“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”

― Maximilien Robespierre

To this point, the focus has been on theorists of revolution each of whom contributed significantly to contemporary understanding of revolutions, their origins, and outcomes. This chapter will apply the theories presented in this book’s first part towards the French Revolution. The French Revolution began in 1789; whether one believes that the Bastille storming of the monarchy’s dissolution is the events that began the Revolution is a matter to debate. However, the problems that led to this seminal event occurred decades if not centuries before (Popkin, 2019, p.101). The French Revolution manifests the French people’s ire over the increased taxation that the privileged aristocracy of the feudal Ancien Régime placed upon them. King Louis XVI and his aristocrats’ extravagant spending caused the people to go into poverty, which led to a state of civil unrest after having their taxes continually increased (Popkin, 2019, p.101). Though the last king of the Ancien Régime, Louis XVI cannot be entirely accountable for the unrest in France. Preceding 1789, poor harvests gripped France and brought about starvation and suffering to the French people. This famine, coupled with the system of privileges that the aristocrats enjoyed, placed the financial burden of running France onto the businessmen and peasant classes (Tocqueville, 2008, p.44). When the American Revolution occurred, Louis XVI’s financial and military investments in assisting the Americans led France to an unavoidable financial collapse (Popkin, 2019, p.69).

The French Revolution is one of the most frequently cited accounts of revolution. The actions by the French revolutionaries set a precedent for revolutions to come. Many that endeavor to formulate theories on revolutions cite and study the French Revolution’s events to build a stable theory. In this chapter, Crane Brinton and Barrington Moore’s theories are applied to the French Revolution. Amidst France’s financial strain, hunger, and anger is where the story of the French Revolution begins.

Barrington Moore

To revisit the earlier chapters, theorist Barrington Moore claims three routes for an agrarian society to transition to an industrial society. Moore claims a strong bourgeoisie acts as a necessary precondition to determine which route a revolution may take, emphasizing the importance of social classes in a revolution. The three routes include the Capitalist-Democratic Route characterized by the rise of a strong bourgeoisie, the Capitalist-Reactionary Route where the bourgeoisie joins forces with the aristocracy, and the Communist Route with the rise of the peasantry as actors for social change (Moore, 1966). The French Revolution takes the Capitalist-Democratic Route. In this route, class struggles define the Revolution and the revolutionary outcome (Moore, 1966). The French Revolution began because the Third Estate, made up mainly of the peasantry, faced unjust taxation and the brunt of the food shortages and rising prices (Popkin, 2019, p.102). The intellectuals also began to doubt society’s religious context and began to embrace Enlightenment Ideals. The Third Estate representatives drafted the Tennis Court Oath, which sought to achieve greater equality in the Estate system because the First and Second Estates voted together during gatherings of the Estates-General, rendering the Third Estate powerless (Moore, 1966). The peasants, led by intellectuals and the middle class, called for liberalism and nationalism ideals. These events display Moore’s conception of the middle class bringing about a revolution.

Crane Brinton

A large gap existed between what the people had versus what they wanted. This gap ultimately led to the Revolution, which follows Brinton’s theory (Brinton, 1938, p. 251). Brinton claims there are many similarities between the French, Russian, British, and American Revolutions. These nations’ economies were relatively well-off, and their people were not suffering to a great extent but were rather displeased with what they had versus what they needed. The governments also failed to reform their institutions to fit the times and expand their economies (Brinton, 1938, p. 250-252). An example of this was the frustration generated by Louis XVI’s financial decisions. Brinton claimed that each revolution made promises to the common man; in the French case, after granting further equality, regimes claimed to grant stability (Brinton, 1938, p.262).

Brinton also describes five stages of a revolution, beginning with the first stage where moderates come to power. The moderates did not want to abolish the monarchy but instead get more representation for the Third Estate. The second stage is the radicalization of the Revolution as characterized by the Jacobin rule, radical revolutionaries known for leading the terror (Brinton, 1938). However, these radical regimes rarely maintain power (Brinton, 1938, p.256). The third stage is the reign of terror, as discussed towards the end of this chapter, where a radical group attains power and enacts a campaign of violence (Brinton, 1938, p.255). The fourth stage is a return to moderates in power. In the French Revolution, this occurred from the period when the terror ended to Napoleon’s rise in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Furthermore, Mizel’s Addendum to Brinton’s stages of revolution argues that the last stage of a revolution occurs when an authoritarian leader comes to power, shown by the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte and the First French Empire (Brinton, 1938).

Background

The Estates General in France broke the population into three Estates before the French Revolution (Popkin, 2019, p.103). The clergy and the nobility made up the First and Second Estate. They owned a large sum of the land and did not have to pay taxes. The peasantry, who bore the burden of incredibly high taxation and suffered from food shortages, made up the Third Estate (McPhee, 2002).

The First and Second Estates benefited from the pre-revolutionary status quo. They held large sums of land and did not pay taxes allowing them to live comfortable, lavish lifestyles. However, the tides started to change when intellectuals in France began to embrace Enlightenment ideals and questioned whether the power of the King justifies his supposed divine right (Collins 2001, p.xix).

The Revolution partly came about because financial decisions by King Louis XVI left France in debt, while still relying on Third Estate taxation to keep the country afloat. The debt, combined with the food shortage and rising prices, created a hungry and restless Third Estate. This conflict came to a head during the meeting of the Estates General which Louis XVI convened amidst growing frustration with his rule. Frustrated by the fact that their voices were still not heard, the members of the Third Estate left the Estates General and assembled to establish the Tennis Court Oath calling for a constitution (McPhee, 2002).

Early revolutionaries aimed to abolish the Ancien Regime and do away with unequal taxation that plagued the Third Estate. They called for liberty, property, and security under a constitutional monarchy (Censer & Hunt, 2001). However, things escalated during the Terror, which will be expanded upon later. (McPhee, 2002).

During this period of time, the clergy and nobles lost much of their power. However, after the Terror, Napoleon Bonaparte became the first Consul of France and appointed nobles to hold power under him yet again, though with significantly less authority and privilege than before 1789 (McPhee, 2002). This event resulted in a big move towards greater equality in French society and a movement towards the ideals of representation and nationalism.

Storming of the Bastille- July 14,1789

To this point, the focus has been on theorists of revolution, each of whom contributes to the accumulated knowledge regarding the revolution. The storming of the Bastille on July 14th, 1789 does not stray from the pattern of violence that characterizes the French Revolution. It is one of the first major acts of violence by the revolutionaries of the French Revolution. The tumult of the period preceding the Bastille storming motivated the revolutionaries to act. Tensions between the peasantry of the Third Estate and the tyrannical rule of the French Monarchy came to a head when a mob of over 1,000 consisting of shopkeepers, artisans, and other disenfranchised members of the Third Estate descended on the Bastille prison in central Paris (Popkin, 2019, pp. 136-139).

The Third Estate viewed the stationing of royal troops in Paris in June 1789 as an attempt to both intimidate and bully. This sentiment exploded when the mob armed themselves by raiding a local military hospital, the “Hôtel des Invalides” and acquired over 3,000 weapons and five cannons (Platon, 2014). Following the seizure of armaments at Les Invalides, violence significantly escalated. The mob set its sights on the Bastille, for it contained an armory with enough gun powder to arm the mob (Platon, 2014). The Bastille symbolized the repressiveness and absolute control of King Louis XIV and its function as a prison for political prisoners (Popkin, 2019, p.137). The mob descended on the Bastille, entered through an unguarded drawbridge, and occupied the courtyard. Commander of the Bastille, Bernard-Rene de Launay, subsequently offered the surrender of him and his troops, so long as the mob let them live. The mob refused his surrender and commenced battle in the innermost courtyard. Ultimately, over 100 civilians and eight prison guards died (Platon, 2014). Eventually, the mob freed the seven prisoners in the Bastille and subsequently beat and decapitated Bernard-Rene de Launay and three of his officers and paraded their heads through the streets. After the violence ceased, the mob destroyed the Bastille (Popkin, 2019, p.142). The destruction of the Bastille further exemplifies its function as a symbol of oppression and the Third Estate’s commitment to ridding France of the monarchy while establishing the concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity as the new basis of government.

According to Barrington Moore and Crane Brinton, the storming of Bastille has different implications. Per Brinton, the Bastille fits well within the confines of the uniformities of revolution (Brinton, 1938, 251-252) as bitter class antagonisms ran rampant since the majority of the Third Estate struggled with a lack of food and an inability to access basic provisions (McPhee, 2002). While Brinton stipulates that revolutions generally occur in countries with upward trending economies (Brinton, 1938), the French economy continued to decline, which contributed heavily to class antagonism between the peasants of the Third Estate and the monarchy. Furthermore, the failures of the government concerning taxing the citizenry justly (Popkin 2019, p.101), as well as their inability to effectively command and direct troops to suppress the rebellion (Toohey, 2017), convey similarities to Brinton’s fourth condition, the failure of government (Brinton, 1938, p.251). The principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity guided the French Revolution and related heavily to the wider uniformities of revolution observed by Brinton, such as commitments made to the common man (Brinton, 1938). They afford both vague commitments such as fraternity and more material commitments such as the end of the monarchy and increased social and economic equity. These are clear commitments to the “common man” as the Third Estate desperately needed these problems to be addressed.

On the other hand, the storming of the Bastille applies differently to Moore’s philosophy of revolution. Moore stipulates that the French Revolution is a bourgeois revolution as one independent economic group attempted to assert their vision of democratic capitalism against inherited, non-democratic obstacles (Skocpol, 1973, p.5). Moore also argues that the bourgeois’ existence is a prerequisite for developing the revolution. The bourgeoisie’s necessity in developing the revolution is evident as the First and Second Estates relied on the taxation and incessant exploitation of the Third Estate, which heavily contributed to their discontent. The Bastille storming is an example of the phrase “no bourgeois, no democracy” (Moore, 1966). The storming of the Bastille characterizes this well, as the Third Estate’s exploitation proved to be necessary to support the bourgeois. Thus, the Third Estate’s discontent materialized in the Bastille’s destruction and storming, which represented the regime that oppressed them (Popkin, 2019, p.137). Regarding Moore’s philosophy, the storming of the Bastille exemplifies the importance of understanding the varied economic development of different classes and their role in the “development of a group in society with an independent economic base, which attacks obstacles to a democratic version of capitalism that have been inherited from the past,” (Skocpol, 1973, p.5). Moore enables one to understand the Bastille’s storming and the French Revolution in total as the consequences of class struggle and capitalist democracy.

October Days- October 1789

During the early days of the French Revolution, on October 5th, 1789 after facing the consequence of a fairly barren harvesting season, the peasant women of Paris began protesting. The women, in a bout of civil unrest, met at the City Hall in Paris to demand bread to feed themselves and their families (Schwartz, 1999, p.1). After those at City Hall ignored and denied the pleas of the women, they took their efforts to the streets of France; the women began to march the long 12-mile route to Versailles (Schwartz, 1999, p.1).

The Parisian women’s endeavors appeared fruitful once they reached Versailles where the King resided. King Louis XIV, at the requests of the protestors, agreed to send the grain they needed to Paris (Garrioch, 1999, p.235). Even after this victory, the women, armed with spears, were not fully satisfied. They demanded that Louis and his wife, Marie Antoinette, return to Paris where revolutionary sentiments continued to grow. The royal family obliged, and the crowd escorted them back to Paris (Schwartz, 1999, p.1).

Barrington Moore’s theory provides insight into the importance of this event. Moore believed that the strength of the revolutionary class predicts the outcome of a Revolution (Moore. 1966). The actions of the Parisian revolutionaries during the October Days demonstrated their strength. The women, refusing to settle, got the members of the French monarchy to bend to their will. The actions taken by the nobility after this protest set a precedent for what the revolutionaries could expect from the nobility throughout the Revolution; the revolutionaries came to seek their complacency. Moore also operates under the belief system that if there is no middle class, then there can be no democracy (Moore, 1966). The French revolutionaries recognized that in order to force change on the part of the nobles, it required direct action. Without acting, their voices would not be heard, and they could not make their situation better. Therefore, to achieve their goals they had to turn to revolution to develop a sustainable democracy, including a middle class.

The revolutionary theorist, Crane Brinton, makes claims about the series of events that occur during a revolution which are shown by the actions of the Parisian women on October Day. The actions that the revolutionary women took are exemplary of Brinton’s second condition of revolution. The second condition claims that people of all social classes feel restless; that the government is forcing them to accept less than what one deserves (Brinton, 1938, pp.20-251). This condition applies to the women in the October Days who felt restless in their position, confronting the government that oppressed them, denying them their basic needs. The women felt forced to accept less than what they deserved. This situation also applies to Brinton’s fourth condition, which states that the government will inadequately respond to the demands of the people (Brinton, 1938, pp.251-252). The government’s initial response left the women unsatisfied and they demanded more, which pertains to Brinton’s fourth condition of revolution.

In summary, the actions that the Parisian women took during their protest are revolutionary in more ways than one. The women created a status quo for the French Revolution in which the citizens were unwilling to settle for the unsatisfactory solutions that the monarchical government had to offer.

The Reign of Terror (1793-1794)

The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, though only lasting a year, marked a period of great turmoil and chaos during the Revolution. The Reign of Terror saw the mass execution of close to 20,000 civilians and the imprisonment of tens of thousands (Britannica, 2020). Debates among scholars still rage over the events leading to the Terror and the motives of its leaders. However, all agree that this is the point in the French Revolution that shifted the Revolution to a dangerously radical state. Nevertheless, the Terror is a crucial part of Crane Brinton’s theories and the focus of his third stage of revolution (Brinton, 1938, 255). Brinton writes, “This pervasiveness of the Reign of Terror in the crisis period is partly explicable in terms of the pressure of war necessities and of economic struggle…” (Brinton, 1938, 255). Since it has been well established that during the late 18th century France dealt with severe economic, agricultural, and political turmoil all while simultaneously fighting wars with multiple European states, which Brinton’s analysis suggests set the stage for a Reign of Terror.

In early 1793, the Revolutionary Government in Paris established a constitution based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen formed the basis of an egalitarian republic. However, the government quickly suspended and abandoned the constitution (Palmer, 2017, p.15). Fear and suspicion acted as the leading causes of the constitution’s suspension. In the Revolutionary Government, the various factions, though all were claiming to speak in the name of the revolution, bickered amongst themselves, accusing each other of trying to subvert the people’s will (Popkin, 2019, p.382). Crane Brinton referred to this in his fourth condition of revolution in which he argues that revolutions start, in part, because of the failure of a government to meet the needs of its citizens (Brinton, 1938, 251-252). During this period, the fear and suspicion were heightened due to the rumored threat of a foreign plot. This foreign plot suggested that foreign countries had sent spies to destroy the revolution. In order to counter the foreign plot, Robespierre and the Revolutionary Government suspended the constitution. They began to crack down on their citizens to prevent anything that may overthrow the government (Popkin, 2019, p.351).

At this time in 1793, France was at war with numerous European countries, including England, Prussia, the Dutch Republic, and the Austrian Empire (Palmer, 2017, pp.22-23). During this period, France’s leaders faced a critical decision; ignore the threat of a foreign plot and hope that it is not real, which may later destroy the revolution, or actively root out those conspiring against the revolution and neutralize them in order to maintain the Revolution (Palmer, 2017, p.113). The Jacobin leaders chose the latter opinion, subsequently establishing a Committee for Public Safety, which had extensive influence and power to preserve the French Revolution (Popkin, 2019, p.329).

The Reign of Terror concluded after its most brutal and deadly period, which took place in 1794, the Great Terror. The Great Terror came about because of a law that Couthon, one of Robespierre’s allies, proposed, which made Revolutionary Tribunals much more efficient. Those accused of being anti-revolution would not be able to present a defense, call witnesses, or aid themselves in any other way. Instead, the judges would simply declare citizens’ guilt or innocence, sparing or killing them based on the verdict (Palmer, 2017, p.366). This law, known as the Law of 22 Prairial, led to more deaths and imprisonments than in any other time since the revolution began. Furthermore, during this time, Robespierre eliminated all opposition factions, including the Dantonists and most of the Hebertists, and began ruling France as a de-facto dictator (Palmer, 2017, p.377). Robespierre’s dictatorship would eventually come to an end. Other deputies, annoyed at Robespierre’s egocentric leadership, conspired against him and his followers and issued warrants for their arrest and execution. After executing Robespierre and his followers in July of 1794, the Reign of Terror ended.

The Reign of Terror is tremendously essential to Crane Brinton, who named one of his revolution stages after it (Brinton, 1938, 255). During this period, Brinton argued that the revolution’s goals were corrupted, causing fear and chaos to spread throughout France. (Brinton, 1938, 251-256). Brinton’s four conditions of revolution, all contribute to the revolutionary context that led to the Terror. These conditions highlight the economic, social, political, and philosophical conditions that allowed rulers like Robespierre to gain power and shape the Terror as he and the rest of the Committee of Public Safety saw fit (Brinton, 1938, 250-252). Brinton’s recognition of the Terror as a critical moment in the stages of revolution highlights how central this event is in influencing the rest of the Revolution (Brinton, 1938, .255). The fall of Robespierre and the subsequent end of the Terror leads into Brinton’s next stage of a revolution, which is when the moderates return to power (Brinton, 1938, 258-259). Brinton writes, “… none of our Revolutions quite ended in the death of civilization and culture. The network was stronger than the forces trying to destroy or alter it…” (Brinton, 1938, 258). While the Terror marked arguably the darkest period in the French Revolution, the return of moderate leaders helped refocus the revolution and led it toward its ultimate conclusion.

Conclusion

Scholars debate the exact end date of the French Revolution; however, Napoleon Bonaparte and his French Empire’s rise represents a clear shift away from the republican government of the French Revolution. The revolution, characterized by the rise of a strong bourgeoisie, represented Moore’s Capitalist-Democratic Route of Revolution. The revolution detailed under Crane Brinton’s stages of revolution ended with the rise of a right-wing authoritarian leader, Napoleon Bonaparte (Brinton, 1938). However, his rise would not have been possible without the French Revolution. Napoleon, not a true member of French nobility, arguably would never have the chance to lead if not for the revolution. Due to nobles’ emigration, new high-ranking posts and opportunities became available for people. The French Revolution took down the monarchy and replaced it with principles of equality, representation, and nationalism. The ideas put forth in the French Revolution established that citizens had the right to contribute to laws, vitally altering the political sphere for ages to come (Collins, 2001).

Works cited

Brinton, Crane. 1938. “The Anatomy of Revolution”. Vintage.

Censer, Jack R. & Hunt, Lynn. 2001. “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution”. American Social History Productions.

Collins, James. 2001. “The Ancient Regime and the French Revolution”. Georgetown University.

Garrioch, David. “The Everyday Lives of Parisian Women and the October Days of 1789.” Social history 24, no. 3 (October 1999): 231–49.

Houel, Jean-Pierre. “The Storming of the Bastille, July 14th, 1789.” Bl.uk. De Agostini Picture Library, 1789. The Bridgeman Art Library.

Marcuse, Harold. “The French Revolution: Phases and Dates”. The French Revolution: Phases And Dates, April 15, 2000. http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/classes/4c/frrev.h96.htm.

McPhee, Peter. 2002. “The French Revolution 1789-1799”. Oxford University Press.

Moore, B. 1966. Social origins of dictatorship and democracy lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Palmer, R. R., and Isser Woloch. 2017. “Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of Terror in the French Revolution”. Reprint Edition. Princeton University Press.

Popkin, Jeremy. 2019. A New World Begins: The History of the French Revolution. Illustrated Edition. New York: Basic Books.

Platon, Mircea. “The Storming of the Bastille”. Storming the Bastille (July 14, 1789), June 2014. http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/july-2014-storming-bastille.

“Reign of Terror | History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica.” n.d. Accessed December 2, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/event/Reign-of-Terror.

Schwartz, Robert. The October Days. Mtholyoke.edu, May 10, 1999. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/kat_anna/octdays.html

Skocpol, Theda. A Critical Review of Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Politics & Society, vol. 4, no. 1, Sept. 1973, pp. 1–34, doi:10.1177/003232927300400101.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2008. The Ancien Régime and the Revolution. Translated by Gerald Bevan. London: Penguin Classics.

Toohey, Joanna. “‘Ce Jour Immortel’: of the Bastille and the Formation of Cultural Memory, 1789-1794.” Thesis, CU Department of History

Image Attribution

 Storming of the Bastille and arrest of the Governor M. de Launay, July 14, 1789. is in the public domain. Author: Anonymous