NAME: KASHISH RAI SUBMITTED TO: DR.

MEGHA
RD
DSE: MODERN WEST YEAR: 3
YEAR
ROLL NO: 222421

[1] George Lefebvre, The coming of the French Revolution

[2] William Doyle, origins of the French revolution
[3] Alferd Cobban, Social History of French Revolution interpretation
[4] George rude, Revolutionary Europe

Q. In what ways revisionists reworked the Marxist understanding of the French

Revolution.
th
A. Following the 150 anniversary of the storming of the bastille in 1789, the number
of historians studying the French Revolution grew quickly. Writers continue to
disagree on why Revolution began and the disagree of its significance. The year of
th
1949 was the beginning of the World War II, and also the 150 anniversary of the
storming of Bastille; many Frenchmen started writing on the Revolution and its
significance. Georges Lefebvre’s “The coming of the French Revolution” proved to be
the most significant contribution product of the new writings. In 1947, Robert R.
Palmer translated Lefebvre’s distinguished work into English. Lefebvre based his
book on the Marxist interpretation of the cause of the French Revolution. The cause
of the Revolution according to him, started from the bourgeoisie’s rise, which
eventually brought down the aristocrat social structure in France. The failure of old
government and the fact that it had simply failed to function properly anymore
necessitated the Revolution. According Lefebvre’s book, the revolution took place in
four stages: 1. the revolt of the nobles, 2. the victory of bourgeoisie, 3.the
mobilisation of the urban masses, and 4. The peasant revolt. All classes united to rid
the country of absolutism. Homogeneity within each class did not exist and
opposition of the aims within same class soon exhibit itself.
Lefebvre’s focus on the conflict between the nobles and the monarchy comes to the
forefront in Marxist theory. In order to remove the monarchy from Power, the nobles
had tried to recruit the members of the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie started realising
their power that one class hold which was not with the nobles. Lefebvre’s notes that
the Bourgeoisie started developing their own sets of idea, believing that they were
strong enough to weaken the power of both clergy and the nobles (the first and
second estate), specially when they saw the Aristocratic Revolution getting
successful. The declaration by Paris parliament that the estate general should be
constituted as it was in 1614, which gave the aristocrat the dominance over other
classes. This led to the Bourgeois revolution (second of Lefebvre’s four revolution).
The Bourgeois which was 96% of the French population included themselves in the
third estate. When parliament refused to give in to their fury, the Third Estate
separated from the Estate General to form a National Assembly in June 20, 1789, the
site of the Tennis Court Oath. Under this Oath, the National assembly agreed not to
separate until France get a constitution. They aimed for civil equality; they wanted to
destroy the privileges of the nobles and the clergy and wanted to establish a system
where all men obeyed the same laws and paid taxes on the same basis. The
Bourgeoisie gain the support from the peasant population.
After the Bastille incident populace saw their power that they possessed. Lefebvre’s
third revolution, the popular revolution grew from the belief that a new order would
resolve the growing economic problem facing France. The peasant, not socially
economically powerful, did make up roughly 75% of the French population. Lefebvre
believed that the revolution would probably have not succeeded without their
indulgence.
When the complaints raised by the peasants, was ignored by the National Assembly,
in which there existed no peasant members. The realisation led to the Lefebvre
fourth and final revolt, the peasant’s revolution. The revolt, according to Lefebvre,
delivered “a deathblow to what was left to the feudal and manorial system.” The
population of peasants were in majority and was not able to support them and their
families. Peasants alone paid many of the taxes of the France. In the eighteenth
century, when peasants were fed up with the demands of the King, there was a
rumour spend among peasant, “aristocracy conspiracy” where nobles had hired
brigands to march on village and destroy the harvest. In response peasants sacked
the castle, burnt the documentation of feudal orders of the noble. The rioting led to
the abolition of serfdom and feudal obligations, and brought up new class structure.

Albert mathiez, another Marxist writer who only one known as the rival of Lefebvre.
Before, Mathiez, no writer claimed that the Revolution took place as the result of
aristocracy against the absolute monarchy. Mathiez learnt more about past French
economic problems. Mathiez wrote that the Revolution came about due to a class
conflict in which the prosperous bourgeoisie triumphed over both the established
nobility and emerging proletariat. Michel Vovelle, another leading Marxist historian,
believed that the revolution began in provinces and spread around France. Vovelle’s
work is the “long duree” style work similar to writers such as Ferdinad Braudel. He
provided successive stretches provided successive stretches of French society,
government and administrative structure. Albert Soboul another Marxist historian
worked under Lefebvre, Soboul also believed that French Revolution was a result of
class struggle, which bourgeoisie with the help of lower class, gained power from the
aristocracy, overthrew the old order, and restricted the state of its own interest. He
believed that the Bourgeoisie was able to destroy the old order with the help of the
masses of the cities and the peasants. Hus work also exposed the clash within each
class. Bourgeoisie as not one monolithic entity. Some Bourgeoisie was privileged
with land wealth and seigniorial rights. Others were shopkeepers or journeymen were
most linked lower class with poverty. Large manufactures threatened them and they
had the fear of them forcing to work as wage earner. This created differences within
Bourgeoisie class. He also disagreed with Lefebvre belief that the peasant revolution,
surpasses the revolution. The class struggle overall was the most important event of
French revolution but not the peasant revolution.
Alferd Cobban newly appointed professor of French history at the university of
London, chose the occasion of his inaugural lecture in 1954 to attack what the called
“Myth of the French Revolution.” Cobban did not think that the Revolution involved a
substitution of a capitalist Bourgeoisie order in place of feudalism. He also showed
that only thirteen percent of the Bourgeoisie elected to the Estates-General in 1789
came from the commerce background, rest were lawyer. In 1965, Cobban’s book The
Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, the published version of a series of
lectures he delivered in 1962, argued his case in more detail. Reviewer Leo Gershoy
called the book a “call to scholarly arms.” Cobban stated that peasants and not the
lawyers who made up most of the bourgeoisie opposed the system of feudalism and
put an end to it. However, the peasants, whose revolt was separate from the lawyers
did not cry out for capitalism. Cobban questioned the Marxist belief that the
Revolution established capitalism. Cobban suggested that bourgeoisie did not want
a capitalist system that allowed more freedom for the lower classes. He viewed
French revolution as a conflict between the rich lawyer and nobility against the poor
peasants. The men with property feared the poor and property less sections of the
society and thus became very defensive. Cobban argued that politics was the reason
of revolution and not the social upheaval. Taylor, like Cobban suggested the best
way to understand the Revolution involved the rejection of the economic
interpretation and vision it as a political contest for power.
Another revisionist leader, William Doyle also spoke out against the old Marxist
orthodoxy, saying “old orthodoxies… are not only dead but now in urgent need of
burial.” The revisionist argued successfully against the orthodoxies of the classic
interpretations. Revisionists showed that the nobility and the bourgeoisie did not
exist as two distinct classes. They brought both the group together whereas Marxist
tried to separate them. The Revisionist also showed that the Revolution was more
political movement than a social movement. Most Revisionist mostly attacked
Marxist without having their own explanation. Revisionists could more easily explain
than what the French Revolution was not than what it was. They were not able to
bring the theories of French Revolution just like the Marxist, so now to defend
themselves they brought the idea that no theories is needed to explain the history.
A third school of thought, known as post-revisionism, known as revisionist. These
writers have stressed culture opposed to the Marxist’s social or the revisionist
political reasons for the start of the French Revolution. Most post- revisionist see the
French Revolution as a result of extreme political culture. Language played a very
important role in the start of the French Revolution. Keith Michael Baker saw the
importance of language and its changing of culture in France before the Revolution.
Lynn hunt, in her book, The Family Romance of the French revolution, showed that
the French attitude toward Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette did not view them in a
favourable light. She puts an interesting theory in her book gets the term “family
romance” from Freud; she says it refers to the fantasy one has of replacing one’s
parents with new ones of a higher social standing. The Family Romance of the
French Revolution, according to Hunt refers to the wish if the French Family to get rid
of its bad “father”, Louis XVI, and its bad “mother”, Marie Antoinette. The fact that
publicists would prefer to each Bourbon king as the “father of the people” helped
Hunt forward her argument. The idea of fraternity became the touchstone of French
Revolutionary politics. Hunt also discussed the sexual criticism experienced by the
queen Marie Antoinette. She was referred to as “the unfaithful wife” (also the name
of the book published in 1786 by Restif de Bretonne). Many writers made Marie-
Antoinette a subject of pornographic literature. Other’s women were attacked
viciously for seeking rights judged to be unnatural for their sex.
The post- revisionist, like the revisionists, do not have an ultimate theory for the
beginning of the French Revolution. The post-revisionist, unlike both schools, do not
seem to focus towards one goal. While Baker looks at the importance of
revolutionary language, Hunt looks at the idea of the French monarchy as the head
of the larger French family.