UNIT-1

French Revolution
Syllabus-
a) Crisis of Ancien Regime and the Enlightenment
b) Phases of the French Revolution 1789-99
c) Social classes and emerging gender relations
d) Bonapartist State and Features of the first French Empire
e) Restoration of the old order, social and political currents in the early nineteenth
century, revolutions 1830s-1850s
FAQs
1. Ancien Regime- Causes
a) The financial crisis of the Ancien Regime was the immediate spark that set off the
French Revolution. Which broader factors within France contributed to the
Revolution?
b) Discuss the crisis of the Ancient Regime in France. In what way did it contribute
to the outbreak of the French Revolution?
c) What do you understand by the crisis of the Ancien regime? How did it lead to the
unfolding of the events of 1789?
d) In what ways did the social, political and economic changes in France between
1780-1795 represent a break from the Ancient Regime.
e) In what ways did the 18th century crisis lead to a collapse of the Ancien Regime in
France in 1789?
f) Explain how the foundations of the Ancien Regime were challenged and
undermined by enlightenment philosophers and writers.

2. Historiography
a) In what ways have revisionist historians questioned the Marxist understanding of
the French Revolution.
b) How have the recent writings changed our understanding of the French
Revolution.
c) How far have recent trends in the historiography of the French Revolution
transformed our understanding of the phenomenon?

3. Political culture
a) The French Revolution was more a revolution in the political culture than in the
relations between different social classes. How far is this a correct assessment?
b) How far the French Revolution successful in creating a new political culture? (x3)
c) The French Revolution forged new ideologies, rhetoric, symbols and practices,
creating a new political culture. Discuss

4. Napoleon
a) In what ways did Napoleon’s policies represent a continuity with or change from
the principles of the French Revolution.
 b) Did Napoleon betray the French Revolution or further its ideas? Discuss.
c) Napoleon has been both a destroyer and a saviour of the revolution. Explain.
d) Napoleon’s reforms created the basis for an authoritarian order in France. Discuss.
e) Critically examine Napoleon’s relationship with French Revolution.
f) Napoleon’s policies represented a violation of the principles of French Revolution.
Discuss.

5. 1848 Revolution
(CAUSES)
a) The Revolution of 1848 challenged the old order. Discuss
b) Emerging social and economic tensions in the early 19th century, contributed to
the course of events leading to the revolutions of 1848. Discuss.
c) Do you agree that the 1848 revolutions were the outcome of a conjunction of an
economic and political crisis in the mid-19th century.
(CONSEQUENCES)
d) Evaluate the 1848 revolutions in the light of their immediate and long term
consequences. (x2)
e) Account for the failure of the revolutions of 1848.
f) In short-run the revolutions of 1848 failed to achieve almost all their aims,
however it is clear that the revolutions were truly revolutionary. How far do you
agree with this assessment?
g) The revolutions of 1848 appeared to have been fought in vain, yet they were
certainly not without their consequences both in the immediate and the long term.
Discuss.
h) The period between 1815-1848 is traditionally characterized as one of
‘Restoration’ and ‘Reaction’. How far do you agree with this assessment?
i) Do you think the revolutions of 1848 can be called as the springtime of the people?

6. Social Classes, Women and Sans-cullotes

a) Elucidate the role played by different social groups in various stages of the French
revolution. Which groups in your estimation benefitted the most from the
revolutionary decade in France?
b) Nearly every step of the Revolution was incited and consolidated by the urban poor
and rural poor. How far do you agree?
c) Women and Sans Culottes played a major role in the French revolution but
benefited the least from it. Elucidate (x2)
d) Women played an important role in the French Revolution. Discuss. (x2)
ANCIENT REGIME-
Structure-
● Intro
● What was Ancien Regime? – The 3 Estates and the Social Order
● Crisis in 18th century-
a) Socio-economic crisis
b) Ideological and cultural crisis
c) Financial crisis
d) Political crisis
● Conclusion

Answer- The seizing of the Bastille fortress in Paris on 14th July, 1789 is often seen as the
beginning point the French Revolution. The French Revolution is one of the great turning-
points in history. It was a period of socio-political upheaval within which three regimes and
three constitutions were established and overthrown, finally drawing to a close with the
establishment of a monarchical dictatorship by Napoleon Bonaparte in end 1799. The
Revolution, arising from the conditions of eighteenth century France, occupies a position of
immense symbolic importance in marking the rupture between the “Old” (the ancien régime),
and the “New” French “nation”. It not only established new principles of politics and
democracy which continued to influence the European mind subsequently, but also provided
a new vocabulary of revolutionary action based on the principles of liberty, equality and
fraternity. However, in order to make sense of the events which transpired after 1789 in
France, it is first essential to analyse the historical factors which brought the Revolution
about. Prior to 1789, France was an Absolutist State, and Ancien Regime represents the last
stage of this state for various reasons. During the last years of the ancient regime there was
wide dissatisfaction at different levels of the society about the manner in which France was
being governed. In order to understand this crisis challenged the Ancien Regime, we must
first look at the social, political and economic conditions of France in the eighteenth century.
(ANCIEN REGIME) France, for the greater part of the 18th century, was ruled by an
absolutist monarchy. French Absolutist monarchs from the 15th century on, attempted a high
degree of political centralization through the introduction of five major institutions- codified
law, a permanent bureaucracy, national taxation, a standing army and a unified market.
Absolutism in France had reached its peak under Louis XIVth. The ideological basis of the
state was religious ideology alluding to the important role the church played in the Ancien
Regime. The monarchy ruled a society that was marked by great linguistic diversity and
regional cultural identities. The only basis of cultural unity across the state lay in the formal
adherence to Catholicism of around 98% of the population. In addition to this, France was
essentially a rural society in the 18th century, with 85% of its population living in villages and
practicing subsistence polyculture.
The formal social structure of France was characterized by contrasting privileges and status
of its Three Estates or orders- the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners/ menu people. The
first estate was constituted by the clergy who numbered a little over 100,000. The church had
an enormous influence and was a socially predominant institution. It was the largest owner of
landed property and collected ‘tithe’ but was exempt from any payments to the state. They
paid only a don gratuit (a voluntary tax), the amount fixed by the church. However, the clergy
was hardly a homogenous class, as the upper clergy came from the noble classes while the
lower clergy, in their social origin, belonged to the third estate. They had a paltry income and
could hardly make the ends meet. Therefore, they shared the grievances and the aspirations of
the third estate. The nobility represented the second estate, but here also there were
differences among their ranks- there were two types of nobles: the nobelesse d’epe΄e and the
nobelesse de robe, the former the old feudal aristocracy and the latter rising from bourgeois
ranks and elevated by the monarchy to aristocracy. There was a certain tension between the
two sets of aristocrats. Thus, financially many of them were unhappy. They also resented the
loss of old rights, particularly political and judicial privileges, which were suppressed by
Louis XIV. They were thus keen to take advantage of royal weakness to reassert their old
prerogatives and power. The third estate, on the other hand, made up the overwhelming
majority of the French people. They were denied any privilege, but had the obligation to pay
almost all the taxes. Again, it must be mentioned that it did not represent a homogenous
social class. The third estate included the richest bourgeois as well as the destitute, with the
majority being constituted by the peasantry.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRISIS-
This medieval social structure, towards the end of the 18th century, began to undergo a crisis.
According to Soboul and Lefebvre, the rise of the bourgeoise was an important factor which
contributed to social tensions of this period. Over the last few centuries, a section of the
bougeoise had acquired considerable wealth through trade and industry. Some of them
utilised this wealth to buy offices or even to acquire nobility. The rest resented the lack of
status, which was solely dependent on birth. There were also different types of bougeoise-
those who occupied the upper echelons were administrators or were associated with the world
of finance and commerce. There were also the professional classes and the intellectuals.
Small traders, owners of workshops, owners of small capital, rentiers etc. were also part of
this social group. There was also a rural branch of the bourgeoisie. While the upper segment
was aggrieved because of the denial of status and privilege, those in the lower ranks were
adversely affected by the economic crisis. Perhaps the most influential had been whom
Lefebvre calls the ‘impecunious men of talent’ who had imbibed the writings of the new
philosophes and saw the present structure as obsolete and ramshackle.
They looked forward to the establishment of a new order, which would be based on civic
equality and liberty. They not only successfully evolved an ideology, but were able to
disseminate it among the people at large through contacts with them in the coffee-houses,
pubs, on the streets and the political clubs which came up around the time the revolution
broke out. However, it has also been argued that the various occupational groups who made
up the bourgeoisie did not define themselves as members of a ‘class’ united across the
country and therefore, didn’t have any “class-consciousness” in its modern sense.
Nevertheless, it cant be denied that there was a conflict between the nobility and the
bourgeoise.
The rural France was also in crisis by the 1780s. From 1771-72, bad harvests led to an
inevitable increase in grain and bread prices which caused disturbances at several places. The
real economic crisis of the old regime began from 1775. Overproduction of wine caused
falling prices and low profits, and the depression of wine trade lasted seven to eight years.
From 1787 a major cereal crisis followed catastrophic hailstorms, harsh winter and drought.
The prices of grains and bread climbed between 50 and 100 percent. The rural crisis also had
repercussions on the industrial sector where sales began to fall, affecting production and
causing unemployment. The Franco-British trade treaty of 1786 made French workers
vulnerable as the import tariff of British products in France were reduced. The rural workers
were also battered by the trebling of rents on Church lands in the 1780s. The peasants
resented most the seigneurial dues they still had to pay. In the context of price rise, the
demand of the landlords became even more hateful. These payments included banalite,
champart, terrage, payage etc. However, they could no longer justify the seigneurial dues and
the whole system came to be seen as a cash racket. All this led to an escalation of conflict in
the countryside.
(INTELLECTUAL CRISIS)
At the same time, a series of intellectual challenges were also posed against the established
forms of politics and religion which the historians have called the Enlightenment. For Marxist
historians like Albert Soboul, the Enlightenment was a symptom of society in crisis and
represented the ideology of the bourgeoise. Though some of the most prominent philosophes
came from the nobility and the clerics, the major themes of the new philosophies were
targeted against royal absolutism and theocracy. Historians have debated the role of
'philosophers' (or philosophes in French) in' precipitating the French Revolution. An
important strand of thought and action in the years between 1789 and 184'8 was set by
Rousseau's Social Contract (1762) in which he wrote 'Man is born free but everywhere he is
in chains'. Though the philosophers did not advocate revolution, they furnished the rising
bourgeoisie and the entire nation with efficacious weapons in the revolutionary struggle with
a potentially revolutionary vocabulary. The ‘liberal’ ideas of the philosophers also unleashed
creativity in economic life- it was believed that encouraging agricultural ‘improvement’ and
economic freedom would create the economic wealth which would underpin the ‘progress’ of
civil liberties.
The enlightenment ideas also affected cultural changes in the society. In a regime of tight
censorship, underground trade of banned books, newsletters and magazines is indicative of
the new trends in social attitudes. The Swiss catalogues included an explosive mixture of
philosophy and obscenity. The subversive tone of these books and pamphlets was also
paralleled in popular songs, which instructed the general populace in the system of liberty.
The real significance of the Enlightenment was as a symptom of a crisis of authority and as
part of a wider political discourse. Well before 1789, the language of ‘citizen’, ‘nation’,
‘social contract’, and ‘general will’ was articulated across French society. Salons and clubs
also played a significant role in the spread of these ideas to the literate elite. At the onset of
revolution, salons and clubs became the rallying point of reform-minded deputies like
Mirabeau, Barnave, Robespierre, Petion, Duport and Sieyes.
(FINANCIAL + POLITICAL CRISIS)
At the same time, the royal state lurched into financial crisis after 1783 as a result of
Increasing costs of war, maintaining an expanding court and bureaucracy, and servicing a
massive debt. With a deficit of 112 million livres and the credit of government exhausted,
France faced national bankruptcy. The fiscal exemptions of the nobility and clergy was
becoming a matter of resentment. The Controller-General of Finance, Calonne, tried to
rationalize the tax structure through a new graduated land tax which would have undermined
the financial privileges of the aristocracy; but he failed in this attempt. Calonne had a limited
option as he could not depend on the Parlemont of Paris for approval because he expected
violent opposition from its members. The summoning of the Estates-General, would have
implied confession of state bankruptcy and would have rendered speedy action difficult. So
he recommended the calling of an Assembly of Notables. Initially, Calonne sought to
convince an assembly of 144 ‘Notables in February, 1787, but his proposals foundered on the
principle of ‘universal land-tax’ after which he was dismissed in April. This successor
Lomenie de Brienne also failed in convincing the Notables of similar proposals. 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
By 1789 after many failed attempts at financial reform, Louis was left with no option but to
summon the Estates Generals (Assembly of the three Estates) As pointed out by Thomas
Merriman, the summoning of the Estates Generals for the first time after 1614, placed Louis
XVIth in a major dilemma- either fixing the fiscal crisis by reducing the privileges of the
nobility (eg- exemption from taxes), yet in doing so without its approval, he could be accused
of despotism and loose support; or surrendering to the demands of the privileged classes in
return for imposing new taxes on the third estate, yet in doing so, Louis would be
compromising his own authority. The resolution of this dilemma with the summoning of the
Estates marked the first stage of the Revolution.
In the spring of 1789, people all over France were required to formulate proposals for the
reform of public life and to elect deputies to the Estates-General. The drawing up of these
cahiers de doléances in the context of subsistence crisis, political uncertainty, and fiscal chaos
was the decisive moment in the mass politicization of social friction. At least on the surface
level, the cahiers of all the three estates show a remarkable level of agreement. However, at
the same time, there were entrenched divisions too on several fundamental matters of social
order and political power. While the third estate advocated for encouragement of enterprise,
equality of taxation, liberal freedoms, and the ending of privilege, the nobility responded with
a utopian vision of a reinforced hierarchy of social orders and obligations, protection of noble
exemptions and renewed political autonomy.

Nevertheless, The Estates-General met on 5 May 1789 and matters came to head immediately
in the absence of any firm lead from the government. The government had doubled the seats
of the Third Estate because it represented the most populous segment of society. The Third
Estate suggested that instead of voting separately, the three estates should vote together in a
single body on the basis of one person one vote, but the nobility rejected these ideas.
Consequently the commoners walked out and voted itself a 'National Assembly' on 17 June
1789, calling themselves the true representatives of the people. King Louis the XVI did his
best to resist them, resulting in the incident of the ‘Tennis Court Oath’, but the Assembly
resolved to not disband till a Constitution was created. Upon gaining membership from the
other orders, the Assembly was renamed the Constituent Assembly on July 9 th 1789. The
political victory for the Third Estate was enforced by popular pressure, through revolts that
broke out in the towns and the countryside. The Fall of Bastille on July 14 saved the National
Assembly from dissolution and later in October, 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.

It must be noted here that it was not simply the economic crisis or political issues which
brought the people together. The main problem was the growing contradictions in French
society. A small percentage of total population enjoyed all the privileges while the bulk of the
people bore the entire fiscal or tax burden of the state and faced social discrimination. In
addition, the steady growth of middle classes (called the bourgeoisie) both in terms of wealth
and social status began to challenge the traditional order. Thus, it is safe to say that it was the
socio-economic, ideological, financial and political crisis of the Ancien Regime that
contributed significantly in the outbreak of the French Revolution.
Q. Analyse the causes for the outbreak of the French Revolution keeping in view the
historiography of the Revolution.
A National Revolution, brought about in a period so short, has had no parallel in the
History of the World: and though fatal to some, the lives that have been lost in this great
accomplishment, are, in point of numbers, inconsiderable.
The quoted lines are from a British newspaper published in July 1789 currently stored in the
British Library. These lines clearly gives us a sense of the unprecedented nature of events that
took place following the seizure of the Bastille fortress in Paris on 14th July, 1789. The
French revolution therefore has always been seen as a watershed event in the history of the
modern world. Although there were a few continuities from the Old regime, the revolution
effected major changes, like transition from feudalism, curtailment of clerical privileges,
establishment of a centralized government structure popularizing of the ideas of liberty,
equality and fraternity etc. The legacy of the achievements and failures of that period are still
with us and therefore the study of the revolution becomes significant to understand the course
of history after 1789.
An entry point into the study of French revolution can be to ask- Why did the revolution take
place in 1789? Was it a result of deep-seated long-term grievances that the people of Paris
rose in rebellion, or was it a consequence of the misgovernance of the immediate monarch
Louis XVI? Should the revolution be studied in the context of just the internal factors which
were at play during this time or is there a foreign context to this historic event as well?
History is replete with examples of dynastic changes as a result of popular discontent, but the
instances of collapse of an entire political and social system are very rare- French revolution
is one of them.
Historians, over many decades now, have dealt with the complexity of issues emanating from
the study of French revolution. Gary Kates too, in her book “The French Revolution:
Debates and Controversy”, infers that much of the problem with studying the French
revolution has to do with sorting through what others have said about it, i.e., the
historiography of this event. Various schools of historians have grappled with different
aspects of the revolution, like economic, social, intellectual, cultural and gender. While they
attribute different causes to it, most of the historians agree on the significance of this event.
Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine were the first to argue about the Revolution’s meaning
and since then, the debate on its nature has spilled over into neighbouring disciplines of
political scientists, philosophers, sociologists, literary critics, and art historians.
One well known interpretation of the revolution is the Marxist interpretation. This classic
view holds that the French revolution was actually a “bourgeoise revolution”, representing a
deeper shift from feudalism to capitalism. It was led by an alliance between the
bourgeoise elite and popular classes against the landowning nobility. This alliance
succeeded in 1789 but by 1791, there emerged a class conflict within the alliance, between
the capitalist bourgeoise and popular classes, which in turn produced an urban political
movement by the sans-cullotes. The Terror represented the pinnacle of the sans-cullotes
movement. Therefore, the French Revolution was fundamentally a class battle in which the
bourgeoisie gained control of the government, the sans-cullotes class was awakened, and the
aristocracy was eliminated.
Alphonse Aulard, who was given the first chair of the History of the French Revolution at
the Sorbonne by the Paris City Council, pioneered the Marxist perspective. In his writings, he
advocated for democratic republicanism and opposed the monarchy. He claimed that the
brutal uprisings of 1789 were brought on by the Ancien Regime's dictatorial practises.
Despite thinking that the Constitution of 1791 was a defective constitution that gave the
monarchy too much authority, he appreciated the bravery of the members of the Constituent
Assembly. He praised the efforts of Paris militant activists like George Danton in the
declaration of France’s first democratic republic based upon universal male suffrage. the
establishment of a republic under the National Convention marked the “zenith of the
Revolution”.
Albert Mathiez, on the other hand, challenged Aulard’s views by rejecting Danton as a
corrupt bourgeoise politician and by saying that The French revolution was a result of a class
conflict in which prospering bourgeoisie triumphed over both the established nobility
and the emerging proletariat. His Marxism was pragmatic, but he passionately defended
the Terror as Robespierre’s efforts to save France. According to Mathiez, Robespierre was a
democratic politician rather than a despotic leader. Mathiez also founded Société des Etudes
Robespierristes (Society of Robespierrist Studies), which published, among other things, the
scholarly journal Annales historiques de la révolution française.
Mathiez’s successors include Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul and Michel Vovelle, all of
whom combined the Sorbonne’s Chair of the History of the Revolution, and the editorship of
the Annales historiques, with a commitment to Marxism. Georges Lefebvre, in his book
‘The Coming of the French Revolution’, puts forward the view that French Revolution
originated with the rise of the bourgeoise which eventually toppled the aristocratic ruling
class in France. He divided the revolution into 4 stages- the Revolt of the Nobles or the
Aristocratic Revolution, the Bourgeois Revolution, the Popular Revolution and the
Peasant Revolution. He paid special emphasis on ordinary people and their responses to
revolutionary ideas, and said that all the classes united to get rid of absolutism. Following
WWII, Lefebvre’s work became the leading work of the Marxist school of thought on the
French Revolution.
According to Albert Soboul, a conflict emerged between the nobility and the bourgeoise
mainly because of two causes- political and economic. On the political front, the legal and
social inequality faced by the rising bourgeoise spurned the masses to revolt, while on the
economic front, the bourgeoise class found the old feudal system of production and
exchange to be incompatible with the expansion of its capitalist businesses. According to
Soboul, the masses involved themselves in the revolution and their actions proved to be
decisive in taking down the Old Regime and assuring the victory of the bourgeoisie. Michelle
Vovelle, on the other hand, emphasized on the inevitability of French Revolution. He
believed that the revolution began in the provinces and defined itself as it went along and
spread all over France.
There has been a total collapse of orthodox Marxist interpretation during the past twenty-five
years. An alternative school of scholars who argued that class struggle played little role in the
revolution were the Revisionist historians. Kates identifies two major trends within the
revisionist school which include- 1) Liberals and 2) Neo-conservatives. Liberals, or Whigs,
held the internal contradictions, which had ossified and paralyzed the Old regime, as the
primary cause for French Revolution. According to them, this revolution was necessary to
move France and Europe from a pre-modern to a modern society. The liberal approach
divides the revolution into two periods- a moderate and constructive early phase (1789-92)
and a more radical and violent period (1792-94). They explain away the excessive violence of
the Terror by noting the grave circumstances that led to its establishment: war, economic
dislocation, and counter revolution.
One of the forerunners of this movement was Alfred Cobban whose approach to interpret
French revolution was a direct reaction against Marxist historians. Cobban casted his doubts
on the leading role assigned to the bourgeoise class and noted that only 13% of the leaders
were merchants, manufacturers or financiers. He instead argued that it was a “social
revolution” led by “notables”, which included administrators, prosecutors, judges etc.
Cobban also felt that the Ancien Regime was so plagued with structural problems and
contradictions that nothing short of revolution would reform the country. However, due credit
is to be given to the clashes of 1789 and the achievements of Constituent assembly which
contributed in the development of a liberal political order. Apart from Cobban, George
Taylor made a significant contribution to the revisionist stockpile. Taylor held that French
revolution was a political contest for power. However, most historians didn’t agree with
Taylor and the view that the revolution began purely for political purposes.
The recent revisionism, however, has turned against its liberal foundations. Marked by the
ascendancy of Neo-conservationist ideas, this new school turned against the whole idea of
revolutionary change as itself. Since the early 1950s, Neo-conservative thinkers have had
their own pet history of French revolution. In his 1952 classic, The Origins of Totalitarian
Democracy, Jacob Talmon argued that the French state transformed into a "totalitarian
democracy" during the Terror because its social programmes were created to change every
citizen's life trajectory and usher in a secularised version of the messianic age. Through
Sieyes, Talmon was able to connect the concept of totalitarian democracy to a number of
significant Enlightenment figures, Rousseau being the most notable. He saw the Terror as
the essence of French revolution.
Francois Furet, another proponent of the neo-conservative school, restored the French
revolution to its political dimension and ignited a new interest in the cultural history of the
revolution by studying the ideological changes of the time which were taking place through
in small socializing places like cafes, salons, clubs and societies He also underlined
relationship of the Enlightenment to the French Revolution, discarding the theory of a
bourgeoise victory. According to Furet, the advanced democratic ideas of enlightenment
philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau became the ‘heart and soul’ of the French
Revolution. The revolution was based on a radical ideology of popular sovereignty which
justified any abuse of power as long as it was done in the name of the people. He argued that
from the very beginning, the state didn’t have any regard for the human rights and this
tendency culminated in the Terror, the pinnacle of dictatorship as well as democracy. Furet
also considered the early years of the revolution as a prologue and the Napoleonic wars as an
epilogue of the Terror. For Furet, the Terror was not an accidental phase of the revolution but
rather “characteristic of the entire revolution”. His attitude towards the revolutionary era is
profoundly conservative, but his scholarship furthered the collapse of Marxist historiography.
Simon Schama popularized Furet’s ideas in the United States.
Furet’s views were strongly supported by Keith Baker who highlighted the intellectual
causes of the revolution by tracing Rousseauian strands of Enlightenment political ideology
to revolutionary Jacobinism. He held Sieyes as responsible for interjecting Rousseauian
notions of national sovereignty into assembly’s debates. According to him, the Terror was an
outcome of Constituent Assembly’s repeated adoption of Rousseauian political principles. By
the 1989 bicentennial celebrations of the revolution, Neo-Conservative Revisionism had
clearly become the dominant interpretation of the historical establishment in England, France
and the United States.
The Neo-conservative position laid out by Furet and his colleagues was challenged by a
group of scholars whose shared set of attitudes may be together classified as Neo-Liberal.
These scholars take three broad positions- a) aristocracy should be seen as a distinct
political group with interests separate and opposing to those of commoners; b) the period of
Constituent Assembly must be seen as substantively different than the Jacobinism of Terror;
and c) the collective violence of Revolution’s early years was purposeful and necessary to the
establishment of a liberal and free state. The neo-liberals believe that the revolutionaries
successfully destroyed the Ancien Regime and therefore the revolution was not a failure. A
neo-liberal scholar, Colin Jones, has even gone to the extent of accepting that the revolution
marked a transition to capitalism. However, his views can’t be understood in a Marxist
context as neo-liberals define specific professions and occupations with varied social interests
rather than in terms of a homogenous group with political interests. But at the same time, as
Jones points out, though bourgeoise may not have existed as a separate group, large sections
of the ruling elite were influenced by bourgeoise interests.
Apart from the above-mentioned strands of scholarship, a recent trend in historiography of
French revolution has been a maturation of women’s and gender history. In the 1970s, the
pace was set towards a new history that used gender as a tool of analysis in the general
histories or document collections on the revolution. By 1979, a new research agenda was
established which pointed out that women participated in every major event in the revolution.
However, this new research was classified under ‘women’s history’ and was easily ignored.
In the recent times, there has been a shift in the research from identifying women as primary
subjects to exploring how gender might be used fruitfully as a tool of analysis. The major
focus of this research has been to understand the ways in which the revolution refashioned
the gender roles and vice versa.
Joan Scott in her “French Feminists and the Rights of ‘Man’: Olympe de Gouges’s
Declarations, has pointed out that the political debates of French revolution took into account
the physical traits of sex and skin colour in framing of the constitution and granting rights,
which is visible in the attribution of citizenship only to the white male subjects of the
country. Lynn Hunt, on the other hand, has discussed the hostility directed toward
aristocratic and revolutionary women who entered the political sphere. In a study from the
1980s, Hunt explored why the Jacobins replaced Marianne with Hercules as the
anthropomorphic symbol of the French nation. Hunt also demonstrates how attitudes towards
the French queen reveal much about the ways in which French revolutionary leaders hoped to
shape sexual roles in the new republic.
Joan Landes, has argued that the formal exclusion of women from political life of the French
revolution is a crucial aspect of scrutiny. There was a more pervasive gendering of the
public sphere during the revolution and the Old Regime was far more tolerant for public
women. Therefore, her research pointed out that the omission of women from Declaration of
rights of man and citizens was a reflection of an exclusively masculine public sphere rather
than merely a prejudicial oversight. Landes blamed this development on Jean-Jacques
Rousseau.
The feminist histories of French revolution were appropriated for Neo-conservative purposes
as the two schools shared two essential attitudes about French revolution-firstly, both groups
believed that the French revolution marked a step backwards for women’s rights.
Secondly, both gave credence to the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and it was his highly
contentious ideas that gave rise to new notions of “female domesticity”. While the post-
revisionists did analyse the discourse on gender equality and shared participation, they did
not come up with an ultimate theory of origins of French revolution.
Thus, as we have seen from the above-mentioned discussion, there have been diverse theories
about the causes of the French revolution by different schools of historians. While the
Marxist historians held class conflict to be the primary reason, the liberals believed that the
revolutionary spirit stemmed from the internal contradictions of the Old Regime. Neo-
conservatives like Furet explored the political and intellectual causes while on the other hand,
the neo-liberals sought an explanation in the cultural reasons. Gary Kates points out that the
first problem confronting any historian is deciding which document to investigate and what
questions to ask about it. Thus, an understanding of the historiography becomes important to
adopt a critical approach towards the existing sources. While much has been already written
about the French revolution, the debate about this monumental period still goes on in the
present times and the historiography keeps changing.
1848 Revolutions
(Causes)
The years from 1820 to 1848 were a tumultuous and decisive era in the history of Modern
Europe marked by a series of revolutionary political uprisings that affected most of Europe's
countries and regions. The rising Bourgeoisie class challenged the old monarchical
Reactionaries with their Liberal ideology. Ideologies such as Radicalism, Republicanism, and
Socialism began to make a foray. The worker consciousness of a class struggle between the
Proletariat and Bourgeoisie also began to emerge. In general the revolutions were limited in
their organisation, led by coalitions of the working classes and bourgeoisie that fell apart
rapidly, and led to tens of thousands of deaths. Significant social and cultural change resulted,
but minimal political change was instigated as the conservatism of the old regime survived-
Europe in 1870 was still governed by monarchs. The revolutions of 1848 have been
interpreted in various ways- some scholars describe it as a “romantic revolution”, others
present a rather darker version of a revolution led by “incompetent dilettantes, at worst
cowards and blowhards” while still others point to the failures of the revolutions and offer a
variety of explanations for the same. Nonetheless, in the recent times, there has been an
understanding that the revolutions were born from a conjunction of crucial economic,
political and socio-cultural alterations in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Recent historians research tends to view the 1848 revolutions in Europe as a result of a
number of radical ideas and long-term socioeconomic problems but before analysing these
factors it would be intelligent to briefly look at the immediate background to the period of our
discussion. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, after Napoleons era, European leaders worked
out strategies to reorganize Europe and create a stable balance of power. The Austrian
diplomat Metternich called several more gatherings to try and preserve the European
stability, but this wish for stability would remained futile because of the presence of a number
of dynamic forces working across Europe at the time. In Great Britain for instance, the
industrial revolution brought in wealth to the entrepreneurs and manufacturers and created a
Bourgeois class. Consequently there was a greater desire for power among the Bourgeois and
they developed a liberal ideology involving the idea of a free market. The middle class in
Germany and Italy also desired to unify states and believed that the government should take
the initiative to do so. In many countries this desired pace was not achieved as the rulers did
not share the same philosophy. It was not surprising how such a situation laid the ground for
a conflict. Thus, the years from 1815 to 1848 can be seen as a more subtle battle between
conflicting worldviews. On one hand we have the powerful members of the old regime, who
opposed changes of any kind and on the other hand we have the forces of change. The
struggle started in the form of small-scale revolutions in 1830 and gained full momentum by
1848, the year of the revolutions.
The second half of the year 1830 witnessed a wave of revolutions in France, Germany, Italy,
Switzerland, Belgium and Poland. These were primarily protest movements against the
rigidities and limitations of the policies adopted since. In France, after the elections of 1830, a
set of five ordinances were passed to dissolve the newly elected Chamber, called for new
elections and forbade any publications that were not authorised by the government. The
liberal politicians and journalists gathered to protest against and defy these measures. Bands
of students and workers collected in Paris, captured the city hall, raised the tricolour flag and
paraded in the boulevards. By the end of July, Charles X was forced to abdicate the throne.
The revolution was accepted with little resistance, constitutional monarchy was consolidated
in France and the revisions of the Charter reflected liberal ideals. Belgium felt the
repercussions of the July Revolutions of Paris. Here resentment was based on both liberal
oppositions as well as nationalist desires. After the compulsory unification in 1815, the
country was being run mainly by the Dutch officials and in the interests of the Dutch
minority. The victory of liberalism in France encouraged conservative Catholics and liberal
Belgians to revolt against the Dutch domination. Revolts broke out in provincial towns and
they took control. By October 4, Belgium proclaimed complete independence. Ripples of
revolt spread to the cantons of Switzerland which gained liberal constitutions under the
pressure of students, journalists and other small liberal groups and local revolts were seen in
the German confederation. In Italy, revolutions took a more rigorous form as secret societies
came into greater contact with liberals of France and Belgium and as movements like ‘Young
Italy’ encouraged greater unity. In Poland, revolution began in November 1830 and was led
by university students and secret societies. As a counterpart to the liberal revolutions in the
rest of Europe, the great parliamentary Reform Bill was passed in Britain in 1832. These
developments were almost a complete reversal of the Vienna Treaty of 1815.
Coming back to the factors which led to the 1848 revolutions, it is imperative to look at the
socio-economic conditions of Europe in the beginning of the 19th century. An economic
depression in Europe was affecting the continent all throughout the 1840s, but in 1848 it had
hit a breaking point. Three factors were fuelling an economic depression: population;
unemployment and food crisis. The rate at which the population increased at this time is
unprecedented- almost fourfold in a span of two centuries. Different patterns of population
growth were recorded in different countries. However, this increased population could not be
absorbed by industry and commerce as these sectors were unable to create sufficient
additional employment opportunities. This forced the excess population to compete in the
rural industry as agricultural labourers, empowering those who owned the scare resources. As
a result, the few wealthy people could force the wages down and rents and prices up while the
poor were obliged to accept the conditions of dependence which led their lives to extremes of
misery. In such circumstances, rural unrest became normal and took the form of various riots
and revolts in the 1840s.
Moreover, a subsistence crisis began with the potato famine of 1845. It must be noted that
around first half of the 19th century lower-class spent almost 2/3rd of their budget on
nourishment. This bulk of food purchase mainly consisted of grain products and potato’s
therefore rendering the budget of the population very sensitive to changes in the prices of
these goods. Around 1839, many regions of Europe saw harvest failure specially- Belgium,
Germany, Flanders, Ireland Scotland and France. Historians argue that it was mainly wheat
and potato which failed, causing unrest in the society. Historians like J. Mokyr and M.
Lachiver argue that this crisis was more severe in some regions than others. Regions like
Scotland and Ireland were dependent on single crop pattern of agriculture, and thus suffered
horribly from this catastrophe. potato blight led to the death of half a million people from
starvation or famine-related diseases. States like France and others witnessed a decline in the
support by Church accompanied by increase in taxes by the state.
Grain famines followed in 1846 and 1847, causing hardship for many people and mortal
danger for some. The harvest failure and potato blight were further magnified by slow and
expensive communication, inefficient diffusion of information, balancing regional and
international supplies, by panic buying on part of consumers and speculation by merchants.
As a result, most of the European regions during this period witnessed a substantial rise in the
food prices. The rise in prices not only threatened the living standards of the poor people but
also led to a decline in the demand of manufactured goods. This decline in demand resulted
in decline in production and thereby decline in employment in urban and rural industries.
Decline in the indigenous food production resulted in food imports, causing outflow of the
bullion. This contraction in credit caused liquidity crisis for many businessman making them
bankrupt and adding to the general air of insecurity.
Historians like Helge Berge, agree with the decline in food-crops but at the same time
propound that the main source of economic malaise was the crisis in the credit sector. Around
1840 the term ‘capitalism’ began to find a greater space in European economy, making credit
a key feature of the same. Thus, any crisis in the credit sector would cause crisis in other
economic sectors as well. In 1840s the main areas of investment were railways and industry,
as a result most of the landholders started investing in these emerging sectors. This led to an
overall decline in the gross investment in agriculture. Moreover, a huge chunk of land was
freed from agriculture and put to industrial use, lowering the total output from the land.
Personal loans and borrowings further increased the pressure on the credit system. Thus, the
whole mechanism of credit was crushed during 1840s, making it difficult for people to
sustain the lives.
Apart from this, the processes of Industrialisation and urbanisation had also started in Great
Britain and by 1815 they spread with increasing impetus eastward to Germany, Italy and
Russia. As a result of this, not only the middle classes increased in number and became the
prime movers of change, a new wage earning class also emerged at the same time. This new
working class exercised immense political power to be able to demand protection of their
rights. The government now got involved in the social and economic lives of the people as
the old conception of ruler and subject came to be replaced by ideas of state and citizen. The
decisive factor for the revolution appears to have been the aggravation of discontent within
the middle class group who demanded greater political power to be devolved down in the
form of votes, powerful legislatures, and a more restricted monarchy. The reforms demanded
by the middle class varied according to the situations of different regions, but in almost all
the cases, a lower middle class comprising mainly of shopkeepers and master artisans served
as a bridge, sharing both the concerns of the upper classes and the insecurities of the poor.
The reforms demanded by various groups were also manifested in ideological terms, apart
from riots and protests. The latter half of the 19 th century can also be described as the ‘age of
ideologies.’ Ideas such as liberalism, democracy, nationalism and socialism emerged during
this age and gathered popularity as alternatives to the current systems employed. Liberalism
emerged in response to the arbitrary suspension of rights such as with the July Ordinances in
France, the Carlsbad Decrees in Austria, and the abolishing of the 1812 constitution in Sicily.
The demands of the masses in these nations were largely expressed through Liberalism which
represented a desire for ‘modernisation’. Their objectives included the end of arbitrary
government through a reduction in the power of traditional institutions such as the monarchy
and church, a wider sharing of political power through parliamentary government, guarantees
of individual freedoms and the rule of law. Radicals argued for popular sovereignty and a
democratic political system. They also promoted republican governments instead of
monarchical institutions. Nationalism was the desire of a community and a sense of
belonging to a common homeland, experiences, history and culture. Nationalist feelings were
most vigorously stirred in Germany, Italy, Spain and Russia. Furthermore, the writings of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw socialism and communism gain great support from the
lower and working classes who saw the restrictions upon them and the status of the elite
profoundly unjust and set about looking for radical change. The growth of these ideologies
represented the politicisation of the popular discontent.
Thus, much of the tension leading up to the 1848 revolution can be understood as involving
the interaction between the new political ideas which ultimately stemmed from French
Revolution and the social structure and social conflicts which were present in the early
decades of the 19th century. The revolutions of 1848 first broke out in France. In the initial
phase, the Republicans kept control, vut they were soon divided between those who favoured
democratic programme and the social radicals who demanded help for workers and the poor.
The democratic programme had more support, so the provisional government concentrated on
political change: It abolished “all forms of monarchy,” all titles of nobility, and laws
restricting political activity. On the other hand, The German revolutions of 1848 centered on
three cities: Berlin, Vienna, and Frankfurt. In Berlin, liberal demonstrations led to the
building of barricades. King Frederick William IV sent the army into the streets and their
brutality made the liberal cause more popular. Within a few days he abolished censorship,
called elections for a new Diet (the United Land-tag), and promised a liberal constitution.
Frankfurt, on the other hand, became the home of German nationalism. Elections for the
Frankfurt Parliament took place across Germany in April 1848. More than eight hundred
members of this “parliament of professors” met in Frankfurt. It stripped the nobility of
privileges, opening the bureaucracy and the officer corps to commoners; it abolished the
pillory, branding, and other forms of corporal punishment; it proclaimed “The Fundamental
Rights of the German People”. A liberal revolution also occurred in Vienna in March 1848.
Here, after demonstrations for 3 days, the feeble minded emperor Ferdinand I promised press
freedom, a constitution, and an Austrian Parliament; he and the royal court then abandoned
Vienna to the liberals. The liberal revolutionaries achieved two lasting successes in Austria—
the abolition of serfdom and the granting of civil rights to Jews, who were allowed for the
first time tolive in the cities, enter the professions, and to marry freely. A number of other
revolutions also took place in other parts of Europe, but almost all of them were short lived
and the old social elites in Europe soon recovered from the disasters of the 1848 revolution.
Nevertheless, the revolution did leave crucial political legacies despite its failure.
Notwithstanding the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the above discussion makes it clear that
the revolutions were the outcome of a conjunction of an economic and political crisis in the
mid-19th century. In conclusion, it can be said that even though the victories of the
revolutions of 1848 were short lived (since they were suppressed by the state-led counter-
revolutions), they were significant accomplishments in their own right. The revolutions of
1848 opened up a new chapter in the history of modern Europe. It marked the beginning of
mass politics, popular demands for universal male suffrage and rights for women as well.
This period also witnessed the formation of different political groups - the moderates, radicals
and conservative. Lastly, it was during this period that the nationalist politics that shaped the
events of Europe in the subsequent years took birth.
Answer- CONSEQUENCES OF 1848 Revolutions
A series of republican uprisings against European monarchy took place in 1848. It
expanded to France, Italy, Germany, and the Austrian Empire. Hobsbawm refers to the
events of 1848 as the "springtime of the peoples" in "The Age of Capital," despite the fact
that all of the attempts ended in failure and repression, which was followed by widespread
liberal disappointment. He claims that the 1848 events gave rise to the working class, small
bourgeoisie, and impoverished. Despite widespread support, the 1848 revolutions were
unusually short-lived and had been put an end to by September of that year. It would
therefore not be totally accurate to claim that these revolutions were the "spring times of
the people." Revolutionaries failed to create new regimes; and the old powers returned to
the throne within a couple of years. Additionally, the European states emerged back
stronger than before, after the Revolutions of 1848.
The revolutionary outbreak first took place in capital cities, and from here it spread to
other urban centres and towns. The revolutionary outbreak in Paris was spontaneous. The
national electoral reform had planned to culminate in a mass banquet in the city, which was
banned by the government on the possibility of spreading disorder. This ban was accepted
by the liberal and moderate republicans, but the radicals called for a protest demonstration.
Marshal Bugeaud was instructed to suppress the movement. However, crushing the uprising
was very difficult, as the troops were not trained for street fighting, and became
demoralised easily due to lack of leadership. Therefore, in lack of government direction and
support of the National Guards, Bugeaud was forced to withdraw the forces. After several
scenes of great disorder and popular euphoria (June Days), a Provisional Government was
proclaimed at the Hotel-de- Ville made up of well-known parliamentarians and republican
journalists. The events in France caused great excitement in the rest of Europe and
encouraged holding of public meetings and demonstrations. A crisis was rapidly built up in
the Austrian empire, Habsburg Empire, Italy, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain.
Most of the changes made during the revolutions of 1848 did not survive for long. Demands
for political rights were made like universal male suffrage, constitutional governments,
press freedom, and increased public involvement in governance. Even though the
Revolutions of 1848 ultimately failed, they left behind many such crucial legacies. Most
academics concur that these revolutions were the catalyst for the rise of popular politics.
The time period is noteworthy because it witnessed the formation of a number of political
movements, including the conservatives, radicals, and moderates.
Conservatives have shown a readiness to acknowledge limited political rights while
maintaining control over governmental and military institutions due to their fear of social
groups' uprisings. Additionally, the authoritarian regime worked hard to regain control
through enhancing communications, education, etc. There were long-lasting effects on
attitudes from this brief but intense moment of turmoil. Numerous people's political
consciousness has been sparked. There was an explosion of political participation and
different ways of organisation- elections, petitions, demonstrations, public meetings and
newspapers. These concepts were further supported by the government's development
initiatives.
It is important to note that the accomplishment of the revolutionaries in terms of setting up
constitutional governments didn’t last long. The old social elites had soon recovered from
the demoralisation which they had undergone after the revolution. The counter-
revolutions carried out by the rulers, to suppress the revolutions, with the aid of the nobles
left parliaments and assemblies with little or no effective powers.
With the help of the counter revolutions by the states, the revolutions in most of the
countries ended with restorations of one kind or the other. While the states of Piedmont-
Savoy and Prussia retained their constitutional form of government, the Two Sicilies, the
Papal States and the Austrian Empire had restored their absolutist rule. In France, the June
insurrection led to repression. The conservative republicans introduced measures to restrict
the activities of political clubs. On 4 November, the constituent assembly approved a
constitution which avoided any commitment to the reforming measures. The retention of
manhood suffrage contributed to radical movements. Elections were to take place, where
Louis Napoleon emerged victorious. Republican leaders were sent into exile. Thus an
authoritarian regime was placed under Louis Napoleon.
In Austria, the Emperor replaced the Chancellor Prince Felix, who was in favour of bringing
reforms, by Franz Joseph, a supporter of the Old regime. On 7th March 1849, the parliament
was dissolved by the troops. This was followed by coming up of new constitution (with
provisions such as abolition of titles of nobility, reduction of church power and several
others) together with bill of rights which maintained the monarch's absolute right of veto
over all legislation, suppressed ministerial responsibility to parliament, restricted the
franchise, reduced Hungarian autonomy and strengthened the powers of the central
administration. This reactionary movement was reinforced by the work of the military
courts in the Italian provinces, and in Hungary where public floggings and hangings were
supposed to safeguard Austrian rule.
The consolidation of Austrian power had instant repercussions for Prussia who had only one
logical path to follow- the creation of a German state with the King of Prussia as its
executive head. In Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm tried to restore his authority, with the
appointment of Wrangel as military commander in Berlin and the return of troops to the
capital. Protest demonstrations in the provinces and calls for a tax strike had little impact.
On 5 December the assembly was dissolved finally, and a constitution was promulgated by
royal decree. In spite of the progress made by the counter-revolution, the elections held in
January 1849 secured only a small conservative majority, and were followed by the
introduction of a new electoral law on 30 May 1849, establishing a three class system in
which voters were placed according to the level of tax they paid in one of three electoral
colleges. Not surprisingly it welcomed the constitutional revisions published on 31 January
1850, which restored the king's absolute right of veto over legislation, granted extensive
authority to rule by decree, and eliminated the right of parliament to refuse to grant
taxation.
In Hungary, Austrian forces ended Kosuth’s powers with the support from Russian troops
that Czar Nicholas only happily sent to avoid any revolution in Russia’s vicinity. The Sicilian
revolt, first to break out in Europe in 1848, was crushed by English and French intervention.
Thus throughout Continental Europe the nature of politics had once again been
transformed, as the powers of elected assemblies were massively reduced, and
administrative and military repression directed at those who sought to protest.
Nonetheless, the revolution did leave crucial political legacies despite its failure. As far as the
impact of these revolutions on the politics of Europe is concerned, as J. Merriman points out,
European states had become even stronger after the Revolutions of 1848. Even though the
state machinery of repression was kept well-oiled, certain concessions were made as well. It
has been pointed out by scholars that these revolutions inaugurated the trend of mass politics
and popular demands were made for for universal male suffrage and rights for women as
well. This period also witnessed the formation of different political groups - the moderates,
radicals and conservatives. In addition to this, the revolutions of 1848 marked the first time
workers put forward organized demands for political rights.
The revolutions of 1848 are also considered to form the backdrop against which the
sentiments of Nationalism had emerged. Thus, Nationalism, although far less intense during
the course of the revolutions of 1848, was a development which gained growing importance
in the German and Italian States. Roger Price asserts that the wars of the second half of the
19th century were themselves a legacy of 1848. The most significant legacy of the
revolutions of 1848 was the end of the ancient regime. The abolition of serfdom, the feudal
system and other seigneurial institutions relieved the peasantry of their obligations towards
lords. Lastly, as an outcome of these revolutions, there was a stimulation of the political
awareness of the general masses. More people were now beginning to see the relevance of
politics in their daily lives. There was an explosion of political participation and different
ways of organization- elections, petitions, demonstrations, public meetings and newspapers.
In these respects, the diverse institutions and policies that the modern state follows in varying
combinations too are a legacy left behind by the revolutions of 1848.
Thus, The upheavals of 1848 held a unique place in the history of European revolutions and
had a lasting impact on the centuries that followed. In conclusion, it can be claimed that even
if the wins of the 1848 revolutions were fleeting (as they were put down by counter-
revolutions headed by the state), they were nevertheless noteworthy achievements in and of
themselves. With these revolutions, serfdom, feudal system and other seigneurial
institutions came to an end. A new period of mass politics, nationalism, and the creation
of contemporary political ideas and organisations began in the history of modern
Europe. Nationalism, socialism, free trade, democracy, human rights, the right to vote
and be elected, press freedom, and other concepts and practices that are influencing
modern political thought were established during the 1848 revolution.
Answer- POLITICAL CULTURE

The French social order was based on privilege and corporation wherein the First Estate
(Clergy) and the Second Estate (Nobility) enjoyed status, wealth, exemption from taxes
(except some minor dues) and the Third Estate (Commoners- from beggars to bourgeoisie)
bore the burden of the first two estates and of the monarchy as they extracted various direct
and indirect taxes from them. Marxist historians saw the French revolution as a class struggle
led by an alliance between bourgeois (merchants, financiers) and popular classes in which
one class was destroyed (the nobility), one class was awakened (the sans-culottes), and one
class won control of the state (the bourgeoisie). But this was challenged by historians like
Alfred Cobban and Elizabeth Eisenstein. Cobban suggested that within the third estate, in
the Estates General, only 13 per cent were merchants, manufacturers or financiers. The
majority came from the ranks of local, petty public officials and thus suggested that the
revolution was not led by bourgeoisie. David Gairoch believes that there was no Parisian
bourgeoisie in the 18th century which means that the individual bourgeois did not define
themselves as part of a ‘class’ with common interests and perceptions. At that time
bourgeoisie were defined by what they were not or the term bourgeoise was used in a
disapproving manner. There was no self conscious class of bourgeoisie. Sarah Maza argues
that the French of the eighteenth century did not think of their society as being led by a
middle class in the modern sense (as defined by wealth) and that is problematic to assign a
causal role to the bourgeoisie that their contemporaries didn’t recognise.

Scholars like Lynn Hunt have kept aside the question of economic and social origin and have
tried to understand the nature and origin of the revolution through the lens of political
culture and look at the role of symbols, language and ritual in “transmitting a tradition of
revolutionary action.” Since for her, the basic feature of the French revolution was its break
from the past which questioned all customs, traditions and ways of life, national
regeneration would only come about by casting people into a republican mold.

Now, politics was not only limited to ministers, parliaments, constitution or govt, but became
an instrument for reshaping human nature by making citizens out of subjects, free men out of
slaves and republicans out of the oppressed. What is important is that with revolutionary
discourse taking over royalty, the politics didn’t take place in a restricted sphere, it invaded
everyday life as well or in other words- the power got decentralised. This opened multiple
spheres through which power could be exercised and therefore brought every aspect of life
into the republican mould. Words associated with old regime like privilege, aristocracy were
becoming a taboo. Revolutionary rhetoric was an instrument of attack on the old society. The
invention of the ancien regime by the new rhetoric divided the French society into a new
nation and an old regime and marked a boundary between the two absolutes. According to
Francois Furet, power was not located in any class or institution but to speak for the ‘general
will.’ Moreover, since there was absence of any common law tradition, sacred text or
reference, speaking and naming became the source of significance. Language was becoming
a way of persuasion to reconstruct the social and political world.
Moreover, with Salons, Masonic lodges and printed material like pamphlets, newspapers, the
spaces of exchange and the public sphere itself expanded. Remarkable was the trade in
banned books which mixed enlightenment ideas (rationality, citizen, nation, public opinion)
with pornography targeted at royalty, nobility and clergy and reducing their reputation with
the 3rd estate. This was widely spread in areas like Paris with high literacy rate. Roger
Chartier has argued further that the diffusion of ideas is not a simple process and the 18th
century readers did not simply absorb ideas they read in an uncritical or unquestioning
manner, but rather interpreted what they read in terms of their own beliefs and experiences.
For Robert Darnton, the most important of these ideas was that the monarchy had
degenerated into despotism, but while this idea did not case the Revolution, its acceptance by
a large number of French subjects made them more sympathetic to an anti-monarchical
position when the revolutionary situation came about.
Even songs, calendar, themes of theatre were experiencing a change, all driven towards a
reconstruction of French political culture. The patriotic altar, liberty trees, cockade, fences,
decrees were incorporated into official ceremonies and festivals which symbolised new
forms of political power. The revolutionary oath of loyalty was an important ritual which
symbolised the change from authority of kings to a national sovereignty.
Another important aspect is the use of symbolic expression- costumes, posters, colours,
playing cards, adornments which were not only expressions of revolutionary sentiment but
also of the identification and position of the revolutionaries. Hunt says that symbols and
signs are not metaphors of power but they are power in themselves as they form the source
of legitimacy for a government. Hence, bringing down the existing government requires
creation of new political symbols to convey the principles of the new government. One such
symbolic expression was the Roman goddess of liberty which symbolized the replacement of
the king as the “central symbol of French government and its legitimacy.” Hunt suggests that
revolutionaries could have only won their symbolic battles if they are provided with
education as it will help in their integration within the revolutionary state. The national
government demanded regular reports, information from their agents to keep in touch with
the public opinion. For her, this change in social practice along with the change in
symbolism did not originate in the Old Regime but due to the popular practices. Another way
of incorporating the masses into the republican fold was to have a revolutionary dress. After
5th July 1792, all men had to wear the tricolor cockade which represented social equality and
the end of political discrepancies. It became a ‘national civil uniform.’
Lynn Hunt very significantly highlights the replacement of Marianne (who was the symbol of
liberty) with Hercules which holds a symbolic meaning. Marianne was important but
represented a moment in the revolution which has now passed. On the other hand, Hercules
represented a higher stage in the development of the revolution characterised by radical
discourse and aspirations and force during the terror and an attempt by the revolutionaries to
reconstruct the society where the people were monumental. Another important construction
is that through the masculinity of Hercules, the deputies established their identity as a band
of brothers who replaced the father king and overshadowed the females who were becoming
too active in politics. It also came to represent the strength, action and labor of the sans-
culottes who, unlike the leisured class, worked with hand and wore knee breeches. As the
figure evolved from representing terror to sans-culottes to paternal figure, it shows that not
only the revolutionaries but the symbols representing them evolved too.
The political culture was also made by the new political class that was coming up which
included not only the revolutionary leaders but also the provincials who joined political
clubs, held revolutionary offices, made speeches etc. The space created by the absence of a
royal power was used by the revolutionaries to reconstruct French nationalism, a
decentralized political structure through the use of symbols, imagery, language etc. These
constructed a republican political tradition upon which the democratic republicanism of the
modern world was based.
Hunt therefore suggests that neither the Marxist terms like class were the structuring
principles in the revolutionary rhetoric nor was the discourse of the revolution constructed by
a class in a Marxist sense. It can rather be called a “language of class struggle without class.”
Hunt also noted that while the political culture of the revolution derived its coherence from
ideas and symbols, it also focused its unity in the new political class. This class was fairly
varied, and moreover its composition kept changing, which changes were then echoed in
political culture. Yet, says Hunt, the very diversity of their backgrounds would have made the
appeal of a uniform political culture even greater; furthermore, despite differences of
backgrounds, these new political leaders shared certain cultural experiences, their youth, their
political inexperience, and later, their political experience gave them a unity of vision and
ideas.

Hunt also notes that the crucial difference between France of the old regime and France at the
turn of the 19th century was in terms of political culture. Thus, Napoleon was not King as
Louix XVI had been, for he ruled in the name of the people. He was of humble origins, and
had earned his political clout. Moreover, on assuming power, he claimed to eradicate
partisanship, which had been a constant theme of the Revolution. Thus, says Hunt, the
Revolution made it unthinkable to have a King without an assembly, and made Revolution in
itself a continuous fact of public life. Finally, in terms of the place accorded to women in
public life, the French Revolution was very different from the Ancien Regime, where, as Joan
Landes notes, women occupied positions of public importance, though in a limited way.
ANSWER- WOMEN

Revolutions happen as a reaction by the oppressed and subjugated class

against the privileged oppressor. No Revolution occurs in isolation
implying that every class inflicted with injustice finds a space to voice its
concerns later to be printed on the pages of history. The French
Revolution was no such exception as it accorded space to women who
were considered “passive citizens” having no political rights in the
French society of the 18th century. This paper makes an attempt to trace
the women revolutionaries of French society known for their remarkable
defiance of a system riddled with male hegemony and class conflict.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his book Emile, described his vision of an ideal

education for women. Women should take an active role in the family, he
insisted, by breast-feeding and educating their children, but they should
not venture to take active positions outside the home. He advocated
greater independence and autonomy for male children and emphasized
the importance of mothers in bringing up children. Women’s role in
politics was perceived with hostility and suspicion. they were believed to
corrupt political virtue and thus they were denied political rights. It is in
this social milieu that women entered the phase of French Revolution.

The Revolution was started by the newly emerged middle class belonging
to the urban lower orders and it was the women of this class who were at
the forefront of protests demanding economic as well as political rights.
In cities like Paris, to promote education and political awareness, women
members were admitted in popular societies and clubs. During the
October Days, the role of women was decisive. A group of 800-2000
women ransacked Hotel de Ville and marched to Versailles with arms and
ammunition in order to force the King to acquire adequate grain supply
for the city. The march was a success, and credit was given entirely to
the women. Although women were denied the formal rights of active
citizens, they learned how to become de facto citizens.

Olympe de Gouges launched a universal alarm to all women to fight for

their own rights in the published Declaration of Human Rights and the
Woman Citizen: ‘Women, wake up; the tocsin of reason sounds
throughout the universe; recognise your rights’. Madame Roland,
another famous activist focused on other aspects of the government, but
was a feminist by virtue of the fact that she was a woman working to
influence the world. Her personal letters to leaders of the Revolution
influenced policy; in addition, she often hosted political gatherings of the
Brissotins, a political group which allowed women to join. Other thinkers,
like the conservative Edmund Burke, maintained that the Revolution was
the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the
masses into subverting the old order—a claim rooted in the belief that
the revolutionaries had no legitimate complaints. Other
historians,influenced by Marxist thinking, have emphasised the
importance of the peasants and the urban workers in presenting the
Revolution as a gigantic class struggle.

Tony Cliff categorized women into three camps according to their class:
Women of the nobility, bourgeois feminists, and women of the property
less class (the bras nus) each group having different demands vis-vis the
revolution. The noblewomen were not supported by their husbands
thereby remaining passive throughout the revolution. It was the
bourgeois women like Girondine Théroigne de Méricourt who demanded
political, marital, legal rights and education. Addressing Queen Marie
Antoinette, Olympe de Gouges, a bourgeoise feminist and political writer,
composed the Declaration of the Rights of Women (modelled on the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen), wherein she mentioned
that women are human beings who are equal to men in terms of natural
rights. In July 1790, a leading intellectual and aristocrat, Marie-Jean
Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet, published a newspaper article in support
of full political rights for women. He argued that France's millions of
women should enjoy equal political rights with men. A small band of
proponents of women's rights soon took shape in the circles around
Condorcet. They met in a group called the Cercle Social (social circle),
which launched a campaign for women's rights in 1790–91. One of their
most active members in the area of women's rights was the Dutch woman
Etta Palm d'Aelders who denounced the prejudices against women that
denied them equal rights in marriage and in education. Later, Olympe de
Gouges was guillotined and Etta Palm was arrested.

Despite brutal repression, the bourgeois women succeeded to get a few

reforms such as inheritance laws, legal majority at the age of twenty-one,
property rights and divorce legislation. A mixed club was created in Paris
in 1790, and in 1791 it became known as the Société Fraternelle de
Patriotes de Deux Sexes. Women and men participated equally in
discussion and elections. Unfortunately for 19th century women, when
Napoleon took over France in 1799, most of the progress they had made
in terms of gaining rights and being recognised as politically equal would
be reversed. Although women decided to take matters into their own
hands by resorting to militant means, it had provoked serious repressive
measures from the government. Most of these outwardly activist women
were punished for their actions. The kind of punishment received during
the Revolution included public denouncement, arrest, execution, or exile.

For working women economic issues assumed more importance than

social and political rights which explains why women were at the
forefront of demonstrations demanding bread. The Revolution posed
differing concerns for these classes of women. For peasant women, the
revolution meant a disruption of the agrarian economy breaking their
access to the market. The persecution of the clergy and the Catholic
Church forced these women to fight against the State and re-establish a
familiar religious order.

Women were also engaged in militant forms of feminist expression. The

Society of Revolutionary and Republican Women, founded by Pauline
Leon and Clair Lancombe, was the most famous female-led revolutionary
organization during the Revolution with ensuring price stability and
women's participation in politics as its main objectives. On 6 March
1792, Pauline Leon addressed the Legislative Assembly on behalf of
Parisian women, calling for the creation of an all-female militia so that
women could protect their own homes from counter-revolutionary
assaults. More than 300 Parisian women had signed the petition she was
presenting. Her idea of the female militia was strikingly radical because
it would include the women having the right to bear arms. This right was
closely associated with full citizenship, and had hardly ever been
considered appropriate or necessary for women. The organization was
shut down as it was perceived as dangerous by Girondins and Jacobins.

Women from all spheres of French society, bearing stark ideological

differences, found an expression of their aspirations at the heyday of the
Revolution. Despite being “passive citizens”, women actively participated
in demonstrations, marches, literature, secret societies and militant
activism. Although women could not achieve the right to vote till 1944,
they did succeed in getting a number of civil and legal rights which
paved the way for women's participation in politics and administration.

Even as the fortunes of women's political activism were rising and falling,
women began playing another kind of role, as symbols of revolutionary
values. Most of the major revolutionary values—liberty, equality,
fraternity, reason, the Republic , regeneration—were represented by
female figures, usually in Roman dress (togas). Women were soon
depicted in allegories as personification of France as motherland. These
were not representations of contemporary women but rather as
Goddesses of the ancient Roman empire. The legacy of women and the
French Revolution lives on today with the image of Marianne, which
commonly appears on contemporary French stamps becoming an
epitome of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity".

France was faced with a “dangerous ascendancy” of women, and

revolutionary leaders’ fear of this ascendancy, rather than opinions of
natural gender roles or male superiority, appears to have proved the
driving factor in the suppression of female political societies and the
exclusion of women from the Revolution. Although they were
unsuccessful in securing political rights for women, it was possible for
supporters of women’s rights to push back against their opponents’
appeals to nature or illogical claims of female intellectual and moral
inadequacy when the main debate over women’s political participation
had to do with whether they would be granted active, democratic
citizenship—whether women were truly, as Sieyès questioned, “true
shareholders in the great social enterprise of the nation.” The fight for
equality is far from over, women will continue to draw inspiration from
the valiance exhibited by the women of 18th century French society.