of the Revolution, women could not be kept out of the political sphere; they swore oaths of loyalty, "solemn declarations of patriotic allegiance, [and] affirmations of the political responsibilities of citizenship." Throughout the Revolution, women such as Pauline Léon and her Society of Revolutionary Republican Women fought for the right to bear arms, used armed force and rioted.[115]

Even before Léon, some liberals had advocated equal rights for women including women's suffrage. Nicolas de Condorcet was especially noted for his advocacy, in his articles published in the Journal de la Société de 1789, and by publishing De l'admission des femmes au droit de cité ("For the Admission to the Rights of Citizenship For Women") in 1790.

Feminist agitation

The March to Versailles is but one example of feminist militant activism during the French Revolution. While largely left out of the thrust for increasing rights of citizens, as the question was left indeterminate in the Declaration of the Rights of Man,[116] activists such as Pauline Léon and Théroigne de Méricourt agitated for full citizenship for women.[117] Women were, nonetheless, "denied political rights of ‘active citizenship’ (1791) and democratic citizenship (1793)."[116]

Pauline Léon, on 6 March 1792, submitted a petition signed by 319 women to the National Assembly requesting permission to form a garde national in order to defend Paris in case of military invasion.[117] Léon requested permission be granted to women to arm themselves with pikes, pistols, sabers and rifles, as well as the privilege of drilling under the French Guards. Her request was denied.[118] Later in 1792, Théroigne de Méricourt made a call for the creation of "legions of amazons" in order to protect the revolution. As part of her call, she claimed that the right to bear arm would transform women into citizens.[119]

On 20 June 1792 a number of armed women took part in a procession that "passed through the halls of the Legislative Assembly, into the Tuilleries Gardens, and then through the King’s residence."[120] Militant women also assumed a special role in the funeral of Marat, following his murder on 13 July 1793. As part of the funeral procession, they carried the bathtub in which Marat had been murdered as well as a shirt stained with Marat’s blood.[121]

The most radical militant feminist activism was practiced by the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, which was founded by Léon and her colleague, Claire Lacombe on 10 May 1793.[122] The goal of the club was "to deliberate on the means of frustrating the projects of the enemies of the Republic." Up to 180 women attended the meetings of the Society.[123] Of special interest to the Society was "combating hoarding [of grain and other staples] and inflation."[124]

Later, on 20 May 1793, women were at the fore of a crowd that demanded "bread and the Constitution of 1793."[125] When their cries went unnoticed, the women went on a rampage, "sacking shops, seizing grain and kidnapping officials."[126]

Most of these outwardly activist women were punished for their actions. The kind of punishment received during the Revolution included public denouncement, arrest, execution, or exile. Théroigne de Méricourt was arrested, publicly flogged and then spent the rest of her life sentenced to an insane asylum. Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe were arrested, later released, and continued to receive ridicule and abuse for their activism. Many of the women of the Revolution were even publicly executed for "conspiring against the unity and the indivisibility of the Republic".[127]

These are but a few examples of the militant feminism that was prevalent during the French Revolution. While little progress was made toward gender equality during the Revolution, the activism of French feminists was bold and particularly significant in Paris.[citation needed]

Women writers

Olympe de Gouges was the author of the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791

While some women chose a militant, and often violent, path, others chose to influence events through writing, publications, and meetings. Olympe de Gouges wrote a number of plays, short stories, and novels. Her publications emphasized that women and men are different, but this shouldn’t stop them from equality under the law. In her "Declaration on the Rights of Woman" she insisted that women deserved rights, especially in areas concerning them directly, such as divorce and recognition of illegitimate children. De Gouges also expressed non-gender political views; even before the start of the terror, Olympe de Gouges addressed Robespierre using the pseudonym "Polyme" calling him the Revolution’s "infamy and shame." She warned of the Revolution’s building extremism saying that leaders were "preparing new shackles if [the French people’s liberty were to] waver." Stating that she was willing to sacrifice herself by jumping into the Seine if Robespierre were to join her, de Gouges desperately attempted to grab the attention of the French citizenry and alert them to the dangers that Robespierre embodied.[128] In addition to these bold writings, her defense of the king was one of the factors leading to her execution. An influential figure, one of her suggestions early in the Revolution, to have a voluntary, patriotic tax, was adopted by the National Convention in 1789.[129]

Madame Roland (aka Manon or Marie Roland) was another important female activist. Her political focus was not specifically on women or their liberation. She focused on other aspects of the government, but was a feminist by virtue of the fact that she was a woman working to influence the world. Her personal letters to leaders of the Revolution influenced policy; in addition, she often hosted political gatherings of the Brissotins, a political group which allowed women to join. While limited by her gender, Madame Roland took it upon herself to spread Revolutionary ideology and spread word of events, as well as to assist in formulating the policies of her political allies. Though unable to directly write policies or carry them through to the government, Roland was able to influence her political allies and thus promote her political agenda. Roland attributed women’s lack of education to the public view that women were too weak or vain to be involved in the serious business of politics. She believed that it was this inferior education that turned them into foolish people, but women "could easily be concentrated and solidified upon objects of great significance" if given the chance.[130] As she was led to the scaffold, Madame Roland shouted "O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!" Witnesses of her life and death, editors, and readers helped to finish her writings and several editions were published posthumously. While she did not focus on gender politics in her writings, by taking an active role in the tumultuous time of the Revolution, Roland took a stand for women of the time and proved they could take an intelligent active role in politics.[131]

Though women did not gain the right to vote as a result of the Revolution, they still greatly expanded their political participation and involvement in governing. They set precedents for generations of feminists to come.

Counter-revolutionary women

A major aspect of the French Revolution was the dechristianisation movement, a movement that many common people did not agree with. Especially for women living in rural areas of France, the demise of the Catholic Church meant a loss of normalcy. For instance, the ringing of Church bells resonating through the town called people to confession and was a symbol of unity for the community.[132] With the onset of the dechristianisation campaign the Republic silenced these bells and sought simultaneously to silence the religious fervor of the majority Catholic population.[132] When these revolutionary changes to the Church were implemented, it spawned a counter-revolutionary movement, particularly amongst women. Although some of these women embraced the political and social amendments of the Revolution, they opposed the dissolution of the Catholic Church and the formation of revolutionary cults like the Cult of the Supreme Being advocated by Robespierre.[133] As Olwen Hufton argues, these women began to see themselves as the “defenders of faith”.[134] They took it upon themselves to protect the Church from what they saw as a heretical change to their faith, enforced by revolutionaries.

Counter-revolutionary women resisted what they saw as the intrusion of the state into their lives.[135] Economically, many peasant women refused to sell their goods for assignats because this form of currency was unstable and was backed by the sale of confiscated Church property.[134] By far the most important issue to counter-revolutionary women was the passage and the enforcement of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790. In response to this measure, women in many areas began circulating anti-oath pamphlets and refused to attend masses held by priests who had sworn oaths of loyalty to the Republic.[135] This diminished the social and political influence of the juring priests because they presided over smaller congregations and counter-revolutionary women did not seek them for baptisms, marriages or confession.[136] Instead, they secretly hid nonjuring priests and attended clandestine traditional masses.[137] These women continued to adhere to traditional practices such as Christian burials and naming their children after saints in spite of revolutionary decrees to the contrary.[138]

It was this determined resistance to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the dechristianisation campaigns that played a major role in the re-emergence of the Catholic Church as a prominent social institution. In fact, Olwen Hufton notes about the Counter-Revolutionary women: “for it is her commitment to her religion which determines in the post-Thermidorean period the re-emergence of the Catholic Church…”.[139] Although they struggled, these women were eventually vindicated in their bid to reestablish the Church and thereby also to reestablish traditional family life and social stability.[140] This was seen in the Concordat of 1801, which formally reinstated the Catholic Church in France.[141] This act came after years of failed attempts at dechristianisation or state-controlled religion, which were thwarted in part due to the resistance of devout counter-revolutionary women. After the upheaval of the revolutionary period, the reestablishment of the Church was seen by many people as a welcome return to normalcy.

Legacy

The French Revolution has received enormous amounts of historical attention, both from the general public and from scholars and academics. The views of historians, in particular, have been characterized as falling along ideological lines, with liberal, conservative, communist, and anarchist scholars—among others—disagreeing over the significance and the major developments of the Revolution.[142] Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the Revolution was a manifestation of a more prosperous middle class becoming conscious of its social importance.[143] Other thinkers, like the conservative Edmund Burke, maintained that the Revolution was the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the masses into subverting the old order—a claim rooted in the belief that the revolutionaries had no legitimate complaints.[144] Other historians, influenced by Marxist thinking, have emphasized the importance of the peasants and the urban workers in presenting the Revolution as a gigantic class struggle.[145] In general, scholarship on the French Revolution initially studied the political ideas and developments of the era, but it has gradually shifted towards social history that analyzes the impact of the Revolution on individual lives.[146]

Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789.[147] The Revolution is, in fact, often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era".[148] Within France itself, the Revolution permanently crippled the power of the aristocracy and drained the wealth of the Church, although the two institutions survived despite the damage they sustained. After the collapse of the First Empire in 1815, the French public lost the rights and privileges earned since the Revolution, but they remembered the participatory politics that characterized the period, with one historian commenting: "Thousands of men and even many women gained firsthand experience in the political arena: they talked, read, and listened in new ways; they voted; they joined new organizations; and they marched for their political goals. Revolution became a tradition, and republicanism an enduring option."[149] Some historians argue that the French people underwent a fundamental transformation in self-identity, evidenced by the elimination of privileges and their replacement by rights as well as the growing decline in social deference that highlighted the principle of equality throughout the Revolution.[150] The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and, despite its failures, spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world.[151] It had a profound impact on the Russian Revolution and its ideas inspired Mao Zedong in his efforts at constructing a communist state in China.[152]

See also

Audio files

Other revolutions or rebellions in French history

Notes

  1. ^ Donald Greer, The Incidence of the Terror during the French Revolution: A Statistical Interpretation (1935).
  2. ^ Bell, David Avrom (2007). The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the birth of warfare as we know it. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 51. ISBN 0618349650. "The French Revolution, which began in 1789 and led to the total war of 1792–1815...." 
  3. ^ Hibbert. Pg 96.
  4. ^ "Encyclopædia Britannica — Traite". http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602094/traite. Retrieved 16 October 2008. 
  5. ^ William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (2nd ed. 2003), pp.73–74
  6. ^ Frey, p. 3
  7. ^ "France's Financial Crisis: 1783–1788". http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev/section1.html. Retrieved 26 October 2008. 
  8. ^ a b c d Hibbert, p. 35, 36
  9. ^ Frey, p. 2
  10. ^ Doyle, The French Revolution: A very short introduction, p. 34
  11. ^ Doyle 2003, p. 93
  12. ^ a b Frey, pp. 4, 5
  13. ^ a b c Doyle 2001, p. 38
  14. ^ Doyle 1989, p.89
  15. ^ a b c Neely, p. 56
  16. ^ a b Hibbert, pp.42–45
  17. ^ Assemblée Nationale (French)
  18. ^ a b Neely, pp. 63, 65
  19. ^ Furet, p. 45
  20. ^ Hibbert, p. 54
  21. ^ Schama 2004, p.300–301
  22. ^ John Hall Stewart. A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution. New York: Macmillan, 1951, p. 86.
  23. ^ Schama 2004, p.303
  24. ^ a b Schama 2004, p.312
  25. ^ Schama 2004, p.317
  26. ^ Schama 2004, p.331
  27. ^ Schama 2004, p.344
  28. ^ Schama 2004, p.357
  29. ^ Lefebvre, pp.187–188.
  30. ^ Hibbert, 93
  31. ^ Doyle 1989, p.121
  32. ^ Doyle 1989, p.122
  33. ^ a b Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 4.
  34. ^ Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 16.
  35. ^ John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, 5.
  36. ^ John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, 50, 4.
  37. ^ National Assembly legislation cited in John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, 27.
  38. ^ John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, 27.
  39. ^ a b Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 61.
  40. ^ Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution, 148.
  41. ^ a b Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 92.
  42. ^ Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution, 151.
  43. ^ Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 92–94.
  44. ^ Schama 2004, p.433–434
  45. ^ a b Mignet, François (1824). Histoire de la Révolution française. Chapter III. 
  46. ^ Schama 2004, p.449
  47. ^ Schama 2004, p.442
  48. ^ Schama 2004, p.496
  49. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition
  50. ^ Lindqvist, Herman (1991). Axel von Fersen. Stockholm: Fischer & Co
  51. ^ Loomis, Stanley (1972). The Fatal Friendship. Avon Books — ISBN 0-931933-33-1
  52. ^ Timothy Tackett, When the King Took Flight (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003)
  53. ^ The Flight to Varennes • Memoir by the Duchesse d'Angoulême
  54. ^ a b Mignet, François (1824). Histoire de la Révolution française. Chapter IV. 
  55. ^ Schama 2004, p.481
  56. ^ Schama 2004, p.500
  57. ^ Soboul (1975), pp. 226–227.
  58. ^ Lefebvre, p. 212.
  59. ^ "French Revolution". About LoveToKnow 1911. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/French_Revolution. Retrieved 10 April 2009. 
  60. ^ Pfeiffer, L. B., "The Uprising of June 20, 1792," p.221. New Era Printing Company, Lincoln: 1913."
  61. ^ Schama 2004, p.505
  62. ^ Doyle 2002, p. 196
  63. ^ White, E. "The French Revolution and the Politics of Government Finance, 1770–1815." The Journal of Economic History 1995, p 244
  64. ^ Schuettinger, Robert. "Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls." Heritage Foundation, 2009. p. 45
  65. ^ Bourne, Henry. "Maximum Prices in France." American Historical Review, October 1917, p. 112.
  66. ^ a b Gough, Hugh (1998). The Terror in the French Revolution. p. 77. 
  67. ^ Doyle 1989, p. 258
  68. ^ Schama 2004, p.616
  69. ^ Schama 2004, p.641
  70. ^ Schama 2004, p.637
  71. ^ In a Corner of France, Long Live the Old Regime, New York Times
  72. ^ McPhee, Peter Review of Reynald Secher, A French Genocide: The Vendée H-France Review Vol. 4 (March 2004), No. 26
  73. ^ Hibbert, p. 321.
  74. ^ Frédéric Augris, Henri Forestier, général à 18 ans, Éditions du Choletais, 1996
  75. ^ Jean-Clément Martin, Contre-Révolution, Révolution et Nation en France, 1789-1799, éditions du Seuil, collection Points, 1998, p. 219
  76. ^ Davies, Norman. Europe: A history Pimlico, (1997). p. 705
  77. ^ Schama 2004, p.666
  78. ^ Jean-Clément Martin, Guerre de Vendée, dans l'Encyclopédie Bordas, Histoire de la France et des Français, Paris, Éditions Bordas, 1999, p 2084, et Contre-Révolution, Révolution et Nation en France, 1789–1799, p.218.
  79. ^ Jean-Clément Martin, Violence et Révolution. Essai sur la naissance d'un mythe national, éditions du Seuil, 2006, p. 181
  80. ^ 117,000 according to Reynald Secher, La Vendée-Vengé, le Génocide franco-français (1986); 200,000–250,000 according to Jean-Clément Martin, La Vendée et la France, Éditions du Seuil, collection Points, 1987; 200,000 according to Louis-Marie Clénet, La Contre-révolution, Paris, PUF, collection Que sais-je?, 1992; 170,000 according to Jacques Hussenet (dir.), « Détruisez la Vendée ! » Regards croisés sur les victimes et destructions de la guerre de Vendée, La Roche-sur-Yon, Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, 2007, p.148.
  81. ^ In a Corner of France, Long Live the Old Regime. The New York Times. 17 June 1989
  82. ^ Michel Vovelle, « L'historiographie de la Révolution Française à la veille du bicentenaire », Estudos avançados, octobre-décembre 1987, volume 1, n° 1, p. 61–72. [1] ou [2]
  83. ^ Schama 2004, p.646
  84. ^ Jean-Baptiste Carrier, Encyclopædia Britannica
  85. ^ Soboul (1975), p. 384.
  86. ^ Schama 2004, p.658
  87. ^ Schama 2004, p.689
  88. ^ Schama 2004, p.706
  89. ^ Soboul (1975), pp. 425–428.
  90. ^ Schama, p.852.
  91. ^ a b Doyle 1989, p.320
  92. ^ Cole et al 1989, p.39
  93. ^ Doyle, Oxford History (2003) pp 318–40
  94. ^ Doyle, Oxford History p.331
  95. ^ Doyle, Oxford History, p.332
  96. ^ Doyle, Oxford History, pp. 322–23
  97. ^ David Nicholls, Napoleon: a biographical companion (1999) p.
  98. ^ a b c d e f Censer and Hunt, "How to Read Images" LEF CD-ROM
  99. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica entry
  100. ^ Harden, "Liberty Caps and Liberty Trees" 90
  101. ^ Harden, "Liberty Bells and Liberty Trees" 75–77
  102. ^ Ozouf, "Festivals and the French Revolution" 123
  103. ^ a b Harden, "Liberty Bells and Liberty Trees" 75
  104. ^ Harden, "Liberty Bells and Liberty Trees" 88
  105. ^ Hunt 1984, 89.
  106. ^ a b Hunt 1984, 101–102
  107. ^ a b Hunt 1984, 96
  108. ^ a b Censer and Hunt 2001, 92
  109. ^ Hunt 1984, 97
  110. ^ Hunt 1984, 103
  111. ^ a b c d e f g Hunt 1984, 113
  112. ^ Scott "Only Paradoxes to Offer" 34–35
  113. ^ Encyclopedia "Woman"
  114. ^ Marquise de Maintenon, "Writings" 321
  115. ^ Dalton "Madame Roland" 262
  116. ^ a b Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution Edited by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 79
  117. ^ a b Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution by Olwen W. Hufton pg. 23–24
  118. ^ Rebel Daughters by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 89
  119. ^ Women and the Limits of Citizenship by Olwen W. Hufton pg. 23–24
  120. ^ Rebel Daughters by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 91
  121. ^ Women and the Limits of Citizenship by Olwen W. Hufton pg. 31
  122. ^ Rebel Daughters by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 92
  123. ^ Deviant Women of the French Revolution and the Rise of Feminism by Lisa Beckstrand pg. 17
  124. ^ Women and the Limits of Citizenship by Olwen W. Hufton pg. 25
  125. ^ Gender, Society and Politics: France and Women 1789–1914 by James H. McMillan pg. 24
  126. ^ Gender, Society and Politics by McMillan pg. 24
  127. ^ Deviant Women by Beckstrand pg. 20
  128. ^ De Gouges "Writings" 564–568
  129. ^ Mousset "Women’s Rights" 49
  130. ^ Dalton "Madame Roland" 262–267
  131. ^ Walker "Virtue" 413–416
  132. ^ a b Hufton, Olwen. Women and the Limits of Citizenship 1992 pg. 106-107
  133. ^ Desan pg. 452
  134. ^ a b Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 303
  135. ^ a b Hufton, Olwen. Women and the Limits of Citizenship 1992 pg. 104
  136. ^ Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 311
  137. ^ Hufton, Olwen. Women and the Limits of Citizenship 1992 pg. 105
  138. ^ Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 304
  139. ^ Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 305
  140. ^ Hufton, Olwen. Women and the Limits of Citizenship 1992 pg. 130
  141. ^ Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 326
  142. ^ Rude p. 12-4
  143. ^ Rude, p. 15
  144. ^ Rude, p. 12
  145. ^ Rude, p. 17
  146. ^ Rude, p. 12-20
  147. ^ Frey, Foreword
  148. ^ Frey, Preface
  149. ^ Hanson, p. 189
  150. ^ Hanson, 191
  151. ^ Riemer, Neal; Simon, Douglas (28 January 1997). The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-939693-41-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=gKa3FTpH49oC&pg=PA106. Retrieved 18 October 2011. 
  152. ^ Hanson, 193

References

Further reading

  • Baker, Keith M. ed. The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture (Oxford, 1987–94) vol 1: The Political Culture of the Old Regime, ed. K.M. Baker (1987); vol. 2: The Political Culture of the French Revolution, ed. C. Lucas (1988); vol. 3: The Transformation of Political Culture, 1789–1848, eds. F. Furet & M. Ozouf (1989); vol. 4: The Terror, ed. K.M. Baker (1994). excerpt and text search vol 4
  • Blanning, T.C.W. The French Revolutionary Wars 1787–1802 (1996).
  • Censer, Jack R. "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution." Journal of Social History 2003 37(1): 145–150. Issn: 0022-4529 Fulltext: in Project Muse and Ebsco
  • Davies, Peter. The French Revolution: A Beginner's Guide (2009), 192pp
  • Doyle, William. The Oxford History of the French Revolution (1989). online complete edition; also excerpt and online search from Amazon.com
  • Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. (2001), 120pp; online edition
  • Doyle, William. Origins of the French Revolution (3rd ed. 1999) online edition
  • Dunne, John. "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," History Review. (1998) pp 8+ online edition
  • Englund, Steven. Napoleon: A Political Life. (2004). 575 pages; the best political biography excerpt and text search
  • Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
  • Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. The French Revolution. (2004) 190pp online edition
  • Furet, François. The French Revolution, 1770–1814 (1996) excerpt and text search
  • Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas excerpt and online search from Amazon.com
  • Hufton, Olwen. Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution University of Toronto Press (1992).
  • Hunt, Lynn. The Family Romance of the French Revolution. (1992)
  • Hunt, Lynn. "Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution." (1984)
  • Germani, Ian and Robin Swayles. Symbols, myths and images of the French Revolution. University of Regina Publications. 1998. ISBN 9780889771086
  • Griffith, Paddy. The Art of War of Revolutionary France 1789–1802, (1998); 304 pp; excerpt and text search
  • Jones, Colin. The Longman Companion to the French Revolution (1989)
  • Jones, Colin. The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon (2002) excerpt and text search
  • Kaiser, Thomas, and Dale Van Kley. From Deficit to Deluge: The Origins of the French Revolution (2010)
  • Kates, Gary. The French Revolution (2nd ed. 2005), 308pp; essays by scholars; excerpts and online search from Amazon.com
  • Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution (2 vol 1957) classic Marxist synthesis. complete online edition vol 1; also excerpt and online search from Amazon.com
  • Neely, Sylvia. A Concise History of the French Revolution (2008)
  • Palmer, Robert R. The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800. (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; vol 1 online
  • Paxton, John. Companion to the French Revolution (1987), hundreds of short entries.
  • Rothenberg, Gunther E. "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 771–793 in JSTOR
  • Rude, George F. and Harvey J. Kaye. Revolutionary Europe, 1783–1815 (2000), scholarly survey excerpt and text search
  • Schroeder, Paul. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. 1996; Thorough coverage of diplomatic history; hostile to Napoleon; online edition
  • Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact (1995) online edition
  • Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789–1799 (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
  • Schama, Simon. Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar excerpt and text search
  • Sutherland, D.M.G. France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp excerpts and online search from Amazon.com
  • Woshinsky, Barbara R. Imaging Women’s Conventual Spaces in France, 1600-1800: The Cloister Disclosed. Burlington, Vermont. Ashgate (2010).

External links

Preceded by
The Old Regime
French Revolution
1789–1792
Succeeded by
French First Republic


 
 

 

Copyrights:

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 1994-2012 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Oxford Dictionary of Politics. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Oxford Companion to French Literature. The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French. Copyright © 1995, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Oxford Companion to German Literature. The Oxford Companion to German Literature. Copyright © 1976, 1986, 1997, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: History. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia on Answers.com. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article French Revolution Read more

Follow us
Facebook Twitter
YouTube