ORIGINS OF FRENCH REVOLUTION.   Term Paper ID:26861 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Analyzes, social, political, economic, class-based, ideological & historical causes, focusing on role of nobility.... More...

9 Pages / 2025 Words 9 sources, 27 Citations, MLA Format $36.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Analyzes, social, political, economic, class-based, ideological & historical causes, focusing on role of nobility. Paper Introduction: There is probably no explanation of the origins of the French Revolution that does not ascribe to the nobility some important role in setting the stage for the Revolution. It is impossible, of course, to assign to any group--nobility, monarchy, bourgeoisie, peasantry, urban commoners, clergy, or philosophers--sole responsibility for creating the conditions that ended in Revolution. In any of the dominant historical explanations, however, the role of the nobility--even when the advocates of the explanations tend to minimize it--remains the strongest element in setting the scene for the Revolution. This is true whether one considers the passive (what it was and how it was perceived) or active (what it did) nature of its influence. A review of some common theories of the origins of the Revolution will demonstrate that the nobility always bore major, and often Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. . And, as a contemporary observer noted, withtheir "superficial education" the nobles were incapable of developing the"knowledge of administration" that would have enabled them to manage thecountry, thereby preparing "the public mind [for] the establishment of freeinstitutions in France" (Mme. Ed. Between forty and fifty percent of the land was in thehands of the peasantry, but, as they worked their small-holdingsthemselves, they seldom knew any kind of economic security. Bourgeois resentment was equally important,however, and it is not necessary to reduce this resentment to a simplisticversion of class struggle to make this point. Thepayment of the feudal dues and a considerable portion of the tax burdenfell on the peasantry while the remaining bulk of taxes was shared by thearistocracy and the urban portion of the Third Estate. Ed. "The Great Fear and the Night of August 4." The French Revolution. Revisionists argued that, insteadof a struggle between two classes, the upper stratum of both classes "cametogether to form a single elite--'the notables'--united by wealth andtalent" (Blanning 4). Resentment against the nobility on the partof the peasants was also the principal reason for the unexpected uprisingsin the countryside that carried the revolution violently forward. The aristocracy enjoyed "exemption from severaltaxes (but not from as many as the better-organized clergy) and [had] theright to receive feudal dues" which the poorer among them used to "squeezethe utmost" amounts of money from the peasantry (Hobsbawm 38-39). San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. Don Nardo. In the Marxist view, the nobility had thus "open[ed] the breachthrough which the bourgeois poured" (Blanning 2). Don Nardo. But in France, they had "noindependent political authority" although the aristocracy was, "morefrequently than not the actual master of the kingdom" because theypossessed the bulk of property and income (May 32). de Stael, quoted in Hobsbawm 38). New York: St. The theories range,however, from the basic political contest for power proposed, for example,by Blanning, to the arguments of discourse which stress the importance ofideas whose persuasive arguments and collective impact got the Revolutionunderway. This is only one of a large number of political explanationsof the Revolution but it implicates the nobility as well--if not asstrongly as other explanations do--insofar as a large number of aristocratswere adherents of the philosophers' ideas and the acquisition of rights wasthe only way for those in the upper stratum of the Third Estate, who had noaccess to power (unlike the nobility which had massive economic influence)to secure such access. The Second Estate, the aristocracy, included some4 , people who owned about twenty percent of the land yet, unlike mostaristocracies in Europe, had little to do with governance. This is true whether one considersthe passive (what it was and how it was perceived) or active (what it did)nature of its influence. It was,ironically, the nobility's rebellious assembly of notables of 1787, withtheir refusal to pay increased taxes "without an extension of theirprivileges," and the aristocracy's ill-fated call for the Estates-General,that constituted the first substantive attack on the monarchy (Hobsbawm4 ). Political Perspectives on the Ancien Régime." French Historical Studies 2 (1997): 245-89.Hobsbawm, E. 2nd ed. In the Old Regime there was a "highlydeveloped system of legal superiority and inferiority [while]postrevolutionary citizenship inaugurated a sphere of equality in which thesame rights were attributed to all citizens" (Bossenga 217). Don Nardo. 48-54.Doyle, William. Ed. the attack upon the royal power" (quoted inHobsbawm 38). The Marxist interpretation held that the Revolution was the turningpoint in the historical movement from feudalism to capitalism and this wasthe dominant interpretation (in one form or another) for most of thiscentury. Ed. The Marxist view was seriously challenged by these claims andeventually theorists began to offer explanations based on politics, which"for almost two centuries had been the stepchild in historiography, shunnedby many as superficial and ephemeral" (Gruder 245). W. "The Monarchy's Financial Crisis." The French Revolution. But, had hebeen able to do so, the Revolution would, at least in the form it took in1789, have been averted. The monarchs may have been poorlyequipped to rule but the aristocracy, as Mme de Stael said, blamed the Kingfor not being "of former character" while forgetting that "they themselveswere the first to begin . Works CitedBlanning, T. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. And thenobility recognized these facts when they began, too late, to cede most oftheir economic rights. "The Estates General and the National Assembly." The French Revolution. "Major Causes of the Revolution." The French Revolution. Louis XV had started to change the tax systemso that the rich would assume a more proportionate share of the burden.The nobility objected strongly and Louis XVI, to gain popularity with them,rejected the ministers and the reforms that might have saved his throne. Various nobles began to propose different approaches that would restoreorder, and men such as the extremely wealthy Duc d'Aiguillon, who "admittedthat feudal charges and unjust taxation were a cause of the disturbances,"began to promote ideas such as commutation of feudal dues in return forcapital payments (Salvemini 8 ). J. "France's Weak and Frivolous Ruling Couple." The French Revolution. In every explanation of the origins of the Revolution the nobilityare seen to have played a major role. There is, of course, some truth in the claim that the royalcouple's ineptitude was the major cause of the Revolution. The First was the Church, which consisted of approximately13 , persons, divided into the very wealthy upper stratum--with controlover a tenth of the land in the country and much valuable town property--and the local clergy--who were often very poor and, at first, "sideddecisively with the unprivileged mass of the French population" in theRevolution (May 3 ). Don Nardo. C. One example of the political explanations of the Revolution isoffered by Bossenga who discusses the importance of the prerevolutionarydiscourse on rights and citizenship. 36-41.May, Arthur J. The only answer was to retain a supposedly temporary increase intaxes on landed property that had been scheduled to end in 1786, and thento raise still more taxes against the aristocracy. This effectively accounts for much of the reaction of theThird Estate Deputies in the National Assembly who had hoped to continue touse such power but, on seeing it denied, were willing to take the discourseon rights at its word and promote the taking of actual rights ofcitizenship. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. Ed. These various notions share in the rejection of the "social"explanation of the Revolution and are broadly allied as "political" innature. As Blanning explains, theexpansion of capitalism in the eighteenth century was not strictly abourgeois undertaking, "on the contrary, many of the most progressiveentrepreneurs were nobles" (4). "Whither Revisionism? 42-47.Gershoy, Leo. The financial disaster that faced the Bourbons continued to grow fromthat time and by 1786 the king was informed that the crown's revenues wouldamount to only "475 million livres but expenditure would probably total 587millions," producing a debt equal to one-fourth of the annual income (Doyle43). When the NationalAssembly was formed by the Third Estate Deputies the King, "determined tointimidate the commoners with threats of force" and addressing them withcold, "majestic haughtiness," made it clear that he would grant onlylimited reforms and still retained all power to himself (Gershoy 68). This, and other limitedreforms, were part of the plans of the King's advisors. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. Don Nardo. Byconsidering the results of the Revolution in studying its origins scholarshave come to view the philosophers' discourse on the rights of men(excluding women, slaves, and the propertyless) in terms of its effect oncreating adherence in public opinion to the notion of such citizenship.Public opinion, they argue, had evolved into "a form of power in theeighteenth century [whose] strength was primarily discursive andpersuasive" but through which people, "legally denied the rights ofpolitical participation, could demand accountability of their governments"(Bossenga 219). "The Old French Social Order Made Revolution Inevitable." The French Revolution. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. . 64-69.Gruder, Vivian R. In the August 4 session the alarmed Deputies of the all threeEstates began speculating on what they could do to curb the people's anger. Thus, beginning with Alfred Cobban'sattack on the class interpretation in 1964, revisionists undermined theMarxist explanation by arguing against the economic distinctions betweenthe two classes and their supposed homogeneity. The bourgeoisie, and eventhe nobles who pursued capitalist strategies, were constrained by theirlack of political power and, if one considers the political explanations ofthe Revolution, they were equally constrained in every pursuit--not justthe economic ones. In this view, the upper bourgeoisie were notrevolutionarily inclined at all, but constituted a branch of the old regimedisplaced by the Revolution. There is probably no explanation of the origins of the FrenchRevolution that does not ascribe to the nobility some important role insetting the stage for the Revolution. 28-35.Salvemini, Gaetano. As Albert Soboul put it, "there were not three revolutions in1789, but just the one alone, bourgeois and liberal, with popular supportand especially with peasant support" (quoted in Blanning 3). In its barest form, however, many historians came to see thisinterpretation as "a simplistic schema of two homogeneous classes locked inbattle over the ages" (Gruder 245). The second point made against theMarxist interpretation was that the nobility and bourgeoisie could hardlybeen seen as homogeneous classes because of their great diversity inwealth, position, ideas, and attitudes. Throughout theeighteenth century, as inflation reduced the value of their, usually, badly-managed estates, the nobility also resorted to encroaching on "the officialposts which the absolute monarchy had preferred to fill with technicallycompetent and politically harmless middle class men" (Hobsbawm). The army and the repayment of massiveloans were the principal items and cutting back would only be possible inminor things such as "pensions, the royal household, public works, andwelfare services which together accounted for only about one-seventh ofannual outlay" (Doyle 44). The aristocracy continually refused to acknowledge the needfor reform of the tax system--shortsightedly ignoring the fact that theperpetual shortfalls damaged the very system of absolute monarchy on whichtheir own well-being depended. 76- 83. French society was organized, as was most of Europe, into threeEstates. Finally, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the nobilityhad the major role in setting the scene for the Revolution is the reactionof the National Assembly following the rising of the mob on July 14, 1789.As the violence continued and spread to the countryside where the peasantsbegan to imitate the taking of the Bastille by burning chateaux andattacking monasteries the majority of the National Assembly wereastonished. In 1789, for example, a large number of theDeputies to the Estates General requested a view of the Queen's "well-known--and wholly fictitious--room [with] walls covered with emeralds anddiamonds" (Bernier 54). The actions of the nobility, therefore, as well astheir characteristic rights and privileges, were essential factors insetting the stage for the French Revolution. In any of the dominant historicalexplanations, however, the role of the nobility--even when the advocates ofthe explanations tend to minimize it--remains the strongest element insetting the scene for the Revolution. Social explanations are clusteredaround the traditional Marxist interpretation of the Revolution, putforward by Marx himself, that the "development of commerce and industry hadcreated a new class, the bourgeoisie" who would not tolerate their inferiorposition, which was made worse in the years immediately preceding theRevolution by the so-called aristocratic reaction, that is, the "growingexclusiveness of their social superiors" as a class (Blanning 2). In othernations aristocrats performed various types of public service, and inEngland they actually managed the government. They credited, instead, the counter-revolutionary resistance of the aristocracy and the unexpected but "crucialassistance the essentially timid bourgeois received from the urban massesand the peasants" (Blanning 3). Itis inconceivable, of course, that the King might have sided with thecommoners and the clergy against the aristocracy and then demanded that theupper class pay a proportionate share of the cost of managing the nation.Rebellion by the Second Estate would have been the response. It is impossible, of course, toassign to any group--nobility, monarchy, bourgeoisie, peasantry, urbancommoners, clergy, or philosophers--sole responsibility for creating theconditions that ended in Revolution. But, as Gruder notes, the very widespread acceptance of "politicsas the dominant force and mode of interpretation of the French Revolutiondoes not mean unanimity of opinion on the character of the politics thatbrought France into Revolution" (245). Despite recognizing the importance of thisassistance, and the fact that the lower orders were often anti-capitalistin feeling, Marxist historians generally saw the Revolution as a unitarymovement. But the truth was that even economizing would nothelp since "none of the major items of public expenditure could besubstantially reduced" (Doyle 44). Ed. The Third Estateconsisted of the vast majority of the population including everyone fromwell-to-do bourgeois capitalists to the minority of peasants who did notown their land. Similarly, however, had the Second Estate agreedto pay its share of the nation's necessary expenditures the crisis mightequally have been averted. The explanations of the Revolution that have dominated twentieth-century historiography, however, have been the "social" or "class" theoriesand the "political" interpretations. The bourgeoisie, according to Blanning,chose safe investments for their capital such as land, venal office, or low-yielding government stock. The popular image of the French Revolution is that of the haughty,remote, untalented Louis XVI and the spendthrift, irresponsible MarieAntoinette driving the country to near-bankruptcy and causing a generalreaction against the selfishness and autocratic ways of the absolutemonarchy. The nobles, higher clergy, and othersprogressively stripped away most of the old rights and, applaudingthemselves, "endowed Louis XVI with the title 'Restorer of French Liberty'"(Salvemini 8 ). According to the resulting "Decree on Feudalism," theseigneurial courts of law were abolished (but kept in place untilsubstitutes could be arranged), exclusive hunting rights were eliminated,casual fees paid to country priests were "suppressed and [would] cease tobe paid as soon as provision ha[d] been made for augmenting" their incomes,"pecuniary privileges, personal or real" were abolished with "proportionalpayment" of taxes on all property to begin immediately, and a number ofother reforms were made--all of them too late (quoted in Salvemini 79). The immense burden of supporting the nation was very unfairly dividedamong the three Estates. The bourgeoisie also, "far from seeking tofight the nobles," wanted to join them and purchased ennobling governmentoffices in great numbers (Blanning 4). Martin's, 1998.Bossenga, Gail. But historians who held this view did not generally attributeeither the radical nature of the Revolution or the full credit for itsswift course to the bourgeoisie alone. While the King and Queen undoubtedly spent too much money, the moreimportant factor was the public perception of their spending--which wasusually wildly exaggerated. "Rights and Citizens in the Old Regime." French Historical Studies 2 (1997): 217-44.Bernier, Olivier. A review of some common theories of the originsof the Revolution will demonstrate that the nobility always bore major, andoften primary, responsibility for setting the scene of Revolution. But when thenobility, in the 'assembly of notables,' refused to pay and insisted on theconvocation of the Estates General, Louis XVI also made errors that, as hecould never have foreseen, helped seal his fate. Thenobility therefore, managed to infuriate the peasantry with excessivefeudal demands and their right to avoid proportionate taxation while theysimultaneously "exasperated the feelings" of the rising middle class bytaking over an increasing share of the central and provincialadministration (Hobsbawm 38). San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. Bernier holds,for instance, that when, on the day Louis XV died, the new king dismissedthe old ministers, because "Marie Antoinette insisted," the "seeds of theRevolution were sown" (52). The French Revolution: Class War or Culture Clash? Don Nardo. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.