Discussion 7

Lecture 11

The Origins of the French Revolution

Alas, much more lies sick than poor Louis: not the French

King only, but the French Kingship; this too, after long

rough tear and wear, is breaking down. The world is all so

changed; so much that seemed vigorous has sunk

decrepit, so much that was not is beginning to be!--Borne

over the Atlantic, to the closing ear of Louis, King by the

Grace of God, what sounds are these; muffled ominous,

new in our centuries? Boston Harbour is black with

unexpected Tea: behold a Pennsylvanian Congress

gather; and ere long, on Bunker Hill, DEMOCRACY

announcing, in rifle-volleys death-winged, under her Star

Banner, to the tune of Yankee-doodle-doo, that she is

born, and, whirlwind-like, will envelope the whole world!

Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution (1837)

1st. What is the third estate? Everything.

2nd. What has it been heretofore in the political order?

Nothing.

3rd. What does it demand? To become something therein.

Abbé Sieyès, What is the Third Estate? (1789)

France, by the perfidy of her leaders, has utterly

disgraced the tone of lenient council in the cabinets of

princes, and disarmed it of its most potent topics. She

has sanctified the dark suspicious maxims of tyrannous

distrust; and taught kings to tremble at (what will

hereafter be called) the delusive plausibilities of morel

politicians.

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

(1790)

The outbreak of the French Revolution in the summer of 1789

stirred the imagination of nearly all Europeans. The French

revolutionaries - that is, those men and women who made

conscious choices - sensed in their hearts and minds that

they were witnessing the birth of a new age. And if the

revolutionaries of Paris, Bordeaux, Lyons or Toulouse knew

they were innovating, knew they were helping to usher in the

dawn of a New Jerusalem, so too did observers in London,

Berlin, Philadelphia, Moscow, Manchester, Geneva,

Amsterdam or Boston. The English Romantic poet, William

Wordsworth (1770-1850) was living in Paris during the heady

days of 1789. He was, at the time, only nineteen years of

age. In his autobiographical poem, The Prelude, he revealed

his experience of the first days of the Revolution:

O pleasant exercise of hope and joy!

For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood

Upon our side, we who were strong in love;

Bliss was it that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very Heaven: O times,

In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways

Of custom, law, and statute took at once

The attraction of a Country in Romance;

When Reason seem'd the most to assert her rights

When most intent on making of herself

A prime enchantress -- to assist the work,

Which then was going forward in her name.

Not favor'd spots alone, but the whole Earth!

Upon the ruins of the ANCIEN REGIME -

that is, the old order - a new era

appeared which seemed to realize the

lofty ideals of the Enlightenment (see

Lecture 9). The ideals were genuine and

they were optimistic through and

through. Man had entered a stage in

human history characterized by his

emancipation from superstition,

prejudice, cruelty and enthusiasm.

Liberty had triumphed over tyranny. New

institutions were created on the foundations of Reason and

justice and not authority or blind faith. The barriers to

freedom, liberty, equality and brotherhood were torn down.

Man had been released from other-worldly torment and was

now making history!

For the revolutionary generation, it seemed as if the natural,

inalienable rights of man had become an instant reality. The

forces of oppression, tyranny and misery needed to be

overcome. So, 1789 stands as the pivotal year - a watershed -

in which these forces came to their abrupt and necessary

end.

So believed the revolutionaries. . . .

The future would be one of moral and intellectual

improvement. Human happiness would be found in the here

and now not in the City of God. Such optimism, perhaps,

could only have been possible in an age which its spokesmen

proudly proclaimed to be an Age of Enlightenment. The

enthusiasm with which this dawn of a New Jerusalem was

announced was often clouded with religious zeal. And so, on

November 4th, 1789, the Protestant minister, Richard Price

(1723-1791), stood at the pulpit at the Meeting-House in the

Old Jewry in London. He was about to address a crowd of

about fifty members of the "Society for the Commemoration

of the Revolution in Great Britain." His address was, A

Discourse on the Love of Our Country, and it was intended as

the keynote address of the Society's celebration of the one

hundredth anniversary of the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Here is an excerpt from Price's address:

What an eventful period this is! I am thankful that I have

lived to see it; and I could almost say, Lord, now lettest

thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have

seen thy salvation. I have lived to see a diffusion of

knowledge, which has undermined superstition and error

-- I have lived to see the rights of men better understood

than ever; and nations panting for liberty, which seem to

have lost the idea of it. I have lived to see 30 MILLIONS of

people, indignant and resolute, spurning at slavery, and

demanding liberty with an irresistible voice; their king led

in triumph, and an arbitrary monarch surrendering

himself to his subjects. -- After sharing in the benefits of

one revolution, I have been spared to be witness to two

other revolutions, both glorious. And now methinks I see

the love for liberty catching and spreading, a general

amendment beginning in human affairs; the dominion of

kings changed for the dominion of laws, and the dominion

of priests giving way to the dominion of reason and

conscience.

Be encouraged, all ye friends of freedom, and writers in

its defense! The times are auspicious. Your labours have

not been in vain. Behold kingdoms, admonished by you,

starting from sleep, breaking their fetters, and claiming

justice from their oppressors! Behold, the light you have

struck out, after setting America free, reflected to France,

and there kindled into a blaze that lays despotism in

ashes, and warms and illuminates EUROPE!

Tremble all ye oppressors of the world! Take warning all

ye supporters of slavish governments. . . . Call no more

reformation, innovation. You cannot hold the world in

darkness. Struggle no longer against increasing light and

liberality. Restore to mankind their rights; and consent to

the correction of abuses, before they and you are

destroyed together. [Source: Marilyn Butler, ed., Burke,

Paine, Godwin and the Revolution Controversy

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 31-

32.]

The language is certainly inflammatory. The message is

passionate and quite clear. "Tremble all ye oppressors of the

world!"

The causes of the French Revolution are complicated, so

complicated that a debate still rages among historians

regarding origins, causes and results. In general, the real

causes of the Revolution must be located in the rigid social

structure of French society during the ancien regime. As it

had been for centuries, French society was divided into three

Estates or Orders. The First Estate consisted of the clergy and

the Second Estate the nobility. Together, these two Estates

accounted for approximately 500,000 individuals. At the

bottom of this hierarchy was the vast Third Estate which

basically meant everybody else, or about 25 million people.

This social structure was based on custom and tradition, but

more important, it was also based on inequalities which were

sanctioned by the force of law. So, we must look at these

three Estates more carefully.

The First Estate

The Clergy From the outset, the clergy was established as a

privileged Estate. The French Catholic Church maintained a

wide scope of powers - it literally constituted a state within a

state and it had sustained this position for more than 800

years. The clergy was divided into the lower and upper clergy.

Members of the lower clergy were usually humble, poorly-

paid and overworked village priests. As a group, they

resented the wealth and arrogance of the upper clergy. The

bishops and abbots filled the ranks of the upper clergy, men

who regarded their office as a way of securing a larger

income and the landed property that went with it. Most of the

upper clergy sold their offices to subordinates, kept the

revenue, and lived in Paris or at the seat of royal government

at Versailles. Well, what did the clergy do? Or, I suppose, a

better way of framing the question is this: what were they

supposed to be doing? Their responsibilities included: the

registration of births, marriages and deaths; they collected

the tithe (usually 10%); they censored books; served as

moral police; operated schools and hospitals; and distributed

relief to the poor. They also owned 10-15% of all the land in

France. This land, of course, was all held tax-free.

The Second Estate

The Nobility Like the clergy, the

nobility represented another

privileged Estate. The nobility held

the highest positions in the Church,

the army and the government. As an

order, they were virtually exempt

from paying taxes of any kind. They

collected rent from the peasant population who lived on their

lands. They also collected an extraordinary amount of

customary dues from the peasantry. There were labor dues

(the corvee), as well as dues on salt, cloth, bread, wine and

the use mills, granaries, presses and ovens. Collectively, the

nobility owned about 30% of the land. By the 18th century,

they were also becoming involved in banking, finance,

shipping, insurance and manufacturing. They were also the

leading patrons of the arts. It is interesting that the nobility

would offer their homes and their salons to the likes of

Voltaire, Gibbon, Diderot and Rousseau (see Lecture 9). After

all, these were the men who would end up criticizing the

Second Estate. Of course, it must also be that the

philosophes could not have existed without their aristocratic

patrons.

There were, like the clergy, two levels of the nobility

(c.350,000 individuals in total). The Nobility of the Sword

carried the most prestige. The served their King at his court

in Versailles. Many members of this order were of ancient

lineage - their family history could be traced back hundreds

of years. But there were also members of this estate who

were relative newcomers. The Nobility of the Robe also had

prestige but much less than did the Nobility of the Sword.

Numerous members of the Nobility of the Robe had been

created by the monarchy in the past. French kings needed

money so it seemed logical to offer position and status to

those men who were willing to pay enough money for it. But

more important, perhaps, was that by giving these men royal

positions, the king could keep an eye on their behavior. In

many ways, this is one reason why Louis XIV built Versailles in

the first place. Originally a vast hunting lodge, Louis built up

Versailles in order to house his generals, ministers and other

court suck-ups.

Some of the lesser nobility were partial to the philosophes of

the Enlightenment and during the early days of the

Revolution would be considered "liberal nobles." They wished

to see an end to royal absolutism but not necessarily the end

of the monarchy. These liberal nobles tended to look to

France's traditional enemy, England, as a model for what

France ought to become, a limited or constitutional monarchy.

The Third Estate

This estate ostensibly consisted of every one who was not a

member of either the First or Second Estates. Totaling

approximately 25 million souls, the Third Estate was

composed of the bourgeoisie, the peasantry and the urban

artisans. As a class, the bourgeoisie - merchants,

manufacturers, bankers, doctors, lawyers, intellectuals - had

wealth. In some cases, enormous wealth. But, wealth in the

ancien regime did not mean status or privilege and it should

be clear by now that "success" in 18th century France meant

status and privilege. Wealth was nothing without status. The

bourgeoisie were influenced by the nobility and tried to

imitate them whenever possible. So, they tried to improve

their status by becoming land owners themselves. By 1789,

the bourgeoisie controlled 20% of all the land. They were

upwardly mobile, but they felt frustrated and blocked by the

aristocracy, an aristocracy whose only interest was that

everyone maintain their place in society.

By 1789, the bourgeoisie had numerous grievances they

wished addressed. They wanted all Church, army and

government positions open to men of talent and merit. They

sought a Parliament that would make all the laws for the

nation. They desired a constitution that would limit the king's

powers. They also desired fair trials, religious toleration and

vast administrative reforms. These are all liberal ideas that

would certainly emerge after the summer of 1789.

The peasantry consisted of at least twenty-one million

individuals during the 18th century. Their standard of living

was perhaps better than the European peasantry in general.

However, the French peasant continued to live in utmost

poverty. Collectively, the peasantry owned 30-40% of the

available land but mostly in small, semi-feudal plots. Most

peasants did not own their land but rented it from those

peasants who were wealthier or from the nobility. They tried

to supplement their income by hiring themselves out as day

laborers, textile workers or manual laborers. Peasants were

victimized by heavy taxation - taxes were necessary to pay

for the costs of war, something that had already consumed

the French government for an entire century. So, the

peasants paid taxes to the king, taxes to the church, taxes

and dues to the lord of the manor, as well as numerous

indirect taxes on wine, salt, and bread. Furthermore, the

peasants also owed their lord a labor obligation. And

throughout the 18th century, the price of rent was always

increasing, as did the duties levied on goods sold in markets

and fairs. By 1789, the plight of the French peasant was

obvious. Taxes were increased as was rent. Peasants

continued to use antiquated methods of agriculture. The price

of bread soared and overall, prices continued to rise at a

quicker rate than wages. To make matters worse, there was

the poor harvest of 1788/89. The urban workers or artisans,

as a group, consisted of all journeymen, factory workers and

wage earners. The urban poor also lived in poverty, a poverty

that was intensified by 1789. By that time, wages had

increased by 22% while the cost of living increased 62%.

These, then, are the social causes that acted as a breeding

ground for the grievances and passions the Revolution would

unleash. But there are a few other causes, equally important,

that are also worth our attention.

Royal Absolutism

Eighteenth century France was, in theory, an absolute

monarchy. Royal absolutism was produced as a result of the

Hundred Years' War. By the early 18th century, French kings

had nearly succeeded in wresting all power from the nobility.

Thanks in part to the effort of Louis XIV, absolute monarchy

was, in both theory and practice, a reality. France had no

Parliament. France did have an Estates General which was a

semi-representative institution in that it was composed of

representatives from each of the Three Estates. The last time

the Estates General had been convened was in 1614! Was

the Estates General a truly representative body? Hardly. The

way the French administered the country was through a

bloated bureaucracy of officials. By 1750, the bureaucracy

had overgrown itself - it was large, corrupt and inefficient. Too

many officials had bought and sold their offices over the

years. Furthermore, despite the efforts of Charlemagne (742-

814) in the 9th century, France had no single, unified system

of law. Each region determined its own laws based on the rule

of the local Parlement.

Law

There were thirteen distinct regions in France before 1789

and each was under the jurisdiction of a Parlement. Each

Parlement contained between fifty and 130 members. They

were the local judges and legal elites. They tried cases for

theft, murder, forgery, sedition and libel. They also served as

public censors and sometimes were responsible for fixing the

price of bread. They were hated by almost everyone,

including the king. Of course, the king also had his royal

lackeys, the intendents. The intendents were even more

hated than the Parlement. Created to help curb the power of

the nobility, the intendents became known for their habit of

arbitrary taxation and arrest of the peasantry. Such a

situation made for the inefficient operation of Europe's

largest and strongest country.

Finances

By 1789, France was bankrupt. The country could no longer

pay its debts, debts that were all the result of war. One

example says a great deal about this situation. By 1789,

France was still paying off debts incurred by the wars of Louis

XIV, that is, wars of the late 17th and early 18th century.

Furthermore, a number of social groups and institutions did

not pay taxes of any kind. Many universities were exempt

from taxation as were the thirteen Parlements, cites like Paris,

the Church and the clergy, the aristocracy and numerous

members of the bourgeoisie. And of course, it was simply

brilliant planning to continue to tax the peasants - peasants

who, having nothing to contribute were, over the course of

the century, forced to contribute even more.

The Enlightenment

The effect of the Enlightenment on the French Revolution has

created a debate which will not soon be resolved. But, in

general, it can be said that there is no causal relationship

between the philosophes of the Enlightenment and the

outbreak of the French Revolution. Few philosophes, if any,

advocated revolution and the reason is fairly clear. No

philosophe advocated the violent overthrow of the existing

order of things because violence was contrary to human

reason. But because the philosophes of the Enlightenment

attacked the established order together with authority of any

kind, their ideas helped to produce what can only be called a

revolutionary mentality. One modern historian has correctly

observed that:

18th century philosophy taught the Frenchman to find his

condition wretched, unjust and illogical and made him

disinclined to the patient resignation to his troubles that

had long characterized his ancestors . . . . The

propaganda of the philosophes perhaps more than any

other factor accounted for the fulfillment of the

preliminary condition of the French Revolution, namely

discontent with the existing state of things. (Henri Peyre, "The

Influence of Eighteenth Century Ideas on the French Revolution," Journal of

the History of Ideas vol. 10, No. 1 (January 1949).

I suppose what I mean is this: the philosophes advocated the

use of Reason in all human affairs. They knew that Reason,

together with its sister, criticism, could effect change: a

change in morals, a change in human knowledge, a change in

human happiness. Voltaire, of course, was a case in point. He

had few problems with monarchy. All he wanted was an

enlightened monarch. Was Voltaire a liberal? Or a republican?

Hardly. And for all his talk about representative governments,

social contracts and civil society, Rousseau had more to do

with the origins of totalitarian society than he did with

democracy. Still, two people can read Rousseau and leave

with two different perspectives. And Rousseau's thought

certainly led to divergent opinions as to what really mattered.

The point is this: the 18th century had no Karl Marx (1818-

1883). The 18th century had no prophet of revolution. Why?

Because the prophets of revolution, like Marx, were made by

the French Revolution. The French Revolution was not made

by prophets.

The American Revolution

Lastly, there is little doubt that the American Revolution of

the 1770s and the formation of a republic in the 1780s served

as a profound example to all European observers. Hundreds

of books, pamphlets and public lectures analyzed,

romanticized and criticized the American rebellion against

Great Britain. For instance, in 1783 the Venetian ambassador

to Paris wrote that "it is reasonable to expect that, with the

favourable effects of time, and of European arts and sciences,

[America] will become the most formidable power in the

world." American independence fired the imagination of

aristocrats who were unsure of their status while at the same

time giving the promise of ever greater equality to the

common man. The Enlightenment preached the steady and

inevitable progress of man's moral and intellectual nature.

The American example served as a great lesson - tyranny

could be challenged. Man did have inalienable rights. New

governments could be constructed. The American example

then, shed a brilliant light. As one French observer remarked

in 1789, "This vast continent which the seas surround will

soon change Europe and the universe."

Those Europeans who dreamed about the dawn of a New

Jerusalem were fascinated by the American political

experiment. The thirteen colonies began with a defensive

revolution against tyrannical oppression and they were

victorious. The Americans showed how rational men could

assemble together to exercise control over their own lives by

choosing their own form of government, a government

sanctified by the force of a written constitution. With this in

mind, liberty, equality, private property and representative

government began to make more sense to European

observers. If anything, the American Revolution gave proof to

that great Enlightenment idea - the idea that a better world

was possible if it was created by men using Reason. As R. R.

Palmer put it in 1959 (The Age of Democratic Revolution: The

Challenge):

The effects of the American Revolution, as a revolution,

were imponderable but very great. It inspired the sense

of a new era. It added a new content to the conception of

progress. It gave a whole new dimension to ideas of

liberty and equality made familiar by the Enlightenment.

It got people into the habit of thinking more concretely

about political questions, and made them more readily

critical of their own governments and society. It

dethroned England, and set up America, as a model for

those seeking a better world. It brought written

constitutions, declarations of rights, and constituent

conventions into the realm of the possible. The apparition

on the other side of the Atlantic of certain ideas already

familiar in Europe made such ideas seem more truly

universal, and confirmed the habit of thinking in terms of

humanity at large. Whether fantastically idealized or seen

in a factual way, whether as mirage or as reality, America

made Europe seem unsatisfactory to many people of the

middle and lower classes, and to those of the upper

classes who wished them well. It made a good many

Europeans feel sorry for themselves, and induced a kind

of spiritual flight from the Old Regime. (p. 282)