Revolution in Europe - French Revolution - Part Two

The French Revolution: Origins - Paul Halsall

In this article Halsall highlights the fact that previous intellectual, social and political elements contributed to the revolution. I don't usually copy and paste, but due to the nature of Halsall's article, a lot of it will be - He relays the causes of revolution into three main areas; intellectual, social and political. 

Quite a few good points that he makes I have pasted below:

"The Enlightenment: scientific and philosophical thought had been generalized in the 18th Century. There was now a much larger intellectual class with the political ideas that the Enlightenment had spread around Europe. What was later called Liberalism was popular. Liberty - Human Rights/Natural Rights. The sovereignty of the people. Equality - meant equal rights for all under the Law. Liberals also wanted freedom from a state-controlled economy. Property was seen as sacred. These were middle class property owners by and large."

- Here Halsall is commenting on the fact that it was these ideas that came from the enlightenment were ones that got people thinking and eventually sparked revolution. 

"Intellectual causes are difficult to quantify in terms of their effects, but they are nonetheless important in effecting actions and ideologies of participants. After Montesquieu, a republic was regarded as at least theoretically noble and possible. Rousseau had an effect during the long but, as we shall see, most of the unrolling of the Revolution came in response to events; actual actions were often intensely pragmatic."

- Halsall mentions two philosophers of the enlightenment and attempts to explain their role in the revolution. He concludes however, that actions, probably inspired by these ideologies and theories were the key to revolution. 

"Under Louis XIV flaws in theory of absolutism had been apparent: now they become obvious; the misuse of power, kings who couldn't rule."

- King Louis XIV is brought up here - He was a king prior to Louis XVI and relished the ideas of absolutism, but as shown here, when this theory was passed down through the line of kings, trouble emerged when these kings were unable to exercise this power successfully.

The direct translation of this is a little
confusing, but it essentially proposes an
'indivisible' group striving for a republic
under liberty, equality and fraternity, and
then at the end kind of says its that,
or death - It's kind of like a 'stand or be stood
upon' slogan thing (Complicated x1000 because
they're French and that's what they do).

"There was a rapid discussion of ideas, more radical than anything in the Enlightenment. The weeks after 25th Sept 1788 saw most radical change of all. The most famous pamphlet was by the Abbe Sieyes 1748-1835 - "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until Now? - Nothing. What does it ask? - to become something". The ideas feed on themselves. This is part of the structure of revolutions: a long period of preparation, then developments at an intense speed leading to conclusions none of those at the beginning could have envisaged. At just the moment it thought it was victorious, the nobles faced a real and new revolution which would sweep it away."

- Once again, Halsall assesses the role of ideas in this particular revolution, and explains that these ideas or elements of 'ideology' are crucial in the 'preparation' stages of the revolution. One must question here, that if this ideology is so crucial, then can a revolution ever be staged without or with little of it?

The Ideology of the French Revolution - Raymond F. Betts 

This particular article is interesting in the sense that it is looking at the impact of the French Revolution and what it demonstrated for europe at the time, and continues to demonstrate for people in the world today. As explored by Bett's article, it seems to relish in the fact that humanity has power, contrary to the old and more superstitious belief in fate and life being controlled by God or the gods. It looked beyond the teachings of the church where class divisions and positions of power were everlasting and permanent, but looked to the individual ability to determine their own fate. Of course there were implications regarding this belief, and since the French revolution there has only ever been a slow and progressive movement towards this train of thought, however, in many ways, the French revolution was an outburst of this ideology, more specifically liberalism - a concept that defines much of the modern world today and has branched off and separated into other ideologies such as democracy, capitalism and have even further progressed in extreme ways and formed concepts like socialism. However, whilst it is not entirely important to know the impacts of the revolution itself, what is important is what the French revolution has said about revolution and how ideologies were rooted within this way of thinking. Once again, I have included a few good quotes from Betts. 

"In rhetoric and institution, the French Revolution was a liberal revolution, in which the liberty of the individual was proclaimed, private property was respected. Later, when Napoleon announced his doctrine of "careers open to talent," he was following revolutionary thought and also anticipating the Horatio Alger theme of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps." In truth, the ideology of the Revolution amounted to extended praise of the "self-made man.""

 - Betts is basically giving a name to the type of revolution it was because of the ideas that were so deeply rooted within it.

"The Parisian crowds were set upon relieving the unsatisfactory living conditions they felt had resulted from a government both mismanaged and insensitive.This urban crowd was made up of the sans-culottes, the craftsmen, skilled and semi-skilled workers who wore no knee breeches (culottes ), hence who enjoyed few of the benefits of the wealthy and the aristocratic. They were interested in having their immediate grievances righted; high-flung ideological considerations were of no concern to them.In a way, therefore, the revolutionary forces that disturbed France in the summer of 1789 were coincidental: the coming together at a particular time of people protesting their economic plight and people seeking fundamental governmental reform. As many critics have asserted, it was the weight of the urban crowds and the direction of the reform-minded bourgeoisie that gave the French Revolution its force."

An Artist's depiction of 'The Tennis Court Oath' - Even here
it is evident that the Bourgeoisie had a rather significant
role in the revolution, as with them they held they held
the education, and hence the ideology that the French
Revolution was fuelled by.  

- Betts makes an interesting comment here when he basically states many of the peasants did not have access to this particular ideology as the bourgeois class did. The bourgeois then therefore became the fundamental force behind the revolution in the sense that they were the ones bringing the ideas to the rest of the public, those who simply wanted and strived for change. We only have to look at examples like Robespierre to see that it was the bourgeois class that encouraged these ideas and strived for change.

"The fact was that the bourgeoisie were the most significant economic element within France. The wealth they generated and the professions they filled were far more important than the political role they were allowed by tradition and law to play. Through revolutionary ideology and institutional change, the bourgeoisie gained a political authority not known before in any European country. In this sense, the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The abolition of aristocratic privileges, the confiscation of church and aristocratic lands and their purchase by the bourgeoisie, and the removal of internal obstacles to trade and commerce allowed the middle class greater economic and social mobility."

- Once again, Betts highlights the fact that the Bourgeoisie were a class heavily involved with the revolution, and furthermore, aimed to benefit from the overthrow of the monarch.

"It must be remembered that the French Revolution was the first major social revolution, of far greater dimensions and of deeper purpose than the American Revolution that had preceded it. Only the Russian Revolution of November 1917, the one that ushered in modern Communism, would rival in world importance what occurred in France between 1789 and 1799. Underlying this extended dramatic development was the new belief that revolution was the most effective means to achieve political and, consequently, social change. Not reform from within, but overthrow from without appeared to be the new law of political physics." 

- Here, Betts is saying that after the French revolution, it was a widely held belief that revolution became ideally the new way in which nations could achieve political and social reform, and essentially, that the way to change was through revolution.




Overall, I must admit that looking at this 'French revolution' was particularly tiring however very rewarding and interesting. I must admit that through looking at the ideas and trigger of revolutions, I always find myself looking at the events prior to the revolutions more than the revolutions themselves. But even so, I admit that it was interesting to read just how much a particular way of thinking and how its difference to the traditional way of thinking could spark an event so huge and important to modern history in itself. Next up, is the American revolution!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!