Sri Venkateswara College

(University of Delhi)

History of Modern Europe

Assignment

Name – Harshit Yadav

Roll no – 0622026
Course – BA ( hons) History
Semester – 5th
Assignment Question:

What were the causes of the French Revolution? Highlight the Structure of
the French Society.

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 and the causes of the French Revolution should be
studied taking all these factors into consideration.

French society was traditionally divided into three distinct orders: the Clergy,
the Nobility, and the Third Estate. This division went beyond mere social
identity and had profound effects on the distribution of power, privileges, and
financial responsibilities. Although the clergy and the nobility made up only a
small fraction of the population, they wielded considerable authority, enjoyed
tax exemptions, controlled vast areas of land and also dominated the law-
making body or the parliament. Meanwhile, the Third Estate, representing
the majority of the people, shouldered the heavy burden of taxes and
economic struggles. By the late 18th century, these classes began to change,
losing their unified nature and becoming more diverse, which contributed to
the rising social unrest in France. The clergy in France was a semi-
independent group that actively participated in the political, social, and
economic aspects of the French society, justifying its role by claiming to offer
spiritual services through prayer and communication with God. They
benefited from privileges such as paying only a small share of their income
to the state, collecting tithe (one- tenth of the income), and owning 10
percent of France’s land. These advantages gave them substantial power
and influence in both religious and political matters. Within the clergy, There
was a sharp divide between the upper and lower clergy. The upper clergy,
closely connected with the nobility and monarchy, led luxurious lives and
held significant political influence. In contrast, the lower clergy, mostly made
up of rural priests from the Third Estate, were more numerous and played an
important role in the Revolution.

The French nobility, considered the "social elite," owned more than 25
percent of the land and enjoyed numerous privileges, such as legal
exemptions, rights of jurisdiction, and immunity from certain taxes like the
taille. They also held significant influence in the Parlements, which were
hereditary legal bodies. However, divisions within the nobility grew when
Louis XIV began the process of “ennoblement,” allowing merchants and
financiers to purchase positions of political power. Thus, the aristocracy,
which was initially based on blood, was now split between the noblesse de
robe, who gained their status through purchasing judicial offices, and the
noblesse de race, whose nobility stemmed from medieval times. By the end
of the 18th century, many nobles were facing financial difficulties. They were
officially barred from engaging in trade or professional work, relying solely on
their estates for income. However, inflation reduced the value of their fixed
Incomes, leading to increased expenses and reduced revenue. In response,
the King introduced policies aimed at easing the economic struggles of the
nobility. Though these measures favoured the nobility, they also created
sharp difference among old aristocracy, the upper middle class, and the
newly ennobled.

The Third Estate made up 96 percent of the French population and was a
highly varied group. It included the bourgeoisie, such as lawyers,
professionals, royal administrators, and financiers, as well as lower urban
classes like traders, labourers, domestic servants, and the unemployed.
These groups were particularly affected by rising food prices. The largest
segment of the Third Estate was the peasantry, whose main complaints
centered on the heavy taxes they had to pay, such as the tithe, taille, salt
tax, and excise, along with forced labour duties known as corvée. They also
opposed the spread of capitalism in rural areas, were against the enclosure
of land, and were suspicious of private property.

French society was therefore deeply complex and stratified. As the Third
Estate faced economic hardships, they became increasingly aware of the
stark inequalities in their society. Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality,
and popular sovereignty started to influence the educated bourgeoisie and
even some members of the nobility who sympathized with their plight. The
sharp contrast between the privileges of the elite and the struggles of the
common people fuelled anger and led to demands for reform and political
representation. This growing sense of injustice helped set the stage for the
revolutionary movement that was soon to follow.

The first phase of the French Revolution, as described by historian Georges

Lefebvre, was the aristocratic phase, marked by the intensification of the
longstanding political struggle between a centralizing monarchy and an
aristocracy resisting its influence. This conflict was triggered by an
immediate fiscal crisis, worsened by France’s involvement in the American
War of Independence, which added to the already reckless spending and
costly bureaucracy of the imperial court. As a result, France faced a massive
fiscal deficit of 112 million livres, not including interest. To address this
financial crisis, the government proposed radical reforms, including the
removal of the fiscal privileges enjoyed by the church and the nobility.

These reforms met fierce opposition from the privileged classes, particularly
the nobility, for whom exemption from taxes was a core aspect of their
identity. The nobles resisted through the parlement, framing their opposition
as a defence of noble privileges and an attack on royal tyranny. They argued
that only the Estates-General (the National Assembly), which had not
convened since 1614, had the authority to approve new taxes. With the
hidden aim of restoring their power in relation to the monarchy, they
demanded the Estates-General be convened. Under pressure, King Louis XVI
agreed, and elections were called in August 1788, raising hopes for liberal
and constitutional reforms. Many see this decision to summon the Estates-
General as a significant defeat for the monarchy.

In this context, Lefebvre argues that the Revolution was effectively initiated
by the aristocracy. However, a parallel revolution had already begun, as the
middle and lower classes joined forces to oppose both the monarchy and the
aristocracy, a development that the nobles neither intended nor anticipated.

Several Marxist historians, have interpreted the French Revolution as a class

conflict between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. They argued that under
the old regime, land ownership determined wealth and social status, but this
system became outdated with the rise of commerce, which empowered the
bourgeoisie both economically and numerically. The aristocracy, despite
retaining its privileged status, resented the growing influence of the
bourgeoisie and tried to maintain its traditional rights and privileges at the
expense of bourgeois interests. This led to the aristocratic reaction, as
previously described, in which the nobles’ refusal to allow necessary reforms
ultimately contributed to their downfall. Marxist historians thus viewed the
Revolution as a transition from feudalism to capitalism, driven by the Third
Estate’s struggle against the landowning nobility.

However, this view has been challenged by revisionist historians in recent

years. François Furet criticized this class-based interpretation, arguing that it
overemphasized the antagonism between the classes and ignored the
similarities between them. Furet, along with George Taylor and others,
contended that the nobility and bourgeoisie shared much in terms of
economic outlook, making them more alike than different. Taylor argued that
economically, the bourgeoisie and aristocracy were not distinct groups.
Additionally, some scholars have pointed out divisions within these classes
themselves, suggesting they could not have acted as unified groups. For
example, Cobban highlighted the lack of shared interests between bourgeois
professionals and those involved in trade.

As a result, many scholars now believe it may be inaccurate to interpret the

French Revolution purely as a class conflict. Instead, they see it more as a
clash rooted in differences of status. Colin Lucas reinforced this view by
pointing to the failure of the Estates-General, arguing that the bourgeoisie’s
dissatisfaction stemmed not from the nobles’ resistance to reform but from
the revival of social distinctions between nobles and non-nobles, distinctions
that had become outdated by that time.

The political success of the Third Estate was largely driven by widespread
popular pressure, including revolts and journées that erupted in both urban
and rural areas. The storming of the Bastille secured the survival of the
National Assembly, preventing its dissolution. Later that year, the march of
Parisian women to Versailles pressured Louis XVI to return to Paris and accept
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, solidifying the
Revolution. The fusion of these popular movements with the political
revolution played a critical role in the overall political struggle. However,
these movements operated with independent goals and were not mere
instruments of the revolutionary leadership, though the middle class helped
elevate political awareness.

Popular unrest was closely linked to economic conditions and tended to

escalate during times of economic crisis. Some scholars, therefore,
emphasize the economic roots of the revolution, although there is debate
over whether pre-revolutionary France was truly in economic decline. Jules
Michelet attributed the uprising to growing hardship among the people, while
Alexis de Tocqueville argued that 18th-century France was relatively
prosperous, with the peasantry owning about a third of the land. Ernest
Labrousse sought to reconcile these views by noting that while France
experienced economic growth from the 1730s to the 1770s, this progress
slowed in the decades leading up to the Revolution. The 1786 free trade
treaty with England, fiscal crisis, declining production, and the agrarian crisis
of the 1780s exacerbated these issues. Labrousse argued that the political
crisis coincided with high prices, falling wages, and mass unemployment,
helping to explain the intensity of popular violence, which stemmed from
widespread misery. The starving masses expressed their grievances through
bread riots and attacks on food convoys, bakers, millers, and speculators.

William Doyle builds on Labrousse’s argument by presenting a broader

interpretation of the Revolution’s origins. According to Doyle, the crisis
highlighted the weakness of France’s underdeveloped economy, which relied
heavily on a fragile agricultural sector. The inefficiencies in this sector
hindered broader economic development and led to widespread suffering.
Doyle concludes that if economic weakness was a key factor in triggering the
Revolution, then the absence of an agricultural revolution in France—similar
to the one in England—was a major reason for the events of 1789.

Criticism has emerged regarding the theory that economic conditions alone
led to the French Revolution. If economic hardship was sufficient to provoke
widespread violence, critics argue, why hadn’t similar uprisings occurred
during earlier periods of economic distress? This has led modern scholars to
reemphasize the political factors behind the Revolution, which had long been
overlooked by historians.

Scholars like Marcel Marion, Pierre Gaxotte, and Georges Lefebvre argued
that the downfall of the ancient régime was caused primarily by the actions
of the parlements and the aristocracy. They believed that while the king was
genuinely interested in reform, his efforts were obstructed by a nobility
determined to preserve its privileges. This resistance sparked a reaction
against the entire political system. Cobban suggested that the regime’s
collapse began with the dismissal of Chancellor Maupeou, who had
successfully restored monarchical authority. Cobban claimed that had
Maupeou been allowed more time to implement and sustain his reforms,
people might have appreciated the system, and there would have been no
demand to reinstate the parlements. However, Maupeou was removed
before these changes could take root.

Since the 1960s, however, historians have viewed the parlements more
sympathetically. J.H. Shennan argued that they acted as defenders of law
and the rights of commoners against the authoritarian crown. William Doyle
and Jean Egret contended that the monarchy was not only unwilling to
implement necessary reforms, but also failed to recognize the need for them.
Furthermore, they downplayed Maupeou’s accomplishments, arguing that his
reforms were limited, and after the restoration of the parlements, they posed
no significant threat to the crown. According to these scholars, the monarchy
fell not because of the strength of noble opposition, but because new social
groups lost confidence in the crown’s ability to manage their affairs. Some
scholars also argue that the removal of Calonne, who supported reforms and
the Third Estate, made the Revolution inevitable. Albert Goodwin, for
example, claimed that Calonne’s dismissal marked the removal of the last
person capable of preventing the collapse of the ancient régime, a sentiment
echoed by Egret.

The reputations of both Calonne and Necker, the latter often blamed for the
regime’s downfall, have also been questioned. Earlier views that Necker was
responsible for the monarchy’s financial crisis have been reconsidered. It is
now argued that Necker introduced radical financial reforms, which, if not
abandoned by Calonne, could have stabilized the monarchy’s finances.
Additionally, the severity of the financial crisis at the time may have been
overstated, with some suggesting that royal finances were in modest
surplus, as Necker claimed. This suggests that the political crisis resulted not
only from conflicts between the crown and the nobility, but also from internal
factionalism and ministerial rivalries at court. These divisions prevented the
implementation of reforms that might have averted the monarchy’s downfall.

The key question here Is to what extent the French Revolution and its
revolutionaries were influenced by the dominant intellectual movement of
the time—the Enlightenment—without oversimplifying the complexities of
either. Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau,
along with others, had their ideas widely circulated among the aristocracy
and the middle class. Terms such as citizen, nation, social contract, general
will, and the rights of man began entering common political discourse. The
political opening in 1789 encouraged the spread of liberal ideas associated
with the Enlightenment, particularly within political clubs. Political liberalism,
rationality, and the belief in natural, inalienable rights for all men—as well as
freedom of thought and expression—were embodied in the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and the Citizen. The secularization of politics, including the
removal of the Church from political life and the election of clerical posts, can
also be traced back to the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers, particularly
Voltaire.
Historians like Georges Lefebvre have argued that the Enlightenment
represented the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Its focus on utility, rationalism,
individualism, and merit reflected bourgeois values and grew in influence as
the bourgeoisie rose in the 18th century. Guy Chaussinand-Nogaret
emphasized that the nobility was also inspired by Enlightenment ideals,
despite being perceived as rigid and exclusive. He argued that the nobility
saw themselves as natural leaders of a regenerated nation, open to merit,
and were opposed to the old regime. They sought to create a liberal,
representative state that promoted enterprising individuals, and found
support for this vision in Montesquieu’s writings, which equated the second
estate with the nation. Denis Richet further suggested that both nobles and
bourgeois property owners found Enlightenment political theory a powerful
tool to challenge an increasingly oppressive and autocratic government.

However, scholars like Daniel Mornet believe that the ideas of the
Enlightenment did not directly cause the Revolution. While Enlightenment
ideals fostered a climate that encouraged demands for reform, Mornet
argued that this climate was not threatening enough to bring down the
regime on its own. Instead, he contended that political factors led to the
regime’s collapse, not ideology. Mornet also emphasized that while
Enlightenment writers were influential and expressed their views effectively,
they did not advocate for, nor plan, a revolution.

Feminist scholars highlight the crucial role of French women during the
Revolution. Before it began, upper-class women were politically active as
salon owners and courtiers, though they were often criticized as immoral and
blamed for societal decline. The revolutionary leadership, influenced by
patriarchal biases, promoted a masculine political culture that side-lined
women’s contributions. Revolutionary symbolism shifted to emphasize
strength and virility, depicting the nation as a family led by a “band of
brothers” in place of the paternal figure of the king. This shift complicated
the role of women in the new political order. Nonetheless, many women
resisted these gender restrictions. Early in the Revolution, several writers
advocated for feminism, demanding improved rights for women, including
better wages, education, and citizenship, through pamphlets. Some women
actively participated in protests, such as the October March of 1789.
Additionally, after the nationalization of the Church, some women sought to
reclaim their faith from revolutionary control. While most revolutionary
women came from urban areas, many rural women supported the counter-
revolutionary movement. In this way, women played diverse roles during the
Revolution.
In conclusion, the French Revolution was a complex event shaped by an
intricate interplay of socioeconomic, political, and intellectual forces. The
Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and secular
governance, undoubtedly influenced the revolutionaries, providing them with
a framework to challenge the established order. The ideas of figures like
Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau resonated with both the bourgeoisie
and sections of the nobility, contributing to the growing dissatisfaction with
the absolute monarchy and the privileges of the aristocracy and clergy.

However, it is clear that the Revolution cannot be solely attributed to

intellectual currents. The political crisis of the late 18 th century, worsened by
financial mismanagement, the resistance of the aristocracy to reforms, and
widespread economic hardship, played pivotal roles in triggering the collapse
of the ancient régime. Scholars like Daniel Mornet argue that while
Enlightenment ideals fostered a climate of reform, they did not directly incite
revolution, which was ultimately driven by political factors. At the same time,
feminist scholars remind us of the significant, though often overlooked, role
of women, whose political activism and demands for rights influenced
revolutionary discourse, despite the male-dominated political landscape.

The French Revolution was, therefore, not just a product of one class or
ideology, but the result of a confluence of diverse social groups, economic
pressures, and intellectual influences, all of which contributed to its
multifaceted and transformative nature. It remains a pivotal moment in
history that reshaped the political and social order in France and laid the
groundwork for modern concepts of democracy and human rights.

Bibliography:

1)Lefebvre, Georges; The French Revolution: From Its Origin To 1793;

Routledge classics, London; 1962.

2)Furet, Francois; Interpreting the French Revolution; Cambridge University

Press;1981.
3)Hampson, Norman; A Social History of the French Revolution; Routledge;
1963.

4)Kates, Gary; The French Revolution: Recent Debates and Controversies;

Routledge;1998.