The French Revolution
Brent Stone
Historiography
September 25, 2021
In the process of writing a project that lasts for more than several hours, and the creative and cognitive juices are flowing, I find myself buoyed up by instituting a specific pattern that seems to guarantee my effectiveness and ability to be creative over long periods of time. Not long and for a while after I begin writing, I make certain that I am drinking water. Hours later I get hungry, and eating doesn't seem to cut down on progress too much. An hour or so after eating, coffee is in order. But as to the meal, what do I want? Well, there is something to be said about making an on-the-spot decision. The next step would be to drive over to a favored place nearby. Everyone is as friendly as could be, but they can't seem to find any menus or even any pictures of the food. I want to know what their version of what it is will look like and it lessens the appeal. Befuddled, apologetic and awkwardly gracious, the staff are at a loss to know how such a blunder occurred and they scurry around, looking everywhere for the misplaced menus. Then, they discover a menu in a piano seat. There in the menu is the meal I want. Now I know what is in it, what their version of it will look like and I have all the basic information up front. That is the point of this thesis statement. To give you a picture of what to expect and what is in this Historiography essay.
The subject is the French Revolution. The topic is the historiography of the French Revolution before, during and after the event, with some primary sources, yet mostly secondary sources being in the spotlight and under the microscope at one point or other. This will be a literary delineation and examination of those sources and the subsequent gaps that exist between them whether because they (secondary sources) originate within the timeframe of different historiographic trends or whether their biases render them partial because of how the events in question affected them. There will be two types of questions asked. One will be questions that guide our search. The others will be the questions we find ourselves asking when the gaps between the sources are significant enough to make us scratch our heads and investigate the widening wedge of why those gaps exist. From there, more exploratory questions or food for thought can be considered. This is the odd yet in-coincidental occurrence where question begets question. The guiding questions will lead to the gap questions. And as the French Revolution is the subject, it is a good place to start.
The renowned Greek teacher Socrates had an interesting approach to teaching his students which has beneficially trickled down to modern times. He would ask questions that were intended to cause people to think out of the box, so to speak. And questions that satiate curiosity yet also beget other questions are not only good food for thought, but sustenance to cognitive and rational consideration. And so, without further ado, we have some guiding questions to consider.
Why did the French Revolution happen? It would be well to spotlight some basic facts and events that led up to the French Revolution. It would also be a constructive use of time and space to consider the historiographic trend that immediately proceeded the French Revolution. So, two questions. “What Historiographic trend preceded and influenced the French Revolution?” “Why and how did the French Revolution occur?" At this point, there will be questions for the sake of questions in order to establish the issues at heart. Proceeding to the answers involves sources, primary, but mostly secondary. Therefore, our next point is about the sources themselves and we will start off with a circle of sources and their various interpretations. “What does a circle of sources have to say about the French Revolution?” What did Thomas Carlyle have to say about the French Revolution? What does William Doyle, a secondary source, have to say about the French Revolution? What about Edmund Burk, a primary source? What about James Mackintosh, another Primary source? What about David Andress, a secondary source? What does he have to say? The historians just mentioned are a few examples which will lead to examining more sources later and that will be a hearty sampling of what eminent historians, secondary and primary have had to say about the French Revolution.
Our understanding of sources in the context of the historiographic trends from which they originate is paramount. Our understanding of the French Revolution is in a large way due to the sources scattered from just before the French Revolution to our time. And yet, in studying those sources, it constitutes a very unprofessional undertaking if they are detached from the historiographic trends within the timeframe in which they originated. How can the sources be truly understood or discussed without any attempt at considering the historiographic trend from which they originated? “What historiographic trend did each source that is examined originate from?” This all-important point is like a microscope under which we will view our sources. And it will lead to our next consideration. How does looking at a circle of sources under the microscope of historiographic trends improve a scholar's ability to ask better questions? As each source contributes to our understanding of the French Revolution, it will go under the microscope of which trend influenced it. Of course, in a certain event, many sources may agree as to the veracity of, what in general, is stated to have happened, but the rule rather than the exception is that in the finer points, few interpretative sources will arrive at the same exact conclusion. What causes this?
As we proceed onward regarding the why and how of the French Revolution according to the sources, and as one source is cross referenced with another source, keeping the historiographic trend in focus, inevitable gaps will show up and those gaps will lead us to asking certain, as yet, unknown questions. As these gap questions accumulate, they can give us a view of the French Revolution that might not have been considered before. “How do gap questions cause us to consider the French Revolution differently than we did before?” Understanding why the French Revolution happened is about studying the sources. Therefore, the hope is that studying the sources will lead us to gap questions, and gap questions can help us understand the French Revolution in ways we might now have before. And exploring new territory is in part what a learning adventure is all about. So, what are the guiding questions we will start out with?
1. What Historiographic trend preceded and influenced the French Revolution?
2. Why and how did the French Revolution occur?
3. What do Primary and secondary sources have to say about the French Revolution?
What historiographic trend did each source that is examined originate from?
4. How do looking at the source trends improve a scholar's ability to ask better questions?
5. How do gap questions cause us to consider the French Revolution differently?
1. What Historiographic trend preceded and influenced the French Revolution?
Originally, this was going to be my second point. But as I thought about it, it made more sense to start out with the trend that immediately preceded the French Revolution. And of course, that Historiographic trend was the enlightenment. As a matter of course, my first two sources in the annotated Bibliography will be about the Enlightenment. It is interesting to note that some of the more prominent enlightenment thinkers happened to be Frenchmen such as Voltaire, Montesquieu as well as writers who wrote the French 'Encyclopedie' like Diderot, Rousseau and Condorcet.
How did the historiographic trend known as the Enlightenment effect and influence the French Revolution? It could be that the contrast of new, sensible ideas versus the poverty, hunger and ignominy that immediately preceded the French Revolution was too stark compared with the regime that showed no signs of caring about its poor people (which was about 95% of the population), improvement or ambition to better the lives of the common people. What would the contrast be between the logical enlightenment ideals, the superior situations of other poor people in other countries and the poor people of France who lived in relative squalor compared to the luxury of the nobility and the King? France was bankrupted after helping America and the poor commoners who were not to blame suffered the most. What ironic contrast or conclusion could they not help but draw a midst living in a country that arguably had more enlightenment thinkers than any other country? How would the enlightenment have painted a sad contrast for them in light of so many enlightenment thinkers being Frenchmen?
It would be well to start off with some basic factors and considerations that led to the rise of the Enlightenment. The way that people considered the world was beginning to change and this was true in religion, economics, trade, philosophy, science, social norms, education and the proliferation of knowledge in general. There was a lessening connection to catastrophic events having spiritual ramifications or that the latter was the cause thereof. There were advancements in astronomy and science such as Sir Issaac Newton's laws of gravity.
There was a definite development afoot in respect to the idea of abundance, increase and novelties emerging in Europe. Spices from the east. Coffee, chocolate and tobacco from the new world as well as new food crops such as corn and potatoes whose hearty natures were less susceptible to drought than some traditional crops in Europe. Amide the enlightenment it made sense to hope that suffering, war, famine, ignorance and starvation didn't have to be the norm more often than not. Europeans began to travel more and observe how other cultures solved social problems with an ease and cooperative nature that Europeans hadn't anticipated. It was seen that a lack of strict class order in countries outside of Europe tended to further their economic health. Thinkers like Montesquieu (1689-1755) criticized outmoded ways of life and wrote books detailing a natural and free way of living.
Montesquieu's writing portrayed people from other countries outside of Europe being shocked when they entered it, though of course, no country was perfect. The French aristocrats at that time were notoriously corrupt and Voltaire did not spare them in his denunciations of their treatment of the poor and he spent some time in the Bastille for it.
Voltaire encouraged honesty, openness, and inquisitiveness. Rousseau encouraged middle class values, hard work and practical education. Instead of only poring over the classics, he advocated young people learning about carpentry, masonry, and other skills. Enlightenment women began to institute in home get-togethers to hear about the latest ideas, books, and philosophers, and this would catch on and become known as 'salons' which would spread throughout Europe. The latest commodities and fashions were subjects of discussions at many of these salons. Rousseau believed that men should take off their wigs, high heels, corsets which men wore then, and be natural. It sounds like a good idea to me! There were many new texts available than had been in the past such as the 'French Encyclopedie'.
The elite no longer had a monopoly on high-end commodities such as cotton garments. Dialogue centering around such topics as the natural rights of man and how women should be regarded differently became more common. The 'French Encyclopedie', nurtured the spirit of information, invention and helped to further prosperity in Europe, but ironically, it may have not been as obvious in France.
There was the beginning of a rising animosity against religious intolerance and persecution. The enlightenment thinkers also bore down heavily on slavery and advocated for a decisive end to it. The Enlightenment favored free trade, individualism, and a free market. The pursuit of knowledge and reason was a driving force. “Dare to know,” a quote from Emmanuel Kant did not always guarantee that your life would be a peaceful one though being informed began to take on the dignity of a virtue.
The ideas of the enlightenment were certainly at odds with some of the French aristocracy whom as we mentioned were not spared Voltaire's fitting denunciations. France, along with other countries could not prevent a greater percentage of its populace from being more informed than before or from rightly supposing that they were entitled to more than what was in many cases grudgingly granted them in times past. And after the American Revolution when France was almost bankrupted, this knowledge and rational expectation was highlighted by shortages of food and a still, largely corrupt, unfeeling, and arrogant aristocracy. A series of unanticipated developments would lead to the French Revolution. In some unintended ways, the historiographic trend known as the enlightenment enabled and influenced the next, less pleasant historiographic trend. The French Revolution.
2. Why and how did the French Revolution occur?
(As a brief side note, considering that the why and how of the French Revolution is old news to the Professor, and not wanting the appetizer to be mistaken for the main course, it is up to the Professor to skip the appetizer consisting of five pages on the history of the French Revolution and head to the main course which would be the sources, their interpretation, and their respective historiographic trends. Cheerio.)
Victor Hugo said, “When dictatorship becomes a fact, Revolution becomes a right.” The French Revolution really began with the 1st world war. Historians might rightly say, “hold on there! The first world war began in 1915!” And technically they are correct. However, the war to which I am referring is known as the seven years' war that commenced in 1756 and it can be called a world war because the conflict in question was fought out around the world. To put it lightly, France lost badly. Two hundred thousand troops were lost, and France lost about a quarter of its gross domestic product. Finding that his country was deeply in debt, the King, not surprisingly named Louis, searching around for an avenue of revenue, set his sight on his nobles. They had been tax exempt for some time and as Voltaire would later say, they were highly corrupt.
These nobles had bought their offices and it took ten years for the King to try to push bills through parliament before they began paying taxes. However, Louis died five years later in the early 1770's. The nobles approached the new, nineteen-year-old king and asked him to exempt them once again from paying taxes and because he was young and impressionable, he agreed in what was perhaps a gesture of goodwill. But he was still in debt. Then his finance minister made a suggestion that would potentially help them recoup their losses from the seven years' war. At this time, the Americans were fighting the British for their independence and the suggestion was that France intervene on the American's side which, when America and France had won, Britain would be liable for war damages and financial reparations due to France. It was a risk that was not recognized in that the war that they assumed would be short-lived actually took eight years. They assumed that the war would be won before they had to pay interest. France lost again.
At this point France did not have money and its burgeoning population were starving due to bad harvests in the previous years. King Louis felt that his only recourse was to revert to taxing his nobles. In addition, he decided to tax all citizens at a rate of 5%. His nobles informed him that these solutions would require him to call the Estate General or a formal gathering of the three classes known as the 1st estate, the 2nd estate, and the 3rd estate. The third estate made up about 95% of France's population. The 2nd estate would have been the nobles and the 1st estate would have been the clergy. This had not happened in hundreds of years, and no one was certain about what should or should not be done. The issue was finances, but the minister of finance asked the King not long beforehand, “What do I do with this?” It was no secret that there was confusion about what was supposed to take place at this formal gathering at the palace of Versailles.
Amid the confusion, a priest wrote a pamphlet that espoused a suggestion that became quite popular. It proposed that each estate get one third of a vote. Initially, the third estate was not happy with the idea because they supposed that the 1st and 2nd estate would just outvote them when it came down to it. They felt that this did not truly constitute their having a voice. Because it was quite popular, the King, his nobles, and the clergy as well as the third estate agreed to meet at the palace of Versailles. After what to the third estate was an intelligible speech by the finance minister, the three estates separated into different rooms with no one informing the third estate as to what they were to do. They make some speeches and then asked the other two estates to join them and of course the nobility or the 2nd estate declined, but the 1st estate populated mostly by priests, but not bishops, joined the third estate after which they declared themselves the only legitimate estate in France. Thereafter they called themselves the national assembly. Stunned, the archbishops hurried off to the King to inform him of this, in their view, disturbing development. In what could later be called a two-dimensional solution, the King tells these clerics that he would produce the answer to the problem.
A few weeks later when the National Assembly came to Versailles to meet in one of the rooms, they were prevented by soldiers who informed them that they were not allowed to meet in Versailles again. They left Versailles and after walking about two blocks, they came to some tennis courts and it was here that they vowed not to break up, disband or give up until the King would be constrained by a constitution. On June 2nd, not long thereafter, the King's son died and while he was absent from politics, his wife, Mary Antoinette, initiated a meeting with the minister of war in a push to remove the minister of finance and advise that the national assembly should be stopped. Her words, at that point, were not without power. In the 1st week of July, the number of soldiers in Paris mushroomed from eight thousand to two hundred thousand. Naturally, all the citizens noticed, and not only were they scared and hungry, but it seemed like the hope of better things was sinking away. The concern with many was that anyone could become a target if they were not a distinguished member of the church or the nobility.
At this point, a number of common soldiers who had suffered through the previous paltry harvests began to feel that they had more in common with the actual citizens of the city, the common people. They got together and created a militia. On the twelfth of July, they created the National Guard and by an interesting coincidence, they made a man named Lafayette the leader of the guards. The national assembly and the national guard realized that they had to get weapons, so they appropriated guns from a type of retirement home for soldiers. But they had no powder, and there was only one place in Paris where it was stored and that was the Bastille. And so came the momentous day when the Bastille was stormed and destroyed.
When the King heard about it, he asked if it was a revolt, and he was informed by one of his advisors that it was a revolution. The king's first thought was to call out the army to put down the revolt, but something he had done earlier foiled this effort. For one thing he had made a rule that only nobles could be higher than captains, but where he really shot himself in the foot was, he had given his army a pay-cut not long before. As such it is not surprising that they were unsympathetic to the King or for the national debt. The knowledge of the strides that the national assembly was making was not confined to Paris and many peasants in the countryside were upset because there were pointed questions as to whether the national assembly represented them. The peasants refused to work. They broke into the houses of the nobility and burned any papers stating whatever debts they owed. The peasants in the countryside had stopped working and the amount of food production in the country plummeted.
As the anger of the peasants was felt, there was a suggestion by someone in the national assembly that they could be appeased if serfdom were done away with. The idea was a success and the peasants returned to work though bread shortages were still severe in large cities, particularly Paris. At this point Lafayette reminded those in the general assembly that a constitution which had been talked of at the tennis court oath, had still not been written yet, and with help from his friend, Thomas Jefferson, the rights of man and of the citizen were written. Initially a constitutional monarchy was agreed upon and regarding the veto powers granted to the King, the initial debate was whether to give him absolute veto control or conditional veto control. It was decided, to the disgust of some, that he would be given absolute veto control. This was viewed by some in the in the national assembly and many in the country to be a concession and a step backward progress-wise.
Around September 1789, the king and his nobles had thought to call in the Flanders regiment, a very elite regiment of soldiers to Paris, but the food situation had grown desperate and by October most of the citizens of Paris were starving. The women of Paris in a bid to feed their families marched twelve miles to the palace of Versailles. The national guard followed them because they were also very hungry and many of the women who were marching to Versailles were their mothers or wives. There were far more national guardsmen and women than there were guards for the king and the palace of Versailles. After those who had marched from Paris broke into the royal supplies of flour, the reluctant King, and his family as well as the royal guards who had not been killed, were taken to Paris, and kept in a smaller palace.
At this point in France, what had mostly been the third estate began to come to terms regarding where the ideas of the Revolution were going and the chief political party, the Jacobin began to emerge. But the national assembly had the same problem that the King had had. They were still in debt and like King Henry the VII of England, their solution was to squeeze the largest landholder in France which was unquestionably the church. After surviving an assassination attempt, the King decided to flee Paris with this family at night, but they were found out close to the border and taken back to Paris in ignominy. There was a lot of strife in the streets of Paris with citizens demanding change and with the national guard, the situation only became more tense.
In April of 1792, France invaded Austria and the rational of the national assembly was expected to make rapid strides according to what the people at large were demanding. The national assembly also decreed that any general who lost a battle would face execution immediately thereafter and as such, many of the generals, including Lafayette fled France and the war with Austria was a catastrophe since the generals had left. The Austrians had declared that if a hair of the King's head were harmed, Paris would be destroyed. With Austria on the verge of invading France, the general assumption was that the King was responsible, and all his personal guards were slaughtered, and the former King was taken into custody.
With the country in a turmoil, two men who despised each other, Maximilian Robespierre and a man name Danton made a rousing speech about the enemies of France and that the task of saving France was up to them. Days afterwards, the French were able to soundly defeat the Austrians in the battle of Valmy. The next day the monarchy was done away with and the more influential and numerous members of the national assembly, particularly the Jacobin's, voted to execute the king, which happened on January 31, 1793, after a short trial. The 1st republic of France was created, and a nine-member panel called the committee of public safety was created. At that point just after the King had been executed, most of the major powers of Europe declared war on France. The one member of the national assembly, Danton, who advocated suing for peace with the other nations of Europe was executed.
Thus began the Reign of terror in which three hundred thousand people were arrested on suspicion of treason and twenty-seven thousand people were executed as traitors to the republic whether they had committed treason or not. In the months of June and July 1794, Robespierre was absent from the national assembly due to a mental breakdown, over the number of people he had caused to be killed. The committee of public safety discussed stopping the executions and they began to question whether it was best if they alone held the reins of power. When Robespierre did return, he made a speech in the national assembly saying that some members of the committee of public safety had committed treason though he did not name names. But, each member of the CPS supposed, and not illogically, that their goose would be cooked if they did not do something. To prevent what may well have been their execution, they, in what is known as the Thermidorian Reaction on July 27, 1794, had Robespierre arrested and he was executed the next day. The national assembly drafted a constitution that would end the executions and stop the violence in the street. They created the directory and promised to prevent tyranny and bring democracy back to France. And this period and the events therein are known as the Historiographic trend of the French Revolution.
3. What do Primary and secondary sources have to say about the French Revolution?
What historiographic trend did each source that is examined originate from?
There are and have been many historians who have written about the French Revolution. Having said as much, examining secondary sources will take up the lions' share of this historiography paper. However, I am going to dedicate a little time and space to primary sources before I start on secondary sources.
Primary Sources:
One of the most prominent primary historians was perhaps Edmund Burk who lived from 1729 to 1797. He was known as a conservative political thinker who lived in the historiographic trend known at the Enlightenment. It is interesting to note that he, as an Englishman, supported the American Revolution but not the French Revolution. In a significant way, the American Revolution was influenced by economics. Their solutions were humane and reasonable. Such cannot be said when looking at the outcome of the French Revolution. Some interesting quotes give us an idea as to his sentiments both of Revolution and those who were involved.
“You will smile here at the consistency of those democratists who, when they are not on their guard, treat the humbler part of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the same time they pretend to make them the depositories of all power.”
In the excerpts I have read of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France, nowhere have I sensed any commendation of it. His disdain for the national assembly is obvious and in so many words he called them two-faced. From start to finish, the whole affair was, in the interpretation of Burke, a calamity. As a historian, his rendering of the French Revolution as history was an event of tragedy and loss. Edmund Burke wrote at the end of the historiographic trend known at as the Enlightenment and of course he wrote during the historiographic trend known as the French Revolution. Going from the Enlightenment trend to the French Revolutionary trend is like driving your car and seeing a pothole before you can avoid it. His incredulity and shock are hard to miss. His interpretation is not too surprising given how, at the onset, a generous percentage of enlightenment thinkers came from a country which could not conceive an era of such bloody barbarity.
His basic argument is that the nobility and what France had been as a nation and society, had not deserved the complete whitewashing it received and essentially that it was a blackspot on history.
“Not one drop of their blood have they shed in the cause of the country they have ruined. They have made no sacrifices to their projects of greater consequence than their shoe buckles, whilst they were imprisoning their king, murdering their fellow citizens, and bathing in tears and plunging in poverty and distress thousands of worthy men and worthy families.”
Another Primary source would be Thomas Paine who lived in France during some of the Revolution and in the heat of the terror. He belongs to the Historiographic trends known as the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Because some of the Jacobins believed that he was a royalist, he was arrested and for a short while, his situation was precarious even though he had sat in on and agreed with the trial verdict that had condemned the King. Had also contributed some to the writing of the rights of man (a different work than his book of the same title) suggested by Lafayette and partially written by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine did not have a polite opinion of people like George Washington and William Pitt. And people like John Adams held hard opinions of him too. Not surprisingly, he did leave France in1802 with disenchanted sentiments as to the Revolution. He had harsh words for Napoleon Bonaparte and was happy to return to America.
For a historian who put his life at risk and decided to frequent a country running over with blood and danger, and who hated very sensible people like Washington and Pitt, I am tempted to consider him more cavalier than careful. We could certainly say that he was a biased historian who risked life and limb for a government he did not discern as being taken over by crazed fanatics, and the historiographic trend in which he and other primary sources originated, the Enlightenment, may have blinded him. They were Frenchmen after all and the country in question was in part the cradle of the Enlightenment. A quote from the Rights of Man does help put things into perspective.
“When we survey the wrenched condition of mankind under the monarchical and hereditary system of government, dragged from his home by power, or driven by another and impoverished by taxes or than by enemies it becomes evident that this system is bad and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of the government is necessary.”
What is the flaw or weakness in his historical interpretation? One is that he assumes that corruption will be lessened simply by supposing that one manner of government would be less corrupt than the one that preceded it. In his defense, it had worked in America, but Europe was different. The King's government was corrupt and weak while the national assembly initially only seemed to gain strength. If you make the comparison in body counts, the national assembly and the Jacobins were arguably more corrupt and tyrannical than both the British and French monarchies.
Thomas Paine's basic argument in response to Edmund Burke was the French Revolution was merited even with bloodshed, tyranny, and loss of life. For myself, I am tempted to go with Edmund Burke who I believe was less biased since he as an Englishman did not condemn the American Revolution while he did attack the French Revolution. His rationale seems to have been lost to Paine.
James Mackintosh (1765-1832) wore more than a few hats occupation-wise, was a coffee enthusiast and was another Primary source who initially came out against Edmund Burke. It is surprising and yet in some ways anticipated that some intellectuals in Britain would admire the French Revolution, and James Mackintosh was, initially, unquestionably of this persuasion. Apart from Thomas Paine, some intellectuals admired the French Revolution from the safety of another country. His heart, it seems, was in the right place due to his being a founding member of a society against cruelty to animals. It is worth noting that he authored his book, as a response to Burke before the King lost his head and before the terror, and yet he had this to say about Burke in the introduction of his book.
“An abhorrence for abstract politics, a predilection for aristocracy, and a dread of innovation, have ever been among the most sacred articles of his public creed.”
Not exactly flattering, but again, his heart was in the right place, and he would later vindicate Burke after the horrors of the French Revolution were laid bare. This is shown in a series of lectures he gave between 1799 and 1800. The nature of his sentiments concerning his former views regarding the French Revolution are as follows:
“To profess publicly and unequivocally, that I abhor, adjure, and forever renounce the French Revolution, with all of its sanguinary history, its abominable principles, and forever execrable leaders. I hope that I shall be able to wipe off the disgrace of having been once betrayed into an approbation of that conspiracy against God and man, the greatest scourge of the world, and the chief stain upon human annals.”
Strong words! The beginning of the French Revolution set up in the open minds of many the perspective of a tyrant who deserved little mercy. In France, the age of the enlightenment was ending as few at the time suspected, and even less, except for those with far-reaching revenge in mind (perhaps Jean-Paul Marat for example), perceived the blood bath that was coming, and really, who wouldn't be taken by surprise at the seemingly innocent onset of a nation (after the manner of Dr. Hyde and Mr. Jeckel) taking seemingly innocent steps to liberty and modernity, a nation where many were desirous that the continuing bloom of the enlightenment would not wither. There was much to hope for in retrospect of a nation whose government, for centuries, had disregarded and abused the commoners and that had the trappings of an innocent march to freedom and prosperity? When the national assembly, early in the month of July 1789, declared to the surprise of the King that they were the only legitimate assembly in France, that was a warning to some.
Macintosh grew up in the historiographic trend of the enlightenment. To people who were hoping for the best, and for people with good intentions like James Mackintosh, this was not initially interpreted as a red flag, but a sign of progress. Initially, the argument of James Mackintosh was that the French Revolution was a wonderful sign of progress, and again, this was before Louie's death and the reign of terror. His initial sentiments of Burke were of a curmudgeon who had no love of progress or innovation.
The weaknesses of his book and argument, which was a rebuttal to Burke's attack on the French Revolution, was a basic lack of understanding the darker sides of human nature. A glaring lack that the Enlightenment could not shelter its adherents from. How power can corrupt, and how people who were enlightened and intelligent could at some point, at a whim, consign someone to the guillotine without a second thought. And when this was repeated to the tune of twenty-seven thousand people murdered, then Mackintosh's logical lament in his lectures between 1799 and 1800, made a lot of sense, and I have the impression that Mackintosh felt that how the French Revolution had turned out in retrospect of what he had initially hoped for was something of an unutterable betrayal.
Secondary Sources:
One of the most recent of secondary source would be, ‘The Terror,’ written in 2005 by David Andress, so there may not be much of a difference between the trends or interpretation of this reading with another reading that is a few years behind or ahead of it such as another book written by William Doyle entitled, ‘The French Revolution.’ As such, it makes sense to compare a newer secondary historical informative effort with another secondary source that is not exactly new.
Thomas Carlyle is of course a secondary source for the French Revolution since he was born not long afterwards though in a different country. Thomas Carlyle grew up mostly in the trend known as the historiographic trend of the industrial revolution and at the tail end of the enlightenment. Had he lived in France, he would have been born not long after the time Robespierre met his fate. Thomas Carlyle wrote history in a novel sort of way, emphasizing specific developments regarding super specific and notable people. He of course would have interpreted the French Revolution differently than anyone in the 20th or 19th century since he may have had access to living primary sources. Of course, his interpretation of the French Revolution would be different than those of more recent extraction. After having read some of Carlyle, his style reminds me of lengthy musical ballads without the music. A lament at one point and a censure at another, and a eulogy at another.
From what I have understood in what I have read, Thomas Carlyle does not have so much of a point to argue as an effort to be as comprehensive as possible in highlighting the major points of the French Revolution regarding the specific people. An effort to balance the minor and major points into one cohesive book. His grandparents, like Edmund Burke were shocked and horrified by the French Revolution, and from what I have read, Carlyle himself seemed slightly sympathetic to the yearnings of the French Revolution though not of its horrors.
Another Historian is William Doyle's who wrote 'Origins of the French Revolution.' He and Thomas Carlyle seem to be at the farther ends of the time spectrum from each other. What are the gaps between Doyle's book and Carlyle's? Thomas Carlyle authored his book in 1837. William Doyle authored his book in 1980. Carlyle wrote at a time when there were still some primary sources around, and of course William Doyle had nothing but secondary sources to use. Thomas Carlyle has one of the saddest faces I have ever seen. William Doyle has a cheerful expression.
William Doyle seems to zero in on the origins of the French Revolution while Carlyle, from what I have gleaned is more abstract though he does not ignore chronological or sequential order. So, the gap is quite wide between the two. What question, in the soon to be, future line of proverbial dominoes of questions does the gap bring up? What is the gap between the interpretation of Carlyle and Doyle? The gap, and a logical consideration is that the French Revolution, of course meant something different to each of them though it was the same event. So of course, they would interpret it differently, which is understood, and yet a question to come out of this is, what were their individual priorities? In Carlyle's, from what I have ascertained, a desire to lay a comprehensive record before later generations as to what happened. To Doyle, the question of why and how seems to be more important. And how does such a gap help us to understand the French Revolution in a way we might not have before? The answer might be that an enigmatic event, sensational in nature, seems to arrest the attention of everyone looking back with a still ringing curiosity. Yes! We know what happened! We even how, and yet the irony is that we still ask why. Did the respective trends that Carlyle and Doyle grew up in manage to change this?
Carlyle lived in the age or historiographic trend of the Industrial Revolution and Doyle lives in the post-modern historiographic trend. Have living in these respective trends seemed to have influenced them to be predisposed to view the French Revolution differently? Without question, and as to the specifics, the present time in which Doyle lives might predispose him to viewing the French Revolution with an air of morbid curiosity. But before we make that call, let us look at a quote of his.
“The vast majority of French people who were not destitute lived under constant threat of becoming so and were prepared to use violence to avoid such a fate. When they did, they terrified the narrow, secure social élites who in normal times dominated urban life and who never had to worry about the price of a four-pound loaf.”
Curiosity, as morbid as ever, still fumbles in the dark for answers even though in the proverbial sense, flashlights in abundance are available, but not every corner can be illuminated at the same time. I am reminded of the age-old tale of the six blind men and the elephant. Each blind man felt a different part and described it. Then each blind man told the other blind men that what they felt was not an accurate reflection of reality. But in the quote above, Doyle coming from a Historiographical trend within a period (post-modernism) when food is not a scarcity, shines a bright light, and for the moment it is as if someone switched on the lights and helps to satisfy in part the echoes of the word ‘why’, regarding the French Revolution. Carlyle coming from the trend of the Industrial Revolution in a time when machinery was in its infancy and a mystery to the vast majority, wanted to lay before whomever his readers might happen to be, a comprehensive explanation and record as to what had happened.
But what about other secondary sources? Were we to use only Carlyle and Doyle it would be like four people in a canoe going down rapids with only three paddles. Finding suitable books has not been difficult, but articles have been more of a challenge. I was going to use a source authored by someone named Jonah Walters, but it turned out to be from a website called Jacobin. I am not superstitious, but the obvious bias of the website debarred it from a serious prospect. Some of its other articles had unflattering things to say about capitalism. Capitalism has its’ faults, but it is not restrictive in nature and therein lies its superiority against communism and other ill-fated ideologies. Another secondary source (drumroll) would be David Andress who wrote ‘The Terror’. It would be helpful at this point to look a quote from the book, ‘The Terror.’
“To evoke another great phrase of the American revolutionary heritage — widely though inconclusively attributed to Thomas Jefferson — the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Such a phrase is merely trite, however, unless we consider its deeper implications. For the French revolutionaries, as for so many regimes that have succeeded them across the world up to the present day, the call for vigilance against enemies, both external and internal, was the first step on the road to the loss of liberty, and lives.”
His intent seems to reveal as much about the inner workings of the Jacobin’s and their connection to all the horror of the terror that followed the fall of the King. Numerous reviews of his book (with no proper citations) state that a chief point is that there were no great men in the French Revolution. The only exception would have been, in my opinion Lafayette who spent five years in a prison in Austria when he fled France after the national assembly declared that any general who lost a battle would be executed immediately thereafter. And I can think of no great men myself. From what I have read of it, (sadly not enough, but enough to make me want to read more) I have not been able to ascertain any weaknesses or biases. Perhaps when I have read the entire book my sentiments will change. David Andress was born in the, what might be called the sub-historiographical trend known as the space age (before 1975) but of course he has written in what might be called the post-modern or information age or historiographical trend and of course there is the question of gaps we went over between Carlyle and Doyle. So, what of gaps regarding David Andress and other historians?
4. How do looking at the source trends improve a scholar's ability to ask better questions?
5. How do gap questions cause us to consider the French Revolution differently than we did before?
We have already covered a little of the ground for points four and five, and yet we will continue. Of course, there are historians who have gone in the opposite direction as David Andress. In the Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Volume 51 of issue 1, on June 1st of 2020, Micah Alpaugh puts forward the ideas that the national assembly immediately after its creation really did have blameless intentions regarding its genuine desire to be a force of peace and progress. In a way that makes sense because as we mentioned earlier, as in the case of James Macintosh, many had no reason to suppose that they meant otherwise, and from where the enlightenment came from, it was only natural to hope that trajectory of the national assembly would only continue along similar paths of knowledge, liberty and peace. And that may well have been the case with many of the initial members of the national assembly. We could safely say that this was the intention of Lafeyette also. The intent and argument of Micah Alpaugh seems to be that there were genuine indications, that for a while, the national assembly was a force of good. There are a few weaknesses with this idea of course and they are, among other things, that the early state of the national assembly alarmed certain historians who may have been considered alarmists but who were very astute, such as Edmund Burke. And as the writer of this historiography essay, there was an action that the third estate exercised that raised a red flag in my own mind. That was the unilateral action, just after the priests of the 1st estate joined them and the nobility had turned them down, (not that they did not deserve to take their future into their own hands, or have a say about it,) but that after the nobility had turned down joining them and the priests joined them, they declared themselves to be the only lawful assembly in France. That was a bold, forward step (and not necessarily evil) in that the King and the Nobles were not really informed, but it was done in a manner that was in step with what the national assembly would do in the future. Either they realized exactly what they were doing, or it was an honest development that had not exactly been intended beforehand. Probably, there were people who would have fit into both categories, but so early on, how would they know who was motivated by what goal?
In this case, David Andress and Micah Alpaugh both come from the same Historiographic trend which would be, in my tenuous estimation, the post-modern or information age historiographical trend. If they had been born into very different historiological trends, then identifying a gap would be easier, but as their conclusions are quite different, we can at least consider some gaps. Perhaps attempting to identify a question without first a gap in reference to time is okay if a gap seems obvious. I can’t say for certain, but this is my first historiography essay, and I am learning. The first and the most obvious is that they are going in opposite directions. That is a significant gap in that Andress is delving deeply into just how corrupt and vicious the national assembly that nurtured the Jacobite's had become, and Alpaugh's, who in some respects, was sensible in considering the seemingly innocent and pure beginnings wherein the national assembly was born. So, these two are going in opposite directions...a gap. What questions can this gap cause us to ask? Could the different sections of the same event influence them differently to the extent of causing them to rationalize the most obvious solution to each section? Of course.
If you take Edmund Burke, then the gap between him and Alpaugh is vast. On the one hand Alpaugh is conjecturing with a completely different rationale than Edmund Burke. Why are their interpretations so different? The gap between them is not only the respective historiographical trend they originate from, but it is also a gap between different ideas of human nature. Burke, as I mentioned, was very astute. He saw the beginnings of what became the bloody French Revolution and while his attack on the French Revolution at first brought scorn from all directions, he was vindicated. On the one hand, I like what Alpaugh wrote about the innocent, hopeful beginning of the national assembly, and I can’t help but feel that in the end there is some measure of wishful thinking in there somewhere. This is only a theory of mine, but in modern times some people sometimes have the naïve inclination to suppose that the greatest tyrants of evil are behind us and that with all the modern and scientific breakthrough’s there can only be an upward trajectory of progress, discovery and peace and I for one would be happy for such a supposition to be what will happen. I do not consider myself to be a pessimist because there is almost always something to be cheerful about. Death is terrible, but if someone dies peacefully in their sleep after a happy life, what a better conclusion that if they got cancer or worse, dementia of some sort. Not to chase rabbits, it is my impression that one gap aside from the historiographic trend is Burke and Alpaugh’s view on human nature. I can’t help but conclude Burke’s is more accurate. The gap speaks to me of human nature and how fickle it is as well as why it is wise to astute like Burke rather than a little too trusting like Alpaugh. Both have their place of course and in my experience the former has been more beneficial.
And in musing on the topic of human nature, considering Andress and Mackintosh in the light of historiographic trends and gaps is an interesting undertaking because of the direction that Andress heads into and the conclusions that Mackintosh ends up making. Andress describes the very worst of the French Revolution and after the French Revolution Mackintosh has very decided and pointed things to say about the villainy of the French Revolution. It is not exactly apparent to me from the less than desired amount of what I read of Andrees' book, regarding what his views are about the depths to which human nature can sink, but it seems that Mackintosh was, later, in a morose way, all too aware of it.
Though they come from decidedly different historiographic trends, and there is a vast gap regarding the time that separated them, they seem, perhaps, to have the same similar views on human nature, perhaps because the same event was a lesson book to them both. The gap between the two, yet their seemingly correlating sentiments on human nature, one from a historical narrative on the vilest of the Jacobin atrocities and the other learning a hard lesson on betrayal and crushed expectations also speaks to me. “The ox is slow, but the earth is patient,’ so says an old Chinese proverb, but there is wisdom in not accepting something without asking relevant question and being astute. And sad to say, similar situational correlations like Burke and Andress are littered throughout history.
There are of course other authors who, like Micah Alpaugh, are putting forth non-traditional views as to the perspective with which Historians might reassess the French Revolution and its causes. Sarah Maza in the Journal of Modern History, Vol. 61, No. 4, in discussing politics, culture and the origin of the French Revolution believes that a reassessment is essential and imperative. Her argument seems to be that the old ways of doing things need to be reassessed. The weakness, as I see it, is that she seems to be putting too much stock in the new and dismissing the old without properly considering its value.
“Revisionist interpretations of the French Revolution and it causes no longer deserve that label. In the quarter of a century since Alfred Cobban published The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, the rejection of the Marxian categories and, in most cases, of any socioeconomic explanation of the upheaval that began in 1798 had become the new orthodoxy.”
Would a source that was newer have any light to shed on this idea? Sophia Rosenfeld, basically says in Journal of Social History, Volume 52, Issue 3 that new ideas of interpretation and cultural understanding of the French Revolution had been taking place. Without going deeply into the minute ramifications of her argument, her conclusion as to how the French Revolution can be understood is seen in the following quote.
“It was this convergence—of developments in theoretical and real-world politics, along with a moment of calendar-determined commemoration—that gave us the flowering of the cultural history of the French Revolution in the waning years of the twentieth century.”
In short, it seems to be Rosenthal's argument that there is a constructive connection between melding a new understanding of the French Revolution along with new avenues of comprehension and still a lingering dependence rather than putting away old methods and ways of understanding history. It is interesting to note that Thomas Carlyle also wrote history for his time in a manner that was something of a novelty. The way he expressed an interpretation of history was different from those before him and some historians may not have appreciated his style. Were Thomas Carlyle to see not only how differently history is being written, but how historical truth is being arrived at by methods mentioned by Sofia Rosenfield and Sarah Maza, it would be hard to know how he would react. But it is possible that he would find a kindred spirit in Nesha H. Webster who, unlike Maza, Rosenfield, Andress and Micah Alpaugh was not writing during space and later, the information age known as the Historiographic trend of post-modernism.
Nesha H. Webster wrote during the Historiographic trend known as the interwar right after Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany surrendered in 1919. This is another book which I have not read enough of but one that I want to read for myself. Having read some of reviews of her book, I nowhere got the impression that anyone had been sorry that they read it. Her argument seems to have been that the French Revolution was caused by a number of factors not all located in Paris, and that people of differing persuasions in different countries, including English Jacobins were involved. Because I have not read as much as I would like, I am not able to offer any rationalization of its weak points and its and strong points. I thought I would include a fitting quote from this book. While I have not determined any gaps in her work, it certainly merits further study and attention.
“When in all the history of the world until the present day has human nature shown itself so terrible and so sublime? And is not the fascination that amazing epoch has ever since exercised over the minds of men owing to the fact that the problems it held are still unsolved, that the same movements which originated with it are still at work amongst us?
4. How do looking at the source trends improve a scholar's ability to ask better questions?
5. How do gap questions cause us to consider the French Revolution differently than we did before?
The central question has been the how and the why of the French Revolution and we have attempted to ask this in several ways. Looking at the historiographic trend that immediately preceded the French Revolution has helped. It set the stage for our search. Delineating the major events of the French Revolution helped to put everything into perspective. And what primary and mostly secondary sources have had to say and what historiographic trend they came from was also on our literary hit list. How does looking at the sources and their historiological trends assist in a scholar’s ability to ask better questions? It helps because when the information coalesces, multiple factors combined with relevant information bring information along that is not complete, but it is more complete than the initial questions and therefore more informed questions can be asked.
Edmund Burk and Micah Alpaugh were from different historiographical trends. Like David Andrees, Burke’s reaction was the opposite of Micah Alpaugh. Why? The gap is time and a society in the present that could not, for Micah Alpaugh, render Burke’s interpretation as intellectually intelligible or relatable. Why? The answer that occurs to me is that Alpaugh’s interpretation renders the events of the early part of the FR as misinterpreted next to his presuppositions, which of course will not change facts. A common understanding that I had not considered before is lacking from Alpaugh’s reckoning. This would be the reaction of Europe. A sentiment of surprise. What surprise? A question resulting from a gap led to a new thought!
The French Revolution was underestimated and acerbated on all sides because the nature of its beginning and the subsequent events took everyone by surprise. The King and his finance minister were surprised when their idea of war reparations from Britain landed them even deeper in debt. The King, Archbishops and nobles were surprised by what giving a free hand to the third estate resulted in. The third estate was surprised when they no longer had access to the palace of Versailles. Burke was surprised and horrified at the early steps of the national assembly. James Mackintosh was surprised and angered by Edmund Burk’s attacks and then surprised at the ignominy of what the French Revolution resulted in. The King and his nobles were surprised and alarmed when they lost power. Burke seems to have been more alarmed than he was surprised. Europe was surprised and horrified when the King of France lost his head. France was surprised when they finally defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Valmy. Europe was surprised and of course horrified by the reign of terror. And to this day, the unintended sentiment of surprise at pretty much all the facets of the French Revolution still surprise us in a sensational way that is dark but still, though we know why, causes us to ask once again as informed people, why! And this could lead to other interesting subjects such as the nature of mam or the or
the ideal forms of government. However, If I write more, I will go
insane and I am certain my professor does not to read something so
dreadfully long, for which I apologize.
When I write my next Historiography essay, I will make certain to
choose as to narrow a topic as possible. The bright side is that I am
learning. Thank you.
Annotated Bibliography:
The Enlightenment: (Sources)
-Wilde, Robert. "A Beginner's Guide to the Enlightenment." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/a-beginners-guide-to-the-enlightenment-1221925 (accessed September 22, 2021).
-Dr. Mathew White, The Enlightenment, Discovering Literature: Restoration &18th Century, British Library, June 2018, accessed on September 22, 2021, available from: https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/the-enlightenment
The French Revolution:
Primary Sources:
1. Edmund Burke, “Reflections on the French Revolution,” 1790, Accessed September 25, 2021 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45683/page/n3/mode/2up
2. - Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man being an answer to Mr. Burk's attacks on the French Revolution, (London, W.T Sherwin, 1817), 242. https://archive.org/details/rightsofman00painiala
- Harry T. Dickinson, “Thomas Paine and the French Revolution”, c. 1789-1802, 321. by Carine Lounissi, (April 2019) accessed on September 29, 2021 (book review) file:///C:/Users/brent/AppData/LocalTem/Reviews_in_History__Thomas_Paine_and_the_French_Revolution_-_2019-04-12.pdf
3. - James Mackintosh, Defense of the French Revolution (long title abridged), (London, G.G.J. and J. Robinson, 1791) .399, https://archive.org/details/vindiciaegallic00unkngoog/page/n12/mode/2up
- Lional A. Mckensie, The French Revolution and English Parliamentary Reform: James Mackintosh and the Vindiciae Gallicae, JSTOR journal, (Spring 1981): Eighteenth-Century Studies Vol. 14, No.3, p.264, article https://www.jstor.org/stable/2738491
Secondary Sources:
4. Thomas Carlyle – The French Revolution: A History, (London, Chapman & Hall, 1837) 1268.
5. William Doyle - Origins of the French Revolution, (Oxford University Press, 1981) p.248
6. David Andress, The Terror (The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France), (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux 2005), .480 https://archive.org/details/terror00andr/page/n9/mode/2up
7. Micah Alpaugh; 1789: The French Revolution Begins. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2020; 51 (1): 142–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01530
8. Sarah Maza, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 61, No. 4, (Dec 1989), 704-723 (20 pages) Published by: The University of Chicago Press
9. Sophia Rosenfeld, The French Revolution in Cultural History, Journal of Social History, Volume 52, Issue 3, Spring 2019, Pages 555–565, https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shy078
10. Nesta H. Webster, The French Revolution, A Study in Democracy, (New York: E.P Dutton, 1919) .519 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220409/page/n5/mode/2up
11. Wilde, Robert. "8 Major Events in European History." ThoughtCo, Aug. 29, 2020, thoughtco.com/major-events-european-history-4140370. (Referenced frequently)
12. Editors, ThoughtCo. "The 12 Best Books on the French Revolution." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/books-the-french-revolution-1221137 (accessed September 26, 2021). (Referenced sporadically)
Peer-reviewed? ( ) - Scholarly? ( )
- What is the argument or intent? ~
- Use of sources ~
- Strengths and weaknesses? ~
- What historical context?
- What are the gaps or shortcomings that exist in secondary literature? ~
- How do these gaps merit further exploration? ~
- Which historiographical trend does this source fall into? ~
