ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The French Revolution (1789-99) was a period of social and political

upheaval, which resulted in radical changes in France. The system of
absolute monarchy, with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and the
Christian clergy underwent a change to a new form of government based
on the principles of enlightenment and inalienable rights.

It would be wrong to hold only one factor as being responsible for the
coming of the French Revolution. Many interrelated political and
socioeconomic factors contributed to it. It was the interplay of the
intensification of the struggles between the existing orders, political
tension, prospering commerce and the beginnings of industrialization,
resulting in the rise of new social groups, and the impact of ideas such as
the Enlightenment. The question of the origin of the French Revolution
should be studied taking all these factors into consideration.

DIVISION OF FRENCH SOCIETY – THE ESTATE SYSTEM

The French society was divided into different orders: the church, the
nobility and the third estate consisting of the bourgeoisie and the common
people. It was the first two estates that generally enjoyed a great deal of
privileges. Despite their small representation of the whole population they
held a large chunk of the land in France, fiscal privileges, right of
jurisdiction and even seats in the parlement, the law making body.
However, by the second half of the 19th century these groups were not
homogenous in nature and a great deal of differentiation had come into
each and every order. For instance, through the practice of ennoblement, a
number of wealthy bourgeoisie could buy their way into the noble class.
Similarly, even the third estate was marked by a great deal of
differentiation between the rich merchants and bourgeoisie class and the
urban poor, working class and the peasantry. Thus, France had a complex
society, which was marked by variations at all levels.

ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION

The first phase of this revolution, according to Lefebvre was the

‘aristocratic’ phase, which saw the intensification of the age-old political
struggle between a centralising monarchy and an aristocracy resisting this

Origins of the French Revolution 1

effect. The immediate context for this struggle was provided by the
unprecedented fiscal burden that the court faced. Financial troubles and
indebtness were a regular feature of the imperial court, which was
characterised by reckless expenditure and an expensive bureaucracy.
However, in this case it was the French participation in the American War
of Independence that had intensified the financial concerns. The state now
faced a fiscal deficit of 112 million livres, excluding interest. In order to
resolve this crisis the officials were obliged to institute radical reforms,
which included the removal of the fiscal privileges of the church and
nobility. This attempt faced obvious resistance from the privileged orders,
since exemption from taxation had become almost central to noble identity.
The nobles struggled against these reforms through the parlement by
attacking royal “tyranny” and defending noble privileges as “traditional
rights”. Stating that Estates-General (National Assembly) alone had the
right to vote new taxes, they demanded its convocation (defunct since
1614), with the ulterior motive of restoring their own power vis-à -vis the
monarchy. Louis XVI was forced to agree and elections were ordered in
August 1788, arousing hopes of liberal and constitutional reforms. The
decision to call the Estates-General is seen by many as the capitulation of
the monarchy. Thus, the French Revolution seen in this context, as G.
Lefebvre puts it, was inaugurated by the aristocracy. However, a new
revolution against them had already begun, by associating the middle and
lower classes in common action against King and aristocracy. This was by
no means what the aristocrats had intended or foreseen.

BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION – Conflict between the Privileged and

Unprivileged Classes

There was a great deal of debate regarding the composition of the estates-
general. The Third Estate no longer wanted to play a minor role in the state
and thus demanded that there should be one assembly and that it should
have double representation. This would have ensured their majority with
respect to the other orders. The privileged orders, however, wanted to
revert back to the assembly that existed in 1614, whereby each order met
in a separate assembly and had an equal number of deputies. This exposed
the intentions of the Parlements and of the conservative majority of the

Origins of the French Revolution 2

aristocracy who were unwilling to compromise on their privileges. This
acted as a force of solidarity and bondage uniting the highly divergent
bourgeoisie. Thus, the earlier phase of the struggle against royal despotism
was transformed into a conflict between the privileged and the
unprivileged classes, demanding equal rights and privileges. They were
able to muster enough support and generate substantial political opinion in
their favour through distribution of pamphlets and propaganda that the
court was compelled to represent the third estate in the estates-general.

The Estates-General met in 1789 at Versailles, with a high degree of

expectations for drastic social and political reforms. However, as the
assembly opened it was unable to meet such expectations and the Third
Estate was constantly made aware of its inferior status. It was the failure of
the Estates-General that instigated the Third Estate into declaring
themselves as the National Assembly in 1789 and they invited the two
other orders to join as well. As the popularity of the National Assembly
increased with the clergy and some liberal nobles joining it, the king had no
option but to legalise the National Assembly.

MARXIST VIEW: Class Conflict

A number of Marxist historians have viewed the French Revolution in

terms of a class conflict; one between the Bourgeoisie and the aristocracy.
Prominent among them were George Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. They
argued that in the old regime, land was the basis of wealth and position in
society. This arrangement became increasingly obsolete because of the rise
of commerce, which gave rise to the numbers and economic power of the
bourgeoisie. While they retained a predominant position in society, they
resented the growing influence of the Bourgeoisie and attempted to
preserve their traditional rights and privileges at the cost of the interests of
the Bourgeoisie. This is what had led to the aristocratic reaction as
described above, and it was their stubbornness to cling on to their
birthrights and obstructing the king from making the necessary reforms
that they lost out. Thus, they viewed the French Revolution as a shift from
feudalism to capitalism, which was brought about by the Third Estate’s
struggle against the landowning nobility.

CRITIQUE: Revisionists

Origins of the French Revolution 3

However, this has been criticised by a number of revisionist historians in
recent years. For instance, Francois Furet denounced this “revolutionary
catechism”, which emphasised so much on the antagonism between the
classes that it failed to see the similarities that existed between them.
Furet, George Taylor and others argued that in economic outlook both the
nobility and the bourgeoisie have much in common and hence, socio-
economic values made them more or less a single group. Taylor’s argument
was that economically, the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy were far from
distinct groups. Moreover, some scholars have argued that most of these
classes were divided within themselves and hence couldn’t have formed a
class. For instance, Cobban argued that there was no common interest
between the Bourgeoisie of the professions and those of trade. Thus, it can
be seen that it may not be correct to view this as a class conflict but more as
a clash rooted in distinction of status. This has been emphasised by Colin
Lucas, who used the failure of the Estates-General to prove his point. He
argued that the Bourgeoisie was provoked not because of the unwillingness
of the nobles to initiate reforms but resurrection of the distinctions
between the nobles and the non-nobles, which had become obsolete by
now.

The political victory for the Third Estate was enforced by popular pressure,
through revolts and ‘journees’ that broke out in the towns and the
countryside. The Fall of Bastille saved the National Assembly from
dissolution and later that year, the march of Parisian women to Versailles
exerted pressure on Louis XVI to return to Paris and accept the Declaration
of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, firmly establishing the Revolution. In
fact, the popular movements through their fusion with the political
revolution were critical in the success of the ongoing political struggle.
However, these popular movements had an autonomous course and
objective, and were not merely the tools of the revolutionary leadership
summoned at their will, even though the middle class played an important
role in raising their level of political consciousness.

ECONOMIC ORIGINS

Popular unrest was closely allied with economic realities and tended to
flare up in times of economic crisis. Thus, a number of scholars have
emphasised on the economic origins of the revolution. However, there is a

Origins of the French Revolution 4

debate over whether the economy of Pre-Revolutionary France was in a
state of crisis or not. Scholars like Jules Michelet argued that growing
misery among the people resulted in a popular uprising against an unjust
order. Tocqueville, on the other hand, saw 18th century France in a state of
prosperity in which the peasantry had control over 1/3 rd of the land.
Ernest Labrousse has tried to merge both these viewpoints by showing
that between the 1730s and 1770s, France was a growing economy but it
had begun to slow down in the decades before the Revolution. This was
made worse by the free trade treaty concluded with England in 1786, the
fiscal crisis faced by the state, fall in production and the agrarian crisis of
the 1780s. Thus, according to him the political crisis came at a time of high
prices, falling wages and mass unemployment; and this did much to explain
the intensity of popular violence, which was a product of this misery.
Through bread riots, attacks on food convoys, bakers, millers and
speculators the starved masses had expressed their grievance.

WILLIAM DOYLE: Absence of Agricultural Revolution

William Doyle goes on to say that Labrousse’s argument contains a

broader perspective of the origins of the Revolution. The crisis described
by him illustrates the weakness of an under-developed economy that
depended overwhelmingly on a weak agricultural sector. It was the
inefficiencies within the agrarian sector that prevented development on
other fronts as well resulting in overwhelming misery. Thus, Doyle
concludes that if a weak economy was an important factor resulting in the
events of 1789 then it can be said that the revolution broke out because of
the absence of an agricultural revolution that could have led to
development as it had in the case of England.

CRITIQUE

However, there has been general criticism against the economic origins of
the French Revolution. It has been argued that if a miserable economic
condition was reason enough to provoke such large-scale violence from the
peasantry than why had such incidents not occurred in the past when the
economy was in a poor state? It is for this reason that in recent years
scholars have begun to reemphasise on the political factors that led to the
outbreak of the revolution and which had been ignored for a long time by
historians.
Origins of the French Revolution 5
POLITICAL FACTORS

Scholars like Marcel Marion, Pierre Gaxotte, Georges Lefebvre etc

believed that it was the parlement and the aristocracy that was responsible
for the overthrow of the ancien regime. They tried to emphasise that the
king was genuinely interested in reforms but his efforts were opposed by
the nobility that was more interested in preserving their privileges. This in
turn gave rise to a reaction against the whole system. Cobban wrote that it
was the dismissal of Chancellor Maupeou, who had succeeded in restoring
the authority of the monarchy that led to the downfall of the regime. If he
had been given some more time to initiate and sustain the changes that he
sought people would have come to appreciate the system and there would
have been no demand to restore the parlement. However, he was not given
such time.

Since the 1960s, however, the parlements have come to be looked upon
with a great deal of sympathy. J.H.Shennan argued that they were the
defenders of the law and the rights of the commoners against the
authoritarian rule of the crown. William Doyle and Jean Egret stressed
that the crown was highly unwilling to initiate changes nor did they have
the perception to deem them necessary. Moreover, both of them stressed
that Maupeou’s brilliance has been over-stressed. His reforms were limited
and after the restoration of the parlement they never caused any troubles
for the crown. Thus, they argue that the old order was brought down
because of the new social groups’ loss of confidence in the ability of the
crown to manage their affairs and not because of the strength of the noble
opposition.

CALONNE AND NECKER: Ministerial Rivalries?

Some scholars have also stressed that the decision to remove Calonne, who
stood in support of reforms and for the Third Estate had made the
revolution inevitable. For instance, Albert Goodwin wrote that with the
fall of Calonne, the last person who could save the toppling of the ancien
regime had been removed. Such view points were also echoed by Egret.

CRITIQUE

Origins of the French Revolution 6

However, the efficiency of Calonne and of Necker, the man many believe to
be solely responsible for destroying the ancien regime have been brought
under scrutiny as well. The earlier view of Necker being responsible for the
financial crisis of the regime has now been challenged on many grounds.
Firstly, it is believed that he introduced radical reforms in financial
administration, which if they hadn’t been abandoned by Calonne would
have probably created a sound financial base for the regime. Moreover, the
financial plight of the regime also at this point of time seems to be highly
exaggerated and it is possible that the royal finances were in modest
surplus as claimed by Necker. All this goes to show that the political crisis
was not only because of the clash of principles between the crown and the
nobility. It was also the outcome of the factionalism and ministerial
rivalries that existed in the court, which prevented a number of good
measures from coming into existence that could have prevented the
downfall of the monarchy.

ROLE OF THE KING

Another important political factor was the role played by the King in the
Revolution. He oscillated between his role as a traditional monarch and
thus a defender of privilege; or an Enlightened monarch. Thus, although he
declared a policy to tax the privileged classes, he did not have the courage
to go through with it. Such a decision required a monarch with more skill
and a resolute personality. If the King had proved himself more trust-
worthy as a champion of reform, events might have turned out differently
and the Third Estate might have settled for a compromise. But, after a point
it had become too late and the king because of his wavering and
disappointing conduct, and his feeble intrigues with court and nobility, he
had already lost all chance of being accepted as the leader of a national
movement of regeneration.

ROLE OF THE ARMY

The role of the army, the traditional bulwark of the Crown, must also be
noted. Political disaffection in the officer corps was so widespread that it
was impossible to rely on the army to confront the National Assembly or,
still less, to disperse seething Parisian mobs. Further, the French Guards
and other mutinous elements of the army provided the military know-how
to the mob to seize the Bastille on 14 July. Thus, although it was only one
Origins of the French Revolution 7
factor among many, the army played a decisive role, not only ensuring the
survival and expansion of the Revolution at home, but within a few years
achieving a succession of military victories which would preserve and
consolidate the Revolution.

INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS

The question to be really asked here is as to what extent was the

Revolution and the revolutionaries rooted in the dominant intellectual
current of the time, represented by the Enlightenment, without
undermining the complexity of what either represented. The ideas of
Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau, and those of many others, were being
widely disseminated among the aristocratic and middle class. Meanwhile,
such terms as “citizen”, “nation”, “social contact”, “general will” and the
“rights of man” were entering into a common political vocabulary. The
opening of the political atmosphere in 1789 fostered liberal ideas
associated with the Enlightenment, particularly under political clubs. This
political liberalism, rationality that ran through the Enlightenment, the
belief in the enjoyment of inalienable natural rights by all men, freedom of
thought and expression was reflected in the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Citizen. The secularization of politics, by removal of the
Church from the arena of political life, the opening of clerical posts to
election, may be rooted in the thought of the philosophes, Voltaire
particularly. This has been agreed upon by scholars like Lefebvre, who
believed that the Enlightenment was the ideology of the Bourgeoisie. Its
emphasis on utility, rationalism, individualism and merit were the obvious
products of Bourgeoisie mentality and they seemed to have spread as the
Bourgeoisie rose in the 18th century. Similarly, Guy Chaussinand-Nogaret
emphasised that the nobility had been inspired by the enlightenment. He
argues that their rigidity and exclusivism was just an exaggeration and they
infact did look upon themselves as the natural leaders of a regenerated
nation in which they would be open to all on their merits. They were hostile
to the old regime and anxious to create a state that was liberal,
representative, and that protected and promoted the enterprising
individual. The nobiity could find the basis for this thought in the writings
of Montesqieu, who had equated the second estate with the nation. Denis
Richet has also argued that in the 18 th century men of property, noble and
bourgeoisie alike, found in the political theory of the Enlightenment
Origins of the French Revolution 8
powerful arguements to direct against a government that seemed
extremely oppressive and autocratic.

CRITIQUE

However, some other scholars like Daniel Mornet believed that the climate
of ideas did not bring about the revolution in any direct way. He concedes
that a climate of opinions had been created as a result of the ideals and
values preached by the Enlightenment that encouraged people to demand
reforms from the regime. However, this climate was not threatening
enough and posed no serious danger to the regime until it began to collapse
for other reasons. Thus, according to him, it was political factors that
brought about the collapse of the regime and not any ideology. Moreover,
he stressed that while the writers of this period were extremely popular
and articulated their opinion superbly they had did not preach nor did they
plan any revolution.

Robert Darnton has similarly argued that the Enlightenment had an

indirect effect. He argued that by the last two decades of the Regime, the
Enlightenment thoughts had become extremely popular in France but the
new bunch of thinkers and writers had nothing new to add to the
preachings of the original thinkers of the movement. This brought in a
certain amount of stagnancy in the movement, which gave rise to a great
deal of resentment amongst the ‘literary rabble’ of Paris, who believed they
had a lot to say and could write their way to fame and fortune. However,
they found that this had already been monopolised by people, who had
become extremely comfortable in their acquired place in society and didn’t
even put pen to paper. It was this cut-throat competition within the literary
circle that gave rise to an army of potential revolutionaries. Thus, it was
these people, who disillusioned by the potential of enlightenment thought
that, no longer threatened the regime, were being driven increasingly into
writing their own destiny through the medium of a revolution.

On the other hand, we have scholars like Albert Cobban and George Taylor,
who have outrighly denied any impact that the Enlightenment may have
had on bringing about the revolution. Cobban said that the influence of the
Enlightenment on the revolution was far too sporadic and often too
contradictory for it to represent a coherent programme and in many ways
the revolution acted as a counter-measure to what the 18 th century thinkers
Origins of the French Revolution 9
had stood for. He went on to say that the revolutionaries had acted almost
entirely from material motives. Taylor said that, while the initial manifesto
of the revolution like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen,
might have been inspired by a number of ideas made familiar by the
Enlightenment but it would be wrong to assume that the entire document
had been made popular by that movement.

But the origin of notions of popular sovereignty, of the redefinition of the

nation that emerged during the course of the revolutionary crisis is more
complex. It is argued by Cobban, that if any of the Enlightened thinkers
even came close to popular sovereignty, it was Rousseau, but his thought
on general will as an idealized will did not imply popular sovereignty on
the extensive scale that it emerged during the Revolution. Even though
ideas provided symbols for political struggles, beginning with the defence
that the Parlements presented for their privileges, the course of the
Revolution is dictated by circumstances and material concerns. Lefebvre
too has argued that despite a streak of genuine idealism among the
revolutionaries, material concerns dictated the course of the Revolution. In
fact, practical circumstances influenced ideas and political theory.

CULTURAL ORIGINS

Finally, there is the viewpoint regarding the cultural origins of the French
Revolution propagated by the post-revisionists. Francois Furet revitalised
the long neglected work of Tocqueville who believed that the Revolution
emerged from the cultural structures of the Old Regime that had become
strained as the French state became more centralised. Furet believed that
this was a political culture, which from the beginning was extremist and
non-pluralistic. There was no place for honest disagreement or debate and
only by exterminating the enemy could unanimity be achieved. It was on
these grounds that Furet justified the violence used by the Jacobins.

The other significant post-revisionist was Keith Baker. He downplays the

role of ideological movements like the Enlightenment and instead puts
forward a cultural interpretation. His vital contribution is the emphasis on
the importance of discourse as he feels that it’s more important to look at
the actual language used during this period, rather than focus on abstract
issues. He concluded his opinion by saying that it was the rise of a political
language, an outcome of rising political consciousness, which helped the
Origins of the French Revolution 10
people articulate their opinions and demands in a more constructive
manner. This, for Baker, was the most important pre-requisite for the
revolution. Baker argues that Louis XVI’s Paris was studded with cafes,
pubs etc where politics was an important topic of discussion. Baker draws
attention to this public space, where observation and criticism of the
monarch’s rule came from. This new concept, public opinion, laid the
ultimate principle authority for this nascent political culture, which created
an expectation for change and public anticipation. In addition to the public
opinion, the politically literate culture set the stage for the French
Revolution.

The essence of the post-revisionist school was that the French Revolution
could not be reduced to a by-product of class conflict or even friction
between interest groups. A new political culture emerged from the
dynamism between various interest groups vying for Revolutionary
legitimacy and this culture was a mortal struggle to decide which one
faction would interpret the people’s will.

The Revolution essentially began as a political movement by the

aristocratic classes, a struggle for the possession of power and over the
conditions in which power was to be exercised. But it paved the way for the
opening of a new political atmosphere within which new ideas and socio-
economic struggles were to grow. Popular participation, arising from socio-
economic grievances, won the political struggles that characterized the
Revolution in all its stages - the struggle between monarchy and
aristocracy, between the Third Estate and the aristocracy, between the
monarchy and the National Assembly, between Revolution and what was
perceived to be counter-revolution. Thus, an interplay between a complex
of factors – social, economic and ideological, all within a political
framework – led to the French Revolution.

Origins of the French Revolution 11