Degrees of Violence in the French Revolution by Mallary A.

Silva-Grondin
Reading 1
The French Revolution marks a stain in history, notorious for one of the bloodiest periods in modern
civilization. Whether this infamous violence existed at the birth of the Revolution or only during the

1
Terror has been the topic of debate between scholars since the 1980s. Franois Furet challenges the
previous theory of circumstances claiming that the violence, which existed during The Terror,

2
existed at the birth of the Revolution. Violence was predicted even before tensions peaked in
France, and undeniably was existent during the beginning stages of the Revolution. Circumstances
also heightened the level of violence, which occurred from 1793-1794. Therefore, both theories hold
validity, yet the question remains: were there warning signs to this violence before the Revolution
even began?
One document, Paris Scenes, written by Louis Sbastien Mercier before 1789, foreshadowed the
violence which was to come to Paris. During the Revolution Mercier served as a deputy of the

3
Convention and was connected to the Girondins. Within the document Mercier describes the state
of Paris, he describes the Parisians as a fighting race.

He discussed the peasant riots and draws

constant comparisons to the British, illustrating his belief in their stable political system thus
illustrating how unstable the Parisians themselves were becoming. [A]nd their violence would be
the more cruel, since they lack in themselves all power to control it.

Throughout this publication, Merciers comparison of Paris in the 1780s to Englands Revolution
acknowledges some of the hindrances involving the Parisians. Nor have we settled in our minds the
difference between disturbance and revolution.

This evidence supports Furets case and even

further implies that this aggression existed even before the Revolution technically began.

Degrees of Violence in the French Revolution by Mallary A. Silva-Grondin

Reading 2
There are also instances at the brink of Revolution and in the beginning that implied that there
would be a violent element to this movement. Storming the Bastille on July 14 th 1789, which some
scholars consider the start of the Revolution, exhibits erratic and violent behavior.

Sylvia Neely

explains the ambiance of the time before the actual fall of the Bastille, The government feared this
urban population could easily turn to violence

Another factor of this violence was the guards

located in Paris were involved with the common people, thus enabling riots and violent behavior.

During the taking of the Bastille some were killed, yet even more brutal the head of the commander
of the garrison was placed on a pike and displayed with pride.
of revolutionary ideals and the Revolution itself.

11

10

The Bastille became representation

Paris workers based this symbol of the

Revolution on sadistic acts, again illustrating the violence that would consistently be exhibited
throughout the duration of the Revolution, once again supporting Furets argument.
Before the Bastille the Rveillon riots were cited as chaotic, so violent acts were not unexpected, yet
the volume of violence was increasing as the Revolution progressed. There were numerous acts of
violence preceding the Terror; the March to Versailles, The Champ de Mars, the slave revolts in
Haiti, the September Massacres of 1792, the War at the Vende, the execution of Louis Capet, and
the revolt in Lyon. These are just some of the more famous events listed, and these events are all
prior to the notorious Terror. Important figures were also falling victim to these acts of violence;
many important figureheads were assassinated or executed before September 5, 1793.

Degrees of Violence in the French Revolution by Mallary A. Silva-Grondin

Reading 3
Marat and King Louis XVI were all killed before the Terror technically began. There is no question to
thar this violence, by the guillotine or by revolt, existed everywhere from 1789-1793. Furets
argument that violence existed in the beginning of the Revolution is not only valid; he actually
underestimates the role of the violence that was existent even before the official start to the
Revolution. Even though this violence was foreshadowed before the Revolution, the thesis of
circumstances still holds importance.
Unlike the beginning of the Revolution, when the working people were executing these acts of
violence, the Terror was violent acts from the top-down. Through early reflections of the Revolution,
the responsibility for the Terror rests on Robespierre, yet newer analysis claims there were many
more involved.

12

The Committee of Public Safety was feeling pressure from the San Culottes, as well

as a pandemic of paranoia, which swept through Paris. This paranoia was based on the fear that
there were hidden enemies of the Revolution that were conspiring to put the Revolution to the end.

13

This paranoia enabled the Committee to serve as a dictator thus causing the massive casualties that
history reflects on as the Terror.

14

Neely explains in regards to institutions like the Committee, ..the

Terror was to be expected because the goals of the Revolution from the beginning rejected the past
and created totally new (an untested) institutions.

15

These factors, along with others such as the

War in with Europe, the economy, and the struggle with religion, all played a part in the growing
tensions within France, which allowed the existing violence to escalate into the period known as the
Terror.

16

Degrees of Violence in the French Revolution by Mallary A. Silva-Grondin

Reading 4
This violence defines the French Revolution in its entirety; it is not confined to the Reign of Terror.
The violence that occurred in France during the late 18th century was consistent in the sense of its
presence, and as time progressed and circumstances changed the violence amplified. This positive
correlation acknowledges both the previous theories that circumstances affected the events of the
Terror, and that the Terror did exist at the beginning of the Revolution.
A new argument suggests there were even hints before the Revolution began that it would be
bloodier than any revolution to date. Edmund Burkes prediction of what was to come of France was
written in his publication Reflections on the Revolution in France, which was published before the

17
Terror. Neely explains Burkes warnings, he foresaw the violent nature of the Revolution he
had a simple explanation for what was going wrong.

18

There was no ambiguity to the nature of the

Revolution from beginning to end: bloodshed was called for by the people, and later called for by
those in power. Although a change in circumstances altered the degree of violence, that violence
existed for the entirety of the French Revolution.